Opinion: Stracener’s lies should keep him off the bench
To the community,
When a lawyer states, “I have appeared before the California and U.S. Supreme Courts,” people reasonably interpret this statement as meaning that the attorney has argued cases in person before the justices of the Supreme Courts. Most people do not think that submitting a document for filing “technically” constitutes an appearance before the court.
Throughout his campaign Judge [Warren] Stracener has misled the public in boasting he has appeared before the California and U.S. Supreme Courts. He continues to assert this achievement in his campaign literature despite being publicly criticized for his “calculated misrepresentation.”
According to all news articles I have read, Judge Stracener has never personally argued a case before the CA or US Supreme Courts but has “filed” legal documents.
Had Judge Stracener argued cases in person before these justices, it would be quite an achievement and honor. His “technical” appearances by merely filing legal documents is not all that remarkable, especially when one considers that thousands of inmates and lawyers have also “technically” appeared before the California and U.S. Supreme Courts as they too have filed writs or legal documents that were denied by the justices without a hearing.
When witnesses are sworn to testify, they take an oath to “tell the truth and nothing but the truth.” It would seem to me that a judge should be held to the same if not a higher standard in stating the whole truth.
I have lived in El Dorado County for 45 years and have attended sessions of our local court hundreds of times while previously serving our community as a police officer and then as a deputy probation officer. I have always been highly impressed with our local judiciary until recently. Judge Stracener’s ongoing intentional misrepresentation sets a very poor example to the juveniles he presides over and the public he purports to serve.
Joe Hoffman has been an attorney in our community for the last 18 years, and has also served in the capacity as judge pro tem (a temporary judge). He is the only non-incumbent local judicial candidate that I can ever recall being endorsed by local judges. In addition, Joe Hoffman alone is endorsed by local prosecutors, deputy Sheriffs’ and court clerks. Many members of the local bar association also support his candidacy.
Please join us in casting a vote for Joe Hoffman.
Sincerely,
Laurie Edwards, Cameron Park
All those words like “by merely filing legal documents is not all that remarkable” he still has my support 100%.
This article is pretty pathetic in the sense that the only dirt the author was able to pull up on judge Stracener is the “merely filing legal documents… Judge Stracener has been on the bench for about two years and has done a fine job with no controversial decsisions.
Why would you want to elect Joe Hoffman, who is a “Divorce Attorney” with absolutely not judicial experience. Furthermore, Hoffman has no experience dealing with childeren. Judge Stracener has taught high school for eleven years and has a passion for the law and dealing with kids. Hes definitely got my support.