- Home
- News
- Opinion
- Letters
- Sports
- Prospecting
- Essentials
- Obituaries
- Real Estate
- Comics
- Gallery
- Classifieds
- Advertisers
- Coupons
- Contact Us
Share Article
532
805532805
El Dorado Superior Court Judge Daniel B. Proud has decided to join the endorsement list of judicial candidate Joseph Hoffman during the runoff between Hoffman and incumbent Judge Warren “Curt” Stracener.
“When the race started, I spoke with Stracener, Valentine and Joe,” Proud said. He decided he would not be endorsing any candidate in the primary, and sitting judges “tend to stay out when an incumbent is running.” Although he didn’t know Stracener very well, Proud said that he “deserved the opportunity to prove himself.”
But, during the campaign, “a couple other judges got involved. I just felt the community needs to know how other judicial officers feel about … the prospects,” Proud said.
This came about over concerns about Stracener’s campaign, specifically the controversies over the Supreme Court appearance, the amount of experience Stracener had and Stracener’s claim of never having been reversed.
Echoing what Judge Douglas C. Phimister said in an interview with the Mountain Democrat, Proud wanted to “set the record clear — judges are going to get reversed, it’s not a bad thing. It’s going to happen.” He said he knew about the Palma Letter that had been sent to Stracener, and that it was clearly a reversal.
This, combined with Stracener’s appearance in the Supreme Court — which Proud concedes he “technically did” by appearing on paper though Proud said it was handled by another law firm — called the campaign a “calculated misrepresentation.” Proud said that Stracener “knows the statements are inaccurate, but the public doesn’t.”
This, to Proud, is not what being a judge is about. A judge “needs to be above reproach,” Proud said, and needs to be “of the highest moral character.” Instead, Stracener is “casting aspersions on the judicial and bench officers.” Stracener is “challenging the credibility of judicial officers, it flows over to (other judges). If one does it, the public thinks we all do it.”
Proud again echoed other complaints against Stracener in that Stracener dips into lunch breaks and holds court later than he should, in what Proud called a “disregard for attorneys, court staff and litigants. They have personal obligations, but if the judge asks if they can stay a little late, they are not going to tell him no.” Proud mentioned that it would also cause childcare issues for those held late. Further, it would result in excess overtime for an already cash-strapped court system.
Proud did, however, want it clear that he had sat in on Stracener’s courtroom and had observed “nothing outrageous,” but his endorsement of Hoffman still stands.
“The population of El Dorado County need to be aware that either Stracecner is intentionally saying these things … or doesn’t understand, which is just as concerning,” Proud said. “I’m very uncomfortable with this, I don’t like coming out against a sitting judge.”
As a result, Proud was led to endorse Stracener’s opponent, Hoffman. “I’ve known Joe for years,” Proud said, and had faith that he is the better candidate for the job.
Contact Cole Mayer at 530-344-5068 or cmayer@mtdemocrat.net. Follow @CMayerMtDemo.
The Mountain Democrat does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy
ShaunJune 19, 2012 - 6:10 pm
Judge Proud, if a judge "needs to be above reproach and needs to be of the highest moral character," how in the world could you endorse Joe Hoffman? As a judge, you're expected to be able to tell right from wrong. You can't honestly look at the FBI investigation, the Hoffman attestation letter, and the devastation suffered by the victims of this fraud as "beyond reproach." If you absolutely feel compelled to endorse Hoffman, just do it, but don't pretend he's above reproach. If you really want to improve the credibility of judicial officers, like yourself, you really need to start thinking harder about lending your name to a candidate with such a dirty past, present, and future and one apparently devoid of integrity. Word on the street is that you are retiring soon and don't need to run in another election, so I endorsing this guy won't impact your political future, but it will impact the countless members of this county who trust and rely upon their elected officals.
1036-FrankJune 19, 2012 - 7:59 pm
There is a flock of "Good ol' Boys" still around still playing from their old playbook that worked so many times in so many rigged races in the past. The problem is people are aware of Hoffman's actions and the Folsom divorce attorney doesn't play well outside of Folsom where his office is. The old playbook has been torn up a few elections ago and people now will vote out a bad candidate. What is so striking to me, is that these judges have an ethical and required duty to report Hoffman to the State Bar for investigation under the Judicial ethics rules, not blindly endorse him. it is time for some retirements from the bench becuase the current crop needs thinning.
