PDA

View Full Version : OC: More news on Sheriff Sandra Hutchens


smokingloon
02-07-2009, 12:51 AM
The story gets better and better. Someone made another copy of the BOS video.


Friday, February 6, 2009
Text messages, surveillance tapes widen rift between sheriff, supervisors
Battle between Sheriff Sandra Hutchens and county supervisors could soon end up in court.
By TONY SAAVEDRA and NORBERTO SANTANA Jr.
The Orange County Register
Comments 18 | Recommend 7

Eight months into office, Sheriff Sandra Hutchens is locked in a bitter power struggle with the same Board of Supervisors that appointed her.

And the two sides could soon end up in court.

What started as a debate over Hutchens' plan to reduce concealed weapons permits has morphed into a multi-faceted fight with supervisors, who accuse her department of spying, bullying and misusing public property.

Twice in recent weeks, Hutchens has publicly apologized to board members. Once, after a deputy used a surveillance camera to zoom on supervisors' notepads during a hearing, and again after command staff used its department BlackBerrys to exchange text messages ridiculing supervisors and critics of her proposal to reduce the number of concealed gun permits.

Supervisor Chris Norby responded this week by sending a mass e-mail accusing Hutchens of mounting a "misguided jihad" on gun-rights advocates, prompting calls from Hutchens' supporters for Norby to apologize.

"It's just childish on both sides," said George Wright, chairman of the criminal justice department at Santa Ana College. "(Hutchens) is going to have to tighten things up pretty quickly."

Some observers say that Hutchens is having a tough time adjusting from her past as a law enforcement bureaucrat to the give and take of politics.

Even Hutchens has noted that she doesn't see her job as political. She sees herself as sworn to uphold the state's laws in an objective manner.

"I don't make my decisions based on how the (county) supervisors will react," Hutchens said. "I'm the sheriff first."

In a letter sent Friday, county CEO Tom Mauk warned Hutchens that her fight with the board is a distraction that she can't afford. Instead of the gun permit issue or the videotape dispute, Hutchens' department should be concentrating on serious budget shortfalls, as well as curbing overtime and expanding the jail, Mauk wrote.

And so far, "little progress has been made," he wrote.

The fight between Hutchens and the board intensified this week when the sheriff learned that county executives made copies of the sheriff's surveillance tapes involving supervisors. Hutchens threatened to sue unless county officials agreed to certain conditions on how the tapes are kept and viewed.

Supervisors late Friday were balking at Hutchens' conditions.

"There is a crisis of confidence between the board and the sheriff, and that is not a good place to be eight months into office," Norby said.

For her part, Hutchens has said: "All I'm trying to do is put the policy back in line with what the law says (on concealed weapons). You can kind of see this is getting sliced up into a lot of different issues."

Hutchens inherited a generous gun-permit policy from ex-Sheriff Mike Carona, who was elected in 1998 on a platform that included allowing as many people as possible to carry weapons. Carona's administration issued 1,100 gun permits, among the most in the state. Hutchens is using tougher guidelines, which has incurred the wrath of supervisors as well as permitholders.

A hearing Nov.18 brought a crowd of angry gun activists to the Santa Ana boardroom, where they spent hours defending their perceived right to bear arms. During the mammoth meeting, high-level sheriff's officials used their BlackBerrys to send text messages among themselves, often mocking the board and the speakers.

"We are locked in mortal battle. It is ugly," texted Assistant Sheriff Michael Hillmann, a former LAPD deputy chief recruited by Hutchens to help rebuild the department. In a later text, Hillmann wrote that he wanted to poke his eyeballs out after listening to hours of testimony.

Hillmann next turned his BlackBerry on Supervisor Janet Nguyen, a critic of Hutchens' gun-permit plan: "I hope Janet has a pet she can call a friend."

Amid a firestorm of criticism, Hutchens apologized, acknowledging the texts as "unprofessional."

At the next hearing, Jan. 13, sheriff's officials increased security in the boardroom because of an unspecified threat. Activists were met with large placards warning against carrying weapons into government buildings. Uniformed and undercover deputies roamed the boardroom in what some supervisors called an intimidating show of force. At lease three people were pulled aside by deputies and questioned.

Gun activists charged that the extra security was intended to dissuade them from testifying, a suspicion strengthened by the release of the text messages. (Emphasis added)

During that meeting, a deputy used a surveillance camera to zoom on Norby's notepad and on Nguyen's BlackBerry. Hutchens discovered the intrusion and reported it to the board, along with her apologies.

Norby and Nguyen accused the department of using government equipment to snoop on them, sparking a new battle over who owns the surveillance recordings. Earlier this month, in a public rebuke of Hutchens, supervisors voted unanimously to take ownership of the surveillance video and took action to remove the Sheriff's Department from providing security for the board.

This week, the dispute went red hot.

In a letter written to county supervisors Chairwoman Pat Bates on Feb. 4, Hutchens said she learned that the county computer staff had secured a copy of the recording from the meeting without her knowledge.

Hutchens said that she is worried that public disclosure of the video recordings could threaten undercover officers and their families. She also threatened litigation. (Emphasis added)

Hutchens' letter, called a "missile" by Bates, triggered a fierce response.

Mauk wrote Hutchens back on Friday, saying he was "highly offended" that she suggested board members or the county staff would willingly put undercover officers in harm's way by exposing their identities.

That was done by Hutchens, Mauk said.

"I've seen a lot of contentious meetings," Mauk said in an interview, "and I have never seen a police chief put an undercover officer in a public meeting."

Hutchens' approach, said Mauk, Bates, Nguyen and Norby, is drawing heavy opposition and could have long-term consequences.

