The case for reinstating Mirkarimi

Three points that the Mayor would do well to heed 

|
(113)

EDITORIAL We know for a fact that on New Year's Eve, 2011, Ross Mirkarimi, the elected but unsworn sheriff of San Francisco, had a physical altercation with his wife that left her with a bruised arm. We know she later complained about that bruise on a video lasting less than a minute. Beyond that, nobody except Mirkarimi and Eliana Lopez knows exactly what happened; there were no witnesses except the couple's three-year-old son, no video taken during the fight, no audio recordings — nothing.

We know that Mirkarimi agreed to plead guilty to misdemeanor false imprisonment — although we also know there was never any evidence that he actually imprisoned anyone.

That's all we really know about the incident that has set off an expensive, drawn-out, political and legal battle that could change the city's politics for years to come. If the whole thing seems a little overblown, that's because it is.

There is nothing in the record that justifies Mayor Ed Lee's move to suspend Mirkarimi, and nothing that would justify the supervisors voting to remove him from office. In fact, a removal vote would set a dangerous precedent for future mayors in a city that already gives its chief executive far too much power.

Let us examine the three main reasons why the board needs to vote to restore the elected sheriff.

1. If you believe Eliana Lopez, there's no case.

The only person other than Mirkarimi who can honestly and accurately testify about the events of New Year's eve is Lopez — and she has been clear, consistent, and convincing in her account.

Lopez acknowledges that she and her husband have had marital issues, that Mirkarimi wasn't as supportive or her and their young son as he should have been, that he was away from home and working when she should have been sharing domestic duties. She was considering divorce — but was worried that Mirkarimi might gain custody of their boy.

She testified under oath before the Ethics Commission that Mirkarimi was never someone who "beats his wife" (to use Lee's utterly inappropriate terminology). He had no history of domestic violence with her.

What he did was grab her arm during an argument, leaving a bruise. Inexcusable, but hardly a sign of serious assault. In fact, Lopez testified that she bruises so easily that just playing around with three-year-old Theo can leave marks on her.

Lopez testified that she made the video to use as a tool — a bargaining chip, so to speak — if Mirkarimi ever sought to gain custody of their son. She said she believed that her neighbor, Ivory Madison, who made the video, was a lawyer and that the video would be protected by attorney-client confidentiality. She said she never wanted to go to the police and never felt physically threatened by her husband.

The mayor charged Mirkarimi with attempting to dissuade witnesses and interfere with a police investigation, but those charges were based almost entirely on the testimony of Madison, whose rambling 22-page statement was so full of hearsay that the Ethics Commission tossed almost all of it. There was absolutely no evidence of witness tampering, and those claims were dismissed.

In fact, the only reason the commission recommended removal is the fact that Mirkarimi bruised his wife and pled to a misdemeanor — one that everyone knows he didn't really commit. Remember: It's legal, and common, in misdemeanor cases to plead to something you never did to avoid facing trial on more serious charges.

There's no principled way to accept as credible the testimony of Lopez and still vote to remove the sheriff. If she's telling the truth — and we believe her — the case should end right there.

2. Mirkarimi was chosen by the voters, and the voters can freely remove him.

Comments

Jason Grant Garza here ... whether perjury, bad faith, abuse of power, abuse of office or MORAL HAZARD ... these are common tactics used by the city to WIN.

The city does NOT care about HUMANITY, the LAW, Right Conduct, it's LEFT for DEAD INNOCENT VINDICATED VICTIMS just winning at ALL COSTS ...

Don't believe me ... type my name into a google search engine or better yet ... go to http://www.myownprivateguantanamo.com to see the city's paperwork regarding case C02-3485PJH where the city denied me EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES. At the website you will see the city "TESTILYIED" to have my case dismissed 2003 only to sign a "Confession/Settlement" Agreement in 2007 with the Office of Inspector General ADMITTING FAULT and GUILT for BREAKING FEDERAL LAW against me. Then they LEFT me for DEAD. Any more questions as to whether the city will lie or misrepresent or better yet MIS-SPEAK? Ha,ha,ha.

