Leading the push for the rare recall of a state judge was Stanford law professor Michele Dauber, whose daughter was a childhood friend of swimmer Brock Turner’s victim, a Stanford student who has not been named by news organizations which withhold the identities of sexual assault victims. Dauber and her supporters have depicted the light sentence as examples of both societal indifference to sexual violence and of white privilege; Turner (pictured) is from a wealthy Indiana family. In a series of interviews with sympathetic journalists, Dauber depicted a vote for the recall as a chance for Santa Clara County voters to show they stood firmly with the Me Too movement dedicated to fighting sexual harassment and even worse behavior by men.

But Dauber’s campaign went firmly against a central tenet of the criminal justice reform movement. It holds that harsh sentencing laws approved in the high-crime 1980s and early 1990s have destroyed the salvageable lives of hundreds of thousands of young people – especially African-American and Latino men. This explains the campus dynamic at Stanford detailed in a lengthy Huffington Post story by Julie Ioffe published June 1. While Turner’s victim is universally receives deep sympathy, the report showed Dauber has become an unpopular figure with many of her fellow law school faculty.

Professors, public defenders rip judge’s main critic

“Twenty-nine Stanford law professors have signed a letter against the recall,” the Post reported. “Robert Weisberg, who teaches criminal law and describes himself as a progressive feminist, grew visibly angry when he spoke about Dauber. The recall, he argued, was ‘a gratuitous and vindictive campaign’ and ‘an exploitation of the Me Too movement.’”

Further fueling the local backlash against Dauber: Persky’s outstanding reputation among public defenders who have appeared before him.

“My clients are all indigent and most of them are nonwhite,” Barbara Muller told the Post. “I have never seen him treat my clients differently than those clients who can afford private attorneys.”

A second public defender, Gary Goodman, made an even more sweeping case in Persky’s defense. He said California sentencing guidelines called for leniency for young defendants like Turner –  “a 19-year-old with no criminal record.” And in a claim substantiated by The Associated Press, Goodman said Persky’s sentence for Turner came at the behest of another wing of the Santa Clara County legal system: the probation department.

While Persky’s recall was celebrated by feminists nationally, recall critics are now going beyond the specifics of the Persky case to emphasize the danger of incentivizing judges to throw the book at defendants.

“What will happen when the rest of California’s elected judges, worried about mob scrutiny, decide that lenient sentencing is a one-way path to joblessness and begin to sentence even more harshly? The people most affected by that calculation won’t be the ones who look like Turner. They’ll be those who most often fall victim to harsh sentencing overall – minorities and the poor,” wrote Christina Emba, a Washington Post opinion columnist and editor.

But in an interview with the San Jose Mercury-News that was published Sunday, Dauber depicted criticism she faced not as principled but as part of a sexist backlash to women fighting for fair treatment. “I welcome their hate,” she told the newspaper. “I read it as a sign we’re being effective.”

The Mercury-News asked Dauber about the fears of Emba and others that the recall would end up haunting young minority men who come before judges who fear losing their jobs. She dismissed that idea as reflecting an “incredibly dim view of judicial integrity.”

Now a much more relatable, explosive controversy looms over the proposed state constitutional amendment — one that threatens its passage and could buffet the U.S. Senate campaign of state Attorney General Kamala Harris and damage Brown’s reputation.

The ballot argument that Harris accepted for Brown’s measure depicts it as a benign proposal to bring common sense to parole decisions by allowing “parole consideration for persons convicted of nonviolent felonies upon completion of full prison term for primary offense.”

But according to the California District Attorneys Association, the list of “nonviolent felonies” touted by Brown and accepted by Harris includes crimes of sexual violence — specifically the ones committed by then-Stanford athlete Brock Turner when he sexually violated a passed-out fellow student in January 2015. This screen shot from the CDAA website gives specific examples.

This is unlikely to sit well with the vast cross-range of people who are furious with Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky’s decision in early June to sentence Turner, formerly a member of the Stanford swim team, to six months of imprisonment — much less than the six years sought by prosecutors.

The ruling quickly gained national and international attention. The letter Turner’s victim wrote to him became an Internet sensation. Judge Perksy faces an unprecedented campaign from Bay Area residents who vow to never serve as jurors in his courtroom. Citing the Turner case, members of the California Legislature have moved to toughen sexual assault laws.