"This issue is really escalating. And she keeps on pushing," Nguyen said. "Some of these issues have escalated to the point where we do have a problem. There's a sheriff that doesn't want to work with us; she wants to do what she wants to do."

Bates remembers talking to Hutchens when she first took office, issuing a friendly warning about the challenges of moving from a bureaucrat to an elected official.

"Our job as decisionmakers is to see the gray," Bates said. "This is a job of representation, not just following the book."

For her part, Hutchens has said she is focused on enforcing the law, not politicking.

And she's comfortable leaving her political fate in the hands of Orange County residents, as opposed to supervisors, political parties or activist groups.

She likes her chances, often saying "I have tremendous faith in the voters of this county."

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/hutchens-supervisors-sheriff-2301977-board-county

JDoe
02-07-2009, 5:52 AM
The fight between Hutchens and the board intensified this week when the sheriff learned that county executives made copies of the sheriff's surveillance tapes involving supervisors.

:lurk5:

Tarn_Helm
02-07-2009, 6:20 AM
The story gets better and better. Someone made another copy of the BOS video.

Friday, February 6, 2009
Text messages, surveillance tapes widen rift between sheriff, supervisors
Battle between Sheriff Sandra Hutchens and county supervisors could soon end up in court.
By TONY SAAVEDRA and NORBERTO SANTANA Jr.
The Orange County Register
Comments 18 | Recommend 7

Eight months into office, Sheriff Sandra Hutchens is locked in a bitter power struggle with the same Board of Supervisors that appointed her.

And the two sides could soon end up in court.

What started as a debate over Hutchens' plan to reduce concealed weapons permits has morphed into a multi-faceted fight with supervisors, who accuse her department of spying, bullying and misusing public property.

Twice in recent weeks, Hutchens has publicly apologized to board members. . . .

Supervisor Chris Norby responded this week by sending a mass e-mail accusing Hutchens of mounting a "misguided jihad" on gun-rights advocates, prompting calls from Hutchens' supporters for Norby to apologize.

. . . Bates remembers talking to Hutchens when she first took office, issuing a friendly warning about the challenges of moving from a bureaucrat to an elected official.

"Our job as decisionmakers is to see the gray," Bates said. "This is a job of representation, not just following the book."

For her part, Hutchens has said she is focused on enforcing the law, not politicking.

And she's comfortable leaving her political fate in the hands of Orange County residents, as opposed to supervisors, political parties or activist groups.

She likes her chances, often saying "I have tremendous faith in the voters of this county."

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/hutchens-supervisors-sheriff-2301977-board-county
[red and green emphasis added]

Hutchens clearly does not understand her job as an elected official.

A law enforcement agency is a paramilitary organization.

It is NOT democracy.

CCW authority cannot and should not be in the hands of an authoritarian.

I hope we kick her ace to the curb on election day.

CCW liberty must always be in the hands of a libertarian.


:beatdeadhorse5:

tankerman
02-07-2009, 6:47 AM
A hearing Nov.18 brought a crowd of angry gun activists to the Santa Ana boardroom, where they spent hours defending their perceived right to bear arms. This idiot needs to be straightened out.

hawk81
02-07-2009, 6:52 AM
A law enforcement agency is not a paramilitary organization. I don't know what you have been smoking.


[red and green emphasis added]

Hutchens clearly does not understand her job as an elected official.

A law enforcement agency is a paramilitary organization.

It is NOT democracy.

CCW authority cannot and should be in the hands of an authoritarian.

I hope we kick her ace to the curb on election day.

CCW liberty must always be in the hands of a libertarian.


:beatdeadhorse5:

Tarn_Helm
02-07-2009, 7:18 AM
A law enforcement agency is not a paramilitary organization. I don't know what you have been smoking.

I don't take illegal drugs, but neither should you (especially when operating a keyboard linked to a public forum).

paramilitary [Function: adjective] [Date: 1935]: of, relating to, being, or characteristic of a force formed on a military pattern especially as a potential auxiliary military force <a paramilitary border patrol> <paramilitary training>

paramilitary. (2009). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
Retrieved February 7, 2009, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paramilitary

Look it up yourself next time instead of shooting off your mouth before you know what a word means and how it is used.

hawk81=:owned:

aileron
02-07-2009, 7:55 AM
You missed this little stab at the 2nd.


A hearing Nov.18 brought a crowd of angry gun activists to the Santa Ana boardroom, where they spent hours defending their perceived right to bear arms.

I hate the press.

vrand
02-07-2009, 1:00 PM
I don't take illegal drugs, but neither should you (especially when operating a keyboard linked to a public forum).

paramilitary [Function: adjective] [Date: 1935]: of, relating to, being, or characteristic of a force formed on a military pattern especially as a potential auxiliary military force <a paramilitary border patrol> <paramilitary training>

paramilitary. (2009). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
Retrieved February 7, 2009, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paramilitary

Look it up yourself next time instead of shooting off your mouth before you know what a word means and how it is used.

hawk81=:owned:

Furthermore, its a Government paramilitary organization with County, State and Federal funded backing vs. Joe C. Public :boat:

U2BassAce
02-07-2009, 1:07 PM
Sorry all for spamming this on several threads. But it is important! Please show up!!!;)


EVERYBODY WE NEED YOU THERE TUESDAY!!!!!!!!! Join us on the front lines of the CCW battle for the state!!!!! :chris:

This is going to be huge!!!!!

All we ask is you show up.

If you want to speak go for it. If you don't want to speak please show up!! If you fall in between and are not sure about speaking. Put in a slip and say simply you oppose the Sheriff's actions and support the previous speakers!!!

EITHER WAY WE NEED YOU ALL THERE!!!!

