ARTICLE III

Ex-Governor Wilson Seeks to Spare Judges from Politics

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:57:09 -0800

From Capitol Weekly

Former Gov. Pete Wilson believes the California state constitution should be amended to both spare judicial candidates from responding to political groups' candidate questionnaires and urge would-be judges to keep their legal views out of politics.

Wilson's novel proposal for a ballot measure "to depoliticize the administration of justice in our state courts" stirred the conversation today at a Sacramento forum for Judicial Council of California.

The group's Commission for Impartial Courts is examining whether political contributions and an increasing campaign role by advocacy groups can undermine an independent judiciary. The issue has been ignited by a proliferation of attack ads against judges in other states and a resulting increase in fundraising by judicial candidates - leaving them open to charges of political bias that could influence rulings from the bench.

Wilson, who joined former Gov. Gray Davis in addressing the panel, urged the Legislature place to an initiative on ballot to force groups seeking to elicit views of candidates for judgeships to stamp their questionnaires with a disclaimer. It would read:

"Judicial candidates are urged by...the constitution of the state of California to consciously forebear from exercising their right of free speech by refraining to answer any question...which seeks to elicit their views."

The proposed wording goes on to say that judges who respond to such political inquiries risk undermining "the fairness and impartiality of the courts of this state" and that their response could cause them from being recused from legal cases.

Appearing at the same forum, Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson said Wilson's proposal may conflict with First Amendment rights of freedom of speech. But she said the former governor is tapping into increasing concerns over the role of interest groups seeking to influence the make-up a judiciary that is supposed to be impartial.

"I don't like going around and constantly changing the (state) constitution," Levenson said. "But I don't like that every judge is being asked to fill out these special interest questionnaires."

Levenson warned that California judges and judicial candidates will be increasingly subjected to political attacks but could risk their appearance of impartiality on the bench if they respond.

In 2005, Sacramento Judge Loren McMaster was targeted in an unsuccessful recall over his ruling upholding California's domestic partnership law. Levenson said members of the state Supreme Court who recently ruled in favor of legalizing gay marriage may face a surge of independent attack ads - particularly if voters don't reinstate a gay marriage ban in November.

"Outside groups are going to pour money into California," she said in an interview. "If they don't win in November, they're going to attack the court."

Voters confirm state Supreme Court justices in the next general election after they are appointed by the governor, and the justices come before voters again at the end of their 12-year terms.

Take No Prisioners

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:28:57 -0800

The following is an article written by California Republican Lawyers Association and Riverside attorney Richard Brent Reed that appeared in yesterday's Los Angeles Daily Journal. Happy 4th of July!

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." -- U. S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9 (2) (The Suspension Clause)

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, U. S. armed forces invaded Afghanistan to snuff out al Qaeda along with the Taliban government that nurtured that terrorist organization. The Department of Defense set up Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT) to determine whether or not the Guantanmo detainees captured in Afghanistan, and elsewhere abroad, were "enemy combatants". Subsequently, two, later consolidated, cases were brought by detainees: Rasul v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States. To head off these applications for habeas corpus, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which stated that "no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to . . . consider . . . an application for . . . habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained . . . at Guantanamo", or so Congress thought. The Supreme Court parried with Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, overriding the DTA, and Congress countered with the Military Commission Act (MCA), even more explicitly denying the privilege of habeas corpus to enemy combatants. On June 12, 2008, the Supreme Court dealt the final blow in Boumediene v. Bush, granting habeas corpus to enemy combatants, Congress notwithstanding.

Declaratory Relief

Justice Kennedy, opining for the Boumediene majority, suggested that providing a judicial forum to detainees was vital to preserving limited government. But, American courts were not squeamish about withholding habeas corpus from the enemy during or following World War II. Justice Kennedy, considering the jurisprudence of those days, noted that "in holding that habeas jurisdiction did not extend to enemy aliens, convicted of violating the laws of war, who were detained in a German prison during the Allied Powers' post-World War II occupation, the Court, in Johnson v. Eisentrager, stressed the practical difficulties of ordering the production of the prisoners..." Justice Kennedy concludes, "The situation in Eisentrager was far different, given the historical context and nature of the military's mission in post-War Germany."

One difference is made clear by the language of Article I, Section 8 (11) of the Constitution, which states that Congress shall have power to "declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water". (Regarding the Guantanamo prisoners, Congress made a rule--the Detainee Treatment Act--but, that rule was overruled.) A narrow reading of Article I, Section 8 would vest exclusive jurisdiction in Congress only in the context of a declaration of war or the issuance of letters of marque and reprisal. Such was the context of Ex Parte Quirin..

