Alameda County DA tramples First Amendment to silence critics

There have been too many elections where seriously rotten incumbents run unopposed. Ignacio de la Fuente, for example. We all know who Ignacio is, but what's hard to understand is why nobody opposed him. District Attorney Tom Orloff is another sweet apple out of the same rotten barrel; Orloff made no attempt to prosecute perpetrators of the April 7, 2003 police attack in the Port of Oakland--but he spent a year trying to prosecute the victims of that attack before finally dropping the charges last month. Another unopposed incumbent was Oakland City Attorney John Russo who helped sabotage the investigation into the April 7, 2003 police attack. And now here are these judges who likewise run unopposed.

We need to long term planning and find qualified progressive candidates to run for those offices. It's not enough that we protest those rotten people and the bad things they do--we have to replace them.

I very much agree with what you say. Good replacement candidates are necessary for all these positions. I don't know who should be a judge, but I have ideas about a petition, to request the Board of Supervisors, or some other appropriate legislative body, pass laws applicable to Alameda County, which would require some of the following:

1. The Clerk of the Court will keep stats on the amount of money taken from estates in probate, and how much of it was "extraordinay fees", which judges ordered the most in such fees, along with information on the people who paid the fees.

For example, the crooked lawyer in my dispute, Martin Nakahara, got about $26K in extra fees from a relatively modest estate. I am told it is likely the judge who ordered the fees got a kickback from Nakahara. Two different lawyers independently suggested this. If stats were kept on this sort of thing, and it was required that those stats be put on the ballot when each judge is elected or re-elected, it might be reduced. It's not so much that some people inherit less money than they otherwise would, it's to shut down one way judges and lawyers, and DAs, can be crooked.

2. Anytime a lawyer practicing in Alameda County is accused in a civil lawsuit of a criminal wrongdoing, like the embezzlement, the DA SHALL investigate, if he is not prohibited from doing so by some conflict of interest, and make a public determination of whether to prosecute or not. This public determination must be published to the official web page of the DA's office, and include any connections DA had with the lawyer, and give specific reasons for action or inaction.

3. Any judge in a criminal proceeding SHALL tell the accused, lawyers, and jury of any connection he has had with the DA's office in the past, and any other past employment with law enforcement. This is necessary because the jury often believes the judge is an unbiased party, when a great many of them were once Deputy DA's, and they rule for the prosecution most of the time.

4. The California State Bar membership web page used to give every judge and DA's employment history since passing the Bar exam. That web page was where I discovered Orloff, and both Nakaharas were colleagues from way back. Now, the State Bar has removed the information. They claim this was done for security purposes, but this is BS, there is no security value in keeping past employment secret. This information, for Alameda County Judges at least, must be included in the ALameda County court web pages.

These are a few of my thoughts. I think if these reforms are brought in on a local level, and the Bar Association is nto able to prevent it, they may spread to other counties until they are either banned or accepted by state law.