So when I went to start an investigation and accountability (how can you correct if not) I was ... you know the GAME. Now I went seeking MEDICAL services again 2011 (see case # 11081) at the MINISTRY of SUNSHINE and again the city gave the INCORRECT harmful and injurious city attorney advise and I was denied PUBLIC RECORDS. When I challenged them ... I still await not only the records but the MINISTRY holding them accountable and sending forward to ETHICS as requested. I guess I should just DIE now since HOPE, Good Conduct, Right Action will never happen at the MINISTRY. Call and ask the MINISTRY (Andrea 554-7724) where the HIPAA expert is in case # 11081 and if they are not screwed since I will not let it pass or WHITEWASH. When I tried to escalate the matter to Mr. Herrera ... you know the drill ... yet, I have kept all the paperwork to post to the web.

My in case # 11099 the city can not provide the CORRECT information as to who "ACCREDITS" them for patient/medical care" however, the MINISTRY has said it can not make DPH produce something it does not have, See case # 11099 ... Again faulty process, garbage in, garbage out is what the city provides and when BUSTED as in the "confession/settlement" agreement where the city admits breaking federal law against me ... I'm still Left for DEAD ... tactics, unaccountability, and inhumanity (Moral Hazard) is how this operates, runs and devolves.

Shall we NOW see the cover-up over the records (PUBLIC RECORDS) for the Bomb Scare, the PUBLIC being left as FODDER, or others spoken to? Wait it's coming ...

Yes, go to http://www.myownprivateguantanao.com to see HOW the city attorney PLAYS the GAME of JUSTICE, HUMANITY, COMPASSION, ETHICAL BEHAVIOR, Investigation and accountability in order to correct (ha,ha,ha) ... any more questions?

Posted by Jason Grant Garza on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 5:52 am

I agree with your comment and this is something to ask an attorney about as well, such as http://www.earlcarterlaw.com/

Posted by Jon on Mar. 10, 2013 @ 8:45 pm

Re:

1. If you believe Eliana Lopez, there's no case.

So Eliana Lopez says that she bruises easily, even when playing with Theo. But she had no problem holding up an inadvertent, inconsequential bruise up to the camera so that there would be a permanent record that could severly damage her otherwise innocent husband.

And you DO believe her?

2. Mirkarimi was chosen by the voters, and the voters can freely remove him.

And the City Charter was approved by....the voters, right? They approved a process to remove an elected official from office just like the US Constitution does. Lee can't remove Mirkarimi by himself, he needs the support of the Ethics Commission and 9 of 11 Supervisors. A pretty high bar.

Not sure why the Progressives cling to the line that there isn't a way to remove the Mayor. Exactly how would you do that if we only have 2 bodies of government. So if 9 Supervisors wanted to they could replace the Mayor? More distraction away from the issue.

3. This case mangles "official misconduct.

Whoa...you may have found a technical loop hole! Good for you. He was only a Supervisor, he wasn't going to be sworn in as Sheriff for a few more hours. He was only convicted and sentenced while he was Sheriff. Hey, you may have something there!

And regarding:

"Do we really want to have this case — this weak case driven more by politics than reason and evidence — set the precedent for the grave step of overriding the voters and removing an elected official?"

Yes, we do. Because we want our elected officials, especially those in law enforcement, to avoid situations where they have to plead guilty to ugly crimes while in office.

and:

"We know that Mirkarimi agreed to plead guilty to misdemeanor false imprisonment — although we also know there was never any evidence that he actually imprisoned anyone."

Well maybe then we just don't want a Sheriff who makes a mockery of our legal system by pleading guilty to a crime that he didn't commit.

Posted by Troll on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 7:38 am

Well, Troll, you've done it again. Contributed a bunch of words signifying nothing except your slavish devotion to Mayor Lee.

I'm glad at least for one of the many supposed facts you so often contribute here: the notion that voters "approved" the ethics process in 1995 today being used for political purposes by the Lee machine.

In the ballot pamphlet for the November 1995 San Francisco election -- wherein Prop E's slippery "impliedly required" words that are now being twisted to allow this political assassination first made their appearance -- a summary written by the ballot simplification committee for the charter reform measure appears on page 63 and demonstrates that the voters made no such "approval":

"Article XV: Ethics

(Current)
The current Charter contains provisions establishing and governing the operations of the Ethics Commission. The Charter also contains detailed prohibitions regulating conflicts of interests. Under the Charter, a salaried officer of the City may not also hold a salaried office with the state or federal governments.

(Proposed)
The proposed revision WOULD MAKE NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES REGARDING THE ETHICS COMMISSION [empasis added], although some procedural material would be moved to Appendix C, which could only be changed by a charter amendment. The confilct of interest provisions would also be retained in Appendix C. Dual officeholding would be prohibited where the City and the state or federal salaries both exceed $2,500 a year."

So Troll, also take note of how "conflicts of interest" figure prominently in the analysis of the ethics law. Nothing at all about van driving or momentarily grabbing your wife's arm.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 9:25 am

Yes... one of the supposed facts that I mentioned was that the voters approved the City Charter.

You seem to take exception to that. So, okay Lilli, I accept that in your confused mind the voters did NOT approve the City Charter. However, you should be aware that virtually everyone else in the city believes that they did. You are sort of out on your own there.

And #2, yes, there is nothing specifically mentioned in the Charter "about van driving or momentarily grabbing your wife's arm".

So I will give you those two points.

In return I think that you should at least try to consider how incredibly stupid you come off in these ridiculous rambling posts.

Anyway, I'm doing what I criticize others for doing, which is arguing with someone who obviously deserves our pity and compassion so I should stop.

Posted by Troll on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 9:42 am

*That's* what the voters approved in 1995.

Oh yeah, here's the link:

http://sfpl4.sfpl.org/pdf/main/gic/elections/November7_1995short.pdf

Starts on Page 57, the paragraph I transcribed appears on Page 63.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 9:57 am

When was the last time you had "a physical altercation with [your wife, husband, partner, boyfriend, girlfriend] that left her/him with a bruised arm"?

When was the last time, as the result of a "physical altercation," you received a bruised arm from [your wife, husband, partner, boyfriend, girlfriend]

How many here can answer "yes." The fact is, the sheriff abused his wife. Enough said.

Posted by CarolT on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 7:45 am

going through life like that without any sense of proportionality. An arm grab is not a beating. one arm grab does not an abuser make. If someone looks at you with a scowl,do you cry out in agony ?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 8:05 am

And never-not once, have I laid a hand on my spouse or vice versa. Trying to minimize what happened into "an arm grab" is disgusting and revolting. Ross made it very clear when he plead out that what he did was wrong and since he hasn't gotten kicked out of counseling, I am assuming that he is accepting responsibility for what he did. Take Ross at his word that it was something wrong and that he shouldn't have done it.

Posted by D.native on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 8:51 am

Yes, it does. Educate yourself about domestic violence.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 02, 2012 @ 12:33 pm

to mean: "Drink the DV Koolaid! There is never anything worth engaging one's mind about after an accusation of DV has been made!"

Here's Ross' testimony to the EC:
*********************
"We were quarreling. Both me and my wife were upset.

My son was crying and I was, stupidly, wrongly thinking that I can, you know, respond to this in a way that might calm things down, and I reached out to my wife while I was in the driver's seat while she was unharnessing our son.

She was half in and half out of the minivan.

He was upset. She was upset.

And I put my hand underneath her right arm, and that is how it got bruised."

******************

Personally, I find Ross' and Eliana's sworn testimony more compelling than the DV community's puerile aphorism; and far more convincing than the mayor's claims of piety in this matter.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 02, 2012 @ 1:16 pm

Sorry Guardian Ed. I'm sure you were simply faling into the trap of wanting to avoid getting pounced on for "minimizing violence," but an altercation *already* carries the connotation of being physical without actually being modified by the term.

Remember: we're talking about a momentary arm grab and a bruise on the inside of the easily bruisable Eliana Lopez. Describing such as a "physical altercation" is worthy of Ivory Madison's comical hearsay deposition.

According to sworn statements by the only witnessess, they had a noisy argument and there was a momentary arm grab.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 02, 2012 @ 2:51 pm

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/altercation

As you can see- an altercation does NOT carry the connotation of being physical.

Posted by D. Native on Oct. 02, 2012 @ 3:06 pm

but some of the synonyms from the link you provided do, so I think there's at least of whiff of that sense; in any case, my central point was that describing their argument as a "physical altercation" grossly overemphasizes the significance of a momentary arm grab.

A "physical altercation" is a euphemism for a fistfight.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 02, 2012 @ 3:53 pm

Carol asks a great question, which is why no Mirkarimi supporters have a good answer.

Posted by Hortencia on Oct. 02, 2012 @ 2:38 pm

Gentlemen know that if you are having an argument with a woman you don't do anything that even implies physical intimidation. Yes, you are probably bigger and stronger than her. Grabbing her forcefully is just a way to let her know that she is dealing with someone who could kick her ass so she better get in line.

Do you think he would have grabbed an arm if he was having an argument with a big MMA fighter?

Posted by Troll on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 9:20 am

Was Eliana physically intimidated? Would she have yanked her arm back and shouted "no!" if she had been?

Nobody is seriously saying that Ross' mistake made during the heat of an argument about Eliana's desire to leave the country with his son Theo for another long absence was justifiable, but I will say the fact that they were arguing about her leaving is at least partly exculpatory.

The fact is that parents tend to get a bit irrational when their parental ties are threatened, and his momentary mistake can just as easily be interpreted in that light as indicative of some wider abusive nature towards women -- of which no credible proof has ever been shown.

So, to answer your question, yes. If Eliana was a 6'4" MMA fighter, I think Ross might have made the same mistake in that situation.

Funny how you repeatedly refer to mixed martial arts, Troll; seems a bit on the side of glorifying violence, though to be sure it dovetails neatly with your habit of engaging in ad hominem abusiveness.

In your doggedness concerning this matter, you've reminded me of one of the fellows on SFGate who I used to spar with, who still goes under the name of MAXPILATUS. Max had some beef with Mirkarimi stemming from when Ross was an investigator for the DA's office and Max had run afoul of some environmental laws.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 9:53 am

"We know that Mirkarimi agreed to plead guilty to misdemeanor false imprisonment — although we also know there was never any evidence that he actually imprisoned anyone."

So Mirkarimi pled guilty to a crime he didn't commit? Is that really your argument? Mirkarimi lied when he pled guilty, because he was really innocent?

An inspirational example to law enforcement officers everywhere...

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly Persistent on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 8:17 am

I just happen to buy the first version more than the second. The first version was much more in the heat of the moment and authentic. It was less than 24 hours after the incident, the bruise is in color for all to see. The second version was canned and prepared over several months.

Posted by D.native on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 8:53 am

The crime has nothing to do with Mirkarimi's job performance. He didn't take bribes or engage in corrupt practices in office and as far as I'm concerned that should be the end of it.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 9:00 am

If he were just a supervisor or city treasurer you would be right, but he was elected to a law enforcement position, the standards are higher.

Posted by Guest II on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 9:12 am

Well, Troll, you've done it again. Contributed a bunch of words signifying nothing except your slavish devotion to Mayor Lee.

I'm glad at least for one of the many supposed facts you so often contribute here: the notion that voters "approved" the ethics process in 1995 today being used for political purposes by the Lee machine.

In the ballot pamphlet for the November 1995 San Francisco election -- wherein Prop E's slippery "impliedly required" words that are now being twisted to allow this political assassination first made their appearance -- a summary written by the ballot simplification committee for the charter reform measure appears on page 63 and demonstrates that the voters made no such "approval":

"Article XV: Ethics

(Current)
The current Charter contains provisions establishing and governing the operations of the Ethics Commission. The Charter also contains detailed prohibitions regulating conflicts of interests. Under the Charter, a salaried officer of the City may not also hold a salaried office with the state or federal governments.

(Proposed)
The proposed revision WOULD MAKE NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES REGARDING THE ETHICS COMMISSION [empasis added], although some procedural material would be moved to Appendix C, which could only be changed by a charter amendment. The confilct of interest provisions would also be retained in Appendix C. Dual officeholding would be prohibited where the City and the state or federal salaries both exceed $2,500 a year."

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 9:08 am

Well, Lilli, you've done it again. Contributed a bunch of words signifying nothing except your slavish devotion to Mirkarimi.

Posted by Guest II on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 9:35 am

Purely a misdemeanor violation, of course, since there was no undue use of force or intent to harm Eliana.

http://www.shouselaw.com/false_imprisonment.html

That said, I wonder it does not appear obvious how hightly selective the prosecution was. I mean, there must be hundreds of thousands of guilty people walking among us.

And does it make *any* sense that Mason Meyer was allowed to plea to the *exact* *same* misdemeanor and receive the same three years probation and a year of DV counselling for his vicious attack on his girlfriend; beating her repeatedly in the face and torso while pinning her to the ground, slamming her head against a marble floor and telling her he would see her dead that night -- an attack which only ended when he was surprised by a visitor at his door?

Can anyone name a similar case where the defendant plead to misdemeanor false imprisonment for no crime except a momentary arm grab and turning the family van around rather than take a squabble into a public space?

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 9:21 am

Selective prosecution is the modus operendi of the City Attorney. There are 4 sitting supervisors with findings of official misconduct related to the concealment of records regarding Parcmerced. The City Attorney has not stormed the Ethics Commission demanding action on these 4, some of whom are up for re-election in November. These 4 should be prohibited from voting on the official misconduct of another.

Posted by roflynn on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 12:03 pm

You believe Eliana - Which version do you believe? The one where she says her husband abused her for the second time, or the one where she denied everything.

Mirkarimi was chosen by the voters - 70% of those voters want him recalled.

Offocial Misconduct - He was sheriff when he pled guilty to a crime that should have placed him in his own jail.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 9:26 am

She didn't say "my husband abuse me for a second time" -- not in the video and certainly not in her sworn, translator facilitated testimony before the "Ethics Commission".

What she said, in the scripted video made at her ersatz friend and ersatz lawyer-neighbor Ivory Madison's behest, is that "this is not the first time this is happening"; which she has testified subsequently in no uncertain terms referred to the argument about her intention to take Theo out of the country for another long trip to Venezuela.

You lie when you claim that "70% of the voters" want Mirkarimi removed. Boldly.

If his turning the van around should have "placed him in his own jail," then please advise as to your opinion of the Mason Mayer case.

I await your reply.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 9:39 am

Dude, we don't CARE about the Mason Mayer case. It happened in another jurisdiction and did not involve anyone who wants to represent law enforcement in our city.

Have you heard anyone else mention it despite your constant blitherings?

Do you want to even TRY to become something other than the village idiot around here?

Posted by Another Guest on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 9:57 am

To what "different jurisdiction" could you possibly be referring?

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 10:10 am

Had Chris Cunnie been elected Sheriff and fallen into the exact same circumstances? My guess is no- it would not have been. Bruce and his merry band of misfits would have been leading marches, holding candlelit vigils in Dolores Park, and going on and on (much like they have in support of Ross) to get him out.

The difference, they like Ross and he is currently the only progressive in citywide office. The BG can go on and on about it's principaled stand for Ross, but it all comes down to the fact that they like him and hate Lee.

Posted by Guest II on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 9:38 am

Chris Cunnie believes that cops should be able to commit murder with impunity. Cunnie was head of the POA and defended officer Gregory Breslin when he shot and killed a 17 year-old girl.

Then, when people gave testimony about it at the Police Commission, daring to demand that Breslin be held accountable, Cunnie hissed at them.

Ross Mirkarimi is a dedicated public servant with more compassion in his little finger than Cunnie has in his whole body.

Posted by Erika McDonald on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 9:53 am

Whether or not Chris Cunnie is a better person than Ross, or vice versa is irrelevant- the point of the post was to point out the hypocrisy of the SFBG. Bringing up Cunnie's issues just clouds the argument and is a distraction.

Besides, Ross is well known in City circles as being an arrogant jerk- rude,c rude and an all around ass. Does that make him unfit to be Sheriff- nope- just makes him a jerk. It is his conviction that makes him unfit.

Posted by D. Native on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 11:51 am

Unless and until you can show any fact to back your scurrilous claim that the SF Bay Guardian would exhibit the least bit of hypocrisy in regard to Lee's opportunistic abuse of city ethics law, why don't you just clam up about it?

Your imputation of hypocrisy is not the same thing as proving it -- understand? -- and the same goes for your other insinuations.

In fact, I'm having trouble recollecting anything you've ever posted on this site which had any validity. Why don't you just try to stick to that which you can justify by citation from other credible sources for a while?

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 12:03 pm

"In fact, I'm having trouble recollecting anything you've ever posted on this site which had any validity." Funny you should say that Lilli- Often I have thought the exact same of you.

I know this will be a hard one for you but bear with me. My original post was a hypothesis- as I stated it was a guess, granted an educated one, that if the accused was Cunnie of Greg Suhr, the BG would be screaming from the rafters for his head and leading candle-lit marches from Dolores Park. Personally- and this is only my opinion- I think I am correct. Now can I offer any definitive proof? Nope sure can't, but thankfully I am free to ignore your request to clam up.

I will continue to post my opinions- and when I want, facts supported by credible sources whenever and wherever I so choose.

Personally, I again find it very ironic that you of all people are requesting that I only post facts with credible sources. Several times I have challenged you to support something with facts and suddenly you ignore the conversation and move on to another thread to bully someone else.

Posted by D. Native on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 1:09 pm
Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 1:12 pm
One

First- I object to the idea that the Charter is being misused. So apparently does the Ethics Commission. Secondly, I admit I cannot find a single Sheriff who resigned due to "an arm grab". however, I do know one who should have resigned :=).

Now my challenge to you. Please find me an elected law enforcement officer, i.e Sheriff or DA, or even Attorney General, who has remained in office after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor domestic violence related crime, and was placed on probation.

Posted by D. Native on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 1:34 pm

D. Native you say: "Several times I have challenged you to support something with facts and suddenly you ignore the conversation and move on to another thread to bully someone else".

Lillipublicans reply: "D. Native, name one occurance of that happening. *One.*
Thanks.

@D. Native. It appears that you are the one that cannot support what you just said with any facts.

Please provide one instance in which Lillipublicans did what you just did. And good luck with that. Thanks.

Posted by jccourt on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 11:41 am

Oh please, he does it all the time, jcourt. Do you think that we write examples down for reference?

Here is one that I could google easily as an example. At one point @lilli said that it was undemocratic to remove an elected official by means other than recall, so I mentioned that the framers of the US constitution felt otherwise and provided for impeachment.

So at that point @lilli pontificates that the founding fathers didn't anticipate political parties.

Which is absurd, of course. It was something that he made up. You can google books about the whigs and tories operating in England as far back as the 17th century.

Enter whigs and tories in the SFBG search box to see the thread I'm talking about.

So then he starts going nuts and spouting more things that make absolutely no sense to any rational person.

After a while you begin to feel sorry for him and guilty that you are infuriating such a troubled, heavily challenged individual and you walk away. But on the other hand the guy is a major douchebag, above and beyond any intellectual challenges that he may be facing.

Posted by Another Guest on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 1:43 pm

Encyclopedia Britannica:

"The reign of George III (1760–1820) brought a shift of meanings to the two words. No Whig Party as such existed at the time, only a series of aristocratic groups and family connections operating in Parliament through patronage and influence. Nor was there a Tory Party, only Tory sentiment, tradition, and temperament surviving among certain families and social groups. The so-called King’s Friends, from whom George III preferred to draw his ministers (especially under Lord North [afterward 2nd earl of Guilford], 1770–82), came from both traditions and from neither. Real party alignments began to take shape only after 1784, when profound political issues that deeply stirred public opinion were arising, such as the controversy over the American Revolution."

Just for emphasis, one more time:

"REAL PARTY ALIGNMENTS BEGAN TO TAKE SHAPE ONLY AFTER 1784, WHEN PROFOUND POLITICAL ISSUES THAT DEEPLY STIRRED PUBLIC OPINION WERE ARISING,

SUCH

AS

THE

CONTROVERSY

OVER

THE

AMERICAN

REVOLUTION."

Actually, AG, I know you know that I've never been proven wrong. I know you know that you don't have the intellectual capacity to notice if I ever do say something wrong. I also know you are a stubborn jackass and will never admit what a simpleton you are in comparison; will never admit it when I prove you wrong, which I've done on innumerable occasions.

Thanks.

Posted by lillipublicans on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 7:28 pm

The British historian J. P. Kenyon wrote entire books about the development of political parties in the 17th century. You can find them on Amazon. Maybe the term 'parties' evolved over time but there were factions and groups doing the partisan thing at least in the 17th century. And the founding fathers were aware of their influence.

But lets assume that Kenyon is wrong and you are right because you looked up the encyclopedia entry.

It says that the parties originated in 1784. The statement that you originally blithered was that the US Constitutional framers didn't anticipate parties.

So Jefferson, Madison, Paine et al. just didn't keep up with political developments for five years? Just wasn't something that interested any of them?

Do you want to enlighten us about that one, oh great wise blithering blowhard?

Posted by Another Guest on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 11:07 pm

children, they will seize on any kernal of truth which may seem to remain of their arguments and focus exclusively on it while ignoring a vast preponderance of contrary facts.

The original premise A.G. espoused was that the founding fathers would be completely comfortable with the city's ethics process for removing Ross Mirkarimi as sheriff because they wrote impeachment into the Constitution. (I hesitate to put this in quotes simply because the words were no doubt slightly different, but that's the *exact* point he was trying to make.)

I pointed out two major flaws with the claim.

For one, almost every instance of impeachment in this country has been marked by a wholly partisan nature; with members of dominant parties voting along party lines rather than judging facts honestly.

The vacuously partisan impeachment of Clinton is a perfect case in point.

I elaborated that the founders did not forsee political parties, since they did not exist when the Constitution was written; the minisculte and insignificant scratch in my argument which A.G. has since comically adhered to.

In fact, the founding fathers would have deplored the slavish partisan workings of our nowadays party-divided government, and they had hoped the parties as had then only recently taken hold in England -- AG makes 1797 minus 1794 to equal "five years," but it seems closest to three -- would not flourish in the newly-minted United States.

This can be verified through numerous sources, and George Washington *never* joined a political party.

But A.G.'s foolish distraction is simply to distract from the far more salient point I made: that our local "ethics" system does not provide for removing Mayor Ed Lee. The city's "ethics" process lacks the fundamental characteristic of the Constitution in having no provision for removing the top executive.

A.G. and D'Native may, or may not, be the exact same puny-intellect reactionary twit attempting to impersonate a "moderate" while spewing confused and idiotic non-sequiturs, but they certainly share the same modus operandi; witness D'Native's seizing on the meaning of "banned."

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 01, 2012 @ 7:08 am

"D'Native's seizing on the meaning of "banned."

Not sure what you are talking about here.

Posted by D. Native on Oct. 01, 2012 @ 7:51 am

And your M.O. is that you confuse your random addled reduced neurological activity with the truth. The founding fathers hoped that political parties wouldn't take hold here?

So much so that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson created their own party months after the Constitution was written?

And the point you make about no impeachment procedure for the Mayor is a complete non sequitur. How are you going to impeach the executive branch of government when you only have 11 people in the legislative branch? So if the Mayor battled the BOS they would have the power to remove him but he can't touch them? In the Mirkarimi situation the executive branch and the legislative have to agree.

Don't even bother writing that the system of checks and balances is a mendacious effort by puny right wing intellects to protect their perjury prone 'interim' mayor supported only by push polls and those bold liars at the Chronicle.

Posted by Another Guest on Oct. 01, 2012 @ 8:02 am

already noted that they share a behavior.

Neccessary to respond further? Not really, but AG's "few months" claim with regard to his supposition about Thomas Jefferson and James Madison "founding their own parties" demonstrates a continuing willingness to screw with that most elemental of truth-based human endeavors, mathematics.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 01, 2012 @ 8:25 am

lol you're always bloviating about people putting things in quotes improperly when it suits your purposes to do so.

Where did I say a "few months" you hypocritical fool?

Posted by Another Guest on Oct. 01, 2012 @ 8:52 am

"Founding Fathers did not anticipate or desire the existence of political parties, viewing them as "factions" dangerous to the public interest"

http://www.shmoop.com/political-parties/founding-fathers-political-parti...

If the founders had anticipated the formation of poltical parties, then they wouldn't have had to enact the Twelfth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1804 (that's *fifteen* years after the Constitution went into effect, AG) to prevent the awkward possibility of members of opposing parties being elected to the offices of President and Vice-President at the same time.

And remember: the original claim made by AG was that the city's ethics process -- which I held to be deeply flawed and in need of scrapping -- would be supported by this nation's founding fathers since they had written impeachment into the Constitution, but since the ethics process has no provision for removing the top executive, that is clearly an incompetently-founded claim.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 01, 2012 @ 2:24 pm

shmoop.com? Without any further reference?

How long did it take you to find shmoop.com?

What does shmoop.com have to say about idiots who don't realize that people are laughing at them?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 01, 2012 @ 2:55 pm

political parties, but that they simply didn't anticipate that the electoral college system they set up in 1789 would often elect members of different parties to the respective offices of the president and vice-president?

And, as it seems neccessary to repeat this each time the notion of political parties comes up, my major point in the first place was that the U.S. Constitution's provision for impeachment and removal of the top executive has *no* parallel in the city's "ethics" law because Mayor Lee having the sole perogative to put it into motion is not subject to it.

Make fun of Shmoop, D'Naive, it's way more authoritative than Wiki Answers. And if I'm being ridiculed by the likes of you braying jackasses, it bothers me not at all.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 01, 2012 @ 4:14 pm

I wasn't that guest making fun of shmoop. Though I do think it is ironic that you use as your source a website dedicated to helping students with homework etc.

Posted by D. Native on Oct. 02, 2012 @ 7:52 am
Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 02, 2012 @ 9:25 am

Related articles

  • Full circle

    After months of discussion and faulty charges, the case against Ross Mirkarimi comes down to the initial act — and how broadly to define 'official misconduct'

  • Guardian editorial: The real Mirkarimi question

    Do you believe Eliana, or not?

  • Perspective and proportion

    As the Ethics Commission finishes taking testimony in Mirkarimi inquiry, the evidence on most charges seems increasingly thin