The only other thing I ask is you dress appropriately (business casual minimum or suit and tie) and respect the Board and the Sheriff. We are taking the high road on this as the opposition flounders in the mud!!!!

TOGETHER WE WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:80:

AggregatVier
02-07-2009, 4:05 PM
Tarn, did you leave a "not" out of this sentence:

"CCW authority cannot and should be in the hands of an authoritarian."

Tarn_Helm
02-07-2009, 4:16 PM
Tarn, did you leave a "not" out of this sentence:

"CCW authority cannot and should be in the hands of an authoritarian."
http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p13/AimSmllMssSmll/DOHBLUBACKGROUND.jpg

Thanks.:kest:

I edited it.

AggregatVier
02-07-2009, 4:27 PM
While I did understand what you meant I'm sure if you were pulled by an officer who asked "permission" to search your vehicle, you'd have no problem recognizing his intent and answering precisely. ;)

BTW I'm glad others noted the "perceived" dig at the 2nd.

Tarn_Helm
02-07-2009, 4:43 PM
While I did understand what you meant I'm sure if you were pulled by an officer who asked "permission" to search your vehicle, you'd have no problem recognizing his intent and answering precisely. ;)

BTW I'm glad others noted the "perceived" dig at the 2nd.

When I get pulled over, I do pull over immediately and let the LEO tell me to move if he doesn't like the spot--I actually pulled over while still on an onramp about 9 months ago for my last trip to the woodshed.

I live a clean life, but I know that LEO's are as human as the rest of us and can really screw up--but I also know that I am the only one who will pay if they do--that's why I don't provoke no matter how much I disagree--I don't want to make them screw up.

(That female officer----in the other thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=151783)) could have shot that driver if her finger was on the trigger and she had tensed up when he started yelling--the driver did do stupid things after he stopped the car, no doubt about that.

However, I still think the dude in the video should not have been PITted or drawn down on.

But once his car had stopped, he should have acted safer since he knew the LEO was not sizing things up equitably and that she could be understandably puzzled by his failure to stop sooner.

He probably got miffed when he saw a "lady cop" and had flashbacks to his own wife's over reactions in the past . . . :43: . . . just as she probably "got steamed at this man who wouldn't listen to a woman" . . .)

We all carry baggage to every instance of personal interaction.
:cool2:

Just gotta be careful not to trip over it.

How's that for some home-made pop psychology?
:smartass:
:thumbsup:

Doggboy
02-07-2009, 7:11 PM
Hutchens discovered the intrusion and reported it to the board, along with her apologies.


This line is my favorite. It shows the authors extreme ignorance or extreme bias, not sure which. He acts as if she called the BOS out of the goodness of her heart and not due to the PRA request by OCCCWS.com. I wish these J.O.s would just write the truth for once so people can see what this power hungry B!@tch is up to.

U2BassAce
02-07-2009, 9:44 PM
This line is my favorite. It shown the authors extreme ignorance or extreme bias, not sure which. He acts as if she call the BOS out of the goodness of her heart and not due to the PRA request by OCCCWS.com. I wish these J.O.s would just write the truth for once so people can see what this power hungry B!@tch is up to.

Exactly! Yeah I am sure it is standard protocol for the OCSD to review the tapes from EVERY BOS meeting thus uncovering this one time spying incident. Yeah I am sure. Yeah riiiiggggghhhhttttttt........ :p

6172crew
02-08-2009, 7:36 AM
A law enforcement agency is not a paramilitary organization. I don't know what you have been smoking.

Indeed it is, I took all the tests for Oakland and the first thing they say is that you are testing for a position in a Paramilitary organization. :chris:

motorhead
02-08-2009, 1:04 PM
sounds like the supervisors are already compiling performance stats on key issues. towards what end? her tenure as sheriff may be the shortest in history. poor performance could be grounds for quick dismissal/replacement.

Glock22Fan
02-08-2009, 1:40 PM
sounds like the supervisors are already compiling performance stats on key issues. towards what end? her tenure as sheriff may be the shortest in history. poor performance could be grounds for quick dismissal/replacement.


I guess you haven't read the 10,000 posts that point out that she cannot be dismissed.

She can resign, fail to be reelected, get sick or be arreted or impeached for wrong doing -- leading to resignation.

Nobody can give her a pink slip (unfortunately).

Annie Oakley
02-08-2009, 2:09 PM
Indeed it is, I took all the tests for Oakland and the first thing they say is that you are testing for a position in a Paramilitary organization. :chris:

Why are police departments considered paramilitary? Do they have all of the protocols of a military organization? In other words, do they render the proper military courtesies to their superiors ? Are they subject to laws that a civilian wouldn't be? When I was in the army, I had to obey civil law as well as the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So do police have to abide by similar laws? If not, how can they call themselves military or paramilitary? We referred to police as civil or civilian authorities. I never considered them military in any way. Some police I saw in my career would have had an Article 15 for the way some of them looked. So other than maybe using military rank, how are they military ?

tankerman
02-08-2009, 2:22 PM
A law enforcement agency is not a paramilitary organization. I don't know what you have been smoking.The Sheriff's that participated in these intimidation tactics are nothing but jack-boot thugs...Criminals with no respect for the Constitution, Government sactioned crooks.he same people resonsible of all those county jail deaths in OC and arranged beatings.

RICO should be applied. Bring in the federal procescutors.

Librarian
02-08-2009, 2:49 PM
So other than maybe using military rank, how are they military ?
That plus an US vs Them esprit is sufficient for paramilitary.

General's stars on a Chief of Police have always looked silly to me.

