The Citizen-Candidate
There has been no shortage of commentary about the mood of the electorate as we move through the primary season. More often than not, seasoned political pros are being outmaneuvered by relatively unknown candidates who connect with the public in a way that many incumbents just don't seem capable of. This has been characterized in the mainstream media as an anti-incumbency mood.That may or may not be the case. What is clear is the connection that the insurgent candidates make with the voters, and their clear and concise message that if elected, business will not be as usual.
We have been looking to find one such candidate for office to profile. Our criteria for selecting a candidate was to find someone not a career politician, and not a bored millionaire seeking to add a new title to his or her resume. As we are based in California, meeting that standard was impossible for any of the statewide (Governor and US Senate) races. The Democrat side is fielding two political behemoths - Barbara Boxer in a re-election bid to the Senate, and Jerry Brown seeking a return to the Governor's mansion after a quarter century in other offices. The Republican side is heavy on bored millionaires (Meg Whitman, Steve Poizner, Carly Fiorina). The remainder of the field consists of career politicians Tom Campbell and Chuck Devore. Mr. Devore's campaign has been picking up steam with the help of the Tea Party movement.
With statewide offices not meeting our criteria, we decided to venture where TPP usually does not - into local politics. There is a hotly contested seat for the Superior Court of San Bernardino County between incumbent Robert Lemkau, and challenger Deputy District Attorney James Hosking. TPP approached Mr. Hosking for the purposes of checking out an insurgent candidate. We wanted to gauge Hosking's motivations and understand what would cause him to enter politics. This will not present either candidate's stance on the issues. We will present links to each candidate's website for you to judge their positions in their own words.
Mr Hosking's background could give the impression that politics may have been floating around in the back of his mind. He is a graduate of UC Santa Barbara, and received his Juris Doctor from Loyola Law School, as well as an advanced degree in Prosecutorial Science from Chapman University School of Law. He has been with the San Bernardino County District Attorney's office for 10 years, choosing criminal prosecution over the corporate law that he was originally intending to prepare for. He has spent his time with the DA's office primarily on narcotics cases while also serving on the SB County Auto Theft Task Force. This is a path that is well worn on the way into politics, as is witnessed by Rudy Giuliani and Eliot Spitzer.
We met with Mr. Hosking at a Tea Party candidate's forum, where several candidates for various offices were scheduled to speak. Candidate Hosking was well-received by the crowd of about 300 people in attendance. His prepared remarks were to the point, and his tone was more of a conversation among friends rather than a politician delivering a stump speech. He took questions afterward from the crowd, and again seemed more like a regular person in front of a crowd. His answers were direct, and free of politicospeak.
He was aided in securing a friendly audience by the public's awareness of a tragic decision made by Hosking's opponent, sitting judge Robert Lemkau. To recap for those not familiar with the case, Lemkau was presiding in Family Court over a custody hearing in the case of Tagle vs Garcia over visitation of their 9 month old son Wyatt. Miss Tagle sought supervised-only visitation for Garcia claiming that Garcia had threatened to kill Wyatt. She produced emails and a document from Garcia outlining a good ending (reconciliation as a family) and a bad ending (no reconciliation and a murder-suicide). Garcia claimed the document to be alternately "not his" and a "work of fiction". Lemkau ruled in favor of Garcia. Transcripts from the hearing have Lemkau stating several times that he believed Tagle to be lying. Nine days later, after pursuit by Sheriff's Deputies for refusal to return Wyatt to his mother after visitation, Garcia fatally shot Wyatt and then turned the gun on himself.
A media circus ensued. The hearing transcripts were made public. Los Angeles talk radio hosts John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou made the case a cause by demanding that "Lemkau must go". Lemkau's response to the publicity has not helped his campaign for re-election. It has been a series of missteps, gaffes and a general sense that he is out of touch. .TPP contacted Lemkau's office for comment, but our call was unreturned.
We sat down with Mr. Hosking and were surprised by the reluctance of his candidacy. He shared the story of Miss Tagle and Wyatt, and how that moved him into action. He indicated that he was willing to help in any way any candidate that stood up to challenge Lemkau. He did not intend to run, and did not consider running until Lemkau filed for re-election. As the filing deadline to run closed in, no one stepped forward, so Hosking did himself. He said plainly that he was not considering entering politics at this time, but that Lemkau had to be challenged.
We were also interested that in comparing election websites for the two candidates, Mr Hosking kept to the issues and presented a positive image. Link at electhosking.org/index.html Mr Lemkau resorts to personal attacks and letters from other sitting judges absolving him in his decision. Link at www.votejudgelemkau.com/?gclid=CNHTquDK_aECFR49gwod6kxIEQ/> Their positions and qualifications are outlined at these links as well.
One can make an argument for experience being an issue. It is in so many elected offices. However, Lemkau has been a judge for two years, and only part of that in Family Court. He was appointed to the office by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2008. Prior to that he was a Deputy District Attorney for 34 years (a position that Hosking has held for 10 years).