Operation Pastorius

The year was 1942; World War II was in full swing, Japan and Germany having declared war on the U. S. in December of 1941. At a spy school somewhere near Berlin, seven saboteurs-- Werner Thiel, Herman Neubauer, Edward Kerling, Herbert Haupt, Heinrich Heinck, Ernest Burger, and Richard Quirin--began their deadly training. In June, 1942, the saboteurs were handed heaps of American dollars and were instructed to keep their uniforms on until they reached America..

The saboteurs, then, went to occupied France where Burger, Heinck, and Quirin met up with a man named George Dasch and boarded a German U-boat which deposited all of them on Long Island, New York during the night of June 13, 1942. Thiel, Neubauer, Kerling, and Haupt boarded another German submarine bound for Florida. They landed at Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida on June 17. The saboteurs carried with them explosives, fuses, timers, and plenty of greenbacks. Burger, Heincke, and Quirin buried their uniforms on Abagansett Beach and, in civilian dress, headed for The Big Apple. Thiel, Neubauer, Kerling, and Haupt likewise dawning civilian garb, made their way to Jacksonville, and headed for Chicago and New York. Their mission was to blow up factories and installations vital to the war effort.

Before one bomb could be planted, however, the FBI captured the entire gang of saboteurs and handed them over to the Provost Marshal in Washington, D. C. who, at the direction of the Secretary of War, held them for trial before a Military Commission that was appointed by President Roosevelt on July 2. On the following day, the saboteurs were charged by the Judge Advocate General with violation of the law of war and spying, among other things.
The prisoners lost no time in petitioning the court--Ex Parte Quirin 317 U.S. 1 (1942)--for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The D. C. District Court denied the petition, as did the Supreme Court, which explained its decision:

We have no occasion now to define with meticulous care the ultimate boundaries of the jurisdiction of military tribunals to try persons according to the law of war. It is enough that petitioners here, upon the conceded facts, were plainly within those boundaries, and were held in good faith for trial by military commission, charged with being enemies who, with the purpose of destroying war materials and utilities, entered or after entry remained in our territory without uniform-an offense against the law of war. We hold only that those particular acts constitute an offense against the law of war which the Constitution authorizes to be tried by military commission...

Everybody Out

Ex Parte Quirin and Johnson v. Eisentrager are distinguished from Boumediene v. Bush in two important particulars: Quirin and Eisentrager had full, adversarial trials, whereas Boumediene had only a CSRT review and; Congress had declared war in Quirin and in Eisentrager, but not in Boumediene. (Wars were, traditionally, conducted by declaration before 1950.) As stated on page 17 of the Boumediene Opinion, "To the extent . . . authorities suggest the common-law courts abstained altogether from matters involving prisoners of war, there was greater justification for doing so in the context of declared wars with other nation states." Therefore, a declaration of war on Afghanistan would have placed prisoner jurisdiction, as found in Article I, Section 8, squarely in Congress. The holding in Eisentrager states, on page 775: "A resident enemy alien is constitutionally subject to summary arrest, internment and deportation whenever a 'declared war' exists. Courts will entertain his plea for freedom from executive custody only to ascertain the existence of a state of war and whether he is an alien enemy. Once these jurisdictional facts have been determined, courts will not inquire into any other issue as to his internment." For the Guantanamo detainees, the absence of a declaration of war or a formal suspension of habeas corpus left a loophole as wide as a prison door.

The Supreme Court's decision leaves the U. S. Army no safe haven for the incarceration of its prisoners of war. In order to ensure that captured enemy combatants are not returned to the field, the army may have to resort to a "take no prisoners" policy or, if prisoners must be taken, to rendition them to some foreign jurisdiction. In the Boumediene decision, the Supreme Court discussed federal law, international law, the law of war, and even the ancient traditions of English common law. But the Court's analysis omitted one very important statute: the Law of Unintended Consequences.

High Court Affirms Individual Right to Bear Arms

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:40:17 -0800

The second amendment to the Constitution reads:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The pro-gun lobby and the pro-gun 'restriction' lobby have debated for years who this sentence refers to: the military, private citizens or both? Today, the Supreme Court decided by a five to four vote that the right "to bear arms" is an individual right. In the majority was Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, Justice Alito and Justice Kennedy. Specifically, the court held: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

In an act of judicial restraint, Justice Scalia concludes the opinion of the court in District of Columbia v. Heller, by stating "[I]t is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second amendment extinct." The slightly leaning conservative court definitely heighlighted today the importance of the judicial branch, and why it is imperative to elect Senator McCain President in November.

Judicial Activism: An Abuse of Power

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:08:16 -0800

Last month, Senator John McCain gave a speech delineating his judicial philosophy. In that speech, the presidential hopeful addressed the evils of judicial activism, stating that "every federal court should be a refuge from abuses of power, and not the source." It's the best speech I'd ever heard him give.

Judicial activism is when courts go beyond mere interpretation of law, and instead create law, substituting their own political opinions for the elected legislature. The most recent example of this abuse right here in California.

I agree with the Senator that judicial activism, in all its forms, must be curbed. Activism should not be exercised by judges enjoying a lifetime of tenure, but by an elected body who is vulnerable to eviction from office. Federal judges have been issuing rulings and opinions on policy questions that should be decided democratically. Because their tenure doesn't end until their pulse does, these judges show little regard for the authority of elected bodies, and consequently, for the will of the people.

True activists seek to make their case democratically by influencing voters that their cause is right. Dissimilarly, activist judges practice a different method, sparing themselves the hassle of the legislative process.

Senator McCain has made clear that the proper role of the judiciary is one of the defining issues of the 2008 presidential election. He stated that the remedy available to restore order in our courts is to find, nominate, and confirm the right judges. Senator McCain has committed himself to select justices who have an established record of judicial restraint. As the most overlooked, yet arguably the most powerful branch of government, the courts must be run by those who are unwavering in their role as interpreter, not legislator. I am glad the Republican nominee sees this issue as a serious one, and is dedicated to nominating justices who will act with humility and self-control.

Our judicial system can be a fair tool for adjudication when those who are charged with its operation do so with integrity for the process of law. The system gives every citizen the ability to redress grievances and affirm rights. When judicial restraint is followed, our justice system lives up to its name, and provides real justice.

California Republican Lawyers Association Endorsed Candidates Win in Riverside County

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:32:58 -0800

John Molloy and Michael Rushton were both endorsed by the California Republican Lawyers Association for Riverside County Superior Court Judge.

Running to fill the vacancy created when Judge Robert Spitzer was removed for misconduct, John Molloy easily beat opponents Anne Knighten and John Vinyard. Molloy won 52 percent of the vote.

Michael Rushton ran unopposed and will fill the vacancy left by Judge Thompson Hanks, who is retiring.

Both Molloy and Rushton are veteran prosecutors with the Riverside County District Attorney's Office.

Secretary Bowen Qualifies Initiative to Define Marriage in California

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:54:36 -0800

Regardless of your individual views on the issue of gay marriage, the California Supreme Court widely overstepped their constitutional grant of authority in substituting their will for the will of the people. In an effort to correct this naked act of judicial legislation, and prevent it from happening again with respect to this issue, California Family Council has fought back with an initiative that will define marriage in California once and for all as between a man and a woman.

Below are details from the Christian Newswire:

California Marriage Amendment Qualifies for November Ballot - The People Will Decide

SACRAMENTO, June 2 /Christian Newswire/ -- Secretary of State Debra Bowen today certified the eighth initiative for the November 4, 2008, General Election ballot. The measure would amend California's Constitution to define marriage as a union "between a man and a woman."

"The response from the people of this state has been unprecedented in support of marriage's legacy, by responding with an all-out volunteer signature campaign," said Ron Prentice, CEO of the California Family Council and Chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com coalition sponsoring the amendment. "We're so grateful to the over 1.1 million voters who signed the marriage petition in time for the November election. Passing this amendment is the only way for the people to override the four supreme court judges who want to re-define marriage for our entire society."

In order to qualify for the ballot, the marriage definition measure needed 694,354 valid petition signatures, which is equal to 8% of the total votes cast for governor in the November 2006 General Election. The initiative proponents submitted 1,120,801 signatures in an attempt to qualify the measure, and it qualified through the random sample signature check.

"The vast majority of research continues to state that California's voters favor keeping marriage as it is, protecting its historic definition between only a man and a woman. The November ballot will give opportunity for citizens to respond to the State Supreme Court's decision, by solidifying traditional marriage in the California Constitution. Californians are a tolerant people. But we also know that marriage is between a man and a woman, as the voters reaffirmed just a few years ago." stated Prentice. California Family Council (CFC) is a family policy council with offices in Sacramento and Riverside. Ron Prentice, CEO chairs the ProtectMarriage.com coalition. Phone: 951.354.8362.

California Republican Lawyers Release State Wide Voter Guide On Judges

Sat, 24 May 2008 21:52:08 -0800

As Secretary of the California Republican Party and President of the California Republican Lawyers Association, I have traveled throughout California speaking to Republican organizations regarding the power of Judges. I usually start the discussion by asking the following question:

"What branch of government do you believe is the most powerful - the legislative, the executive or the judicial?"

I have been amazed by the fact that every group responds that the most powerful branch of government is the judiciary. Therefore, it seems ironic to me that we spend so little time and resources on judicial elections. Millions are spent every year electing Republicans to positions in the legislature. Yet, every law they pass is subject to review by a Judge. In effect, a Judge will have the final say on the actions of the officials we work so hard to elect.

Therefore, doesn't it seem foolish that we spend so little effort on judicial elections? Can anyone remember the name of the last judicial candidate they voted for or wrote a check to or walked a precinct for? We are making a big mistake by ignoring these races. Sadly, the left doesn't make the same mistake; they have focused on the judicial branch for several decades. They realize that what they are unable to achieve at the ballot box they can accomplish in the Courts.

If anyone doubts the fact that the left is using the Courts to promote their agenda one only has to consider the recent opinion of the California Supreme Court in the Gay Marriage cases. In 2000, the People of California passed Proposition 22 by a substantial margin. With one stroke of the pen, four Judges erased 2000 years of tradition redefining marriage and ignoring the will of 61% of the California voters.

We as Republicans must begin to take an active role in making sure that we elect Judges who believe that role of a Judge is to follow the law not create it. To that end, we at the California Republican Lawyers Association have prepared a statewide judges voter guide. We have reviewed every contested judicial race in California.

The preparation of this voter guide was a massive undertaking. Information regarding judicial candidates is difficult to obtain. In order to obtain the necessary information we held candidates' forums, interviewed candidates, interviewed local attorneys and researched who and what organizations endorsed each candidate. We hope this guide will provide information to the voters so they can make an informed decision about these important elections.

Finally, in some races the California Republican Lawyers Association has issued endorsements or recommendations. These endorsements are based on the information we obtained from the above sources. These endorsements were ratified by our Board of Directors, which is entirely comprised of practicing attorneys. Judicial candidates we endorsed evidenced the following criteria: integrity, superior legal reputation and experience. Most importantly, all of the candidates endorsed by the CRLA expressed that they understood that the role of a Judge is to apply the law, not create it.

As the only Lawyers organization chartered by the California Republican Party, the CRLA is happy to provide this important information to you. To view our voter guide, click here.

The CA Supreme Court's Mandate of Homosexual Marriage - What Will You Do Now?

Fri, 16 May 2008 11:49:21 -0800

As you know by now, the California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 22 (passed in 2000 by over 61% of the voters) is unconstitutional and it ordered that the State of California must allow homosexual couples to marry. Four members of the seven-member court have now imposed their will upon all Californians.

While it is tempting to ring our hands at the sad state of affairs, the real question is "What will you do now?" There are concrete steps that can and need to be taken to reverse this activist court's decision.

Before I lay out those concrete steps, let me give you a prediction. The liberal dominated legislature, which has passed so much pro-homosexual legislation in the recent past (like SB 777) without any exemptions for people with religious or other objections, will pass a law prohibiting anyone who performs marriage ceremonies in California (including Churches) from refusing to perform them for homosexual couples. If (when) that comes to pass, Churches that refuse to perform these types of ceremonies will be subject to lawsuits and, perhaps, criminal fines and penalties. And this is only one example.

So this issue is not just about homosexuals having the right to use the word marriage for their relationships. Its about their ability to force their concept of truth and their viewpoints on the rest of society in a way that uses the force of law to silence those that have sincerely held beliefs against the homosexual lifestyle. In other words, your first amendment rights to free speech and religion are very much at stake here.