Tarn_Helm
02-08-2009, 3:07 PM
Why are police departments considered paramilitary? Do they have all of the protocols of a military organization? In other words, do they render the proper military courtesies to their superiors ? Are they subject to laws that a civilian wouldn't be? When I was in the army, I had to obey civil law as well as the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So do police have to abide by similar laws? If not, how can they call themselves military or paramilitary? We referred to police as civil or civilian authorities. I never considered them military in any way. Some police I saw in my career would have had an Article 15 for the way some of them looked. So other than maybe using military rank, how are they military ?

The prefix "para" in the context of words like paramedic, paralegal, and paramilitary essentially has the force of the phrase "similar but not identical to."

Do they have all of the protocols of a military organization?
So the answer to this question is no.

They have some of the protocols, institutions, customs, and training of a military organization, in the strict, unequivocal sense of the term military.

LEAs are obviously paramilitary--in too many ways to count: chain of command, rank, uniforms, codes, SOPs, firearms, training, etc.

Not sure how anyone can't recognize that.

Sort of like the difference between an African elephant and an Asian elephant.

Of course, an LEA on American soil has a somewhat special relationship to the civil authorities that, on paper anyway (http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/Trebilcock.htm), differentiates it from the military.

I hope this doesn't lead into the tinfoil hat zone.:D
http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p13/AimSmllMssSmll/TinFoilHatArea.jpg

U2BassAce
02-08-2009, 4:45 PM
:confused::confused::confused:

Annie Oakley
02-08-2009, 5:12 PM
The prefix "para" in the context of words like paramedic, paralegal, and paramilitary essentially has the force of the phrase "similar but not identical to."


So the answer to this question is no.

They have some of the protocols, institutions, customs, and training of a military organization, in the strict, unequivocal sense of the term military.

LEAs are obviously paramilitary--in too many ways to count: chain of command, rank, uniforms, codes, SOPs, firearms, training, etc.

Not sure how anyone can't recognize that.

Sort of like the difference between an African elephant and an Asian elephant.

Of course, an LEA on American soil has a somewhat special relationship to the civil authorities that, on paper anyway (http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/articles/Trebilcock.htm), differentiates it from the military.

I hope this doesn't lead into the tinfoil hat zone.:D
http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p13/AimSmllMssSmll/TinFoilHatArea.jpg


So does that mean that security guards are paramilitary ?

tankerman
02-08-2009, 5:59 PM
So does that mean that security guards are paramilitary ?No they're para-(ab)normal

N6ATF
02-08-2009, 6:27 PM
Ouch.

LOL

DDT
02-08-2009, 8:14 PM
So does that mean that security guards are paramilitary ?

Some security organizations are para-military. Most are decidedly not.

Do they have a set command structure that is militaristic or corporate?
Do they have ranks?
Do they train as a unit or units?

Tarn_Helm
02-08-2009, 8:24 PM
Some security organizations are para-military. Most are decidedly not.

Do they have a set command structure that is militaristic or corporate?
Do they have ranks?
Do they train as a unit or units?
:iagree:
+1

Philthy
02-08-2009, 11:35 PM
paramilitary: of, relating to, being, or characteristic of a force formed on a military pattern especially as a potential auxiliary military force


I'm splitting hairs, but I disagree. LEAs are not paramilitary in the true sense of the word. I think the model used for LEAs today is "community policing." Nor are LEAs considered an auxillary military force. Yes, there are ranks based on the military, but where do "detective" and "inspector" fit in? Chief? How about elected positions such as sheriff? And what about departments that have Public Safety officers? Fire departments have ranks - are they paramilitary? I wouldn't say so.

However, there are paramilitary style units within LEAs: e.g. SWAT. SWAT units are used in certain situations, not ordinary day-to-day patrol type duties.

"Paramilitary" usually means a unit not quite fully "military." It means militias, such as FARC or IRA units, or the "police" the Chinese used at the Olympics (and running alongside the torch). Units that back up regular military units.

JerryM
02-09-2009, 12:01 AM
Uhm.... there are detectives and inspectors in military units... LOL. There are safety officers in the military, and firemen. Is this like life imitating art? LOL the military copying the civilian and the civilian copying the military?

Paramilitary units have specific missions. This particular paramilitary unit (the police) has the particular mission of enforcing the law of the community they serve, and gather revenue through the issuance of citations.

(^_^)

grammaton76
02-09-2009, 12:16 AM
What I find interesting is that it looks like the higher-ups among OCSD are on her side about concealed carry permits, making fun of the BOS and speakers.

This tells me that while Corona may have been pro-CCW, his department wasn't necessarily as pro-gun as its figurehead made it out to be.

Tarn_Helm
02-09-2009, 5:58 AM
I'm splitting hairs, but I disagree. LEAs are not paramilitary in the true sense of the word. I think the model used for LEAs today is "community policing." Nor are LEAs considered an auxillary military force. Yes, there are ranks based on the military, but where do "detective" and "inspector" fit in? Chief? How about elected positions such as sheriff? And what about departments that have Public Safety officers? Fire departments have ranks - are they paramilitary? I wouldn't say so.

However, there are paramilitary style units within LEAs: e.g. SWAT. SWAT units are used in certain situations, not ordinary day-to-day patrol type duties.

"Paramilitary" usually means a unit not quite fully "military." It means militias, such as FARC or IRA units, or the "police" the Chinese used at the Olympics (and running alongside the torch). Units that back up regular military units.

You can deny the semantic force of a prefix all you want, but that does not negate it.

Some people just have trouble with words. (Try re-reading my previous post in this thread.)

Take "aggravated."

Its true sense is "worsened."

Only through misuse has it come to mean (in certain circles) "agitated."

Believe whatever you want.

