Spoiler Alert on the OJ’s Paul Lucas Story

PaulLucas

Paul Lucas, Photo: OCWeekly

After reading Parts I and II of Vern Nelson’s epic “Paul Lucas is Our Hero” series, I wasn’t sure if I was reading a political blog or watching a drama on the Hallmark Channel.  Nelson’s posts paint a story of good vs. evil, or right vs. wrong, of justice vs. injustice, and promises a happy ending to the entire story.  What the story is really about is the fall from grace from someone who seemed to have a promising future in our party and instead will soon be a guest of taxpayers.

Nelson has an interesting definition of happy ending.

According to the Orange County District Attorney’s office, John Paul Lucas of Orange pleaded guilty February 10, 2014 to a singe felony count of possession of a controlled substance, which court documents identify as methamphetamine (think the size of a golf ball).  He has been sentenced to 120 days in county lockup (likely Theo Lacy Jail) beginning March 14, 2014.  Lucas will have to pay several fines associated with his conviction.  And he has three years of supervised probation.

Jail time (likely to be two months served instead of the full four), fines and probation can only be viewed as a “happy ending” by Nelson in the context of additional drug and weapons charges that were dropped against Lucas which carried sentences of four to six years each. So it could have been much worse. We’re told that it is unlikely Lucas will have access to medical marijuana while incarcerated.

In a comment on the OJ blog’s first post on the story, Lucas downplayed the case.  He wrote: “…it sounds much ore (sic) sinister than the reality of it. The cannabis was mine, very legal. The guns were mine. All registered in my name, no ammunition, locked away downstairs in the garage, disassembled, and or safety locked in their case that was locked in the storage container in the garage. The controlled substance did not belong to me. However, legally, I had whats called constructive possession of it. All gun charges were dropped, all cannabis charges were dropped, and the controlled substance charge was reduced.”

The controlled substance charge was originally a felony charge and it remained a felony charge; we’re still waiting on court records to see if this claim holds up.  The DA’s office says it was not “diminished.”

According to the Orange County Registrar of Voters, Lucas’ felony conviction, jail sentence and probation make him ineligible to vote in local, state or federal elections until February 9, 2017 when he is eligible to re-register.

Lucas was arrested October 2011 in possession of nearly 11 ounces of marijuana, 3 grams ounces of methamphetamine, and four firearms: a .22 caliber rifle and ammunition, a 12 gauge pump action shotgun, a .357 pistol and a 9MM automatic Lugar pistol.  Officers also seized more than $9,000 in cash.  Lucas’ felony conviction means he must surrender his rights to own these weapons under law.  His chances of getting his legal gun rights restored is a difficult and lengthy process the requires securing a Certificate of Rehabilitation through the Superior Court in Orange County after proving that he’s been “a good honest citizen for several years” or if he successfully makes a direct appeal for pardon to the Governor. It’s almost certain Lucas will never legally be able to possess a firearm ever again.

Lucas’ March 14 date for incarceration means he can still attend and vote in the state Democratic Party’s Convention which is a week earlier.  Lucas is a Democratic Party delegate in AD-68.  The bylaws on the removal of a delegate depend more on public support of a candidate other than the one officially endorsed by the party or registering with another party and are not based on if a delegate has a felony conviction.

Lucas’ conviction is a black eye for Democrats in Orange County on a number of fronts.  Nelson’s defense of Lucas with an eye towards the character assassination of the Buena Park Brea Police Officers who investigated the case is particularly shameful.  But the attempt to whitewash Lucas’ reputation by elevating his reaction to the arrest and prosecution that Lucas is somehow the victim here is just dumb.

We’ve received a number of threatening messages from Lucas over the years, accusing us of being “full throated Jannies” (supporters of Janet Nguyen) despite their being little evidence of this and generally making a number of false statements about how this blog is operated or our support of certain candidates or issues.  You simply can’t trust him to be truthful about anything he says about us.  When we sued the Orange Juice blog in 2010, Lucas sent email threatening us and calling for us to “cease and desist” our “thuggish ways.”  And most recently, in a comment on another blog last year, Lucas suggested he would “stand his ground” if we ever wrote about him again. So in that light, we’re happy he can’t legally own a gun again.

My last interaction with Lucas in person was at the DPOC’s open house for the new headquarters in Orange.  I was chatting with Nick Anas and Lucas came outside the door and I said hello to him (and Nick is my witness).  And I did approach Lucas inside the hall to tell him I had deleted some anonymous and nasty comments about him on this blog for violations of terms of service.  He asked what the comments were about and I said “your pending drug trial.” Then I got up and left.   But if you believe what he writes online, you’d swear I’m in his face asking for a fight.  Frankly, I want nothing to do with him.

I make it a policy, generally speaking, not to give money to candidates I can’t personally vote for.  I have violated that four times.  I have written checks to Loretta Sanchez, Sharon Quirk-Silva, Lorri Galloway, and I wrote a $100 check to Paul Lucas when he was running for assembly.  We all make mistakes don’t we?

 

 

  93 comments for “Spoiler Alert on the OJ’s Paul Lucas Story

  1. junior
    February 19, 2014 at 3:37 pm

    According to the World Clown Association membership has fallen from 3,500 to 2,500 clowns in the past decade. Lucas would fit right in …… no training needed.

    http://www.aol.com/article/2014/02/18/america-suffering-from-clown-shortage/20832582/?icid=maing-grid7

  2. February 19, 2014 at 3:54 pm

    Can Nelson and Diamond join too?

  3. SanTana
    February 19, 2014 at 7:04 pm

    You fail to mention that Nelson himself has FOUR DUIs and is hardly a credible source of anything.

  4. February 19, 2014 at 9:56 pm

    Full-throated Jannies? My, where would anyone get the idea you guys are full-throated Jannies?

    http://www.theliberaloc.com/2008/04/23/the-devil-made-me-do-it/

    • February 19, 2014 at 10:24 pm

      Vern, I fail to see how that post is in any way supportive of Janet Nguyen; it’s critical of Paul’s actions. Paul got used by Van Tran.

  5. henry lipton
    February 19, 2014 at 10:32 pm

    Ive read both parts. It was the Buena Park Police Department. Not the Brea Police department. And as far as Vern vilifying these cops, the cops do that themselves. You can see that by clicking on the hyperlinks in the column. And I found this doing a search of Janet Nguyen on the OC weekly website.

    http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2012/05/frank_barbaro_democratic_party_orange_county.php

  6. February 19, 2014 at 10:43 pm

    Thanks. I had Buena Park in my notes and reflectively typed Brea because I had an appointment there this morning. Correcting.

  7. cook
    February 20, 2014 at 7:09 am

    Boy o boy did Paul screw up.

  8. February 20, 2014 at 7:59 am

    Since you have no analytical skills, Dan, I’m going to help you understand how this post http://www.theliberaloc.com/2008/04/23/the-devil-made-me-do-it/ is a Janny screed. Well, not you because you won’t listen, but your dozen readers. And yes I realize that your colleague Chris wrote it, but as far as anyone can tell, you stand foursquare with Chris’ Jannyism.

    The post is HYSTERICAL – and I don’t mean in the corrupted usage of “hysterically funny,” but that it shows HYSTERIA – and the hysteria is over you guys’ fear, back in spring 2008, that JANET’S EASY ELECTION TO SUPERVISOR MIGHT BE IMPERILED – by Paul’s actions, and by the candidacy of Hoa Van Tran. The post breathes that hysterical fear.

    Chris frets, in April 2008, that his enemies “clearly want to force Janet Nguyen into a runoff in November” – whether against Dina or Hoa. Well, what could be wrong with that? Unless you’re a full-throated Jannie who wants her coronation to come as quickly and painlessly as possible.

    The most absurd part, of which I’m sure you can’t see the absurdity, is when he brings up OC Republicans’ history (in the 90’s) of running fake Democrats to drain votes away from real Democrats. (I’m a little conscious of that right now, as the Supes have just put Mark Denny – someone who was convicted of just that – in charge of overseeing our elections – so I’m writing up a recap of those days.) Chris worries that Hoa is a fake Democrat, put into the race to siphon off votes from … who? JANET! Hello, guys? JANET IS NOT A DEMOCRAT. Hoa was a “fake Democrat” because he might have taken votes away from … a Republican you guys happened to love?

    The assumption that Democrats should support Janet Nguyen is so deep in you guys’ DNA that you don’t even notice it. And it went on for years, until she more recently got too toxic for even you.

    Apart from that, your hatchet job on Paul is exactly as error-ridden as expected. It’s a given that you’d believe anything coming out of the cops’ mouths, so I won’t dispute that here, although anyone who objectively read through documents like the Probable Cause hearing which I’ve linked to – the testifying officer Hong not even being able to recall if Paul’s guns were loaded, no police report, no photos – would scoff, and retreat into believing Paul’s version of events as I do.

    But okay, you are Dan C, friend of Matt C, and drug cops are a fount of truth. Paul says his girlfriend brought over what he estimated as a ¼ gram of meth (which would be the size of … hmm… a spit wad.) The cops let him go that night, and many weeks later claim to have weighed the meth and found it to be nearly 3 grams. Which would be the size of a marble. And which would be an amount suggesting intent to sell, in which case they would never have let Paul go that very night as they did.

    But let’s say the cops told the truth and it WAS just under 3 grams. DAN CHANGES GRAMS TO OUNCES. Dan says Paul had THREE OUNCES of meth on him, and Dan says “think the size of a golf ball.” (I don’t know where he gets that, three ounces would be the size of a large orange.) HELLO, GENIUS? An ounce is about 30 grams. You don’t need to take drugs to know that, in fact you must be on drugs not to. Paul would be in federal “slam me in the a** prison” if he had that much drugs in his place.

    What else. That’s enough, I got more work to do. But Paul IS going to keep voting. And not for Janet Nguyen. Thanks for steering a couple of readers over to my blog, Dan – it’s not much but I know it’s the best you could do.

    • February 20, 2014 at 8:32 am

      Vern, I did make a mistake on the weight and reflected ounces to say grams. So that and writing Brea cops instead of Buena Park are I believe my only errors. I didn’t speak to the cops involved. I did speak with the DA’s office, the registrar of voters, and checking with those familiar with county jails and sentencing (a peace officer and a LAPD captain) that Paul will likely be a short time guest I also researched the ability of convicted felons to own a gun and how they might get gun rights restored. As for believing the law enforcement community over Paul, that’s a no brainer; both Chris and I have been the subject of false accusations from Paul over the years so if I’m to err on who is telling the truth or not, I will believe what the cops and the DA had to say. On the weight, the cops measured the meth. Paul guestimated the weight. I am supposed to believe the person who didn’t weigh the drug?

      As far as truthiness goes, Paul says in a comment on your blog he had no ammunition for his guns. The cops saw ammo for the .22. Paul says the controlled substance charge was diminished. The DA says no it wasn’t. So please weigh my two errors versus Paul’s two lies. And Vern, you’re not an objective party when it comes to reviewing court documents.

      As far as Chris’s piece, I’ll let him defend it. But again, to suggest we’re in league with Ms. Nguyen, we’re not. Your own blog was very enamored with Janet when she first ran. I’m backing Solorio in the state senate race and have already written him a check.

      I’m sorry to tell you, Paul is ineligible to vote until 2017.

    • February 21, 2014 at 8:00 am

      Vern,

      My post was in no way hysterical, under any definition. As far as who votes would be siphoned from, the candidate was Van Tran’s choice Dina Nguyen.

      My post was no more hysterical than the contortions that you and Greg go through arguing that elected officials such as Tom Daly, Jordan Brandman, and Jose Solorio are less than real democrats because their positions differ from yours.

      My post was specifically related to the actions of a Central Committee member allowing, his name, and that of the Democratic Party, to support the infighting of one factions of the local GOP. From a purely partisan position, we had no horse in that internal GOP battle. I stand by my position that Hoa Van Tran was a stealth candidate put forward by Van Tran to enhance the position of his hand-picked candidate in the Supervisor’s race.

      You have however made it clear that you are a “full-throated Taiter” supporting Tait over the lone Democrat currently running for Mayor in Anaheim.

      To paraphrase your own words Vern:

      The assumption that Democrats should support Tom Tait is so deep in you guys’ (you and Greg to a lesser extent) DNA that you don’t even notice it.

  9. February 20, 2014 at 8:12 am

    Oh right – I had meant to also say this:

    Since you are such a good friend of the Brea, I mean Buena Park cops, Dan, maybe you can find out for us: Of the two main cops who raided Paul, why was Alex Hong (who testified so pathetically) demoted from detective to patrol officer shortly therafter, and why was Steven Yakubovsky (who threw Paul’s heart medicine into the bushes) FIRED shortly thereafter?

    You are close to those Brea I mean Buena Park cops so could you do us a solid and find that out? Nobody else can, because of POBR (the Peace Officers’ Bill of Rights, you lummox.)

    • February 20, 2014 at 9:22 am

      Vern — I have corrected elements of my story where I made simple errors; I recall you editing whole passages of your strip club/Matt Cunningham piece to cover your mistakes and did see you made a mistake in where Lucas finished in his run for Garden Grove City Council. If you’d like me to reiterate every mistake you’ve made in your posts over and over again, happy to do so.

      If you have any evidence that these officers status was changed as the result of the way they handled the Paul Lucas case, please present it. Otherwise, I’d have to say it’s an interesting conspiracy theory on your part and potentially libelous. I know quite a few police officers and have talked with them about cases they work on. Every cop I personally know cares about public safety and worries about getting shot on the job. Their biggest fear is not being there for their families. Are there bad cops out there? Yes. Is there any proof that these Buena Park cops are bad? No.

      I’ll point out you posted the transcript of only one hearing. There are other documents out there and you know this. But posted comments from someone’s Facebook page as evidence of corruption against Paul is pretty lame and with some of the images, I question your reading comprehension. So the cops in the drug unit have a ritual and this proves what exactly? A shot of booze and hot sauce doesn’t mean they are out to violate anyone’s rights.

      Since I’ve never been arrested, never been to jail, never tried narcotics, I have little sympathy for you or Paul

  10. February 20, 2014 at 9:28 am

    ” Your own blog was very enamored with Janet when she first ran. ”

    That was Art, not me. Art was a Republican. What was you guys’ excuse?

  11. February 20, 2014 at 9:50 am

    I have no idea why Hong and the Yak were demoted and fired; we CAN’T know. But it’s worth considering, along with many other factors, when determining the credibility of the two sides of the story.

    And I notice: When you write about someone you don’t like, grams become ounces; but when you want to minimize the alcohol abuse of cops, a “Red Solo Cup” (which we all know is about six inches tall) becomes “a shot.”

    The common denominator? A factor of about 30:1 in Dan’s truthiness quotient.

    • February 20, 2014 at 10:33 am

      the comment was meant to be flip; actually Vern, I don’t drink that much so I didn’t know the “red solo cup” is six inches tall. If its the red cups Costco sells, I use them for lemonade at BBQs at my house. But whether or not a quarter gram of an illegal substance or 3 grams of an illegal substance, it’s still an illegal substance. And are you actually calling into question truthiness after the two pieces you wrote? Wow…

      • February 20, 2014 at 2:53 pm

        I remain impressed of your knowledge of Alcohol and Drug-Related information Vern…..also you seem to know a lot about anal rape in jail.

    • February 21, 2014 at 9:27 am

      Vern — I don’t understand why the “Firing In” ritual is so vital to your story. What difference does it make? And you still haven’t addressed the false statements Paul made in his comments that the felony charge against him was “diminished” and that there was no ammunition at the residence. But truthiness is a one way street. Paul’s four amendment rights weren’t violated and the search warrant was justified the moment the police found the meth in his bathroom safe (a safe in the bathroom? really?).

      My hat’s off to your team for your knowledge of drug/drinking culture. And quite a collection of unemployed or underemployed folks with a lot of time on their hands. Has Zenger found another high paying government job yet? And no, people who don’t use drugs or drink excessively won’t know what some of these things mean. There are certainly better things to spend money on.

  12. February 20, 2014 at 5:18 pm

    “Federal slam-me-in-the-a** prison” (it should have been “Federal pound-me-in-the-a** prison”) was a facetious reference to the movie “Office Space.” Probably a little too hip for you. It WAS from the 90’s.

  13. February 21, 2014 at 9:20 am

    Prevatt: “The assumption that Democrats should support Tom Tait is so deep in you guys’ (you and Greg to a lesser extent) DNA that you don’t even notice it.”

    Never said any such thing, Chris. I like Tom a lot, but I can see plenty of good reasons why a Democrat could choose Lorri over him. Anyway, I stand by my interpretation, you stand by yours, Paul stands by his actions, nice hashing it out and “taking a walk down memory lane.”

  14. February 21, 2014 at 9:30 am

    PS I’ll take my tait to your janet any day!

    • February 21, 2014 at 4:07 pm

      no surprise there; notice Tait never added your in-kind contribution as a piano player at his fundraiser.

  15. February 21, 2014 at 9:45 am

    Dan: “… the search warrant was justified the moment the police found the meth in his bathroom safe…”

    Wow, you are pioneering novel Constitutional territory, Counsellor! I see an internship with John Woo in your future.

    I haven’t looked real closely at what Paul has written in comments. My concern is what *I* wrote in parts 1 and 2, and will write in parts 3 and 4. And this is a kaleidoscopic, novelistic, entertaining series – drug cops getting “fired in” fits just fine. Wait till you see the fun detours and asides coming up! I know you’re on the edge of your seat…

    • February 21, 2014 at 11:39 am

      Paul downplayed his felony conviction and lied about having ammunition for one of his weapons. The warrant was issued for probable cause and when the meth was discovered, it’s proof the information the police got was accurate.

      A more interesting question Vern, as you are knowledgeable about narcotics and alcohol consumption, can a person be “sober” but a user of medical marijuana? Is there a fine line between being stoned and being drunk?

      The nature of the post is to dispel your contention Paul is some sort of hero. He’s not. Is Mike Carona a hero for capturing Samantha Runnion’s murderer? Or is he, like Paul, just a convicted felon?

  16. junior
    February 21, 2014 at 10:01 am

    The search warrant was justified after Lucas (and/or his girl friend) was identified – in a name 3 & go free scenario – and subsequently seen associating with a known narco criminal.

  17. February 21, 2014 at 10:13 am

    * I mean John Yoo. Bush’s guy. Or make it Alberto Gonzales.

    • February 21, 2014 at 11:43 am

      confusing a movie director with a former justice department official? Exactly the sort of error-filled mean-spirited comment I’d expect from you….

      Guess we all make mistakes, don’t we?

      “Office Space” quotes. Lame flick.

  18. junior
    February 21, 2014 at 11:52 am

    It is amazing to me that anyone would even care about an asshole dipshit like Lucas – the whole thing is a waste of time – although, somewhat entertaining.

    • February 21, 2014 at 2:33 pm

      After reading Vern’s stories and Paul’s comments, it’s amazing what a couple of phone calls can reveal

  19. jose s.
    February 21, 2014 at 3:10 pm

    wow cheminowski since you wrote this post and reading your comments here it’s easy to see you’re a very petty and vindictive guy. kind of explains the whole lame pedroza “lawsuit”. in a lot of ways you’re very much like him.

  20. henry lipton
    February 21, 2014 at 3:24 pm

    I’ve read both parts even with a word finder, I could not find the word diminished. I do read the word “Reduced”. In that same comment I read that gun charges were dismissed and cannabis charges were dismissed. I don’t see the word “Diminished” anywhere in either of these posts or in any of the comments.

    Do you care to clarify on what the charges was reduced or dismissed or diminished to? Or may be you can give us the same phone number to the DA that knows this case. And by the way, how did you get a phone number to a DA or the DA or whom ever gave you this information over the phone? Aren’t there any kind of privacy laws for this? Don’t you have to get your information about these things in person and show ID? Did you do that? If so, I got to ask, what is your interest in this guy? And why do you keep beating up on the guy?

