Pages

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

DA Candidate Steve Ipsen's Understanding of Term Limits Litigation "Incomplete" and "Inaccurate" - Met News Reports

OPINION: Steve Ipsen's candidacy to become District Attorney suffered an embarrassing setback when his understanding of the litigation declaring portions of the 2002 voter initiative (Measure B) to be unconstitutional, was described as  'Incomplete' and 'Inaccurate' in a letter to the Metropolitan News Enterprise published Monday, June 20, 2011.

DA candidate Steve Ipsen probably now wishes his late response to a
question posed by the Metropolitan News Enterprise never made it into print.

Ipsen's faux pas almost never made it to print as Ipsen had missed the deadline for submission of his responses to a series of questions posed by the Met News to all candidates. However, despite Ipsen's slip up over the lateness of his responses, the Met News nevertheless published his response to the question "Are you willing to make a pledge that, if elected, you would serve no more than two terms?"

Never one to miss an opportunity to take a jab at District Attorney Steve Cooley (against whom Ipsen suffered a humiliating defeat in his 2008 campaign, coming last of the three candidates), Ipsen's typically overly verbose response started with these words:

"In March of 2002, 61% percent of Los Angeles County voters passed an initiative which limited the District Attorney to three four year terms. That term limit was over turned by a lawsuit filed by the District Attorney of Los Angeles County ..." (Emphasis added).

Unfortunately for Ipsen, according to the lawyers who actually handled the case (Jones and Mayer), Measure B was challenged on constitutional grounds because, in addition to setting term limits for the Board of Supervisors (which was held to be constitutional), Measure B went further and unconstitutionally attempted to set term limits on the Sheriff, the District Attorney, and the County Assessor.

Ipsen's failure to mention the name of the voter initiative, let alone it's application to the Board of Supervisors,  the Sheriff and the County Assessor, could be explained by some as simply an uncharacteristic economy of words. Others might say it was the result of a hasty, ill-researched "incomplete" and "inaccurate" attempt to mislead and gratuitously attack the man who defeated him in 2008.

Had Ipsen been able to give a complete and accurate statement of the litigation surrounding Measure B, he would have been forced to reveal that Measure B was not challenged by the District Attorney, but by the Sheriff in People ex rel, LeRoy D. Baca v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC299486.

After Sheriff Baca's successful challenge to Measure B, a separate quo warranto legal action overseen by the California Attorney General clarified the ruling in the Baca case and established that as the Offices of the Los Angeles District Attorney and Assessor were similarly situated to the Sheriff, they were also not subject to the term limits imposed by Measure B.

Missing deadlines, giving misleading, "incomplete" and "inaccurate" information, and perhaps allowing a personal animus to cloud judgment, are perhaps not the best way to kick off a campaign for District Attorney.

Ipsen, however, is no stranger to controversy. He once testified as a defense witness for a twice convicted sex-offender who he described as "one of my closest friends," who may have shared Ipsen's residence, although Ipsen said he could not remember. Ipsen did, however, remember that when the person he described as "one of my closest friends" was arrested for his third sex offense, he was using Ipsen's vehicle and had access to Ipsen's DA badge. 

Ipsen also incurred the wrath of the California Supreme Court for committing prosecutorial misconduct in a murder case. Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar, writing for a 6-1 majority in In re Sakarias, (2005) 35 Cal.4th 140, said that Ipsen “violated [Sakarias’] due process rights by intentionally and without good faith justification arguing inconsistent and irreconcilable factual theories in the two trials, attributing to [Sakarias and co-defendant Tauno Waidla] in turn culpable acts that could have been committed by only one person.”

Perhaps we now know why Steve Cooley took the high ground during his interview on The Kevin James Show this past Sunday, and declined to comment on Ipsen's candidacy - it was only a one hour show.

But back to Ipsen's most recent credibility issue regarding Measure B. Ipsen was right about one thing; voters did indeed pass Measure B in 2002, but not by 61% as Ipsen stated, but by 63.57%

The primary election for LA's next District Attorney is on June 5, 2011. Should Ipsen succeed in winning the election, we can be assured that he will serve no more than three terms, we have his word on it.