The Proposition 57 debate seems likely to eventually merge with the debate over the fairness of Brock Turner’s sentence and whether sexual assault laws should be made much tougher. So far, at least, leaders of the California District Attorneys Association have hesitated to make an explicit connection between the two matters.

But that seems likely to change in coming months when Brown uses his hefty campaign war chest to push his agenda. The Brock Turner case appears to be tailor-made for district attorneys who complain that the media didn’t read the fine print on the governor’s initiative before their initial coverage of it early this year.

Kate Hiscock / flickr

A care-giving facility for disabled adults and the taxpayer-funded groups that oversee it have settled a 2011 lawsuit that accused the center of numerous instances of abuse and violent attacks on patients.

The incidents include the sexual assault of several residents by an illegal immigrant who was hired as a driver by Healthy Start, the lead defendant in the case.

The lawsuit also names the Eastern Los Angeles Regional Center and the San Gabriel/Pomona Valley Developmental Services as defendants.

The payoff, while publicly undisclosed under the provisions of the settlement, was less than $400,000 to be shared by the nine plaintiffs, according to observers.

The amount is a paltry sum, victims’ advocates say, for the abuse the patrons allege occurred in 2009 and 2010.

That’s because the regional centers had for years not been required to carry liability insurance.

The lawsuit against Healthy Start, which was shuttered by the state in 2012, contends that the center hired Juan Fernando Flores, an illegal immigrant, to serve as a transportation driver who sexually abused several patients. Flores took a plea deal in 2011 and is serving an eight-year prison sentence.

A bill passed last session requires the regional centers to carry $3 million of limited liability insurance effective July 1.

It mandates that the coverage “will cover injuries sustained by acts, omission to act, or neglect of the licensee or his or her employees.”

Because the Healthy Start agreement is sealed, the source of the payment to the litigants is unknown.

But the fact that it has taken so long to get the regional centers to carry insurance, which distribute money to vendors like Healthy Start, rankles supporters of the disabled.

“I look at adult residential services and these places where they have developmentally disabled residents, and, of course they should have insurance,” said Pat McGinnis, executive director of California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform. She said the newly enacted legislation is a start, but there are plenty of aggrieved parties that will never be made whole, given what she considers is a small minimum insurance requirement.

“Most of the insurance companies won’t cover intentional torts,” which are willful acts of abuse, she added.

Some operators of the homes do carry insurance, said Jody Moore, an elder abuse lawyer in Thousand Oaks, but until now, it has been voluntary.

“Which discourages litigation, when there are firms out there looking for the biggest cases,” Moore said.

Plus, the smaller facilities are difficult to keep honest, she said.

“A 100-bed facility can make money and pay on a judgment,” Moore said. “But a smaller provider, no, and in a lot of cases they go out of business. We always hope the [Department of Social Services] is shutting them down and hopefully preventing them from opening another facility.”

Claiming lack of funding despite rise in revenues

Providers like Healthy Start are supervised by state-funded, not-for-profit regional centers, which receive hundreds of millions of dollars to disperse money to the agencies on a per-person capitation. For years, the system has claimed a lack of funding is dogging the system, pointing to budget cuts as the reason.

The tax form for the East Los Angeles Regional Center for 2014, the last year available, shows a 20 percent increase in revenue since 2009, from $144 million to $173 million in 2013.

Revenue for San Gabriel/Pomona Valley Developmental Services increased 17 percent in the same time, from $156 million to $183 million, according to its tax filing.

The Los Angeles Center did not respond to a request for a comment or interview.

A call to the San Gabriel/Pomona center rang repeatedly with no answer and an email to R. Keith Penman, director at San Gabriel/Pomona, was not returned.

As a private entity, the residence center had no background check process verified by the state, although state law “requires a background check of all applicants, licensees, adult residents, volunteers under certain conditions and employees of community care facilities who have contact with clients,” according to the California Department of Social Services.

The group that owned Healthy Start, Casa De Angeles Cal. Corp., filed for bankruptcy shortly after Healthy Start closed. The group could not be reached for comment.

The complaint in the case claims that the president of Casa De Angeles Cal., Anait Krgatbashayan, “does not speak English and prior to being named president of Casa De Angeles had no financial experience, had never run a business … and had no experience dealing with disabled persons.”

Steve Miller can be reached at 517-775-9952 and avalanche50@hotmail.com. His website is www.Avalanche50.com.

By Chris Reed

San Diego Mayor Bob Filner’s attempt to fight off the push to force him to quit because of alleged sexual harassment went well Thursday, when former allies trashed him at a press conference without offering specific accusations. This led Filner to release a video statement Thursday afternoon admitting he “needs help” and was in therapy meant to get him to treat women better.

That seemed to stall the Filner-must-go crowd briefly. But as Friday wore on, it gained steam. San Diego County’s most powerful Democrat, Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, demanded that Filner quit. So did City Council President Todd Gloria, a fellow Democrat who did so even though he could be accused of being self-serving, since he would inherit most of the mayor’s powers if Filner resigned.

And then Filner’s chief of staff quit.

What I’m hearing is that the allegations that Filner’s critics won’t spell out publicly are just awful. Anyone who backs Filner with the argument that he’s just a 70-year-old from a different generation who didn’t understand that sexual banter was OK will look like an ass when we hear what actually allegedly happened.

This may be what led Politico on Friday afternoon to say Filner was accused not of sexual harassment but “sexual assault.” That is not a minor distinction. Politico later issued a correction, but was it out of caution over people not going on the record or because it genuinely believed it was getting bad information?

We shall see.

Never has a pol deserved such a demise more than Bob Filner.

By Katy Grimes

President Barack Obama gave the commencement speech Friday to the 2013 graduating class of the United States Naval Academy, lecturing them on morals and calling for an end to sexual assaults in the military.

It could have been one of his press conferences.

But this was not an isolated incident.

On Saturday, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told graduates of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point that they must build a “culture of respect” that would eliminate sexual assaults and harassment in the armed services.

USNA

My son graduated the USNA in 2011. We were fortunate to have Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense, give the commencement speech that year.  It was a good speech, appropriately full of vision, and inspiration — thankfully, because Annapolis in May is hot and humid, and we were melting in the stadium stands. If Gates had gotten political, the crowd might have turned on him.

Gates said in 2011:

“As you start your careers as leaders today, I would like to offer some brief thoughts on those qualities.  For starters, great leaders must have vision — the ability to get your eyes off your shoelaces at every level of rank and responsibility, and see beyond the day-to-day tasks and problems.  To be able to look beyond tomorrow and discern a world of possibilities and potential.   How do you take any outfit to a higher level of excellence?  You must see what others do not or cannot, and then be prepared to act on your vision.”

“Personal conduct”

Friday, Obama lectured the Midshipmen and women about personal conduct and sexual assault:

“And yet, we must acknowledge that even here, even in our military, we’ve seen how the misconduct of some can have effects that ripple far and wide. In our digital age, a single image from the battlefield of troops falling short of their standards can go viral and endanger our forces and undermine our efforts to achieve security and peace. Likewise, those who commit sexual assault are not only committing a crime, they threaten the trust and discipline that make our military strong. That’s why we have to be determined to stop these crimes, because they’ve got no place in the greatest military on Earth.”

And he strangely complimented civil servants:

“Every day, elected officials like those on this stage, but also all across the nation, devote themselves to improving our communities and our country. But all too often we’ve seen a politics where compromise is rejected as a dirty word, and policies are driven by special interests rather than the national interest. And that breeds a cynicism that threatens our democracy.

“Every day, our civil servants do their jobs with professionalism — protecting our national security and delivering the services that so many Americans expect. But as we’ve seen again in recent days, it only takes the misconduct of a few to further erode the people’s trust in their government. That’s unacceptable to me, and I know it’s unacceptable to you.”

False reporting?

The “sexual assault problem” in the military is now a trumped up political agenda. The definition of sexual assault was greatly expanded in 2007, and again now, even while simultaneously increasing the role of women in the military.

Most of the media have been inaccurately labeling the results of the military’s recent survey of sexual assaults and “unwanted sexual contact” as “sexual assaults.”

There is a big difference between unwanted touching, and actual sexual assault. The new definition can be interpreted to mean that someone just heavily flirting with someone, or even touching someone’s thigh, waist, or butt, is lumped in with serial rapists.

And, the military now counts the number of complaints, and not actual not convictions.  But many of the more than 3,000 reports last year were found to be baseless.