But just believing something does not make it true.
:beatdeadhorse5:

bulgron
02-09-2009, 6:56 AM
What I find interesting is that it looks like the higher-ups among OCSD are on her side about concealed carry permits, making fun of the BOS and speakers.

This tells me that while Corona may have been pro-CCW, his department wasn't necessarily as pro-gun as its figurehead made it out to be.

My understanding is that Hutchens brought in her own command staff, many of which are from LASD.

There may be some legacy command staff hanging out around there, I'm too far away for those kinds of details, but I'm pretty sure that the guys with the worse attitude were all hired in from LASD.

The answer is a voter revolt. Fire Hutchens, then fire the idiots who think that US Citizens who are exercising basic rights are people worthy of disdain.

M. D. Van Norman
02-09-2009, 7:36 AM
… while Corona may have been pro-CCW, his department wasn’t necessarily as pro-gun as its figurehead made it out to be.

Though I still hope for a diplomatic solution, this is why I fear that the lawsuits will have to fly after incorporation. Until they are forced to do so, the powers that be will probably never issue licenses fairly. :(

Dan M.
02-09-2009, 8:10 AM
My understanding is that Hutchens brought in her own command staff, many of which are from LASD.

There may be some legacy command staff hanging out around there, I'm too far away for those kinds of details, but I'm pretty sure that the guys with the worse attitude were all hired in from LASD.

You are correct.

GunSlut
02-09-2009, 10:30 PM
And LAPD "Iron Mike" AKA "Hammer Hillmann".

gunsmith
02-09-2009, 11:02 PM
its to bad she got elected in the first place, was she upfront about her plans to diminish CCW?
Anyway, good luck to all attending!

CHS
02-09-2009, 11:34 PM
its to bad she got elected in the first place, was she upfront about her plans to diminish CCW?
Anyway, good luck to all attending!

She wasn't elected at all.

Corona got ousted due to his legal issues and she was appointed by the OC Board of Supervisors to resume his position.

N6ATF
02-09-2009, 11:46 PM
its to bad she got elected in the first place, was she upfront about her plans to diminish CCW?
Anyway, good luck to all attending!

Nope, in fact she lied about CCW, because she knew that she could not be terminated for lying and printing the U.S. Constitution on toilet paper.

yellowfin
02-10-2009, 12:02 AM
Nope, in fact she lied about CCW, because she knew that she could not be terminated for lying and printing the U.S. Constitution on toilet paper.Actually can't she be fired for having taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and then doing what she's been doing?

N6ATF
02-10-2009, 12:23 AM
The legal eagles here have already answered that multiple times. Personally, if I see any U.S. government official in my lifetime prosecuted and executed for treason, I may have a heart attack and die happy. Otherwise, there's no overwhelming force behind the Constitution forcing people to not print it on toilet paper.

Tarn_Helm
02-10-2009, 5:15 AM
Actually can't she be fired for having taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and then doing what she's been doing?

If she were caught on tape saying, "I don't care that the U.S. Constitution recognizes the right to keep and bear arms--I wouldn't care if it says that citizens have the right to keep and bear concealed loaded weapons--I'm not upholding that part of the Constitution because I don't agree with it," then she might get kicked out of office.

But who knows?

Politicians seem to be able to lie about anything and not be held accountable.

I was quite surprised that Blagojevich was kicked out by his grimy peers.
:cool:

1064chubbs
02-10-2009, 7:59 AM
:popcorn: :)

N6ATF
02-10-2009, 12:12 PM
If she were caught on tape saying, "I don't care that the U.S. Constitution recognizes the right to keep and bear arms--I wouldn't care if it says that citizens have the right to keep and bear concealed loaded weapons--I'm not upholding that part of the Constitution because I don't agree with it," then she might get kicked out of office.

Even if she were forced to listen to that statement and say true or false in front of a 12-expert panel of human lie detectors with 360 degree video replay, who unanimously agreed that she believed wholeheartedly in that statement, it still seems like she would be immune.

CA_Libertarian
02-10-2009, 12:53 PM
...

For her part, Hutchens has said she is focused on enforcing the law, not politicking.

And she's comfortable leaving her political fate in the hands of Orange County residents, as opposed to supervisors, political parties or activist groups.

...
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/hutchens-supervisors-sheriff-2301977-board-county

As much as I disagree with her CCW issuance standards and show-of-force at that meeting... I have to admire her commitment to keeping the politics out of her job. Too bad she doesn't understand the US Constitution enough to do her job right...

yellowfin
02-10-2009, 1:05 PM
I have to admire her commitment to keeping the politics out of her job. Uh, no. She's doing EVERYTHING to put politics in this matter: hers. There is no legitimate reason for her to take the stance she has based on fact or law. It is nothing other than politics, and bad politics at that.

N6ATF
02-10-2009, 1:35 PM
Except that "politics" might as well be synonymous with "anything goes, everything excusable, not prosecutable" to the people that count. The line has been crossed from politics to absolute criminal, even treasonous, by those who seek to infringe on the Constitution.

The stakes are survival itself when it comes to the 2A.

Tarn_Helm
02-16-2009, 4:28 AM
Except that "politics" might as well be synonymous with "anything goes, everything excusable, not prosecutable" to the people that count. The line has been crossed from politics to absolute criminal, even treasonous, by those who seek to infringe on the Constitution.

The stakes are survival itself when it comes to the 2A.

Sadly, you are right.