&tc.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ipsen really should be more careful about the things he says. It will not help his credibility if every time he opens his mouth he puts his foot in it. He will probably come last in the primary just behind Meyers. Then they can both endorse Trutanich. What a bunch of flakes.

Anonymous said...

It's not putting his foot in his mouth. A simple google-ing of the litigation would have (in seconds) revealed the accurate details. As Ipsen's campaign moves along, expect more "inaccuracies" (which are really just outright lies). Windscale you're on track, past is prologue. review how Ipsen toyed with the truth during the hearings in his prosecutorial misconduct case. Only now he has AFSCME and ADDA stationary on which to print fabrications.

Anonymous said...

Ha Ha, AFSCME affiliation passed! Get down to the Biltmore and join the celebrations. It's a historic day for Steve and Hyatt. Say ba bye to the Dragnet and Berger.

Anonymous said...

One more thing where Berger turned out to be wrong.

It's gotten to the point where whatever he says, the opposite turns out to be true.

Cooley's days in office are numbered.

Anonymous said...

of course affiliation passed. ADDA cronies counted the vote. The real election is agency shop. That will be counted by ERCOM. There's a reason why ADDA membership never exceeded a quarter of the office, the rest of us don't trust you thugs.

Anonymous said...

Is the AFSCME payback for bailing out the ADDA's fiscal irresponsibility (affiliation) a done deal? How come no glory shot email from Hyatt?

Anonymous said...

@10:42pm What was Berger wrong about? Are you saying the reports about Ipsen and his sex-offender buddy are wrong, or is the prosecutorial misconduct report wrong? Or maybe it's the Measure B comment that is wrong? Please explain.

Anonymous said...

Will the Dragnet please publish clear concise instructions on how to resign from the ADDA. I was told that I cannot resign because of the blue card. WTF?

Anonymous said...

Dragnet, why did you fail to mention this endorsement. I found this. You keep putting out false statements and it is so obvious as to your agenda to take down the ADDA. As you rant and rave about Eastman, you failed to mention this endorsement. Can you clarify why you are lying to DDAs?
http://www.kelly2010.com/blog/ladaendorsement

Anonymous said...

10:59AM I also saw the Kelly endorsement. I doubt Dragnet/Berger will reply, but I expect he would say that he didn't mention it because you ADDA trolls didn't publicize ti nearly as much as you did the Eastman endorsement. Besides, I think we all know that the ADDA's real agenda was to endorse anyone but Cooley. It was a strategic decision, and did absolutely nothing to advance relations between the administration and the ADDA. But then again, making awful decisions is typical of the screw ups who run the ADDA. Ipsen the sex-offender's best friend, and Seligman the pervert who stared in his own home-made porno movie.

What a pair of perverts!

Anonymous said...

10:59 is on the money. You are the biggest, pathetic TROLL here. All of the posts here are you blogging to yourself. What a joke.

Anonymous said...

According to the Met News, 133 DDAs voted for affiliation, and 24 against. http://www.metnews.com/articles/2011/adda062211.htm

DDAs Berger & Dickman were interviewed, Dickman made a lot more sense than Berger who just ranted about Ipsen & Seligman.

Anonymous said...

Berger is in line to win Political Ass Clown of the Year.

He's nothing more than a phony who hides behind the curtain of borrowed names like Dragnet, Joe Friday and Windscale. Jack Webb must be turning over in his grave.

Then he spends all day blogging to himself, hoping someone will be fooled by this obvious circle jerk.

He's become the new Phil
Jennerjoke.

Anonymous said...

I second @7:43..could someone publish the process by which a current member of the ADDA can get out????? Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Just got the Superman Seligman victory email. What a load of crap. He says it was a landslide victory. 1,000 DDAs in the office, and 113 voted to be taken over by AFSCME. If that's a landslide then I guess it's easy to see why Superman Seligman is such a failure.

Time to resign.

Anonymous said...

So good to kmow the readers of this blog will soon be paying their agency shop dues to provide me with union protection.

Anonymous said...

Yup 11:01am, with support of 113 dupes (at least 15 of those are the ADDA Board Majority itself), it's obvious that the other 900 or so DDAs are just salivating at the thought of voting "yes" on agency shop. Orwell is right, "freedom" is freedom to say 2+2=4, if that's granted all else follows.