The Pentagon “uses the term ‘sexual assault’ to address a range of crimes including rape, aggravated sexual assault, wrongful sexual contact, non-consensual sodomy, abusive sexual contact, aggravated sexual contact, and indecent assault. The annual report includes case synopses, case dispositions, and punishments imposed in cases involving unrestricted reports.”

There has also been an active effort by Congress to expand the definition of what a sexual assault is which further inflates the statistics they are currently going around and using to bash the military with:

“For incidents that occurred prior to the changes made to the UCMJ on October 1, 2007, the term “sexual assault” referred to the crimes of rape, nonconsensual sodomy, indecent assault, and attempts to commit these acts. For incidents that occurred between October 1, 2007 and June 27, 2012, the term “sexual assault” referred to the crimes of rape, aggravated sexual assault, aggravated sexual contact, abusive sexual contact, wrongful sexual contact, nonconsensual sodomy, and attempts to commit these acts.
For incidents that occur on or after June 28, 2012, the term “sexual assault” refers to the crimes of rape, sexual assault, aggravated sexual contact, abusive sexual contact, nonconsensual sodomy, and attempts to commit these acts.”

Abusive sexual contact was added to the definition of sexual assault, so people who touch someone’s posterior are now equated with serial rapists.

 Other Presidential commencement speeches

By contrast to Obama’s and Hagel’s political speeches, in 2001, President George Bush gave the commencement speech to the USNA graduating class without lecturing:

“You know by now that life in the Navy and Marine Corps is not glamorous. You will endure long hours of routine, punctuated—at times without warning—by moments of danger, where the stakes for your crew and your country could not be higher. Annapolis has prepared you well for this life. It has strengthened your bodies and sharpened your minds. Most importantly, it has fortified your character with timeless values, honor, courage, and commitment. Through 4 years, your class has sat through many a lecture about the meaning of these values. You don’t need another lecture today. But I do urge you to reflect upon their importance. Reminders of their relevance surround us.”

In 1994,  President Bill Clinton addressed the graduating class of the USNA. He gave a good speech, albeit with some politics in it explaining his recent military cuts:

“… since the time Admiral John Paul Jones proclaimed, ‘Without a respectable Navy, alas, America.’ The right-size defense costs less but still costs quite a bit. That is why this year I have resisted attempts to impose further cuts on our defense budget.

“I want you to understand this clearly. It is important for your generation and your children to bring down this terrible debt we accumulated in recent years. And I have asked the Congress to eliminate outright over 100 programs, to cut over 200 others. We’ve presented a budget that cuts discretionary domestic spending for the first time since 1969. That will give us 3 years of deficit reduction in a row for the first time since Harry Truman was President of the United States right after World War II. But we should not cut defense further. And I thank the Congress this week for resisting the calls to do so. That enables us to answer John Paul Jones’ cry.”

 Obama’s speech Friday continued with his lecture:

“With the time I have left, that’s what I want to discuss today. It’s no secret that in recent decades many Americans have lost confidence in many of the institutions that help shape our society and our democracy. But I suggest to you today that institutions do not fail in a vacuum. Institutions are made up of people, individuals. And we’ve seen how the actions of a few can undermine the integrity of those institutions.

“Every day, men and women of talent and skill work in the financial institutions that fund new businesses, and put new families — put families in new homes and help students go to college. But we’ve also seen how the misdeeds of some — wild risk-taking or putting profits before people — sparked a financial crisis and deepened the recession that cost millions of Americans their jobs.”

Last year, Secretary of defense Leon Panetta, an Obama appointee, gave the USNA commencement speech:

“That is why you came here… for the challenge of leading others at sea; deploying to every part of the world; taking risks in the skies; fighting ferociously ashore; and giving our enemies hell wherever you find them.

“After you leave here, the challenge that I just outlined is exactly what you’ll get.

“And it won’t be easy. You’ll need every quality that got you through the past four years: love of country; the desire to learn; the will to work hard; the will to sacrifice; the judgment to make good decisions; and the drive to overcome any odds.”

As I searched for historical commencement speeches to the Naval Academy, it was clear that the Obama PR machine had done its job making sure the President’s speech and sexual assault lecture resonated. Every page for at least 10 in my Google search linked back to a news story about Obama’s speech.

I was searching for President James Garfield’s speech in 1881, the first commencement speech to the Naval Academy, to no avail. Obama’s 2013 speech is everywhere.

That’s proof of a political agenda demonizing the military for sexual assault.