That has been true since at least 1911. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Act)

People like Sheriff Hutchens are propped up by our tax dollars, which they use to oppress us. To them, we are little more than "replicants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicants)," useful until we begin to demand what they have: the right to bear arms for the lawful purpose of defending innocent life. Once we begin to demand that, we are a threat to them because we no longer really need them and no longer really need to fear them.
http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p13/AimSmllMssSmll/battyNdeck.jpg
That scenario can't end well unless it changes to its diametric opposite: "no issue" to "shall issue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shall_issue#Shall-issue)."
:taz:
:beatdeadhorse5:
:rant:

socal2310
02-16-2009, 5:35 AM
I was quite surprised that Blagojevich was kicked out by his grimy peers.
:cool:

I think he was thrown under the bus to protect Obama and/or his advisers from scrutiny.

Ryan

Glock22Fan
02-16-2009, 7:39 AM
I think he was thrown under the bus to protect Obama and/or his advisers from scrutiny.

Ryan

You reckon?

;)

motorhead
02-16-2009, 10:01 AM
so is the recall organizing yet? i think that may be your only solution.

OCCCWS
02-16-2009, 2:29 PM
A recall would require 160,000 signatures in OC, approximately. That's not going to happen, and would be hugely expensive to mount. Our efforts and dollars are better directed on other avenues.

One thing to remember--OCCCWS has been involved in this from before the Sheriff was appointed. We have many things going on, both public and private. We've yet to scratch the surface of what Sheriff Hutchens is doing. One example--the e-mail messages that OCCCWS obtained showing the OCSD command staff's inexcusable disdain for law abiding citizens, was less than 5% of what was requested. OCSD would have us believe that Sheriff Hutchens and Undersheriff John Scott sent and received a total of 15 e-mails, sms, and Blackberry pin-to-pin messages IN ONE DAY. That doesn't pass the giggle test. We are also awaiting the OCSD response for further communications.

The most interesting things are those going on out of the public eye, as they must for now.

The bottom line is, there will be a choice in the 2010 election. Our goal by that time is to expose Sheriff Hutchens for what she is--a woefully unqualified and inept candidate.

vrand
02-16-2009, 2:31 PM
A recall would require 160,000 signatures in OC, approximately. That's not going to happen, and would be hugely expensive to mount. Our efforts and dollars are better directed on other avenues.

One thing to remember--OCCCWS has been involved in this from before the Sheriff was appointed. We have many things going on, both public and private. We've yet to scratch the surface of what Sheriff Hutchens is doing. One example--the e-mail messages that OCCCWS obtained showing the OCSD command staff's inexcusable disdain for law abiding citizens, was less than 5% of what was requested. OCSD would have us believe that Sheriff Hutchens and Undersheriff John Scott sent and received a total of 15 e-mails, sms, and Blackberry pin-to-pin messages IN ONE DAY. That doesn't pass the giggle test. We are also awaiting the OCSD response for further communications.

The most interesting things are those going on out of the public eye, as they must for now.

The bottom line is, there will be a choice in the 2010 election. Our goal by that time is to expose Sheriff Hutchens for what she is--a woefully unqualified and inept candidate.

:thumbsup:

Tarn_Helm
02-16-2009, 2:53 PM
Uh, no. She's doing EVERYTHING to put politics in this matter: hers. There is no legitimate reason for her to take the stance she has based on fact or law. It is nothing other than politics, and bad politics at that.

Yes, "yellowfin2," you are absolutely right.

We should not be admiring O.C. Sheriff Hutchens' steadfast refusal to acknowledge our civil rights as some kind of heroic resistance to the vicissitudes of public debate.

In fact, in a very good taped interview, which can be viewed online for free here (http://www.fulldisclosure.net/flash/VideoBlogs/VideoBlog31.php), former O.C. Sheriff Michael Carona
http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/8928/caronamikebweb9ae.jpg
openly asserted that the only way to take "politics" out of CCW issuance is for the state of CA to go "shall-issue."

Unfortunately, Carona got himself run out of town for his greedy shenanigans, once again illustrating the substance of "Lord Acton's dictum": “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

(John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton, KCVO [10 January 1834 – 19 June 1902], commonly known as “Lord Acton”) (http://www.mondopolitico.com/library/lordacton/freedominantiquity/mpintro.htm)

N6ATF
02-16-2009, 5:34 PM
The bottom line is, there will be a choice in the 2010 election. Our goal by that time is to expose Sheriff Hutchens for what she is--a woefully unqualified and inept candidate.

That's putting it mildly, except these qualities seemingly serve as no barrier to election or re-election at all.

I suppose you could expose her as being inept at hiding the constant dereliction of duty and treasonous violations of the Constitution and her oath of office, but these are bigger issues than just ineptness.

grammaton76
02-16-2009, 5:43 PM
That's putting it mildly, except these qualities seemingly serve as no barrier to election or re-election at all.

I suppose you could expose her as being inept at hiding the constant dereliction of duty and treasonous violations of the Constitution and her oath of office, but these are bigger issues than just ineptness.

Unfortunately, if you make that your rallying cry against her, you're doomed to failure. It's unfotunate, but the modern political reality is that mentioning the Constitution and violations thereof, will only serve to ingrain in the sheeples' minds that "well, those Constitution thumpers don't like her, so she must be perfect!"

SJgunguy24
02-16-2009, 6:07 PM
Unfortunately, if you make that your rallying cry against her, you're doomed to failure. It's unfotunate, but the modern political reality is that mentioning the Constitution and violations thereof, will only serve to ingrain in the sheeples' minds that "well, those Constitution thumpers don't like her, so she must be perfect!"

I will never understand the thinking of those sheeple. "who needs gun anyway?" Do those people think it's gonna stop there? What next? Force you to take a drug to tell the truth? You can't say this or that or you may end up in jail.