Ken SteersJune 19, 2012 - 8:21 pm
Hell yeah! Don't listen to all the sitting judges, the DA, all the lawyers and just about every law enforcement person in El Dorado county that endorses Joe Hoffman! They're "good old boys". Wasn't that the name of the country band from the movie Blues Brothers? Any how listen to Stracener's fine upstanding campaign team of Dellinger/Alarcon who post using pseudonyms. Does any one question what fine citizens Jake and Elmo are? Like the movie it appears they'll both be in jail soon and they'll need a good judge.
HERE, HERE!!!!June 19, 2012 - 8:23 pm
Hoffman is nowhere near being "beyond reproach"! He is very near a "roach," however. Hoffman is clearly not to be trusted. Look what others got when they "trusted" him - lies, fraud, misrepresentations.... That is exactly how Chartraw duped his victims - false endorsements and "attestations". "Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice, shame on me".
Chuck HollandJune 19, 2012 - 9:32 pm
Lets look at the facts of the two candidates, One (Hoffman) is a lawyer representing clients. He represented a dirt bag con man. OK I get that. I reviewed all the doc's, he's clean. Then there's Stracener, He's been caught lying, misrepresenting facts, has disgraced the judicial bench, has never had a criminal case, is very unqualified, has a campaign manager nearing an arrest, and the best part of his campaign: All the nameless skurge blogging on his behalf. If Stacener was "all that" his cheer leaders wouldn't feel the need to hide behind a fake name. I'll take Hoffman.
Fake LawyerJune 19, 2012 - 10:00 pm
I guess we don't really need any judges or jurors as long as Holland is in town. What does Holland know about whether Hoffman is clean or not? Holland is about as good a lawyer a Hoffman. Wink. Wink. Maybe someone should talk to the bail bondsman who had to drag Chartraw out of Mexico or pay $550,000 in bonds. Where was Hoffman then? Uh. Duh. I dunno notin. I'm just his lawyer.
ShaunJune 20, 2012 - 5:42 am
Ok Chuck, let's look at the facts and let's make them real simple for you: You get a letter in mail from an attorney, promising you that he has personally verified that a client has $6 million in property that will serve to insure any investment you choose to make with client. You are then told that client needs immediate cash to rescue his failing mining operation and that whatever financial investment you make will be doubled in a month. Based upon that attorney's personal and professional verification, you decide to invest $100,000 in this mining operation - double your money in 30 days, who wouldn't take that deal?! 30 days pass and no return on your investment; 60 days; 90 days still nothing. Then, you find out client has been arrested for wire fraud and elder fraud, fled the country, and that he never had that $6 million in collateral to back your investment as the attorney promised. Your money is gone and it's never coming back. You're telling me there's nothing wrong with what attorney did? I get the feeling that if someone personally verified they could insure a bail bond and you lost your investment you'd probably send somebody looking for him. So yes, Chuck, let's please stick to the facts and avoid any more of your simpleton, erroneous conclusions into issues you aren't qualified to decipher.
Chuck HollandJune 20, 2012 - 5:54 am
Sounds like some bail bondsman was conned into $550k worth of bail by Chartraw too. Its good to know he doesn't discriminate on whom he drags into his deceptive web. I guess the judge setting the $550k bail missed the fact that Chartraw was a con and forgot to add a 1275 hold. ( Curt, 1275 is found in the Penal Code, its one of those 29 pesky sets of books containing statutes.) Sounds like the bail bondsman did his job, found Chartraw and returned him to justice, just another day in the life for bail bondsman. Lawyers and bail bondsman share in the same pool of clients, been there done that. And to answer the question above, I believe in our legal system, we need qualified judges with integrity, Stracener doesn't fit that description.
Chuck HollandJune 20, 2012 - 6:12 am
Shaun calls me unqualified, and a simpleton? How do we know your not part of Straceners paid team? How do we know your not an angry Chartraw victim? How can we evaluate your credibility "Shaun"? Your qualifications, your basis of facts? You want to get your point across? Argue like a real man, lets take this debate toe to toe, you and me in a real format, in person. Its obvious you have an ax to grind with Joe, you continually champion incorrect information, riddled with half truths and sound bites. Similar to the press secretary of a mis-behaving politician.
