The back-and-forth on this page is getting old. Maybe it's time to address it head on. To be clear, I know nothing whatsoever about the lawsuit, apart from what's on the page here. A couple of issues:
From what's written on the page, it looks like the lawsuit was not dismissed on the merits, but for failure to pay $2,500 in costs. In other words, the court didn't find that the suit lacked merit. While the appeal is still pending, IMO information about the lawsuit should remain on the page.
Regarding the campaign contributions. First, Judge Maguire's Form 700 filing does show that he received $5,000 from Judge Rosenberg and an additional $1,000 from Judge Rosenberg's election committee. Then again, he also got contributions from Judges Mock, Richardson, Warriner (retired - great guy, though!), Basha, McAdam, Reed, and Gaard. I don't see any sign of contributions from a Mike Levy (there was an attorney from Vandepoel, Levy & Assoc., but the Levy at that firm is a David Levy). I also don't see anything from a Mike McGuire or anyone else openly from Archer Norris. Moreover, I don't see how campaign contributions are remotely relevant, unless there's some sort of bribery claim going on. If a judge were disqualified every time he got a contribution from someone associated with a party, we'd have no judges to hear half of the cases out there. I'd say delete the paragraph re: campaign contributions.
The whole conspiracy theory about Judge Menendez being biased in the 2011 lawsuit is just goofy absent some genuine evidence. The vast majority of judges in and around Yolo County volunteer with events at McGeorge or King Hall. That doesn't mean they're biased. I'm in professional associations with local judges. I've been to Association of Defense Counsel meetings where the talks were given by local judges. I've read about talks by local judges to local plaintiffs' bar meetings. It's called being involved in the legal community and has nothing to do with disqualifying a judge. Moreover, there's a procedure available of a party thinks a judge won't be fair but can't prove it. CCP §170.6 lets you peremptorily kick a judge off a case. That obviously wasn't exercised with regards to Menendez.
I propose a rewrite along the lines of the following:
Ryan Clifford, a former pledge and student, sued AEPi for hazing and the University for civil rights violations stemming from events in November 2008. The lawsuit was dismissed in April 2012 due to an odd procedural quirk, in which Clifford was ordered to pay for an AEPi witness's travel expenses when the trial in the case was delayed at the last second. Clifford failed to pay the $2,500, and the case was dismissed three days before trial. The dismissal is currently being appealed.
Clifford also sued the University in 2011 for negligence and federal violations, but the lawsuit was dismissed in April 2012. Clifford is appealing, alleging judicial misconduct because of the judge's history of involvement with King Hall.
Sure. Looks good to me. —ScottMeehleib
I went ahead and plugged that language in. If anyone disagrees with the change feel free to revert, but please explain here. —tg
Evidently there are objections to the above version. I don't feel like dealing with it through e-mail anymore, as the person e-mailing me clearly is unwilling to believe that I have no interest in this matter. I'm copying the e-mails here. —TomGarberson
E-mail of 12/8/12
It is extremely sad that you, out of all the Davis Wiki writers that I have had respect for, have chosen to get personally involved and defend those that hurt my son. YOU have no idea what trauma and pain and how many surgeries he has had to go through because of some perpetrators that call themselves fraternity brothers.
Your newly created "talk" page and comments tells me that being an attorney and staying on the good side of judges is more important than standing for truth. You never challenged the fraternity comments which were undocumented and full of lies that were left unchallenged for months until I posted comments in October. Then when an anonymous fraternity alumni member/law student chose to delete my comments and someone reset it back to my comments you chose to come to AEPi's rescue including the judges.
There was no "odd procedural quirk" involved. The travel expenses were not for an AEPi "witness". A motion of bribery was filed. Election documents show Mike Levy and Archer Norris donated. I won't challenge all your inaccuracies here.
It is apparent that you have been talking with someone on the defendants' side. If you are brave enough to respond, my question to you is why you chose to get personally involved???
Response of 12/8/12
Wow. You're reading WAY too much into my post. To respond to your rather puzzling accusations...
1) As far as I'm aware, I've never spoken with anyone from AEPi.
2) I don't know anything about the case. I've never talked to anyone about the case or read anything about it apart from what's been posted on the wiki.
3) I don't know who the Sam Pretwell guy is. I didn't know he was a law student (is he?). I have no involvement with him or anyone else remotely involved in that. Including Judge Maguire. I've never had a case in front of him, and I don't think I've ever met him. In fact, I've only appeared before any judges in Yolo County a couple of times. The vast majority of my cases are Sacramento or Placer Counties.
4) The only thing I know about Judge Maguire's political contributions are from the FPPC's reports, available here or by going to www.fppc.ca.gov and searching for "daniel maguire" - it was the second result down for me. If there is other donor information that isn't reflected there, that might change my assessment of the situation. Can you point me to that info?
5) You're absolutely right that I have no idea what trauma and pain your son has had to go through. That's why I have no position on his case. I only did anything on the page because the content on the page was a mess and a source of ongoing disagreement. As I have done on hundreds of pages on the wiki, I gave my input, suggested changes, made those changes when no one objected, and created a talk page. The purpose of that talk page is to talk about content. Talk pages are used to discuss content and sort out disagreements over content. That's the place to voice your concerns with my changes and to get others' input on the subject.
6) My mistake if I was wrong about the AEPi national guy being a witness. I must have misunderstood what was written there. Feel free to correct, along with any other inaccuracies.
I apologize if I upset you, but you're 100% wrong about my motivations. My only interest in the page is in its value as a resource (with the rest of the wiki) for the Davis community, the same as every other page on the wiki. If you think the content is inaccurate or incomplete, you can explain why here: http://daviswiki.org/Alpha_Epsilon_Pi/Talk
E-mail of 12/11/12
If you "don't know anything about the case", then why did you decide you knew what happened? The "content on the page was a mess"? Who made you the writing authority in deciding what I wrote was a mess?
As an attorney, you felt the need to defend who? Is it Attorney Mike Levy, Judge Dave Rosenberg, Judge John Mendez, etc.? Your bias is showing through yet you pretend to not have a vested interest in what I wrote.
I didn't want to embarrass you so I contacted you here. Apparently, you don't care if that happens.
Reply of 12/11/12
First please read the following pages:
What I did on that page is the exact same as what I do on other pages on the wiki on probably a weekly basis. I sometimes make mistakes in that (as you've obviously done in judging my intentions). If I've made mistakes, feel free to correct them.
I'm not defending anyone. I've never met any of the people you named, apart from appearing in front of Rosenberg once a couple of years ago on a case I haven't been involved in for over a year.
If you choose not to believe me, that's your prerogative. But throwing around baseless accusations is a poor way to garner community support. Feel free to "embarrass" me by engaging in the standard wiki process for discussing page content.
I don't feel like dealing with this further. I don't know whether Lin is paranoid or simply irrational due to the stress of his son's situation, but I'm offended by his accusations. To whomever decides to work on the content for this page, enjoy instantly becoming part of a conspiracy! —TomGarberson
Yeah some people just don't get it. This seems like something that would give you pause on helping out on the wiki and I don't want to see you go the way of the Allerbeast. I will step up and field further inquiry into this matter Daubert
I got lost on the ins-and-outs of this a long time ago and didn't have the time and energy to pursue it, so I was glad when Tom Garberson took his own personal time to try to straighten out what had become a messy back-and-forth. The fact that accusations are now being thrown at him for doing so is appalling. —CovertProfessor
I completely agree. Tom is one of the most stand-up, honest people I have had the pleasure of getting to know. These accusations are beyond incredulous and I believe an apology is due from Lin. —PeteB