So what will you do? Seeing the possibility of this decision by the California Supreme Court, a petition drive was begun several months ago to place this issue on the November 4th ballot but this time as an amendment to the California Constitution. It will be the same wording as Prop. 22 but as a constitutional amendment rather than just a change in the Family Code. The important net effect is it will overturn yesterday's California Supreme Court mandate of homosexual marriage. Recently the proponents of this initiative turned in over 1.1 million signatures and it is expected to qualify for the November 4th ballot. The battle over this initiative will be fierce and costly. Pro-homosexual groups like Equality California will put up literally tens of millions of dollars to defeat the initiative. They will out spend the proponents of the initiative by several times.

You can help. First by being informed by going to www.Protectmarriage.com and learn about the initiative. By learning more about it, you can inform others about this important vote and encourage them to vote for the initiative in November. You can also financially contribute to the Protect Marriage campaign at the web site. I know the people who are organizing this effort and your money will not go to waste or for someone's big salary. You may also have some time to donate to the campaign.

The second concrete step you can take is to support the petition drive to roll back SB 777, the pro-homosexual school instruction law passed last fall. SB 777 basically provides that no school instruction or program can be taught that may "discriminate" against the homosexual lifestyle (the term "discrimination" is not defined in the statute). In other words, NO dissent for any reason is allowed. The goal of this petition drive is to allow the voters to decide if this law should be repealed. You can find out more about the petition drive and download a petition at www.saveourkids.net.

The people of the State of California who believe in traditional marriage have an opportunity to take a strong stand on what the Supreme Court did yesterday. What will you do now?

Profile: Mike Bartlett for Judge

Tue, 13 May 2008 10:24:12 -0800

Mike Bartlett finally responded to my questions yesterday, hence we are now moving back to the Superior Court Judge, Office No. 4 race between he and Nick Thompson.

Michael Bartlett is a business attorney from Dana Point. Bartlett has received numerous endorsements from political heavyweights in South County like Congressman John Campbell, Senator Tom Harman and Assemblywoman Mimi Walters.

As of the March 17 financial report, Bartlett has raised $41,703 and loaned his campaign $50,250. He already spent $39,875 on signs, filling fee and candidate statement. His cash on hand is $39,127.

The Michael Bartlett campaign is managed by Scott Hart. Scott is also managing the campaigns of Kermit Marsh and Jon Fish. However, some of my sources in South County are telling me that the true driving force behind the campaign is the candidate's wife, Dana Point Mayor Pro Tem Lisa Bartlett.

From securing political endorsements, to organizing precinct walks, Lisa is playing a key role in every aspect of the campaign.

More Political Correctness from Sacramento

Mon, 12 May 2008 21:20:45 -0800

It seems with all of the serious budget problems faced by our state government our legislators can still find time to place more burdens on those who provide services to us with politically correct nonsense. SB 1729 (Migden) is another example that our state legislators should only be allowed to meet part time lest they get into too much mischief.

SB 1729, if passed into law, would provide that health care professionals must take mandatory sensitivity training if they provide services to "gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender" seniors. As with most of these pro-homosexual bills, there are no exemptions for those with any religious or other objections. I am sure the option for a health care professional who has any objections to this "training" (indoctrination) is to forget their 1st Amendment rights or lose their job. So much for tolerance! Of course another problem with this bill is that it appears to correct a problem that is not proven to exist!

SB 1729 is another reward for those who make a lifestyle choice and wish the rest of us to pay for it. So called Gay Seniors should not be a protected class any more than blonde people, tall people or retired legislators who cannot safely drive an automobile or keep their campign finances properly accounted for.

SB 1729 passed the Senate Health Committee and is in the suspense file of the Senate Appropriations Committee (which means it can be brought out for a vote and off to the Assembly at any time).

If you wish to object to this politically correct nonsense you should write your legislator and the Governor now. A sample letter is here: No on AB 1729 #2.doc

More Nanny Government from Sacramento - the Anti-Spanking Bill

Mon, 12 May 2008 09:53:36 -0800

Last year Assemblywoman Sally Lieber introduced her anti-spanking bill which would have made the spanking of a child by a parent or guardian a criminal offense. Thankfully that bill was shelved by the Assembly.

Not wishing to take no for an answer, Ms. Lieber is back with another version of the anti-spanking bill AB 2943. Just like last year's bill, AB 2943 wishes to make a crime out of a time honored discipline method calling for the arrest of parents who use a "switch" and causes the child "unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering."

No one wishes to justify child abuse - and there are already laws on the books that allow for the prosecution of anyone, including a parent, who abuses a child. However, Ms. Lieber's bill goes beyond the issue of child abuse by using vague and ambiguous language to define the crime and identifies items that a child can not disciplined with such as a "switch" a tool used for centuries by parents wishing to lovingly discipline their child.