1036-FrankJune 20, 2012 - 7:01 am
Seems everyone wants to speak for the Folsom divorce attorney Hoffman except Hoffman. Looks like the old I'll take the fifth as I might be in some big trouble. Hoffman refuses, so far, to discuss his role in this Chartraw fraud scheme where he, Hoffman, did far more then represent a client, In my opinion, he crossed the line of ethics and legalities which will be playing out in court and at the State Bar most likely soon. The defense that the con-man was so good he fooled Hoffman doesn't fly and raises judgment issues that have to be investigated because of the letter Hoffman wrote that appears to be part of the investor fraud. All of these "Endorsers" continue to embarass themselves and show the people that the "Good ol' Boys" have regrouped. They will try again to fool fools. People are voting against Hoffman because of legal/ethical issues and serious reasons never before seen in a local judge race and Hoffman may be "taking leave" soon to answer in court in New York. People are not necessarily voting for the other guy, but against Hoffman and his actions and his silence.
ShaunJune 20, 2012 - 7:47 am
Chuck, all of those facts are right here: (http://ourcameronpark.com/Gimenez-v-Hoffman-may-9.pdf) at Exhibit A on Hoffman & Hoffman letterhead and bearing what looks like the same signature Hoffman displayed on his campaign website. It's all there. I have no ax to grind against Hoffman - I don't know the guy. My problem is with the trusted officials in this county misrepresenting to the public that Hoffman did nothing wrong, while refusing to show the voters the facts and letting them come to their own conclusions. When you look at the facts in that letter, it becomes quite clear that these officials are trying to fool you. These actions are very, very wrong. Like I said earlier, if you want to endorse a guy, then endorse a guy - that's your right. But don't use your status as a trusted expert (I'm addressing the officials here, Chuck, not you) to try to convince people that the guy has even a shred integrity, credibility, or moral character. Anyone who would enable a client to perpetuate a fraud on innocent victims has none of that.
RebelJune 20, 2012 - 8:57 am
Just to say it isn't so doesn't make it true, having read the Federal documents and the NY case file it would be clear to a blind person (Ma Justice) that Hoffman is involved up to his eye balls and that he did much more than just pen a letter for his client. That said the bold fact that he choose to omit this fact or even explain it once found out is enough to discount him as a candidate for Judge but not for a partner to Chartraw. This case will go forward and the evidence will be presented in a court of law, but as far as Hoffman running for a Judgeship he should bow out and come clean. Chuck would have us all believe that Hoffman did no wrong but falls short of saying that; he just wants his guy at all costs, but when we are talking about a Judge who has answered all the trash talk with the truth and who is above reproach then Chuck's guy fails the smell test. The election will be held and we can only hope that the public have the chance to see the criminal case unfold before they cast their ballot, for then and only then will the truth be known. As far as the documentation is concerned it's there for all to read and make an informed decision, not based upon anyone else or the spin put on it, facts are facts and the Federal case is based upon that. We all have the chance to witness the politics in this race and who wants to endorse who but the bottom line is, there's illegal activity and a State Bar investigation is warranted and the truth will be told. So read the facts, listen to the evidence and see for yourself then vote absent any GOB network endorsements.
Jim RiordanJune 20, 2012 - 10:56 am
I agree with Ken and Chuck. It seems that the majority of Joe's endorsers are people who provably know well about the law, attorney client privilege and responsibilities on both sides. I believe it would probably be easy to show that they know a whole lot more about the law than the "curbstone lawyers" and negative commenters hiding behind their cowardly fake names. It seems an easy choice whom is more credible. Repeat after me, "anyone using a fake name has no credibility."
Walking TallJune 20, 2012 - 11:11 am
It matters not who writes under what name, it's the facts and the law that counts, who cares who the messenger is as long as the message is true. The attack on the messenger is just another diversion to the facts and a way to paint with a broad brush the facts away. I for one will always listen, investigate and seek out the truth based upon facts and not the name of the person who alerted me to them. Besides those who wish to use another name for whatever reason may have been wronged by those who they report on and since when is the identity more important than the information provided. The best reporter of facts never gives up their sources nor the identity of how they know it.