N6ATF
02-16-2009, 7:09 PM
Unfortunately, if you make that your rallying cry against her, you're doomed to failure. It's unfotunate, but the modern political reality is that mentioning the Constitution and violations thereof, will only serve to ingrain in the sheeples' minds that "well, those Constitution thumpers don't like her, so she must be perfect!"

So if the feather touch doesn't usually work, and the hammer doesn't either, what chance is there... really?

the_donald_
02-16-2009, 7:46 PM
So, who's next in line for 2010? If a recall is not practical, why not focus on actions that can make a difference?

yellowfin
02-16-2009, 7:53 PM
It's problematic getting sheriff candidates too far in advance of elections in most circumstances. One, they're usually running against their own boss--IF anyone chooses to run in the first place. They've gotta live in the meantime. Second, and most importantly, they've gotta avoid the smear campaign which will come their way because they're taking on a powerful politician. The one/last challenge I've heard to Laurie Smith got trashed by some slimy journalist(s) hired to do hit pieces which couldn't be effectively refuted in time if at all; a stealth candidate maybe wouldn't have gotten hit, but wouldn't have been able to get any good publicity either so would lose either way. Third, is there really an abundance of people other than us who really want new sheriffs to give a reason for change? Can most everyday people in any county even name their sheriff at a typical point in time?

wildhawker
02-18-2009, 10:05 AM
Anybody catch Chuck Michel on Andrew Wilkow this morning (Sirius/XM)? I heard bits and pieces... also mentioned CRPA stepping into the fight against Hutchens.

yellowfin
02-18-2009, 10:50 AM
Will TMLLP and/or TBJ be on hand to sue Hutchens in the event of any revocations?

Glock22Fan
02-18-2009, 11:00 AM
Will TMLLP and/or TBJ be on hand to sue Hutchens in the event of any revocations?

TBJ has already been asked for advice in several such cases. It is too early to say if these will result in legal actions and I can give no further details at this time except to say that whatever Billy Jack's views on Hutchens' policy, any inequality of application of her policy is fair game.

Cypren
02-18-2009, 11:08 AM
The one/last challenge I've heard to Laurie Smith got trashed by some slimy journalist(s) hired to do hit pieces which couldn't be effectively refuted in time if at all; a stealth candidate maybe wouldn't have gotten hit, but wouldn't have been able to get any good publicity either so would lose either way.

One sizable advantage we have here in Orange County is that the local newspaper has been overtly on our side in editorial coverage and fairly antagonistic towards the sheriff even in their news coverage. Media bias is working in our favor at the moment. (Yeah, I'm shocked, too.)

Flintlock Tom
02-18-2009, 12:13 PM
Please excuse me for sleeping through the beginning of all this, but could someone tell me if Hutchens was appointed, by the BoS, after Corona resigned or did you folks have a special election?
If she was appointed and the BoS is not happy with her performance so far, couldn't they just, you know, fire her?

tango-52
02-18-2009, 12:20 PM
Please excuse me for sleeping through the beginning of all this, but could someone tell me if Hutchens was appointed, by the BoS, after Corona resigned or did you folks have a special election?
If she was appointed and the BoS is not happy with her performance so far, couldn't they just, you know, fire her?
She was appointed by the BOS. Now that she is in, however, it appears that the BOS cannot replace her. The folks at OCCCWS (www.occcws.com) are coordinating efforts in this matter.

S. Todd
02-18-2009, 12:24 PM
No, they can not fire her. She could be recalled, but by the time they got going, it would be time for the 2010 election anyway. Best course is to find a great candidate to run against her, and give them all the support we can muster. Then, after we win, encourage eveyone you know to get a CCW, so that by the next election there are 5,000 to 10,000 CCW holders and any future candidates understand they can't win without the right position. This plan could have good results in other counties, as well.

bulgron
02-18-2009, 1:00 PM
No, they can not fire her. She could be recalled, but by the time they got going, it would be time for the 2010 election anyway. Best course is to find a great candidate to run against her, and give them all the support we can muster. Then, after we win, encourage eveyone you know to get a CCW, so that by the next election there are 5,000 to 10,000 CCW holders and any future candidates understand they can't win without the right position. This plan could have good results in other counties, as well.

They might want to start the recall effort now, anyway, just in case she wins the election in 2010. Win the election, get recalled a month later, wouldn't that be interesting?

DDT
02-18-2009, 1:22 PM
I can't imagine an arena in which one could be re-elected and then immediately be recalled. The vote-math simply doesn't work.

I would say however; that going through the recall process is important.

The specter of recall is one of the few things that can really help defeat a sitting sheriff. Even against decent opponents an incumbent sheriff in CA is almost never defeated. Surrounding the Sheriff in FUD will certainly keep her busy enough to make any slate of opponents stronger. It may also have a chilling effect on her rush to strip citizens of their civil rights.

If the 160,000 signatures can be obtained to start the recall process I feel the money would be better spent there than in donating to a specific candidate directly.

yellowfin
02-18-2009, 1:23 PM
Just be sure that she personally absorbs the costs of all TBJ lawsuits. The county can dock her paycheck for all legal and personnel costs as they are directly her doing and her doing alone.

DDT
02-18-2009, 1:27 PM
Just be sure that she personally absorbs the costs of all TBJ lawsuits. The county can dock her paycheck for all legal and personnel costs as they are directly her doing and her doing alone.

Fat chance of that happening. But they do hold the purse strings so theoretically they could defund internal counsel and direct the county attorney to not represent her in the TBJ suits. That should put an end to it right quick.

I really doubt the BoS would take this route as they seem more bark than bite on CCW.

yellowfin
02-18-2009, 1:29 PM
^ The only reason they were more bark than bite on CCW because the means they can control weren't brought up at the BoS meetings. They can in fact cut her paycheck, tack on costs she brings up, cut any department costs they see fit, etc.