    • February 21, 2014 at 4:03 pm

      The possession of a controlled substance was not reduced either. Is that clear enough.

      The DA is a public agency with a media relations person. The case number is a public record. You can look it up on the county courts website. The charges are identified by a code which is easily cross-referenced. I called, identified myself (it helps I’ve chatted with them before and we are on the DA’s press list). I asked questions and they answered what can legally answer without a lot of spin.

      My interest in this case was zero until I read Vern’s posts that paint quite a different portrait of the Paul Lucas I’ve come to know. Remember, we’ve received a number of threats from him over the years and much of what Paul has written about us and how we operate the blog is factually incorrect. I don’t view this as beating him up. I view this as setting a record straight. I don’t think Paul is a victim here.

  21. Henry Lipton
    February 21, 2014 at 4:12 pm

    Can you share this case number so we can fact check you? Are all the other charges dropped as he claimed? What were the charges and what were the final charges reduced diminished or dismissed to?

  22. February 21, 2014 at 4:28 pm

    Henry — The final charge of possession of a controlled substance was not reduced or diminished.

    No, I am not sharing the case number. You can look it up just like I did. and while you’re at it, look up the rules for the ability of convicted felons to vote or own a firearm.

    Will you be fact checking Vern too?

  23. henry lipton
    February 21, 2014 at 4:40 pm

    Simple possession? That’s it in the end? The other charges were dismissed then? Isn’t simple possession a misdemeanor? I mean isn’t the whole Obama administration looking to put a stop to incarceration of people who simply possess a personal amount of illicit substances? Isn’t simple possession the same charge that that congressman from Florida got for buying an 8 ball from an undercover cop? By the way, an 8 ball is MORE than 3 grams. An 8 ball is 3.5 grams. It sounds to me you’re making a mountain out of amole hill just to beat up on a guy you don’t like. This dislike comes from some mistake he made that was aimed at a Republican that turned out to be a real grease ball. That same Republican has enjoyed the silence from you and this blog for many of her most egregious acts. Its just not adding up Dan. I thin you are over reacting on this case. And Ive looked up Nadia Lockyer, she was in her room smoking meth while her 8 year old child was watching. That to me sounds a lot more dangerous and serious than this case.

  24. Dan Chmielewski
    February 21, 2014 at 10:02 pm

    Likely a plea bargain.

  25. jose s.
    February 22, 2014 at 12:03 am

    he is making a big deal out of this cheminowski is just a big bully.

  26. henry lipton
    February 22, 2014 at 9:53 am

    Well, I just did a search on Nadia at the OC Weekly. Its more than a plea bargain. The woman had her husband pull her out of the fire completely. All charges dropped. Even the child endangerment charges. As I understand the possession charges, under the influence, and paraphernalia charges can be lowered to a misdemeanor with rehab or meetings assigned by the court. But not the child endangerment charges. Most people would be in jail for that alone.

    In her case, apparently, her husbands connections got all charges dropped. This is all reported in the local papers. I’m sure if I cast a wider net to papers up north there would be even more nefarious pieces to her story. This is clear example of a two tier justice system. Those in positions of power and access get not punishment while others get the heavy hammer of an un-just system. So it sounds like this guy is getting the punishment that these two “politicos” should have gotten.

    http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2013/11/nadia_maria_davis_lockyer_reve.php

    http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2014/01/oc_prosecutors_drop_all_charge.php

    http://www.ocweekly.com/2014-01-16/news/nadia-maria-davis-lockyer/

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/rep-radel-invited-an-undercover-cop-to-his-house-to-do-coke

  27. henry lipton
    February 23, 2014 at 1:39 pm

    I was not able to find anything under Paul Lucas’ name at all? I don’t get it? But I was bale to find Nadia Lockyers case. The details are below. Im not sure why I cant find Paul Lucas’ case at all. below you will see that Nadia Lockyer was under the influence, had possession of methamphetamine, and had a meth pipe, and was also endangering her child by what appears to me, from the published news reports on OC weekly and papers up in San Jose area. Additionally, this is no less than the 2nd time she had an encounter with police while high on meth and had her kid with her. So I cant compare the two cases because I cannot find any case on Paul Lucas.

    Case Detail
    Case Number: 12CF2562

    OC Pay Number: 7331060
    Originating Court: Central

    Defendant: Lockyer, Nadia Maria Davis
    Case Status: Closed
    Details…
    Case Stage: – Release Status: – DMV Hold: N
    Charging Document: Complaint Mandatory Appearance: Y Amendment #: 0

    Case Info Hearing Info Release Info Sentencing

    Counts
    4 counts found, displaying all counts.1

    1 08/ 28/2012 11377(a) HS F Possession of a controlled substance NOT GUILTY 08/30/2012 Dismissed 01/17/2014

    2 0 08/28/2012 11550(a) HS M Under the influence of a controlled substance NOT GUILTY 08/30/2012 Dismissed 01/17/2014

    3 0 08/28/2012 11364.1(a) HS M Possession of opium pipe and/or controlled substance paraphernalia NOT GUILTY 08/30/2012 Dismissed 01/17/2014

    4 0 08/28/2012 273a(b) PC M Child abuse and endangerment NOT GUILTY 08/30/2012 Dismissed 01/17/2014

  28. Dan Chmielewski
    February 23, 2014 at 6:25 pm

    try searching under “John Paul Lucas” instead of Paul Lucas.

  29. henry lipton
    February 23, 2014 at 7:01 pm

    That worked. Looks like Lucas got the same as Nadia. 11378 Simple possession. that’s Health and safety Code 11377 (a)
    The exact same as Nadia Lockyer. So if Im not mistaken, Lockyer had her connections get her out of trouble for no less than the 3rd time. I also see nothing but traffic tickets on Lucas’ history on the courthouse website. All his charges were dismissed. He says the controlled substance charge was Reduced. Maybe it was reduced to simple possession from intent to sell? Which I don’t think they could have gotten with such a small amount anyway. So maybe you are making a mountain out of a mole hill after all. And at the same time, you have said nothing about a woman who has endangered her own child multiple times. Lucas doesn’t appear to have any record at all prior to this.