StayingontheSidelinesJune 20, 2012 - 1:50 pm
I personally know virtually everyone involved (hey Chuck!) and have emphatically decided there are no good candidates. Judges Phimister and Proud are really nice fellows, but... it rankles that all the law enforcement types (Vern and that Macgregor Scott person) are touting the fact that Hoffman wasn't charged as "proof" that he's innocent. Bull. Anyone with half a brain who's spent any time in the criminal justice system know that it could simply be that the prosecutor was lazy, or that the prosecutor felt he/she couldn't meet the burden of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt, or the cops didn't adequately investigate Hoffman as he wasn't the primary focus, or the cops were lazy and didn't investigate Hoffman at all. There are a myriad of reasons. As a lawyer, I cast a dim eye on anyone who has allegedly done what Hoffman did. We are supposed to avoid even the "appearance of impropriety" and it sounds like there was impropriety all over the place. I am most interested in the description of what happened by the poster Shaun. I skimmed the Sac Bee article and didn't get all that detail. Where did you find that information? On the other hand, Stracener is apparently not capable of churning out the cases as fast as this small county needs him to do. Although apparently "pleasant" to appear in front of, what the public has to decide is: a nice but slow judge, or, a guy who can decide cases speedily but is potentially tainted by what I would consider to be very serious allegations. I've spoken to most of the attorneys who are supporting Hoffman and most, if not all, are irked by how long it takes their cases to be heard by Stracener- yet they almost uniformly say he's nice. Oy vey. What a decision. That's why I'm staying on the sidelines! I sure wish there was another choice. Nothing here looks very good.
ShaunJune 20, 2012 - 2:37 pm
StayingontheSidelines, all the information is here: http://www.inedc.com/1-949
Unauthorized Practice of LawJune 20, 2012 - 2:41 pm
Hey, Chuck, here's a statute for you. Cal. Business & Professions Code Section 6125, et seq: "No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active member of the State Bar.". Until you can show everyone your California Bar card, keep your flawed and unlawful legal opinions to yourself.
Jim RiordanJune 20, 2012 - 2:44 pm
To staying on the sidelines: If you are indeed an attorney I respect the fact that you certainly know the law better than I. Forgive me, but my problem is, you said, and I quote "As a lawyer, I cast a dim eye on anyone who has allegedly done what Hoffman did". Sir No Name, when did "allegedly" turn into "Guilty" in the legal system?? . . . Is a "dim eye" the means of sight for a dim wit? Sorry, just wondering.
ShaunJune 20, 2012 - 2:45 pm
As for your hangup, as an attorney, you would know which option you prefer: (a) a judge who is going to really consider all the facts, each party's arguments, and the ramifications of making a decision that could have life-changing impact on the parties; vs. (b) a judge who has gone on the record on local television guaranteeing he would never take a single case under submission and would always rule on the spot. I would not want to appear in front of a judge who refuses to case under submission - that tells me the judge is coming in with a pre-determined hearing, and whether right or wrong, is going to stick with that decision. The appeal process is designed to correct the errors of the trial courts, but takes much more time and money to get the decision right than waiting a little bit of time to get it right on the first go-around.
HypocritesJune 20, 2012 - 3:10 pm
You Hoffman supporters want to focus on the "allegations" against Hoffman and that he is innocent until proven guilty. Fair enough. YET, you have all condemned Dellinger/Alarcon who still have the opportunity to prove their case. Pick a philosophy and stick with it. That being said, Dellinger/Alarcon are NOT running for a judicial position but Hoffman is. The fact that Hoffman now has TWO pending matters in New York Federal Court relating to his conduct vis-a-vis Chartraw is disturbing beyond reasonableness and it is shocking that Hoffman has not voluntarily removed himself from the race. Allegations are allegations BUT with Hoffman, there are numerous witnesses with the SAME story, an April 4, 2011 "Attestation Letter" prepared by Hoffman, a federal prisoner, FBI affidavits under the penalty of perjury and a federal indictment. Hoffman smells so bad it is amazing any of you are still willing to "attest" to his character. Sometimes the person we think we know is a person we really don't know at all.
