A few years ago George Soros spent tens of millions of dollars to take over the office of Secretary of State in as many States as possible. Since then voter fraud and vote corrupt has escalated. Illegal aliens are voting and, like in California, the Soros supported Secretary of State is allowing vote fraud by refusing to obey Federal law and audit the DMV for illegal aliens they have registered. Now, petty thieves and even rapists are now the beneficiaries of the Soros effort to create chaos and lawlessness in America,. At the same time, Soros and his Democrat friends want to use District Attorneys to end your Second Amendment rights.
“Boudin’s plan for reform as described on his election website is an example of how far-reaching he views his role to be.
“Instead, we need to address the root of homelessness and addiction that is so prevalent on our streets that leads people to commit crimes of desperation. These are cases Chesa Boudin will address by implementing his extensive restorative justice policy coupled with his comprehensive mental health policy.”
Flexibility, not following the letter of the law, is what is important to a reformer like Boudin. After watching a video of a recent vicious assault that sent two seniors to the hospital, Boudin stated,
“We need to identify the context and the circumstances of what we see in that video, in order to determine what charges are appropriate to file.”
Boudin is the son of TERRORISTS, mother and father in prison for LIFE for an early 1970’s terrorist attack/. Now he wants to terrorize the people of San Fran—criminals protected, victims rejected by the DA and a drug dealer will be allowed to sell poison to kids on the street. Los Angeles beware—George Gascon, an ex-cop, hates the police and society—he will kill off what is left of L.A. if he is elected D.A. in that corrupt, bankrupt city.
Reformer DAs – What’s So Bad About Public Urination?
March Berry, Exclusive to the California Political News and Views, 11/19/19
Voters in San Francisco elected a district attorney whose platform reads like a social worker’s resume. Chesa Boudin on November 9th declared election victory and joined a growing list of district attorneys who do not view their role as prosecutors but as reformers of an inequitable, unjust, and excessively punitive judicial system. His pledge not to prosecute public urination and other “quality of life crimes” made national news.
A policy of laissez-faire regarding public urination and other affronts to quality of life is not that consequential in a city that features an official Poop Patrol. Chesa Boudin’s pledge, as well as his election, is part of a much bigger picture – a picture that includes transforming the U.S. judicial system via targeted money supporting candidates with the words diversion, harm reduction, and decriminalization in their platform.
Fault lines in the U.S. judicial system do exist, most notably the U.S. incarceration rate – around 698 incarcerated individuals per 100,000 in population. For comparison, Canada clocks in at around 107 and the U.K. around 141.
However, starting about 2014, progressive reformers once considered unthinkable material for DA began to win a few elections. California voters in the June 2018 primary rejected reformers in Sacramento, Alameda, Riverside, San Diego and Yolo Counties; but elected progressive DAs in Contra Costa and San Bernardino Counties.
Traditionally, district attorneys looked to combat crime by prosecuting those deemed to have broken the law. Other societal ills, such as dysfunctional families, loss of well-paying jobs, drug abuse, and misguided legislation were not their purview.
By contrast, district attorney reformers pledge to implement extensive strategies designed to bring about equitable justice, presumably regardless of existing law. Their primary prescribed tools are diversion of law breakers from jail to assistance programs, harm reduction to accommodate drug abusers with needle exchanges and other services, decriminalization of lower-level offenses such as prostitution and vagrancy, and treating felonies as misdemeanors in places such as California where penal codes allow.
Boudin’s plan for reform as described on his election website is an example of how far-reaching he views his role to be.
“Instead, we need to address the root of homelessness and addiction that is so prevalent on our streets that leads people to commit crimes of desperation. These are cases Chesa Boudin will address by implementing his extensive restorative justice policy coupled with his comprehensive mental health policy.”
Flexibility, not following the letter of the law, is what is important to a reformer like Boudin. After watching a video of a recent vicious assault that sent two seniors to the hospital, Boudin stated,
“We need to identify the context and the circumstances of what we see in that video, in order to determine what charges are appropriate to file.”
It has been a slow battle for progressive district attorneys, but today reform candidates benefit from an increasingly progressive populace and generous funding. The global Open Society Foundations, for example, allocates 30% of its $77.7 million 2019 Justice Reform and the Rule of Law budget to the United States. By comparison Europe gets 2.3% for judicial reform and Latin America gets 8%.
Michele Hanisee, president of the Los Angeles County Association of Deputy District Attorneys, wrote a scathing denunciation of the founder of Open Societies Foundations. Referring to Peter Weir, re-elected as Colorado’s Jefferson and Galpin Counties district attorney in 2016 after weathering a contentious campaign waged by his reform opponent, Ms. Hanisee wrote,
“District Attorney elections used to be lightly financed campaigns largely focusing on personal qualifications. Definitions of criminal conduct and the proper penalties for that conduct were left to be decided in the political process by legislation or initiative. Now, as DA Weir notes, Soros has seized on District Attorney races to bypass the legislative process, seeking to elect candidates who support Soros’ political agenda and social views.”
Although district attorneys espousing progressive reforms are just now emerging, other public sectors have been implementing these reforms for some time. Therefore, voters should know whether such reforms work or not.
How effective is California Proposition 47, under which someone can walk away with $950 worth of property without much consequence? How about Proposition 36, which introduced the state’s diversion and harm reduction strategies in 2000? Has drug use in our streets and injection needles in our playgrounds decreased since the year 2000? Be careful what you all vote for come 2020.
About Stephen Frank
Here it is…we need to understand the reason people do not want to get help and off the streets. Delusional behavior repeated is insanity. Anyone that would tell you public urination is not bad does not understand bacterial infections and spreading of disease.
But then again the Democrats never have been too swift on rational behavior.