    1 0 10/26/2011 11378 HS F Possession of controlled substance with intent to sell Dismissed 02/10/2014

    1 1 10/26/2011 12022(c) PC F ENH: Personally armed with firearm. DENIED 07/18/2012 Dismissed 02/10/2014

    2 0 10/26/2011 11359 HS F Possession for sale of marijuana Dismissed 02/10/2014

    2 1 10/26/2011 12022(a)(1) PC F ENH-Armed with firearm in the commission of a felony DENIED 07/18/2012 Dismissed 02/10/2014

    3 0 10/26/2011 11377(a) HS F Possession of a controlled substance GUILTY 02/10/2014 Pled Guilty 02/10/2014

  30. henry iipton
    February 23, 2014 at 8:32 pm

    http://ranchosantamargarita.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/petrilla-releases-statement-about-2001-arrest

    People of means get a separate set of rules to live by. But what I don’t understand is why are you A “Liberal” are beating up on this guy for something as minor as simple possession which he says didn’t even belong to him. but you say nothing about hat guy that’s a convicted of voter fraud running the Registrar of Voters in OC, and this guy in RSM who tried to kill a bunch of people? So can you explain to me why these people get a pass by you but you dog pile on this guy? Over something to do with Janet Nguyen?

    I mean seriously? What has Janet Nguyen done to be able to enjoy your silence for her transgression s but you choose to beat up a guy that apparently has had along history with the party and was an active Democrat for years? I don’t get it. And I just looked these things up with simple search on Orange County Politics. I see all kinds of examples you should be blogging about, and all I see when it comes to this Lucas guy is good things. But when I look up all the other local politicos there’s tons of material for you blog about. And you chose to beat up on this guy?

    http://ranchosantamargarita.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/petrilla-releases-statement-about-2001-arrest

  31. Dan Chmielewski
    February 23, 2014 at 8:58 pm

    I’m stating the facts to counter another blog making this guy out to be some sort of hero for pleading guilty to a felony

  32. henry lipton
    February 23, 2014 at 9:04 pm

    So, you’re beating up on Vern Nelson? It looks a lot like you are directing your ire towards Lucas not Nelson. As far as being a hero, I only see that word once in a lead in to a new part of the story. A la “meanwhile Back at the ranch”.
    But that still doesn’t explain you going out of your way on this guy who you seem to have no interest in while a high ranking politico and spouse of a state wide elected politico endangers her child more than once in the presence of drug use and violence at the hands of another man whom she was having an extra marital affair with. And now a guy ho has tried to kill people with a gun is running for State Assembly and you say nothing about that? And there is a convicted felon (Of voter fraud) running the Registrar of voters in this county and you go out of your way to trash Lucas?
    Why are you so interested in raking this guy over the coals?

  33. jose s.
    February 24, 2014 at 11:14 am

    lipton, he does it because he’s a big fat bully.

  34. henry lipton
    February 24, 2014 at 2:43 pm

    Oh, that clears it up. Makes sense now.

  35. henry lipton
    March 2, 2014 at 2:28 pm

    Dan,
    Ive looked it up. You are completely wrong about the voting rights issue. He wont even lose his right to vote for one single minute as a result of this. Its quite easily found and clearly stated on the OC Registrars page. One would have to be in State prison or on parole to lose their rights to vote. Nor will his gun rights be taken away for as long as you state. Only during the time that he is on Probation. This fact is easily found on the OC Sheriffs website and the State of CA website. How many other things should we be fact checking you on? And how many other items have you lied about in this attack piece?

  36. Dan Chmielewski
    March 2, 2014 at 3:33 pm

    Henry —
    I spoke with the DA’s office and with the Registrar of Voters for the county. I stand by what I reported here. I asked specific questions in simple language and they gave me answers which I reported. Paul Lucas is a convicted felon and loses his right to possess a firearm unless those two elements I mentioned are met somehow. He is illegible to vote until he’s through with probation.

  37. Henry Lipton
    March 2, 2014 at 3:45 pm

    Well, on many readily available sources you are very wrong. The OC Registrar and Secretary of State Websites both show that you are very much wrong. I doubt that an employee at the registrar and or the DA would tell you this. So you claim you are not lying and that you are given bad information by the Registrar and the DA?

  38. Dan Chmielewski
    March 2, 2014 at 4:39 pm

    why don’t you offer links to prove your point Henry? So I can fact check you.

    A convicted felon cannot possess a gun. The federal rule is found in one of the main firearm statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). It says that anyone “who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” is barred from possessing a gun. The only felonies that are not covered by the federal gun ban are 1) those “pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices,” per 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20)(A); and 2) felony convictions from foreign countries, per Small v. United States, — U.S. —, 2005 WL 946620 (April 26, 2005). Pal pleaded guilty to a crime that was punishable by more than one year. He has a 4 month sentence. This is federal law the DA is citing.

    California allows former felons to vote, but the state prohibits
    voting by people incarcerated in prison or on parole. According to
    the California Constitution and Elections Code, “A person entitled
    to register to vote shall be a United States citizen, a resident of
    California, not in prison or on parole for the conviction of a felony,
    and at least 18 years of age.” (Cal. Const. Art. II, Sec. 4; Cal. Elec.
    Code Sec. 2101) This means that California residents who have a
    felony conviction can vote after completion of parole, while on
    probation,or if they are committed to county jail with a felony
    conviction.

  39. henry lipton
    March 2, 2014 at 4:51 pm

    Your own response shows you are wrong in regards to his ability to vote. If a person is not committed to state prison or on parole they can vote. It even says in there that one can vote while in the county jail. This is a pretty significant caveat. I doubt that any DA or Registrar employee would make a mistake that significant. As far as the guns go, once his probation is complete he can again own firearms as it is typical to expunge a felony at the completion of probation. You are basically telling bald faced lies by way of blowing things out of proportion.

  40. March 2, 2014 at 4:57 pm

    cite your own research Henry. I quoted the DA’s office accurately and asked the question a couple of different ways in regards to firearms.

  41. henry lipton
    March 2, 2014 at 5:17 pm

    So you got bad information from the DA? Or how about the voting issue? Did you get bad information n that one or are you lying? You keep responding to these questions, like when I ask about the voting issue by responding with comments about the gun issue and vice versa. Basically you are flat out wring about the voting issue. The gun issue you are framing the issue way the heck out of proportion.
    Let me ask you this, when you called the registrar did you talk to the guy that was convicted of voter fraud to get you response? And the DA did you get the information from that Farrah lady that we see quoted in public info releases by that office? Did you lie or did you get bad information?

  42. cook
    March 2, 2014 at 7:04 pm

    Felons in jail or on parole lose their right to vote.

  43. Dan Chmielewski
    March 2, 2014 at 8:17 pm

    I am starting to believe you are either deliberately obtuse or just stupid. I spoke with two representatives authorized to speak to the press. One at the DA’s office and one at ROV. I detailed Paul’s charge, and his sentence. They provided answers. I reported it. End of story.

  44. March 3, 2014 at 8:17 am

    Cook, that comment was directed at Henry, not you

  45. Greg Diamond
    March 3, 2014 at 11:22 am

    Chris, as I’ve told both Tait and Galloway, as a DPOC CC member I will not support Tait over Galloway for Anaheim Mayor. At that point, if they’re both running for Mayor, I’ll probably presume that unless Brandman has a “come to FDR” moment, Anaheim’s future will already have been lost until 2016, when Kring can be voted out of office.