This bill has passed the Assembly's Public Safety Committee and is before the Appropriations Committee at the writing of this post.

If you wish to oppose this silly nanny government bill, you should send your representatives and the Governor a letter in opposition. A sample is attached:
._No on AB 2943 #2.doc

Profile: Nick Thompson for Judge

Fri, 09 May 2008 19:47:18 -0800

Now that we are finished with No. 12, let's shift the focus to the next judicial race - Superior Court Judge, Office No. 4.

This race will be between Nick Thompson, a decorated soldier, and Michael Bartlett, a litigator.

Currently working as a deputy district attorney, Thompson has earned the endorsement of his boss - T-Rack and the incumbent judge who is retiring at the end of his term.

Unlike our coverage of Office No. 12, there is more firework in the competition between Nick Thompson and his opponent, which is good. Thompson also challenged his opponent's candidate statement on the ground of inaccuracy. You can get more details by reading all of Thompson's responses to my questions below.

I met Thompson only once and was impressed with the image that he projected while delivering a speech to a room full of conservative activists. Thompson, a Bronze Star recipient for his services in Iraq and Bosnia, is also endorsed by the California Republican Lawyers Association and most recently, by the California Republican Assembly.

As of the March 17 financial report, Thompson has raised only $5,135, but loaned himself a whopping $101,500. He already burned through $60,398 but again like other judicial candidates, it was spent on filing fee, candidate statement, and slates. His cash on hand is $56,277.

Thompson's campaign is managed by long time OC political operative Brett Barbre of Barbre & Associates.

Profile: Debra Carrillo for Judge

Wed, 07 May 2008 21:47:27 -0800

Next up in our coverage of the race for Superior Court Judge, Office No. 12 is Debra Carrillo. Ms. Carrillo has a long history of working in the legal community. At a much younger age, Debra was also a police officer for the City of Laguna Beach.

As of the March 17 financial report, Debra raised $5,350 and loaned her campaign $50,099. By far this is the largest personal loan for a candidate in this race. Like all of her opponents, Debra spent $23,562 with the bulk of the expenditures going to the Registrar of Voters' Office for filing fee and candidate statement. Her cash on hand is $31,886.

A registered Democrat, Debra Carrillo is officially supported by the Democratic Party of Orange County. However, she has also earned the endorsement of District Attorney Tony Rackauckas, a registered Republican. That alone tells me that Carrillo is a bi-partisan attorney.

Profile: KC Jones for Judge

Tue, 06 May 2008 14:20:53 -0800

The second candidate running for judge that got back to me was KC Jones, a judicial attorney for the County of Orange who is running for Superior Court Judge, Office No. 12.

According to the Registrar of Voters' website, KC will be on the top of the ballot and will surely pick up support from voters who usually vote for the top candidate if they are unfamiliar with the rest.

As of the March 17 report, KC only raised $2,519 but loaned his campaign $35,000, which is a sizable amount. He already spent $28,453 on the ballot statement and other miscellaneous items, which leaves him with $9,065 cash on hand.

If the KC Jones for Judge campaign is behind their rivals in the money chase, their candidate is sure making up for it by other means. I see KC at a lot of public events. It doesn't matter if those events are Democratic or Republican oriented, if there is a good size crowd, KC will be there to shake hands and pass out his brochures. So far, he and rival Mike Flory are the only candidates for Office No. 12 that has blanketed Orange County with campaign signs. I haven't see anything from Debra Carrillo or Kermit Marsh yet.

KC Jones's campaign is managed by Steve Spernak of SCM Consulting. Yes this is the same Steve Spernak who ran Mike McGill's assembly race before Joe Giardiello and Brandon Power was brought on board to salvage the campaign.

A word of advice for KC, don't spend your money on DVDs.

