Jim Finnel
Fallen Cannabis Warrior & Ex News Moderator
Mendocino County District Attorney Meredith Lintott said this week that the reasons given for her possible recall are neither accurate nor worth the time.
A notice of intention to circulate a petition to recall Lintott was filed Aug. 22 with County Clerk-Recorder Susan M. Ranochak.
If you look at the recall statement, Lintott said, "They are printing rumor and innuendo, not facts and truth."
Those behind the recall have put forth the notice to circulate, sent an e-mail press release and set up two Web sites.
The official document to circulate a petition states three reasons why Lintott should be recalled.
Among the notice's claims is that the county has the highest per capita asset forfeiture rate in California. The document also states that the county is second behind the county of Los Angeles in asset forfeiture.
Statements made about asset forfeiture in the county compared to Los Angeles have the potential to be misleading, Lintott said.
"Making a per-capita analogy is like comparing apples and oranges," she said.
"I would say quite often that they (people with forfeited assets) are not citizens of Mendocino County. They are persons engaged in the drug trade that are traveling to our county," Lintott said.
Her practice has been that unless there are other trafficking convictions, Lintott said, "we do not keep the money if the only case that person has is the case in Mendocino County and it's been dismissed. The money goes back to the person."
Lintott said some of the statements calling for her recall are simply false.
"Some of these things are just out-and-out false statements," Lintott said, "They are not giving all the facts."
Two Web sites have been created listing reasons not included on the letter of intent.
Marijuana and Measure G, not mentioned on the official notice, appear as reasons for the recall on their Web site.
"Endangering Californian citizens who are medical marijuana patients by subjecting them to unnecessary arrest and imprisonment. Attempting to willfully and maliciously endanger specific medical marijuana patients for political and monetary gain through arrest and forfeiture," a portion of lintwit.com states.
What they have done is utilized specific cases and misrepresented the facts, Lintott said.
To analyze even the most bogus allegations against Lintott has the potential to be complicated.
Lintott said, "You could have on each one of these points they want to make, you could have a whole public trial, if you will, where I could stand up and say, you give me the case name and I will tell you why we did what we did.'"
Some are concerned that the procedures for a recall election would take time and money away from more important business.
According to the county clerk's office, a special election is the likely outcome if enough signatures are collected. A special election would cost the county about $250,000 to $300,000, Assistant County Registrar Katrina Bartolomie said.
Bartolomie said the next regular scheduled election where a recall measure could appear, dependent on anything else making it to the ballot, happens in June.
To have a recall election of Lintott requires the verification of 10,000 signatures.
The flurry that a recall effort can generate distracts from the regular business of the district attorney, Lintott said.
It is important to see that this is a distraction from the excellent work the office is doing, she said. "We have had a great trial record on our murder cases."
Lintott expressed pride in what the District Attorney's Office has accomplished.
"I am very proud of what the office is doing," Lintott said.
"The education community has seen good results with my school truancy program, (AIM) that has had a great effect positive to the county," Lintott said. "There is a direct correlation between juvenile crime and school attendance."
Another person as district attorney in the final years of Lintott's term would mean another new face in a job that has already been a hot seat in the recent past.
"You would have this office being run by five different people in five years. It is counter productive," Lintott said.
Whoever is driving the Lintott recall has yet to put forward any further information about the recall campaign and its backers.
"We do not need to spend time chasing ghosts," Lintott said.
News Hawk: User: 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: Ukiah Daily Journal
Author: Zack Cinek
Copyright: 2008 Ukiah Daily Journal
Contact: Contact Us - Ukiah Daily Journal
Website: DA responds to recall talk - Ukiah Daily Journal
A notice of intention to circulate a petition to recall Lintott was filed Aug. 22 with County Clerk-Recorder Susan M. Ranochak.
If you look at the recall statement, Lintott said, "They are printing rumor and innuendo, not facts and truth."
Those behind the recall have put forth the notice to circulate, sent an e-mail press release and set up two Web sites.
The official document to circulate a petition states three reasons why Lintott should be recalled.
Among the notice's claims is that the county has the highest per capita asset forfeiture rate in California. The document also states that the county is second behind the county of Los Angeles in asset forfeiture.
Statements made about asset forfeiture in the county compared to Los Angeles have the potential to be misleading, Lintott said.
"Making a per-capita analogy is like comparing apples and oranges," she said.
"I would say quite often that they (people with forfeited assets) are not citizens of Mendocino County. They are persons engaged in the drug trade that are traveling to our county," Lintott said.
Her practice has been that unless there are other trafficking convictions, Lintott said, "we do not keep the money if the only case that person has is the case in Mendocino County and it's been dismissed. The money goes back to the person."
Lintott said some of the statements calling for her recall are simply false.
"Some of these things are just out-and-out false statements," Lintott said, "They are not giving all the facts."
Two Web sites have been created listing reasons not included on the letter of intent.
Marijuana and Measure G, not mentioned on the official notice, appear as reasons for the recall on their Web site.
"Endangering Californian citizens who are medical marijuana patients by subjecting them to unnecessary arrest and imprisonment. Attempting to willfully and maliciously endanger specific medical marijuana patients for political and monetary gain through arrest and forfeiture," a portion of lintwit.com states.
What they have done is utilized specific cases and misrepresented the facts, Lintott said.
To analyze even the most bogus allegations against Lintott has the potential to be complicated.
Lintott said, "You could have on each one of these points they want to make, you could have a whole public trial, if you will, where I could stand up and say, you give me the case name and I will tell you why we did what we did.'"
Some are concerned that the procedures for a recall election would take time and money away from more important business.
According to the county clerk's office, a special election is the likely outcome if enough signatures are collected. A special election would cost the county about $250,000 to $300,000, Assistant County Registrar Katrina Bartolomie said.
Bartolomie said the next regular scheduled election where a recall measure could appear, dependent on anything else making it to the ballot, happens in June.
To have a recall election of Lintott requires the verification of 10,000 signatures.
The flurry that a recall effort can generate distracts from the regular business of the district attorney, Lintott said.
It is important to see that this is a distraction from the excellent work the office is doing, she said. "We have had a great trial record on our murder cases."
Lintott expressed pride in what the District Attorney's Office has accomplished.
"I am very proud of what the office is doing," Lintott said.
"The education community has seen good results with my school truancy program, (AIM) that has had a great effect positive to the county," Lintott said. "There is a direct correlation between juvenile crime and school attendance."
Another person as district attorney in the final years of Lintott's term would mean another new face in a job that has already been a hot seat in the recent past.
"You would have this office being run by five different people in five years. It is counter productive," Lintott said.
Whoever is driving the Lintott recall has yet to put forward any further information about the recall campaign and its backers.
"We do not need to spend time chasing ghosts," Lintott said.
News Hawk: User: 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: Ukiah Daily Journal
Author: Zack Cinek
Copyright: 2008 Ukiah Daily Journal
Contact: Contact Us - Ukiah Daily Journal
Website: DA responds to recall talk - Ukiah Daily Journal
