- Home
- News
- Opinion
- Letters
- Sports
- Prospecting
- Essentials
- Obituaries
- Real Estate
- Comics
- Gallery
- Classifieds
- Advertisers
- Coupons
- Contact Us
Share Article
458
504458504
EDITOR:
When a lawyer states, “I have appeared before the California and U.S. Supreme Courts,” people reasonably interpret this statement as meaning that the attorney has argued cases in person before the justices of the Supreme Courts. Most people do not think that submitting a document for filing “technically” constitutes an appearance before the court.
Throughout his campaign Judge Stracener has misled the public in boasting he has appeared before the CA and US Supreme Courts. He continues to assert this achievement in his campaign literature despite being publicly criticized for his “calculated misrepresentation.” According to all news articles I have read, Judge Stracener has never personally argued a case before the California or U.S. Supreme Courts, but has “filed” legal documents.
Had Judge Stracener argued cases in person before these justices, it would be quite an achievement and honor. His “technical” appearances by merely filing legal documents is not all that remarkable, especially when one considers that thousands of inmates and lawyers have also “technically” appeared before the California and U.S. Supreme Courts as they too have filed writs or legal documents that were denied by the justices without a hearing.
When witnesses are sworn to testify, they take an oath to “tell the truth and nothing but the truth.” It would seem to me that a judge should be held to the same if not a higher standard in stating the whole truth.
I have lived in El Dorado County for 45 years and have attended sessions of our local court hundreds of times while previously serving our community as a police officer and then as a deputy probation officer. I have always been highly impressed with our local judiciary until recently. Judge Stracener’s ongoing intentional misrepresentation sets a very poor example to the juveniles he presides over and the public he purports to serve.
Joe Hoffman has been an attorney in our community for the last 18 years, and has also served in the capacity as judge pro tem (a temporary Judge). He is the only non-incumbent local judicial candidate that I can ever recall being endorsed by local judges. In addition, Joe Hoffman alone is endorsed by local prosecutors, deputy sheriffs’ and court clerks. Many members of the local bar association also support his candidacy.
Please join us in casting a vote for Joe Hoffman.
LAURIE EDWARDS
Cameron Park
The Mountain Democrat does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy
Ken SteersSeptember 19, 2012 - 12:59 pm
The highlight of my athletic career was playing side by side with my Oakland Raider brethren Jim Otto, Raymond Chester and Phil Villapiano. I'm proud to have called them my team mates and we fondly recall how well we all played together. Everything I said is true. To clarify I never played pro football for the Raiders. I have played golf with all three of these Raider legends. But what I said was factually correct.
JimSeptember 26, 2012 - 10:30 am
Stracener's claims are certainly questionable. I wouldn't want a judge that makes those kinds of misleading statements. I once caught a foul ball at a Giants game. So under the same reasoning, have I "played baseball for the Giants"? Once, while sitting in the audience at the Price is Right gameshow, I wasn't selected to be a contestant, but I think the camera panned over me for split second. Have I "appeared on the Price is Right"?
Dink LaneSeptember 26, 2012 - 1:55 pm
The BEST thing you can say about "Hoffman" is that Stracener did something you didn't like?.... What does that say about Hoffman? I haven't decided yet.... but if Hoffman can only say "Hey the other guys over there like me," I'm having second thoughts about Hoffman.
JimSeptember 27, 2012 - 8:55 am
There plenty to like about Hoffman. I think the most telling is that nearly all the attorneys in the county endorse him. Stracener hears the juvenile calendar, yet most of the juvenile law attorneys support Hoffman. I think they (the attorneys that appear in his courtroom regularly) are in the best position to evaluate Stracener's judicial skills and performance.
Dink LaneSeptember 27, 2012 - 10:01 am
Jim: Still, what has Hoffman done that makes him more QUALIFIED? Just being the "Best liked" guy in town doesn't QUALIFY him.
R.J. CarterSeptember 27, 2012 - 10:41 am
It's too bad Dink doesn't feel that way when it comes to presidential elections...
