Union-Tribune endorses Judge Lisa Schall, then reports that "No jurist in the state has a less favorable record" than Judge Schall

Incumbent Judge Lisa Schall [U-T file] — Charlie Neuman

The apparent contradiction in San Diego Union-Tribune articles about Judge Schall actually make perfect sense. The U-T is saying that it's better to have a bad Republican than a good Democrat. The U-T thinks it's okay for a judge to improperly throw citizens in jail, to become embroiled in juvenile dependency cases, and to drive drunk, as long as the status quo is maintained in the courts.

I think it should also be noted that the three official admonishments of Judge Lisa Schall don't tell the whole story. The Commission on Judicial Competence is often loathe to criticize judges even when they behave very badly.

This article from the Los Angeles Times from September 1986 recounts how the judge, shortly after being appointed, showed her gratitude to Governor George Deukmejian by appearing at one of his campaign events.

The article notes, “[Mike] Aguirre filed a complaint with the California Commission on Judicial Performance alleging that Guy-Schall’s talk was a violation of judicial ethics guidelines that prohibit judges from endorsing or campaigning for candidates for non-judicial office.”

Apparently Schall did NOT get a reprimand for this shockingly inappropriate behavior, which makes me wonder if there were also other complaints against Judge Schall to the Commission on Judicial Performance that failed to result in admonishments.

See also: After 2 days, Clear Channel pulls down billboards that reveal that Judge Lisa Schall was convicted of a crime

Judge has been admonished three times
No jurist in the state has a less favorable record
By Greg Moran
SDUT
May 12, 2014

Private admonishments are issued by the commission in cases where serious misconduct has been found, but are confidential and only become public if revealed in future disciplinary matters.

Her opponent in the race, federal prosecutor Carla Keehn, is making an issue of Schall’s record. This week billboards went up saying Keehn was the “only candidate for this office NOT convicted of a crime.”

“I think a judge should be above reproach,” Keehn said “Judges should set the standard for law abiding behavior.”

The disciplinary commission has doled out public admonishments just 75 times since 1995 to 22 judges, records show. Several judges who received two public admonishments either retired or were removed by the commission after the second.

Schall said voters should assess her ability over a full career and based on what her peers and others say.

She has been rated well qualified, the highest rating, by the county bar association, she said. All of the Superior Court bench has endorsed her. Keehn received a rating of qualified, the second highest of three rating categories.

Schall has been a judge for nearly 29 years. She was first appointed to the now defunct Municipal Court bench in 1985 at age 32, then elevated to the Superior Court bench in 1989. She has been re-elected four times to six-year terms and has never been challenged, until this year when Keehn decided to run against her.

Private admonishments are issued by the commission in cases where serious misconduct has been found, but are confidential and only become public if revealed in future disciplinary matters.

Her opponent in the race, federal prosecutor Carla Keehn, is making an issue of Schall’s record. This week billboards went up saying Keehn was the “only candidate for this office NOT convicted of a crime.”

“I think a judge should be above reproach,” Keehn said “Judges should set the standard for law abiding behavior.”

The disciplinary commission has doled out public admonishments just 75 times since 1995 to 22 judges, records show. Several judges who received two public admonishments either retired or were removed by the commission after the second.

Schall said voters should assess her ability over a full career and based on what her peers and others say.

She has been rated well qualified, the highest rating, by the county bar association, she said. All of the Superior Court bench has endorsed her. Keehn received a rating of qualified, the second highest of three rating categories.

Schall has been a judge for nearly 29 years. She was first appointed to the now defunct Municipal Court bench in 1985 at age 32, then elevated to the Superior Court bench in 1989. She has been re-elected four times to six-year terms and has never been challenged, until this year when Keehn decided to run against her.