Hosking believes that the campaign is "worth it" whether he wins or loses. He claims to be motivated by the injustice that came out of Lemkau's courtroom, and that it would serve the public better if Lemkau were replaced. Hosking argues that the tragedy of this one case could have been avoided if Judge Lemkau had been more open and responsive. He presents himself as being more open and responsive. In an odd twist that is becoming very familiar in this election cycle, it looks as though Hosking could win at the ballot box.
Common Sense Dictates
This is new territory for TPP. We have stated early and often that we do not endorse individual candidates for any given office. We comment on issues, share our insights and leave the politicking to the politicians. When we do call out individual politicians it is over disagreements in policy matters, or to commend them on decisions that TPP agrees with. We presented this profile of Mr Hosking as an insight as to why anyone would run for office when most government bodies are thought to be unresponsive and corrupt. The answer is to be found in city, district and state races throughout the country. One can complain, or one can run for office and try to change things. We find that compatible with the Founders views on serving in public office.
While we do not endorse any candidate, we do urge the electorate to be aware of not only the national and statewide races, but on the local politics that touches your life most directly. Don't just flip a lever. Find out who you are voting for and why you are voting for them. It is important that we take this seriously if we are going to build our government structures back into something that we can trust. As Jefferson said "An informed citizenry is the bulwark of democracy". We agree with that sentiment as the most basic Common Sense.
RLB
We have been looking to find one such candidate for office to profile. Our criteria for selecting a candidate was to find someone not a career politician, and not a bored millionaire seeking to add a new title to his or her resume. As we are based in California, meeting that standard was impossible for any of the statewide (Governor and US Senate) races. The Democrat side is fielding two political behemoths - Barbara Boxer in a re-election bid to the Senate, and Jerry Brown seeking a return to the Governor's mansion after a quarter century in other offices. The Republican side is heavy on bored millionaires (Meg Whitman, Steve Poizner, Carly Fiorina). The remainder of the field consists of career politicians Tom Campbell and Chuck Devore. Mr. Devore's campaign has been picking up steam with the help of the Tea Party movement.
With statewide offices not meeting our criteria, we decided to venture where TPP usually does not - into local politics. There is a hotly contested seat for the Superior Court of San Bernardino County between incumbent Robert Lemkau, and challenger Deputy District Attorney James Hosking. TPP approached Mr. Hosking for the purposes of checking out an insurgent candidate. We wanted to gauge Hosking's motivations and understand what would cause him to enter politics. This will not present either candidate's stance on the issues. We will present links to each candidate's website for you to judge their positions in their own words.
Mr Hosking's background could give the impression that politics may have been floating around in the back of his mind. He is a graduate of UC Santa Barbara, and received his Juris Doctor from Loyola Law School, as well as an advanced degree in Prosecutorial Science from Chapman University School of Law. He has been with the San Bernardino County District Attorney's office for 10 years, choosing criminal prosecution over the corporate law that he was originally intending to prepare for. He has spent his time with the DA's office primarily on narcotics cases while also serving on the SB County Auto Theft Task Force. This is a path that is well worn on the way into politics, as is witnessed by Rudy Giuliani and Eliot Spitzer.
We met with Mr. Hosking at a Tea Party candidate's forum, where several candidates for various offices were scheduled to speak. Candidate Hosking was well-received by the crowd of about 300 people in attendance. His prepared remarks were to the point, and his tone was more of a conversation among friends rather than a politician delivering a stump speech. He took questions afterward from the crowd, and again seemed more like a regular person in front of a crowd. His answers were direct, and free of politicospeak.
He was aided in securing a friendly audience by the public's awareness of a tragic decision made by Hosking's opponent, sitting judge Robert Lemkau. To recap for those not familiar with the case, Lemkau was presiding in Family Court over a custody hearing in the case of Tagle vs Garcia over visitation of their 9 month old son Wyatt. Miss Tagle sought supervised-only visitation for Garcia claiming that Garcia had threatened to kill Wyatt. She produced emails and a document from Garcia outlining a good ending (reconciliation as a family) and a bad ending (no reconciliation and a murder-suicide). Garcia claimed the document to be alternately "not his" and a "work of fiction". Lemkau ruled in favor of Garcia. Transcripts from the hearing have Lemkau stating several times that he believed Tagle to be lying. Nine days later, after pursuit by Sheriff's Deputies for refusal to return Wyatt to his mother after visitation, Garcia fatally shot Wyatt and then turned the gun on himself.
A media circus ensued. The hearing transcripts were made public. Los Angeles talk radio hosts John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou made the case a cause by demanding that "Lemkau must go". Lemkau's response to the publicity has not helped his campaign for re-election. It has been a series of missteps, gaffes and a general sense that he is out of touch. .TPP contacted Lemkau's office for comment, but our call was unreturned.
