December 23, 2007
Another Ventura County Star sliming
If one could hire a gastroenterologist with a specialization in large-animal medicine, the language skills of Dr. Dolittle and the note-taking ability of a court reporter, then station him near the back end of a cow that had been fed a plate of refried beans and cheese and have the good physician listen, interpret and transcribe the emanations from the bovine patient's fundament, you'd end up with an essay more logical, more fact-filled -- although surprisingly less pungent -- than the "editorial" by Ventura County Star Editor Joe Howry in today's paper.
It's a shame, really.
When it comes to dead-tree media, Ventura County residents only have three choices: The Los Angeles Daily News, the Los Angeles Times, and The Ventura County Star.
The Times devotes few resources to our county, and the News -- L.A.'s second-place-because-there's-no-one-else-to-be-in-third-place paper -- has scaled back its coverage of Ventura, too.
Which means that my fellow Venturans are forced to rely on the Star, currently under the (ahem) leadership of editor Howry.
And Howry is a hack of the first order, as he proved recently -- and again today -- when he penned a hit piece lambasting District Attorney Greg Totten for having the nerve to -- oh, what do they call it? -- protect the public.
Totten filed a legal motion last month, seeking to disqualify a certain judge from sentencing criminals because of his reluctance to put convicted crooks on probation.
Howry's editorial was remarkably light on facts, and when commenters criticized the Star's boss, the comments were deleted -- making the Ventura County paper of record a laughingstock throughout the world, thanks to bloggers like Patterico, Charles Johnson and Hot Air spreading the word.
The D.A. wrote a response, explaining his reasons for filing the legal motions to disqualify the judge from hearing a number of cases. Shortly thereafter, one of my colleagues responded to a baseless charge of racism leveled against the D.A.; the head of a local Latino advocacy group had scribbled a scurrilous opinion piece containing no facts, and Howry published the piece in his paper's opinion pages.
Today, clearly annoyed that the public was not storming the Courthouse demanding the D.A.'s head, Howry took another stab at that writing thing.
Not content with his previous personal attacks on the D.A., Howry now questions Totten's ethics, as well as the ethics of the deputy district attorney who dared to disagree with the race pimps who try to turn the narrative from punishing criminals to putting the wood to La Raza.
The Star's editor claims that the D.A. and his deputy are arrogant, disingenuous, and conscienceless.
But let's put all that aside.
You know what's really troubling -- aside from the fact that Howry's a bully?
It's that he's a bully who can't write.
Check out the end of his rant.
Why did the DA's Office wait until just two months before Judge Gutierrez was scheduled to retire?
This question is perhaps the most profound and revealing. The DA knew full well when he sought to prevent Gutierrez from hearing any more misdemeanor cases that, by the time it was resolved by the appeals court, he would be retired. In effect, the point would be moot because the judge would be off the bench. The DA claims he respects Judge Gutierrez. Sullying his name during his final days on the bench is a strange way of showing it.
"[P]rofound and revealing?"
Erm, no.
Unlike the spittle-flecked, vein-popping ways of moonbat journalists and editors, the legal world is much more dispassionate, more analytical. The fact that the judge is soon retiring has nothing to do with the timing, and although Howry is proud of the way he's used the word "moot" (Look at me, Ma! Just like a lawyer!), he hasn't bothered to do any research into its legal meaning or useage.
Litigating this issue will settle the matter for the future, regardless of which judge is in court.
The legal question is, "Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 170.6 provides a means for the Prosecution and the Defense to disqualify a judge from presiding over a trial or contested legal hearing. Does an arraignment that proceeds directly to sentencing constitute the type of legal proceeding that falls within the ambit of C.C.P. Sec. 170.6?"
As has been stated by the D.A. in the pages of Howry's paper, the defense can get away from a judge they think is too punitive in an arraignment court simply by setting the case for trial; this allows them to start "judge shopping," looking for a more sympathetic jurist willing to give the criminal defendant a break.
The defense can -- and does -- file 170.6s as a matter of routine; the Public Defender has driven judges out of the criminal courts completely, forced them into civil or family court, because the P.D.s thought the law-and-order judges were too harsh on the crooks.
Oh, did Howry neglect to tell you that filing 170.6s isn't unusual? Did the Star's editor give you an incomplete picture of the system?
Was he being disingenuous, or just ignorant?
That last bit, about "sullying" the judge's name, well, that's just idiotic. The filing of a legal motion authorized by statute and incorporated into the Code of Civil Procedure simply cannot sully a judge's name or reputation.
On the other hand, both of Howry's editorials, as well as the article by the LULAC dope, actually are attempts to sully the name and reputation of someone in the courthouse, but, seeing as how the intended recipient of that sullying is a member of the prosecution team, I guess it's okay.
Back to Howry's opus.
They have closed ranks and circled the wagons at the Hall of Justice. They are relying on the blind trust and support of Ventura County residents who place public safety as the No. 1 priority. It is a time-honored tactic that has served them well in the past and has relieved them of any accountability for their actions.
As long as we don't demand true accountability, this will continue and we can only wonder who will be the next victim.
Apparently, Howry wants the D.A. held accountable for ... making public safety his top concern.
Okaaaay.
Howry says, "this will continue," and that's a bad thing. And then there will be more victims. Unless there's "true accountability."
Or something.
The only "victims" I know of -- and the only ones I care about -- are the victims of crime.
Listen, Joe -- Can I call you Joe? This fear that the D.A. is getting away with something, that there's no mechanism for holding him accountable for the way he's doing his job?
Relax.
C'mere.
Closer.
Don't tell anyone, but there's a way we can hold the D.A. accountable.
It's called an "election."
If the voters are unhappy with the D.A. trying to get the judges to crack down on crooks, I'm pretty sure they'll try out that accountability thing that's got you all hot and bothered.
Back to the readers.
If you subscribe to the Star, if you own a business that advertises in the paper, I have a question for you:
Why? Why do you give money to a paper that's opposed to punishing criminals?
If your business is targeted by thieves, why give advertising dollars to a paper that opposes putting a thief on probation and telling him he can't return to your store?
If you like walking around town with your kids and hate having to shield your children from aggressive panhandlers and drunken beggers puking and pissing on the sidewalks, why patronize a paper that is opposed to placing drunks on probation and telling them they have to stay away from the park or business they've disrupted?
Howry's piece notwithstanding, the only victims here are the law-abiding members of the community.
And anyone unfortunate enough to have read his editorial.
Posted by Mike Lief at December 23, 2007 09:10 PM
| TrackBack
Comments
Your best work. Although the Star has never been a fan of the enforcers of the law in Ventura County, I am still quite surprised by their venom on this issue. Unfortunately, the general public has no clue just how far off-base they are. Keep up the good work!
Posted by: Thin Ice, Sr. at December 24, 2007 09:44 AM
Outstanding analysis, Mike!
I was both surprised and alarmed by Mr. Howry's editorial. It was amateurish and unprofessional at best. Most disturbing, but also revealing, were his statements related to public safety.
I wonder how Mr. Howry would fare if his job came to a public vote?
Posted by: Robert Worthley at December 24, 2007 05:07 PM
Yes, excellent opinion Mike ! The problem here is not so much the poor writing; lack of facts or even his personal agenda. It's simply that you cannot win a war of words with someone like Howry who buys ink by the barrell. If people write more, he will respond with the same nonsense. He's creating a reason to read the opinion page--nothing more.
Don't read the Star, don't advertise there, don't fall for Howry's bait.
Posted by: Gene at December 24, 2007 08:06 PM