Jim RiordanJune 20, 2012 - 3:14 pm
Dear "Unauthorized practice of law": Yours was perhaps the most comedy relief of all the posts. Since when is Chuck Holland's OPINION on anything "practicing law or giving out legal advice". If you truly believe that, perhaps you should look up the term "delusional." . . . There are licensed therapists for that . . . perhaps you should check in with one.
Bingo!June 20, 2012 - 3:43 pm
Delusional as used in Psychiatry: "maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts..." Hmmm. This sounds more like all the Hoffman supporters. Thanks for shining a light on this concept, Riordan.
Here's another one...June 20, 2012 - 4:56 pm
"Good Ol' Boy": 1. a male who embodies the unsophisticated good fellowship and sometimes boisterous sociability regarded as typical of white males of small towns and rural areas of the South. 2. a person who belongs to a network of friends and associates with close ties of loyalty and mutual support.
Who CaresJune 20, 2012 - 7:09 pm
Who really cares what is said when the evidence is so strong, never vote for a crook or one who supports one. The vote here is clear keep the sitting Judge and don't even consider a person with so much criminal baggage.
QuestionJune 21, 2012 - 1:14 am
If for some reason Hoffman is found not eligible to run for judge, would that put Valentine back in the running?
Could BeJune 21, 2012 - 6:26 am
No the election primary has run and unless he asks for and is granted a special election he is out. The best thing for this race is to have Hoffman bow out until his actions and involvement in have been completed. We already have a sitting Judge who has violated no laws and should be retained, then when Hoffman is clean he could try and run for Judge again.
Citizen for Good GovernanceJune 25, 2012 - 2:09 pm
I just read this article from the newspaper in Tahoe. Wow! These are the people involved with Stracener's campaign: By Kathryn Reed When the El Dorado County Grand Jury report comes out in the next week an item about the Pioneer Fire Protection District will seem a bit vague to those not in the know. This is because the consulting firm in question has not been named. The firm in question is Dan Dellinger Consulting. The Pioneer Fire Protection District hired the consultants after Dellinger listed Superior Court Judge Steven Bailey as a reference. It appears Bailey did not want the general public to know about his dealings with Dellinger and did what he could to ensure the ties would not come to light. Last summer the grand jury started looking into the small rural fire district’s hiring of Dan Dellinger Consulting, which is run by Dan Dellinger and Cris Alarcon. (Alarcon was arrested Feb. 6, 2012, by El Dorado County sheriff’s deputies on suspicion of using a false license plate and using a false vehicle registration. In March, Alarcon was arraigned on 14 charges. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges and is scheduled to be back in court in July.) The original contract between Pioneer fire and the consulting firm was modified in August 2011 because the original contract appeared to contain services for illegal campaign activity in violation of California Government Code Sections 8314 and 54964. The grand jury prepared a draft report on the entire matter and submitted it for review to Bailey. Bailey is the presiding judge of the grand jury and has been for a few years. He never recused himself from this matter despite having ties to Dellinger. Bailey was not available for comment. But Bailey also has ties to others in the county. Bailey is the brother-in-law of county Supervisor Ron Briggs and son-in-law of former state Sen. John Briggs. The elder Briggs is famous for the 1978 proposition called the Briggs Initiative that had it passed, would have meant all employees in California’s education system who are gay or lesbian and their supporters would have been fired. It’s not just Bailey who this consulting firm is tied to. Dan Dellinger Consulting in the past has managed the political campaigns of Sheriff John D’Agostini and county Supervisor Ray Nutting. The consulting firm is currently providing advice to Superior Court Judge Warren Stracener for his November election bid. Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed Stracener to the bench. Dellinger is also in the same camp as Rico Oller, who represented Lake Tahoe in the California Assembly and Senate, and who is trying to be this area’s assemblyman again. Years ago, Dellinger and Oller were involved in a questionable incident involving the killing of a bear. What gets convoluted is how it came to pass that Dan Dellinger Consulting is not mentioned by name in the report. When it came time to decide which of the two versions of the grand jury report involving Dellinger was to be the final one that would be printed Bailey was out of the office. El Dorado County Superior Court Judge Suzanne Kingsbury told Lake Tahoe News she was given the reports one day and told to make a decision that day. She does not know what the urgency was. But it was Bailey who asked her to read the reports. Both work in the courthouse in South Lake Tahoe. “All I did was read two different versions and selected the one that was better written,” Kingsbury told Lake Tahoe News on June 24. “I didn’t edit anything. I read two different versions, pure and simple. One had attachments with extraneous writing. I didn’t know where that came from.” Without supporting documentation to the handwritten items, Kingsbury said it was not publishable on those grounds. The naming of people was not a concern to her. But who wrote on the documents is not known, but presumably it was Bailey who marred the documents because grand jury foreman Ted Long told Lake Tahoe News the originals went to Bailey and they came back “edited to pieces.” Kingsbury said she made no edits. For a number of months the grand jury had been debating whether to include Dellinger’s name in the report. Libel and slander were reasons for concern, though Long said that can be the case with any investigation. Long sent an email to Lake Tahoe News and others (that LTN has not edited), that says, “After review Kingsbury invoking penal code section 929 was concerned about potential libel/slander actions, choice to remove the attachments and the specific mention of Dillinger Consulting.” That code deals with the slander-libel issues. But Kingsbury is adamant her decision “didn’t involve section 929.” Also on June 24, Long spoke with Lake Tahoe News, stating that Kingsbury invoked 929 as her reason. However, he admitted that Kingsbury neither told him this in writing nor verbally, but that he surmised there could be no other reason for picking the report she picked. He was not aware the version with Dellinger’s name had handwritten notes on it because it didn’t when it left the grand jury office.
Lake Tahoe NewsJune 25, 2012 - 3:18 pm
El Dorado County judge tied to firm grand jury probed Posted by admin in Featured Articles, News on June 25th, 2012 | 8 responses By Kathryn Reed When the El Dorado County Grand Jury report comes out in the next week an item about the Pioneer Fire Protection District will seem a bit vague to those not in the know. This is because the consulting firm in question has not been named. The firm in question is Dan Dellinger Consulting. The Pioneer Fire Protection District hired the consultants after Dellinger listed Superior Court Judge Steven Bailey as a reference. It appears Bailey did not want the general public to know about his dealings with Dellinger and did what he could to ensure the ties would not come to light. Last summer the grand jury started looking into the small rural fire district’s hiring of Dan Dellinger Consulting, which is run by Dan Dellinger and Cris Alarcon. (Alarcon was arrested Feb. 6, 2012, by El Dorado County sheriff’s deputies on suspicion of using a false license plate and using a false vehicle registration. In March, Alarcon was arraigned on 14 charges. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges and is scheduled to be back in court in July.) The original contract between Pioneer fire and the consulting firm was modified in August 2011 because the original contract appeared to contain services for illegal campaign activity in violation of California Government Code Sections 8314 and 54964. The grand jury prepared a draft report on the entire matter and submitted it for review to Bailey. Bailey is the presiding judge of the grand jury and has been for a few years. He never recused himself from this matter despite having ties to Dellinger. Bailey was not available for comment. But Bailey also has ties to others in the county. Bailey is the brother-in-law of county Supervisor Ron Briggs and son-in-law of former state Sen. John Briggs. The elder Briggs is famous for the 1978 proposition called the Briggs Initiative that had it passed, would have meant all employees in California’s education system who are gay or lesbian and their supporters would have been fired. It’s not just Bailey who this consulting firm is tied to. Dan Dellinger Consulting in the past has managed the political campaigns of Sheriff John D’Agostini and county Supervisor Ray Nutting. The consulting firm is currently providing advice to Superior Court Judge Warren Stracener for his November election bid. Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed Stracener to the bench. Dellinger is also in the same camp as Rico Oller, who represented Lake Tahoe in the California Assembly and Senate, and who is trying to be this area’s assemblyman again. Years ago, Dellinger and Oller were involved in a questionable incident involving the killing of a bear. What gets convoluted is how it came to pass that Dan Dellinger Consulting is not mentioned by name in the report. When it came time to decide which of the two versions of the grand jury report involving Dellinger was to be the final one that would be printed Bailey was out of the office. El Dorado County Superior Court Judge Suzanne Kingsbury told Lake Tahoe News she was given the reports one day and told to make a decision that day. She does not know what the urgency was. But it was Bailey who asked her to read the reports. Both work in the courthouse in South Lake Tahoe. “All I did was read two different versions and selected the one that was better written,” Kingsbury told Lake Tahoe News on June 24. “I didn’t edit anything. I read two different versions, pure and simple. One had attachments with extraneous writing. I didn’t know where that came from.” Without supporting documentation to the handwritten items, Kingsbury said it was not publishable on those grounds. The naming of people was not a concern to her. But who wrote on the documents is not known, but presumably it was Bailey who marred the documents because grand jury foreman Ted Long told Lake Tahoe News the originals went to Bailey and they came back “edited to pieces.” Kingsbury said she made no edits. For a number of months the grand jury had been debating whether to include Dellinger’s name in the report. Libel and slander were reasons for concern, though Long said that can be the case with any investigation. Long sent an email to Lake Tahoe News and others (that LTN has not edited), that says, “After review Kingsbury invoking penal code section 929 was concerned about potential libel/slander actions, choice to remove the attachments and the specific mention of Dillinger Consulting.” That code deals with the slander-libel issues. But Kingsbury is adamant her decision “didn’t involve section 929.” Also on June 24, Long spoke with Lake Tahoe News, stating that Kingsbury invoked 929 as her reason. However, he admitted that Kingsbury neither told him this in writing nor verbally, but that he surmised there could be no other reason for picking the report she picked. He was not aware the version with Dellinger’s name had handwritten notes on it because it didn’t when it left the grand jury office. Facebook Twitter Email Free PDF Send article as PDF Print This Story Print This Story 8 Responses to “El Dorado County judge tied to firm grand jury probed” Steve June 25, 2012 at 7:27 am Is our entire court full of kangaroos? lou pierini June 25, 2012 at 8:29 am When Long is involved anything can happen. Marcia June 25, 2012 at 8:57 am Why does a fire protection district require the services of a consulting firm, particularly one that appears to specialize in political campaigns, and what amount of taxpayer dollars were spent for these services? dryclean June 25, 2012 at 9:38 am Conflicts of interest seem to be the rage lately. How do these public officials go forward with integrity knowing that they should recuse themselves. I guess paying back favors to clients and freinds trumps inegrity and honesty. First we have our own councilman Grego (loop road) and now we have a judge. The only solution is to vote all incumbents out regardless of political affiliation and for grand juries to step up their efforts to expose such behavior. This then needs to be followed up by district attornies taking on these cases and setting some examples. Ted Long June 25, 2012 at 12:25 pm As Lou said, when I am involved the truth will be told. This matter involves the actions of the Pioneer Fire district board and their consultant. In my opinion the judges in this matter where solely concerned about the role and the potential liability of the Grand Jury and no more than that should be read in to it. The Fact is the Pioneer Fire district, in the opinion of the Grand Jury, made a mistake and the District Attorney will sort it out. Other issues surrounding the consultant should be judged on their own merit and not as one. Judge Bailey has been active with and a real asset to the Grand Jury, he has always acted with integrity and honor. The fact that we have such wonderful methods today of communicating, such as the internet, should be used for useful purposes not to spread innuendo and false claims. Jack June 25, 2012 at 1:54 pm Steve Bailey is heavily involved with Judge Stracener’s campaign. So is Dan Dellinger. Could it be that Judge Bailey is trying to make Dellinger consulting look okay to make sure Judge Stracener’s campaign is not harmed? Judges June 25, 2012 at 1:54 pm Dan Dellinger (the scum bag) + Chris Alarcon (the felon)= Warren Stracner (the incumbent) REALLY!!! This guy has to get voted out if this is his judgment of who to hire to run a campaign in the county he is a sitting judge in. Jack June 25, 2012 at 2:16 pm A summary of the article: Steve Bailey is very involved in Stracener’s campaign and so is Dan Dellinger. Is Bailey protecting Dellinger so that Stracener’s campaign will not look bad? I believe so.
TESTJune 25, 2012 - 3:21 pm
TEST
Stracner is tied with scumbagsJune 25, 2012 - 3:29 pm
http://www.laketahoenews.net/2012/06/el-dorado-county-judge-tied-to-firm-grand-jury-investigated/