    Supporting integrity and opposing public corruption is a big deal for me. Kring fails on those scores. I want to see her lose. While I have policy differences with Tait, he succeeds on those scores and that matters. I’ve heard criticism from Republicans about Galloway on those scores, but I’m not going to presume that she is deficient there. (Sadly, and here I don’t have to rely on inside information, in a race for Mayor I think that she’ll face strong scrutiny — and for how I feel about the importance of that, see the first sentence of this paragraph.

    Either of these candidates would beat Kring, whose mouth is her own worst enemy; both candidates competing against Kring might let her win. Galloway wants Tait to run for Council instead; Tait wants Galloway to run for Council instead. I want them and their supporters to work things out after putting a priority on beating Kring.

    I care much more about beating Kring than about who does the honors. Dan, I take it, cares much more about beating Tait than about who does the honors — which from a “good-government Democrat” perspective seems completely loopy. (Then again, that’s not his perspective.) As to how you will feel 6-8 months from now — well, I will be interested in learning about that!

  46. Greg "'Doamond' when typing quickly on my mobile phone" Diamond
    March 3, 2014 at 11:29 am

    (As that last comment was bumped down to the bottom per usual, something that I forget happens here regularly to the non-boxed-comment masses, it was in reply to Chris’s “The assumption that Democrats should support Tom Tait is so deep in you guys’ (you and Greg to a lesser extent) DNA that you don’t even notice it.”)

    Of course I “notice” it, Chris. If it’s Tait vs. Kring for Mayor, I absolutely think that Dems should vote for Tait. If it’s Galloway vs. Kring, I think that they should vote for Galloway. It isn’t particularly mysterious.

  47. March 3, 2014 at 2:58 pm

    did you reply to the wrong post?

  48. March 3, 2014 at 6:27 pm

    Henry,
    I don’t know how you read that but try reading the law instead. A felon loses his right to vote based on the classification of the crime he is convicted of, not where he does his time. This is important, especially today, in that sentences for most “non-violent” crimes are completed in County Jail even though the sentence merited a trip up the river.

    You are also incorrect about the firearms. For all intents and purposes, felons are prohibited permanently from owning or possessing firearms. And, while there is a convoluted process that allows the BATFE to restore those rights to an ex-felon, none have been restored, to my knowledge, in over 20 years.

    Probation has nothing to do with the issue, although the “Rules of Probation” almost always carry a prohibition from possessing firearms during the length of the probationary period.

    It looks like the only way Paul will ever get to go shooting again is if he can get his record expunged. Good luck with that.

    • March 4, 2014 at 11:08 am

      Thanks Jeff. Vern has a new post on this and I lift this sentence:

      “Paul WILL be voting in this June’s primary and thereafter; he WILL have his second amendment rights restored within a year.”

      Called the DA’s office again. No, he can’t own a gun. Not in a year. Not ever unless he gets a pardon.

      Called ROV. The ability to vote is determined by who has jurisdiction over his probation. If it’s the state, no he can’t vote. If its the county, he can. Sometimes, prisoners that should be in state prison get sent to county. But typically, according to ROV, convicted felons can’t vote. No one seems to know who’s handling Paul’s case.

  49. henry lipton
    March 4, 2014 at 4:26 pm

    For someone who claims to not have any interest in this guy you sure go to great lengths to snoop out information. You sound more like you’re obsessed.

  50. March 4, 2014 at 4:58 pm

    Making sure my information is accurate and it is.

  51. henry lipton
    March 4, 2014 at 7:24 pm

    I noticed you deleted the portion of the text where you claim to have no interest I Lucas. Which is apparently not rue. You beta up on the guy over a fight over the Janet Nguyen supporters in the Democratic Party that happened what 6 8 years ago by now? So, you have still not made a single peep about The guy at the ROV that was placed in a position of oversight of elections some years after he plead guilty to voter fraud. Nor have you made a single peep about that Nadia woman. Nor have you made a peep about a former DPOC chair facing felony charges over blackmail and other charges.

    So what is it about this man that makes you come out flailing all limbs in his direction with such malice? Im asking his because Ive seen over some blogs here and at OJ that you have a reputation of being a bully. And now this post about some guy you had a spat with in the 06 or 08 elections. How long do you hold a grudge?

    And while we are at it, I have yet to see a single pixel about the Calderon or Wright felons in the state capitol that are still collection a paycheck after convictions and indictments. Even Eric Holder and Barak Obama have come out in favor of allowing ex-felons to have their right to vote restored. And the war on drugs is a great disaster acknowledged at all levels of government and society on all sides of the aisle and spectrum.

    But you’re not beating up on this guy and you’re not a bully and you don’t hold grudges and you don’t have any interest in Lucas? Right?

  52. Dan Chmielewski
    March 5, 2014 at 7:57 am

    I haven’t deleted anything. If we do anything, we leave the original text in and cross it out while adding the new text. We never edit a comment. Your claim I’ve deleted something is false.

    You seem to forget, this blog is a labor of love for Chris and I. I write posts when I can. Chris works full time and is active with the retirement board. We sacrifice sleep and time with friends and family to post here. This post was a reaction to Nelson’s original post making Paul out to be some sort of hero. I’m so sorry we can write a story about everything that interests you. Perhaps you should subscribe to a newspaper.

  53. henry lipton
    March 5, 2014 at 10:35 am

    So by way of beating up on the posts topic you are actually taking Vern Nelson to task? Gee, please excuse my insolence.
    Give it a rest Dan. You re a bully and a coward for the fact that you are a bully. Trying to use BS excuse about correcting Vern Nelson by attcki8ng this guy is your excuse? You should be ashamed of yourself. Just cowardly.

  54. Dan Chmielewski
    March 5, 2014 at 1:03 pm

    Paul is no hero. Vern’s essays assume all cops are bad and the one’s who handled Paul’s arrest certainly are.

    You continually make charges I’m wrong about stated facts without offering proof, that I have edited content without me doing so, or demand I present proof so you can fact check me.

    Paul is a delegate to the state Democratic Party; this blog will not apologize for writing about bad Democrats. As far as being a coward goes, how exactly?

    I’m not your monkey. I write what I want and when I want to.

  55. henry lipton
    March 5, 2014 at 7:30 pm

    Count one
    You are a coward because you are a bully. Or have you not learned that life lesson yet?

    Count two against you being a coward you are unable to admit your wrong.

