LAURACK D. BRAY, ESQ.
Federal Attorney
P.O. Box 611432
Los Angeles, CA. 90061
(805) 901-2693
April 28, 2010
James B. Becker
Assistant County Clerk and Recorder
Hall of Administration
800 South Victoria Avenue
Ventura, CA 93009
Dear Mr. Becker:
Re: Treasurer-Tax Collector Candidate Steven Hintz
As a matter of full disclosure, particularly for other Treasurer candidates and Ventura County voters (of which I am a member of the class), and especially in reference to Election Code sec. 13107(b)(1), the following information is provided.
The former judge Hintz has designated his ballot profession as “Retired Judge”.
However, his retirement was not “voluntary” , rather, it was involuntary, based on his being faced with incriminating evidence of criminal conduct pursuant to a federal criminal complaint filed against him (and, I believe, being caused to retire by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as an alternative to arrest and/or grand jury indictment )).
On June 25, 2007, I, along with two clients of mine, filed a federal criminal complaint against multiple individuals, including Mr. Hintz, charging them with multiple offenses, including violation of civil rights, conspiracy to violate civil rights, and obstruction of justice.
More specifically, for Hintz, he was charged with violating my civil rights based on my race (I am Black)(however , my two clients are white). He was charged with causing and continuing my unlawful and unconstitutional eviction from my home-law office in Ventura, California, and, consequently, causing the unlawful and unconstitutional shutdown of my law practice. I supported my complaint with evidence.
On the very same day, June 25, 2007, or thereabout, but after we filed our complaint, Hintz retired from the Superior Court bench. As we have argued and stated to the Department of Justice, without rebuttal from the Department, pursuant to FBI investigation of our complaint, the FBI, armed with the evidence supporting our complaint, offered judge Hintz the option of retiring from the bench on that day or thereabout or facing arrest and/or a likely grand jury indictment. Hintz chose to retire. Therefore, his retirement was involuntary and caused by FBI persuasion. However, “there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonably prudent voter”, faced with the designation “retired judge” would assume that Hintz’s retirement from the bench was completely and freely voluntary. That would be misleading, and the voter would have been misled.
CA Election Code sec. 13107(b)(1) states: Neither the Secretary of State nor any other elections official shall accept a designation of which any of the following would be true: It would mislead the voter.
In this instance, not only would the “retired judge” designation mislead Ventura County voters with respect to the involuntary nature of Hintz’s retirement, but it would also mislead them with respect to Hintz’s character (because if he, indeed, would have faced arrest or a grand jury indictment because the evidence would have supported it, it would mean that the FBI had found sufficient probable cause evidence that Hintz had committed the crime or crimes with which the complainants had charged, that it (the FBI) would present him with the option of retiring (or facing arrest and/or indictment)). And this reflects on his character .
In sum, as a matter of full disclosure regarding Steven Hintz’s ballot designation of “Retired Judge”, I, Laurack D. Bray, know and/or can show that a federal criminal complaint was filed against judge Hintz on June 25, 2007, and that judge Hintz retired on June 25, 2007 or thereabout (and after we filed our criminal complaint, and pursuant to that complaint); and, while I was not privy to any agreement between the FBI and judge Hintz (so I must state “I believe”), I believe that judge Hintz was given an alternative or option to retire (or face arrest and/or indictment), and he chose to retire. This scenario certainly could be flushed out at a hearing with testimony under oath.
Nevertheless, I believe that the ballot designation of “Retired Judge” would be misleading to Ventura County voters because they would assume that the retirement was freely and voluntary, rather than the result of an alternative or choice based on incriminating evidence of federal and felony criminal conduct.
While it appears that most instances of inappropriate or misleading ballot designations are brought to the attention of the Clerk-recorder by way of a challenge by an opposing candidate for office, pursuant to EC 13107, that is clearly not the only method of doing so. All EC 13107 requires is that the fact of a misleading designation is brought to the attention of the Secretary of State or elections official. Once that occurs, “Neither the Secretary of State nor any other elections official shall accept a designation of which any of the following would be true: (1) It would mislead the voter.” This letter serves to bring to your attention that Candidate Steven Hintz’s ballot designation of “Retired Judge”, under the circumstances, and in my view, as a Ventura County voter, is misleading. Hintz’s designation is especially misleading in the Treasurer-tax collector’s position, because there is another candidate, Thomas K. “Keith” McLaughlin, who also has the designation of “Retired” on the ballot. With all other qualifications being equal between Hintz and McLaughlin, and with certain voters having narrowed the final two candidates of choice down to McLaughlin and Hintz, it is more likely than not that a voter’s awareness of McLaughlin being voluntarily retired (I assume) and Hintz being involuntarily retired would make a difference in the choice he or she would make between the candidates. At minimum, the voluntary-involuntary characteristic would be a factor considered by the voter. As it stands now, Hintz’s retirement will be viewed the same as McLaughlin’s retirement by the voter, when, in fact, it is not the same.
It appears that the County of Ventura, on behalf of Ventura County voters, is required to offer Candidate Hintz an opportunity to make a showing that his designation is not misleading, and thereafter to make a determination and take the appropriate action. Otherwise, it will be a disservice to Ventura County voters on election day.
Finally, one other former Superior Court judge, Barry Klopfer, was also named in the criminal complaint, and he also “retired” after we filed our complaint. We believe he retired under the same circumstances as judge Hintz. Further, judge David Long, who is running unopposed for his judge position on the Superior Court, is also named in our complaint, and while he was not made to retire by the FBI, he remains under federal criminal investigation, as our criminal complaint is still pending. None of the charges has been dismissed based on a lack of evidence. The previous prosecutor, who oversaw the complaints when Hintz and Klopfer retired, has now been removed from office—and a criminal complaint was filed against him—and, to my knowledge, the new U.S. Attorney has not been officially appointed.
I will forward a copy of this letter to the California Secretary of State.
Sincerely yours,
Laurack D. Bray, Esq.
Cc: Secretary of State
League of Women Voters, Ventura County
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment