Oakland (Special to ZennieReport.com) – On Wednesday July 24th, the Oakland Public Ethics Commission took an embarrassing court loss in its attempt to discredit the the organization called “Oakland United to Recall Sheng Thao” aka OUST – the Campaign to Recall Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao. But these days of fast news in Oakland are such that some publications get it wrong, at times. According to Brenda Harbin-Forte, President of OUST, The Bay City News was that publication.
Judge Harbin-Forte Blasts Bay City News
In an emailed letter, Retired Alameda County Judge Brenda Harbin-Forte wrote the following:
Dear Friends,
As you might know, Wednesday afternoon Judge Spain tentatively ruled in our favor on the Public Ethics Commission’s motion to enforce its unconstitutional subpoenas, denying the motion in its entirety. On Thursday, the PEC gave notice that it wanted a hearing to advise the court that it intended to issue new subpoenas, that it wanted clarification on some of the court’s constitutional rulings, and that it wanted the case kept open in case there were disputes over the new subpoenas. The PEC never challenged the merits of Judge Spain’s decision. On Friday morning, Judge Spain recused (disqualified) herself from hearing the motion, and the case will be reassigned to another judge and another hearing date set. I have no doubt that the new judge will rule the same way Judge Spain did and will also invalidate the subpoenas at issue.
Many people have tried to read something sinister or newsworthy into what was really a routine recusal order, but there really is nothing to see here. Below is an email I just sent to Bay City News asking it to correct an article that was misleading and contained an untrue statement. I commend it to you if you have questions about the import of the recusal/disqualification order. Feel free to pass this email along to people who question you about what the recusal might mean.
As I have explained in interviews with the press, it would have been easy to allow the PEC to engage in unconstitutional overreach and abuse of its investigatory authority, and give up all of the information sought by the invalid subpoenas. But I believe in the rule of law, I believe the law must be followed, and I believe that the constitutional rights of all citizens must always be protected. These principles are worth fighting for, so I was honored that OUST and FOU could speak up for those people whose voices the PEC sought to silence through its unconstitutional actions.
Take care,
Brenda
The Letter To Bay City News From Harbin-Forte
Hi Kiley and Bay City News and Its Affiliates,
I’m sorry we didn’t get a chance to talk yesterday. I read your article today and was alarmed because portions are simply untrue, which makes the article misleading. You stated that the recusal came just before the Public Ethics Commission (PEC) was getting ready to come into court to challenge Judge Spain’s tentative ruling. That statement is simply not true. The PEC never intended to challenge the merits of Judge Spain’s ruling. In fact, the PEC conceded that the subpoenas were invalid, and planned to issue new subpoenas. Below is the notice that the PEC’s attorney sent to the court and to OUST’s attorney last Thursday. Any party sending such a notice is required to tell the Court and the opposing party exactly what aspect of the tentative ruling it intends to contest.
I request that you print the PEC’s notice in its entirety as part of your retraction of the untrue statement in and the misleading tenor of your article. The recusal meant nothing in the grand scheme of things, and the public should not read anything into it. In my almost 28 years on the bench, I recused myself from numerous cases, including just before argument on a motion or a trial if a basis for my recusal was belatedly discovered. Those routine recusals never had anything to do with the merits of the dispute. All judges must comply with this mandatory ethical obligation if they feel a person aware of the facts might entertain a reasonable doubt about the judge’s impartiality. A recusal (disqualification) order is issued so as to maintain the public’s trust and confidence in the judiciary.
NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PEC’S COUNSEL TO THE COURT AND TO THE ATTORNEYS FOR OUST AND FOU:
Good afternoon,
Petitioner, City of Oakland Public Ethics Commission, will contest the Court’s tentative ruling via oral argument. The Commission wishes to proceed with oral argument to inform the Court that it will be issuing revised subpoenas that address the issues raised by the Court in its tentative ruling and to seek clarity on: (1) the constitutional findings in the tentative; and (2) to request that the matter remain open pending any further dispute over compliance with revised subpoenas.
Opposing counsel for all parties are included on this email.
Thank you,
As you can see, there is absolutely nothing in this notice that says the PEC planned to challenge the merits of Judge Spain’s well-reasoned tentative ruling. Please kindly perform a public service and correct the misinformation you published.
Thank you,
Brenda Harbin-Forte, President
Now, the ball is in Bay City News’ court.