    From what I can see he only had to plead guilty to a lesser offense of simple possession which is a lesser charge than intent to sell. so you are wrong there that the charge was reduced and you refuse to acknowledge that.
    Count three you are a coward
    Because you are hiding your yellow hide behind as screen without even having the decency to check with Lucas yourself instead you take wrong statements from anonymous people at the ROV and the DA and falsely claim they are true with regards to his voting rights.
    He will not lose his voting rights in any way, and the charge is what’s called a Wobbler which is reduced to a misdemeanor a the termination of probation which is at most 1 year without any incidents to justify lengthening that probation.

    Count 4 you are coward because you wont even acknowledge that that will in turn restore his 2nd amendment rights.

    You have deleted the text in which you claim to have no interest in Lucas and yet you have made multiple calls to the ROV and the Da (or at least you claim you have), and you’ve gone to great lengths to illustrate he cannot be removed as a voting member of the Democratic Party and yet to do the hand to forehead slap in the realization that if a guy can vote at a major party convention you would assume he wont lose his overall franchise and voting rights (Dumb coward to boot), ) (as well as a lying coward),
    And who the heck made you the determining judge on who is a bad or good democrat? I mean seriously do you hold some position of power or office in the Democratic Party? What makes you think you have the right to determine who is a good and or bad Democrat? From what I can see, you have to be one of the worst Democrats whose pixels I have ever laid my weary eyes upon. I mean seriously? Who the heck are you Dan? What gives you this swollen sense of high and mightiness?

    From what I can tell, you have yourself and some old curmudgeon in Santa Ana that’s not even a Democrat as the only two persons who even engage you in dialogue where you are on the same page and have the same ideas and outlooks. You look like a lonely fat man whose only friend is a crazy old Republican from Santa Ana to play with.
    You’re all by yourself fat man. HAHAHAHA

    and finally you are just a big fat bully and by default that makes you a coward.
    Is that clear enough to you?

  56. March 6, 2014 at 5:11 am

    Again, I have deleted nothing. I made two calls exactly to the DA and the ROV (both while researching other stories). As far as checking in with Paul, he’s made it clear he doesn’t want me to call him, speaking with him or engage with him, so I have abided by his wishes. Sorry, DA’s office was pretty clear about his second amendment rights….

    Believe what you want Henry; I stand by my work.

  57. March 6, 2014 at 7:07 am

    Tell you what Henry. When I get convicted of a felony and spend time inside a jail cell, you can have at it.

  58. henry lipton
    March 6, 2014 at 8:48 am

    Man you are just a fountain of bullshit excuses aren’t you? You have got to be the worst Democrat I have ever seen in action. Truly pathetic. You should be ashamed of yourself.

  59. March 6, 2014 at 1:20 pm

    I’m not.

  60. henry lipton
    March 6, 2014 at 2:10 pm

    maybe that’s the reason you don’t have any good democrats or Friends for the matter supporting you on this pogrom.

  61. junior
    March 6, 2014 at 3:26 pm

    Paul Lucas –
    “From what I can tell he only has that crazy republican left who will even associate with him anymore.”

    That must be me.

    http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2014/03/the-triumph-of-paul-lucas-pt-3/comment-page-1/#comment-515919

  62. March 6, 2014 at 3:26 pm

    I have a lot of friends; none have done any jail time or ben convicted of felonies

  63. henry lipton
    March 6, 2014 at 3:44 pm

    That’s all you got? Is that what this all boils down to? And for that you come out guns blazing over a simple possession charge?
    Again, you prove time and time again that you are a coward. with even the POTUS Obama coming out against the war on drugs, AG Holder calling for the end of disenfranchisement of former felons of the right to vote, the gallery of felons in your own midst here in OC in positions of power and you ignore all of that and cast your whole lot in bashing this guy over a simple possession charge that is the result of a plea bargain and not a trial? Again, can you tell me how you are NOT a coward?

  64. henry lipton
    March 6, 2014 at 4:05 pm

    ok let me try and make it easier for you: You do agree that all bullies are cowards? Correct? Tell me how you are not being a bully. Then tell me how you are not being a coward. Then tell me how you can claim to not care about this guy when you went out of your way to make multiple calls to the DA the ROV, and research the Democratic Party rules on how people can be removed from their positions in the party. Then tell me who and what gives you the power to claim who and who isn’t a good Democrat. then tell me what makes you a good Democrat. Then you can tell me how it is you can magically escape being probably the only person in the ISA who has not had a friend or family member effected by drugs or alcohol or addiction in some way some how. Then tell me how you can claim this guy is such a felon when the charges were all dropped or reduced? So Don’t you think the case was overcharged to the point where the DA could not even come close to reaching the burden of proof? Even after 2 and half years the DA did not pull the trigger on going to trial when they has such a tight case? It is common knowledge the DA overcharges cases in order to eek out a plea on defendants. Then you can tell me how it is that those in power and privilege can get away with the same ting by buying paid articles in the OC weekly (Nadia) and how a guy convicted of voter fraud can get into a position of overseeing elections in the county and you conveniently overlook that to get all bully (cowardly) n this guy that you don’t care about and don’t have a grudge against and don’t hold a grudge for calling you out as the Janet Nguyen supporters you are? And finally what is it that makes you such a good Democrat and have the audacity to call yourself a Liberal or a Democrat? Ive read your posts about the Angels Stadium and the Great Park, and the tongue baths you’ve given to the Angels owner and the Great Park board.
    It appears to me, that in reality, you are a spy for the GOP in Orange County. has anyone ever verified that you are in fact a Registered Democrat? can you post that verification here? Im seriously thinking that you are not a Democrat and in fact maybe a Republican instead.

    • March 7, 2014 at 10:25 am

      Someone suggested to me that Henry Lipton is really Paul Lucas posting comments and with such in-depth knowledge of the case, I wouldn’t rule it out. But then again, he can always post proof he’s not a sock puppet since he’s so good at demanding proof of anything I write.

      I am a registered Democrat. I am not posting proof of it. I am not your monkey Henry.

  65. March 6, 2014 at 5:19 pm

    As a wise man once said, Dan C is “CHANNELING Orange County’s Right-Wing Noise Machine.”

  66. March 7, 2014 at 10:23 am

    Vern, brave talk for a man who promotes Tom Tait at every turn. BTW, Paul Lucas is not banned from commenting here. There are two people who are and Stanley Fiala is one. Ryan Cantor is not banned, but his comments go to moderation where they are reviewed and generally approved.

  67. skallywag
    March 7, 2014 at 1:29 pm

    Whereas I have been limited by Vern to 5 comments on the OJB. I will not submit to arbitrary strangling of my “free speech” and will therefore not be commenting on that POS blog.

  68. skallywag
    March 7, 2014 at 1:51 pm

    Additionally, Vern Nelson revealed my identity on his blog – he has become a clone of Art Pedroza and Sean Mill.