HERE IS THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE UNION-TRIBUNE:

FOR THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT BENCH
By U-T San Diego Editorial Board
May 12, 2014
The only real decision for voters is in Office 20. Incumbent Judge Lisa Schall is a former prosecutor who has been on the bench since her appointment by Gov. George Deukmejian in 1985. She received the Bar’s highest rating of “well qualified,” and she has the endorsement of virtually all other judges on the bench, numerous retired judges, Goldsmith, Coker and a variety of professional organizations. But she has been admonished three times by the state Commission on Judicial Performance, including once for her guilty plea in 2008 to alcohol-related reckless driving. Her opponent is Carla Keehn, a former Army captain and an assistant U.S. attorney for the past 18 years who was rated as “qualified” by the Bar. The admonishments Schall received are a legitimate issue for voters to consider. The U-T editorial board believes her overall solid record of 29 years on the bench trumps those controversies. We endorse Judge Schall for re-election.

[Maura Larkins's response: "Overall solid record" of doing exactly what? Protecting friends of U-T owner Doug Manchester?

Sharon Kramer May 12, 2014 at 10:55 am

Does the UT have a typo in their story yesterday? They wrote of Schall, “overall solid record of 29 years on the bench”. Surely they meant to write, “overall SOILED record”.

Did District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis actaully want Terri Wyatt to run against Bonnie? Are the two of them trying to split the anti-Bonnie vote?

(Updated) While watching the video on this page of a debate between Robert Brewer and Terri Wyatt, candidates for San Diego District Attorney, I heard Ms. Wyatt say this:

"This is a very specialized office. It has a certain culture and Mr. Brewer has not worked in it."

What exactly is this "certain culture"?

Is it something we want to maintain?

Shouldn't the district attorney's office be staffed by professionals who aren't guided by a "culture"?

Then Ms. Wyatt attacked Bonnie for accepting illegal campaign contributions, and I decided that Wyatt probably wasn't planted in the race by Dumanis.

When Wyatt said that Donna Frye endorsed Bob Brewer. I'm guessing that Frye is appalled at the way Bonnie Dumanis' Public Integrity Unit has targeted women, Mexicans and Democrats. Bonnie has focused on political opponents of her boss's wife, Cheryl Cox, and other South Bay officials. (Bonnie's boss is County Supervisor Greg Cox.)

I'm pretty sure that there will be virtually NO public integrity prosecutions under Bob Brewer. He owes his livelihood largely to white collar miscreants. They pay well when they get in trouble.

WHICH IS WORSE: GREEN LIGHT FOR THE BIG FISH OR POLITICALLY-TARGETED PROSECUTIONS OF THE MINNOWS?

I'm trying to decide which is worse: a green light for the big-time corrupt officials, the ones with real power, who subvert entire government agencies to their own purposes, or politically-motivated prosecutions for very small-time misbehavior of people who occupy the lower echelons of the San Diego power structure.

We've had the green light for the very powerful for long time. They serve the needs of themselves and other powerful people rather than the public that bankrolls the whole endeavor. Mike Aguirre found that you can't change that.

DID BONNIE DUMANIS EXPOSE ONE BIG FISH?

I am pleased that Bonnie Dumanis seems to have inadvertently exposed one big fish when she was chasing the minnows who have dinner with contractors: high profile school attorney Dan Shinoff. Mr. Shinoff was discovered during FBI surveillance having a meeting with Manuel Paul and a prospective witness to discuss testimony in the Ecobusiness v. San Ysidro School District case. During one of several meetings with the witness, only one of which was attended by Mr. Shinoff, Manuel Paul had offered a reward to the witness for his testimony.

I have been trying for years to expose disregard for the law and criminal cover-ups at San Diego County Office of Education's Risk Management Department, which pays Dan Shinoff close to $1 million a year to try lawsuits against school districts. Voice of San Diego reporter Emily Alpert started asking questions about SDCOE and Shinoff a few years ago, but her investigation was stopped and she was fired.

Maybe now someone will do a real investigation. Both SDCOE and individual school districts need to be looked at.

So, Bonnie may have accomplished some good.

I believe that politically-targeted prosecutions aren't acceptable. It deeply damages the right of the people to choose their representatives when small-time crooks of one party are targeted while the district attorney looks the other way (as far as she is able) in the face big-time corruption of the other party.

I believe that Bob Brewer will handle white-collar criminals with kid gloves, and I think that's bad for the three million people in San Diego County. But I will probably vote for Bob Brewer.

San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith accused police officer's victim of panty bribery

Oh, dear. Former Judge and current San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith got caught in the act of being--well--a normal lawyer. The Bar Association would never disapprove of a public entity lawyer, not even a City Attorney, acting in the financial interest of the city even though doing so might require inflicting serious harm on the public. In this case, it seems to have required that Jan Goldsmith make a false accusation against the victim of a sexual predator who acted under cover of authority.

It's amazing how morally compartmentalized lawyers (and some judges) are. When they're not out telling the public about how moral they are, they're back at the office preparing a motion to accuse the victim of a sexual predator police officer of bribing that officer!

This is the same issue that Mike Aguirre and Leslie Devaney argued in 2005. Leslie Devaney clearly thinks that people who work for the city attorney are right to defend the "city" by helping to conceal wrongdoing by the city against its own people.


Officer Anthony Arevalos Channel 6 video

I learned about this story from Roundtable on KPBS radio today:

...Arevalos Victim Accused Of Bribery

The woman who was the first to accuse SDPD officer Anthony Arevalos of sexual misconduct was praised by Police Chief William Lansdowne as courageous. That was then.

This week, we learned she was accused of bribery by the San Diego City Attorney’s Office in its pretrial defense of a federal lawsuit against the city.

The city said the woman, who remains anonymous, offered Arevalos her underwear to get out of a DUI. She engaged in negotiation with Arevalos over her arrest, which amounts to bribery. At Arevalos’ trial, she testified that he asked her for the panties to make the arrest go away.

The day after a story on the city's defense strategy appeared in U-T San Diego, City Attorney Jan Goldsmith said the city had dropped that line of defense and would no longer accuse "Jane Doe" of bribery.

Some observers see similarities to the city attorney’s response last fall to Irene McCormack’s lawsuit against the city and Mayor Bob Filner for sexual misconduct. Among other things, the city said that any injury or damage was caused and exacerbated by McCormack herself...

CITY: EX-COP’S ACCUSER TRIED BRIBE
Woman hailed by police chief for reporting sexual misconduct offered her underwear, City Attorney’s Office says
By Greg Moran
SDUT
Jan 15, 2014

Once called courageous by San Diego’s police chief, the woman who first accused former San Diego Police Officer Anthony Arevalos of sexual misconduct is now being accused of bribery by lawyers defending the city in a federal lawsuit.

In court papers filed for a pretrial hearing, the city says the woman offered Arevalos her underwear as a bribe in order to get out of a drunken-driving charge in 2011.

That’s a dramatic turnabout by the city. Chief William Lansdowne called the woman “very courageous” for reporting Arevalos and cooperating with investigators when Arevalos was arrested three days after the March 8, 2011, incident.

The woman, identified only as “Jane Doe” in her civil-rights lawsuit against the city, was stopped by Arevalos in the Gaslamp on suspicion of drunken driving. She testified at his trial that he asked her what she would be willing to do to make the DUI arrest go away, and he suggested she give him her panties.

The two went to a bathroom inside a nearby 7-Eleven where she removed her underwear, she testified, and Arevalos touched her before allowing her to dress.

Arevalos, serving his sentence at Corcoran state prison, did not take the stand at the trial.

The city’s position, outlined in legal papers filed two months ago seeking to have the woman’s lawsuit dismissed, paints a different picture.

“Plaintiff bribed Officer Arevalos with her panties to get out of the DUI,” the filing says. “Both plaintiff and Arevalos agreed to consummate the bribe in a nearby 7-Eleven in the Gaslamp.”