Glock22Fan
02-18-2009, 1:34 PM
^ The only reason they were more bark than bite on CCW because the means they can control weren't brought up at the BoS meetings. They can in fact cut her paycheck,

She probably (make that certainly) has a contract.

tack on costs she brings up, cut any department costs they see fit, etc.

Then she'd blame the BoS for her inability to stop crime from rocketing.



These things have all been considered. The only thing that they can do that won't backfire is to pass a vote of no confidence and, perhaps, express support for someone opposed to her at the election.

yellowfin
02-18-2009, 1:38 PM
That contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on if she breaks her oath which unless I'm mistaken contained "serve the people" and "uphold the Constitution" and there is no doubt whatsoever she's blatantly violated both. Even if her base pay is set in stone there is absolutely nothing prohibiting deductions for misconduct and undue waste of resources. And if she yelps, her blaming them for anything holds about as much water as an umbrella in a hurricane. Nobody wants to hear a word out of her mouth.

Glock22Fan
02-18-2009, 1:46 PM
That contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on if she breaks her oath which unless I'm mistaken contained "serve the people" and "uphold the Constitution" and there is no doubt whatsoever she's blatantly violated both. Even if her base pay is set in stone there is absolutely nothing prohibiting deductions for misconduct and undue waste of resources. And if she yelps, her blaming them for anything holds about as much water as an umbrella in a hurricane. Nobody wants to hear a word out of her mouth.

If there is enough evidence to persuade a court that such deductions are justifiable (and she would surely take it to court) then there is enough to persuade a court to find in favor of a OCCCW law suit. Indeed, as the latter is a subset of the former, might as well try the smaller case first.

And, although I agree with the views of OCCCW, comments to various newspaper articles suggest that your "Nobody" is an exaggeration; however much I disagree with them, I've seen a number of "She's doing the right thing" comments.

DDT
02-18-2009, 1:48 PM
That contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on if she breaks her oath which unless I'm mistaken contained "serve the people" and "uphold the Constitution" and there is no doubt whatsoever she's blatantly violated both.

If you could prove that "Sheriff's Discretion" is unconstitutional in a court of law we wouldn't have to worry about her.

vrand
02-18-2009, 1:49 PM
Fat chance of that happening. But they do hold the purse strings so theoretically they could defund internal counsel and direct the county attorney to not represent her in the TBJ suits. That should put an end to it right quick.

I really doubt the BoS would take this route as they seem more bark than bite on CCW.

The BoS could be in the same boat as Hutchens if/when the lawsuits start flying.

yellowfin
02-18-2009, 1:50 PM
If you could prove that "Sheriff's Discretion" is unconstitutional in a court of law we wouldn't have to worry about her. Post Nordyke that will likely be very easy. If the judges in this state had any brain whatsoever they'd have ruled that way in the first place.

Casual Observer
02-18-2009, 2:47 PM
^ The only reason they were more bark than bite on CCW because the means they can control weren't brought up at the BoS meetings. They can in fact cut her paycheck, tack on costs she brings up, cut any department costs they see fit, etc.

OCSD's budget is already being slashed significantly. There were a lot of changed Hutchens and co. wanted to institute (like standardized uniforms) that they just don't have the money for.

For example, OCSD just stood up a full-time SWAT team in January (previously Santa Ana was the only full time SWAT team in OC). I talked to one of the guys on the team and he said he'd be amazed if it lasts to the end of the year with the way their budget is being cut.

7x57
02-18-2009, 3:18 PM
Post Nordyke that will likely be very easy. If the judges in this state had any brain whatsoever they'd have ruled that way in the first place.

My guess is that it hinges on whether there is a right or a privilege involved. If it is a privilege, then if you don't like the conditions you just don't play. If it is a right, then the state doesn't get to make all the rules.

That's almost the definition of a right.

7x57

M. D. Van Norman
02-18-2009, 3:32 PM
Just be sure that she personally absorbs the costs of all TBJ lawsuits.…

“Bill Jack” has commended her CCW policy.

Glock22Fan
02-18-2009, 3:38 PM
“Bill Jack” has commended her CCW policy.


Read my post above.

The policy, as written, may be, probably is, legal. However, her application may not always be. Billy Jack is willing to consider standing up for those people where there is apparently an inequality in the way the policy is applied.

yellowfin
02-18-2009, 3:52 PM
In the absence of legal LOC, CC is a right. My guess is that it hinges on whether there is a right or a privilege involved. If it is a privilege, then if you don't like the conditions you just don't play. If it is a right, then the state doesn't get to make all the rules.

That's almost the definition of a right.

7x57

DDT
02-18-2009, 4:12 PM
“Bill Jack” has commended her CCW policy.

It is a decent revenue stream.

M. D. Van Norman
02-18-2009, 7:17 PM
Good point. :rofl:

Smokeybehr
02-20-2009, 5:21 PM
Anybody catch Chuck Michel on Andrew Wilkow this morning (Sirius/XM)? I heard bits and pieces... also mentioned CRPA stepping into the fight against Hutchens.

I caught the PM replay after Cam & Company with NRA News on Sirius Patriot 144. The LAT had an editorial praising Hutchens (typical Left-Wing fishwrap stuff), while the OCR was wholly against her and what she's been doing.

Chuck said that Hutchens was the most qualified female that was available, and that she's a great administrator, but knows nothing about running a department. She's a product of LAPD with the LA mentality that guns are all bad unless they're in the hands of cops. She's the completely wrong thing for OC, and I hope that there's so much pressure against her to resign that she'll slink off with her tail between her legs.