    “Those judged guilty of violating a poster’s privacy can be sentenced to serious digital scorn. A good example is Kurt Greenbaum, an editor at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch who .. (revealed a commenter’s identity). Hundreds of comments excoriating Greenbaum were posted on the newspaper’s site — as well as on Greenbaum’s personal blog posts on the topic.”
    Chicago Tribune –

    A warning to anonymous commenters on Vern Nelson’s Orange Juice Blog – Vern will reveal your identity.

    • March 7, 2014 at 4:40 pm

      Only those of people he doesn’t like

  69. March 7, 2014 at 8:39 pm

    Hahaha … that’s been one of the OC Blogosphere’s biggest jokes for years and years — that “junior/skallywag” likes to pretend the whole county doesn’t know who he is. I can’t believe you’re serious about that dude!

    But if you really think you were ever anonymous, me and Greg should have shut down your anonymous hate speech long ago, as Greg frequently does to other anonymous haters.

    What a clown. You two enjoy each other now…

  70. March 7, 2014 at 8:48 pm

    Oh, and contrary to all your crying and moaning, when I mentioned your real name I did NOT mention your two super-secret screen names you use to throw trash all over the blogsophere. So your secret is SAFE brother! (or as safe as it ever was.)

  71. skallywag
    March 8, 2014 at 10:22 am

    You know what you said Vern … I am not playing word games with you …. you’re a dweeb.

  72. Dan Chmielewski
    March 9, 2014 at 11:49 am

    Happy to count you as a friend Junior; we don’t agree on everything and that’s fine. Its hard to live in OC and not have friends who are Republican. That said, Diamond’s long screen was *hysterical* and about 90 percent wrong. Yes, I like Beth Krom and Larry Agran, but it you think I’m advising them on anything you must be smoking some of Paul’s medical weed. About the only issue I’m “out of step” within Democratic circles is my position on the Angels.

  73. henry lipton
    March 9, 2014 at 2:54 pm

    You will be happy to know that the California Democratic Party just passed a resolution and adjustment to the party platform in the areas of criminal justice and most notably marijuana by choosing to regulate it just like alcohol or tobacco. It is the last item listed in this platform. I thought you would know this Dan for someone who is in total agreement on all issues that the party is on the same page as. How did this one slip past you? Im assuming you are blogging from the CDP convention. When will you be posting about convention highlights?

    Criminal Justice
    Crime prevention and rehabilitation are essential to our families, our communities, and our state’s budget.
    Current law enforcement-supported research demonstrates that, historically, a ten percentage-point
    increase in graduation rates correlates with a twenty percent reduction in murder and assault rates. In light
    of this, we support increasing high school graduation rates through evidence-based methods that include
    structured pre-school for all, anti-truancy measures, and after-school programs. We are dedicated to
    ensuring that our criminal justice system provides fair and equitable treatment for all. “Smart on crime” must
    include evidence-based criminal justice prevention programs as the best use of taxpayer funds.
    To promote safe communities, California Democrats will:
    • Provide state-of-the-art equipment and training in the latest crime fighting techniques to law
    enforcement;
    • Enhance victim-witness advocacy that respects the rights of crime victims and provides therapeutic
    assistance and financial compensation, and support comprehensive services for the victims of crime;
    • Support the establishment of a non-partisan sentencing commission to review inequitable sentencing
    laws;
    • Work to reduce prison overcrowding and the drain on our economy by decreasing penalties for minor
    drug offenses, implementing state law provisions for compassionate release and releasing older and
    low-risk, long-term prisoners, and support community service as an alternative sentence for non-violent
    offenders;
    • Implement community-based policing to break down barriers between law enforcement officers and the
    people they serve; support community-based groups to work within existing social and criminal justice
    programs to foster communication with law enforcement; and, require greater accountability from law
    enforcement organizations to the communities they serve;
    • Work with gun owners and sporting associations to promote responsible gun ownership and gun safety
    education;
    • Strengthen efforts to keep guns out of the hands of children and criminals; strictly limit access to
    firearms for those with a record of domestic violence and/or mental health issues; require that all stolen,
    lost, or misplaced firearms be reported to law enforcement immediately;
    • Continue to support the common sense ban on deadly assault weapons;
    • Improve methods for recovering financial losses in the prosecution of white-collar crimes;
    • Support strong protections for all Americans who lawfully disclose waste and fraud in government
    spending, violations of law or threats to the public health and safety by providing all whistleblowers with
    adequate remedies for unlawful retaliation, and rewards for employees who risk their careers by
    disclosing such activity;
    • Protect consumers against identity theft and violations of privacy and require disclosure by businesses
    and government of what personal information is collected and how that information is used;
    • Support the use of DNA testing when appropriate to protect the wrongfully accused and set free the
    wrongfully convicted;
    • Prohibit the use of so-called “secret evidence” in courts and tribunals;
    • Challenge the practice of profiling, from detainment through charging and sentencing;
    • Resist the establishment of “Stand Your Ground” laws in the State of California and the implementation
    of “stop and frisk” policies that are disproportionately applied to persons of color;
    • Oppose using prisons and jails as de facto mental health facilities and fight to adequately fund
    community mental health and substance abuse programs;
    • Promote strong families and communities by reducing prison recidivism and making rehabilitation,
    education, and job readiness priorities within our state prison system;
    • Promote dialogue that examines decreases in public school funding and concomitant prison expansion
    in California, and support efforts to address high school dropout rates;
    • Oppose privatization of prisons;
    • Advocate that the state adopt concrete measures to eliminate the use of solitary confinement;
    7
    • Support the development and implementation of restorative justice that bring together offenders,
    victims, and community members in a effort to repair the damage caused by criminal activity through
    accountability and rehabilitation;
    • Oppose sentencing juveniles to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (LWOP);
    • Support abolishing capital punishment; and,
    • Support the legalization, regulation and taxation of marijuana, in a manner similar to that of tobacco or alcohol.

  74. henry lipton
    March 9, 2014 at 5:55 pm

    Why do you speak about medical marijuana in such a deprecating manner? Have you not ever seen a person who is seriously ill with cancer or HIV, or serious injury find relief not only for their conditions but form the side effects of the conventional medications?

  75. March 10, 2014 at 10:06 am

    I’m sorry, was I speaking about medical marijuana in a deprecating manner? And thanks for posting the Democratic Party platform. I support most of it.

  76. henry lipton
    March 10, 2014 at 2:31 pm

    Yes you do speak about in a depreciating manner. You use language and comments that are snarky as if it is something to be mocked or ridiculed or as a negative. You have some serious issues with your self image that makes you think you are better than everyone and that you can bully people around. Why haven’t you blogged about the convention and the party platform and resolutions? Weren’t you there?

  77. Dan Chmielewski
    March 10, 2014 at 6:15 pm

    My weekends are for family and friends Henry.

Comments are closed.