Browne Greene, a lawyer for Jane Doe, said the city’s position is hard to believe.

“After she comes forward to report she’s been assaulted, they proclaim her a hero,” he said. “And now, in federal court, they call her a briber.”

A spokesman for San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith said in a written statement that the Jane Doe case is different from a dozen other women’s claims that the office has settled related to Arevalos’ conduct.

“Unlike the other cases, this one remaining case has evidence that the plaintiff actually negotiated over avoiding a DUI,” the statement said. “Regardless of outrage from plaintiff’s lawyer seeking a payday, if we have to try a case our trial lawyers present the jury with the truth.”

The woman was not arrested for bribery or drunken driving. Citing the ongoing lawsuit and Arevalos’ appeal of his criminal conviction, a spokeswoman for District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis declined to comment on whether prosecutors ever considered a bribery charge against the woman.

Jane Doe is the last of a dozen women who sued the city or filed legal claims alleging they were subjected to sexual harassment or assault by Arevalos when he was an officer. So far the city has paid out some $2.3 million in claims.

Dan Gilleon, a lawyer who represented several women in those claims, said the city’s statements accusing the woman could backfire with a jury.

“It’s offensive the city would be doing this right now,” he said. “In these sexual assault, sexual harassment cases the last option you want to take is to blame the victim.”

Arevalos’ trial lawyer, Gretchen Von Helms, said Tuesday that the woman testified that she wanted to get out of the DUI charge. The city interprets that as offering a bribe, she said.

The federal lawsuit has become increasingly contentious as it moves closer to a trial, which will probably occur this year. Neither side appears willing to settle.

In the two years since it was filed, lawyers for the woman have built a case arguing that Arevalos was part of a larger culture of misconduct inside the department. The lawsuit is seeking a federal judge to appoint an independent monitor to oversee how the department handles complaints from citizens about officer misconduct.

The city says no such monitor is needed.

Arevalos was convicted of sexual battery, bribery and other charges and sentenced to eight years in prison. He’s seeking a new trial based on evidence discovered after the trial during the Jane Doe civil case that his lawyers say San Diego police should have turned over before the trial, but never did as the law requires.

A hearing on that issue is set for Feb. 7 in front of Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Fraser, who presided over the trial. Jane Doe has been ordered to appear to testify about the notes.

If it's true, Ann Smith, then it's not slander

"Labor" attorney Ann Smith pretended she was representing me when she was apparently trying to get information from me and/or misinform me regarding Chula Vista Elementary School District. It was a malicious trick, intended to oppress me and protect other clients. Since Ms. Smith seems to be in deep denial, however, she admits no wrongdoing.

Her partner, Tom Tosdal, stood outside the Chula Vista Educators office like a security guard when I was scheduled to come to the office. I wasn't sure it was him until I finally found a frontal photo on his website. He looks very different in profile.

Others have had experiences similar to mine:

Union Lawyer Files Slander Claim Against City Attorney
Woman Represents 6K Member Municipal Employees Association
from NBCSandiego.com and Associated Press
June 17, 2005


SAN DIEGO -- A lawyer representing the largest union of San Diego city workers has filed slander claims against City Attorney Michael Aguirre and another lawyer in his office.

In the claims, Ann M. Smith says Aguirre and Deputy City Attorney Don McGrath called her "Ann Malpractice Smith," acting with "malice, oppression and fraud."

Smith, an attorney for the 6,000-member Municipal Employees Association, contends the statement impugned her reputation and harmed her business. She is seeking damages from Aguirre, McGrath and the city but does not specify an amount.

Filing a claim is required before a lawsuit can be filed against a government body or government officials.

"The statements these people have made are obviously and provably false and untrue," said Thomas Tosdal, Smith's attorney and law partner. "She has represented MEA for over two decades and has done an excellent job."

Aguirre admitted making the statements and said he stands by them.

In March, a top trial lawyer who was fired by Aguirre brought a $1 million claim against the city of San Diego.