When asked why the voters of Orange County should elect him, KC responded:

I believe that I have the unique combination of experience, intellect and temperament to succeed as a judicial officer. I am intelligent, dedicated and hard working and am seeking to expand upon my solid foundation as an active and successful lawyer. After over 20 years of civil litigation, I realized that there is a great deal that I can contribute to the community through a judicial position. I have long felt that the judiciary is the highest calling in the legal profession, and have contemplated a judicial position for several years. This is the reason I resigned my partnership and left private practice for a position as a judicial attorney. The courts have given much to me over the years, and I feel that I have much to give back in return. (You can click on the link below to read the full response)

On who is his favorite Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court:

In reading the recent decision in the lethal injection case, Baze v. Rees, I have become more impressed with the restrained approach taken by Chief Justice Roberts. He relied on prior precedent that capital punishment was permissible, and focused on the key issues that were presented concerning the method and available alternatives. His approach was respectful of precedent, free from grandiose pronouncements and restrained to the issues at hand. As the many concurring opinions revealed, there certainly was the opportunity to depart from this approach. I believe that Chief Justice Robert's refusal to do so was admirable. While he is still new in the position, he has shown the promise toward true greatness as a Chief Justice. Chief Justice Roberts demonstrated this same restrained conservative approach in the recent voter ID case.

On his area of legal expertise:

Civil Litigation / Trial / Appellate Practice in the following areas: Business Law; Community Association Law; Professional Liability (Errors & Omissions and Directors & Officers); Real Estate Law; Employment Law; Injury to Reputation; Intellectual Property; Commercial Law; Insurance Law. Transactional / General Counsel Practice in the following areas: Business Entities, Buy-Sell, Formation and Operation; Real Estate Contracts, Leases and Conveyances; CC&Rs Interpretation; Insurance Coverage and Evaluation; Sales and Commercial Transactions; Entertainment, Trademarks and Copyright Employment, Contracts and Counseling.

On which legal experience was the most rewarding for him:

By far, the most rewarding experiences have come from my service as an arbitrator and temporary judge.

On which other candidate will make it with him to the November run-off:

Debra Carrillo

On how much money he will need to make the November run-off:

$85,000

To read KC's full response to all of my questions, you can click here. For more information on KC Jones, please visit his website at www.KCJonesforJudge.com.

Profile: Mike Flory for Judge

Mon, 05 May 2008 13:38:48 -0800

As the Registrar of Voters' Office is mailing out the first wave of ballots to permanent absentee voters across the county today, many of us still do not know very much about the candidates running for Orange County Superior Court Judge in Office Number: 4, 8 and 12.

So to be more informed about who to vote for, I decided to contact those judicial candidates myself and the first person that responded was Michael Flory.

Michael Flory, a deputy district attorney, is running for Superior Court Judge, Office No. 12. Flory is running against three other candidates. As of March 17, Flory has raised $36,500 and also loaned an additional $7,000 to his campaign. He already spent $37,394 and as of the latest reporting period, is only sitting on $6,731. The lion share of his expenditures was for the filling fee and 200-word ballot statement.

Flory's campaign is managed by Dennis DeSnoo, a veteran political consultant. For those who may not know, DeSnoo was one of the masterminds behind the signatures gathering effort to overturn the re-appointment of Harald Martin to the Anaheim Union High School District. He also provided political service to then-Yorba Linda Councilman Mike Duvall in 2004.

During my email exchanges with Flory, I asked him why the voters of Orange County should elect him over his opponents and this is his response:

In my race I am the only judicial candidate who is a career Deputy District Attorney. I am the only Deputy District Attorney in the race who has conducted a jury trial as a prosecutor. In fact, I have tried 74 jury trials and countless court trials as a prosecutor. I have also handled thousands of cases as a deputy district attorney ranging from the most violent of offenders down to minor traffic infractions. For my dedication and hard work, in 2003, I was awarded the prestigious "Prosecutor of the Year" award by the Orange County Narcotics Association. Additionally, I am the only candidate in the field who has taught fellow deputy district attorneys, police officers and police agencies classes on the following legal issues: trial tactics, venue, cross-examination, direct examination, voir dire issues, testifying in trial and wall cases.

On who is his favorite Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court:

John Roberts is my favorite Justice on the current Supreme Court. He is conservative, clear and concise in his thinking and a non-activist jurist.

On what is his area of legal expertise:

Criminal law is the area of my legal expertise. I have dedicated the last 15 years of my career to prosecuting cases as a deputy district attorney.

On how much money he will need to make the November run-off election:

I believe I will need to creatively spend $60,000 in order to make the November run-off.

I suspect the campaign low ball the amount because in reality, they will need at least $100,000 since filling fee and the statement alone already burned more than $30,000. We will get a better picture of Flory's fundraising strength in late May when the second round of reporting is due.

For more information on the Mike Flory for Judge campaign, you can visit his website at www.mikefloryforocjudge.com.