Helpu SeethetruthSeptember 27, 2012 - 3:30 pm
Who is misleading who.....You must be talking about Hoffman because it won't be long before Hoffman is spending some "time" in New York. …..from Sacramento Bee: The case of a fugitive jailed in Sacramento on federal fraud charges this week may have ramifications in the June 5 race for El Dorado Superior Court judge. Daniel Chartraw, now held without bail on the fraud charges, was once represented by candidate Joseph A. Hoffman in another matter, and some observers question whether Hoffman acted properly on Chartraw’s behalf. Much of Hoffman’s connection to Chartraw comes out in a criminal complaint filed in U.S. District Court in February, accusing Chartraw of using interstate means to commit fraud in 2010 and 2011. The money went through a trust account managed by Hoffman, the affidavit says. Henry Gimenez, named by initials in the affidavit as one of Chartraw’s victims, is suing Hoffman in New York, alleging that he aided in the scam. His loan to Chartraw was made on the basis of a letter from Hoffman, attesting to Chartraw having sufficient assets to cover loans, Gimenez said. “We gave the money on the basis of the representation of Joe Hoffman, period,” Gimenez said. He acknowledged suing Hoffman because Chartraw may not have remaining assets. Hoffman’s actions have also been questioned by attorney Kathleen Kerekes, whose clients won a $4.5 million judgment against Chartraw in 2009 in connection with a complex series of land deals. Seeking to serve papers on Chartraw and his wife, she attempted to contact Hoffman in August 2010, leaving messages informing him of the judgment, Kerekes said in a written declaration this week. “I only recently discovered after reviewing the arrest affidavit that Daniel Chartraw used Joseph Hoffman’s attorney-client trust account (“IOLTA” account) to conceal assets that belonged to my clients in November 2010,” she wrote. “Clearly, Joseph Hoffman knew my clients were judgment creditors by this time pursuant to my voice mail messages,” she wrote. The way I see it…a vote for Hoffman – is a wasted vote! Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/11/4482398/hed-here.html#storylink=misearch#storylink=cpy
Chuck HollandSeptember 27, 2012 - 3:35 pm
Dink, First thing that comes to mind that makes Hoffman more qualified; He tells the truth. Beyond that, Hoffman actually practices law that pertains to the needs of El Dorado County, Hoffman has actually worked in EDC for the past 17 or 18 years, Hoffman is not hated by the majority of the court staff, and so on.
Chuck HollandSeptember 27, 2012 - 3:39 pm
Helpu, would you kindly give us an explanation as to how Stracener was able to swindle the tax payers out of a $397k paycheck for 2011?
Helpu SeethetruthSeptember 27, 2012 - 4:25 pm
Chuck- Could you tell us taxpayers how you (Gold Country BailBonds) were able to qualify in 2010 for a welfare-to-work program that paid people seeking employment through the County of El Dorado? Getting a tax credit of up to $9,000.00 per person - was it a close friend who slid you through the loop-holes? Looks like you have "taken this country fir a ride". Don't blow too hard...seems the whistle blower may have to choke on his own whistle! Sounds like someone here is a liar and a cheat! Pointing your finger - making assumptions. Fogetaboutit!
Helpu SeethetruthSeptember 27, 2012 - 4:33 pm
And about that shit you are passing about.....get your facts straight: From Sac bee- The El Dorado Rod & Gun Club, which was to have been the venue for the shooting challenge Saturday, put a stop to it, saying they didn't want to want to give the impression that they might be endorsing a winner. "It doesn't really fit in. Our policy is never to endorse anyone," said Rob Charny, president of the club. Voters and Candidates: Beware of evil supporters! Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/15/4491948/gun-club-cancels-showdown-for.html#storylink=misearch#storylink=cpy
Helpu SeethetruthSeptember 27, 2012 - 4:46 pm
As far as "experience"....let's not forget people that Warren C. Stracener IS THE JUDGE.... Listening to Hoffman state his idea of how to speed up the judgement process and close cases faster "If a case the week before is similar....I will just dole out the same punishment"(Joe Hoffman, League of Women Voters Candidate forum). As a parent, if my child or our family ever had to appear before a judge - I would hope he put enough time into understanding all cases ARE NOT THE SAME and to be treated as an individual - not a case number. You just do not shovel people through! As I said "A vote for Hoffman - Is just a wasted vote". Contact the judge on his website www.judgestracener.com and volunteer for a meet and greet - get to know him - attend an event where he will be attending. It certainly helped my decision to retain Judge Stracener. Don't get me wrong....I have seen Hoffman speak several times, he seems to be a good guy - but not good enough to be a judge in the county where I lived for over 20 years.
Chuck HollandSeptember 27, 2012 - 5:58 pm
@ Helpu, I'm not aware of a welfare program that would give me a tax deduction.Nor have I participated in such a program. Good attempt to divert attention away from my question. Fact is, to work for me (Gold Country Bail Bonds) you have to be licensed by the State. My agents are paid commission, don't think that would qualify. Please answer the question above. I'll be polishing my whistle while I wait.
Richard HeadOctober 19, 2012 - 10:53 pm
Judge Stracener: I have been undecided thus far in the race between you and Hoffman. However, an event today sealed the deal. I will most definitely be voting for Hoffman. Why? Today, I received a robo-call from a pre-recorded voice begging me to vote for you. For this, you can go F#ck yourself. I Found this obtrusive and disturbing form of campaigning irritating enough motivate me to make a significant donation to the Hoffman campaign. I will not be voting for you, nor will the rest of my family. Please take your robo-dialer and stick it up your butt. Have a nice day.