We sat down with Mr. Hosking and were surprised by the reluctance of his candidacy. He shared the story of Miss Tagle and Wyatt, and how that moved him into action. He indicated that he was willing to help in any way any candidate that stood up to challenge Lemkau. He did not intend to run, and did not consider running until Lemkau filed for re-election. As the filing deadline to run closed in, no one stepped forward, so Hosking did himself. He said plainly that he was not considering entering politics at this time, but that Lemkau had to be challenged.
We were also interested that in comparing election websites for the two candidates, Mr Hosking kept to the issues and presented a positive image. Link at electhosking.org/index.html Mr Lemkau resorts to personal attacks and letters from other sitting judges absolving him in his decision. Link at www.votejudgelemkau.com/?gclid=CNHTquDK_aECFR49gwod6kxIEQ/> Their positions and qualifications are outlined at these links as well.
One can make an argument for experience being an issue. It is in so many elected offices. However, Lemkau has been a judge for two years, and only part of that in Family Court. He was appointed to the office by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2008. Prior to that he was a Deputy District Attorney for 34 years (a position that Hosking has held for 10 years).
Hosking believes that the campaign is "worth it" whether he wins or loses. He claims to be motivated by the injustice that came out of Lemkau's courtroom, and that it would serve the public better if Lemkau were replaced. Hosking argues that the tragedy of this one case could have been avoided if Judge Lemkau had been more open and responsive. He presents himself as being more open and responsive. In an odd twist that is becoming very familiar in this election cycle, it looks as though Hosking could win at the ballot box.
Common Sense Dictates
This is new territory for TPP. We have stated early and often that we do not endorse individual candidates for any given office. We comment on issues, share our insights and leave the politicking to the politicians. When we do call out individual politicians it is over disagreements in policy matters, or to commend them on decisions that TPP agrees with. We presented this profile of Mr Hosking as an insight as to why anyone would run for office when most government bodies are thought to be unresponsive and corrupt. The answer is to be found in city, district and state races throughout the country. One can complain, or one can run for office and try to change things. We find that compatible with the Founders views on serving in public office.
While we do not endorse any candidate, we do urge the electorate to be aware of not only the national and statewide races, but on the local politics that touches your life most directly. Don't just flip a lever. Find out who you are voting for and why you are voting for them. It is important that we take this seriously if we are going to build our government structures back into something that we can trust. As Jefferson said "An informed citizenry is the bulwark of democracy". We agree with that sentiment as the most basic Common Sense.
RLB
Posted by The Thomas Paine Project at 5/31/2010 3:55 PM 
Categories: political leadership, Partisan Politics
Tags: elections political leadership civic responsibility
Categories: political leadership, Partisan Politics
Tags: elections political leadership civic responsibility
This story made the papers out here. The way it read was that the judge was outright rude to the mother. Even if it was just a bad day for him, you can't ask for a pass and re-election. I'm surprised he's even running. I would have quit.
Reply to this
This situation is horrible, but why did Katie go before so many judges, was she judge shopping? I wonder why have we not heard more about the manhunt in this case? Is there something more going on here than appears at first glance? It seems that law enforcement is mighty close to Judge Lemkau's opponent, maybe there is something to hide. You know Ben Franklin once said "Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety, deserve neither". That could certainly be applied here.
Reply to this
Lately Lemkau's supporters have been attacking the police, trying to shift the blame. Don't be fooled! Remember, baby Wyatt would not have been with Garcia if it weren't for Lemkau's horrible decision. The police acted appropriately. And considering that Katie Tagle was telling the truth about Garcia's threats, I'd say she was not judge shopping, but rather desperately trying to protect her child.
Reply to this
Don't be fooled, indeed: http://iepolitics.com/2010/06/01/iepolitics-a-statement-from-the-parents-of-stephen-garcia-grandparents-to-baby-wyatt
Reply to this
In hostage situations, it's customary for the police to not do anything that would cause them to lose control of the situation, such as putting a family member in contact with the hostage taker, or allowing the hostage taker to flee with the hostage. The police were 100% correct in not allowing Stephen Garcia's father to interfere, as well as for not allowing Stephen Garcia to leave.
Reply to this
And then lie about it? That's customary?
Reply to this
I thought the same thing. But, this eye witness account, just released,completely refutes the first story. Feel like I have been played like a bass drum.
http://vote29.com/newmyblog/archives/5927
Reply to this
I know about this too. It was all over the LA press. For the first time ever I wish that I lived out in San BDO County to vote out Lemkau.
Reply to this
I'm not sure how the judge even came up with his ruling. My understanding is that if there is any question as to the safety of the child, you err on the side of protecting the child. If the mother was lying it's some wasted time and it gets corrected at the next hearing. Otherwise you get this horrible situation happening. I hope that James Hosking wins. He deserves support for stepping up when no one else would.
Reply to this
My knowledge of CA law is limited, but in Maryland you need to file properly to get a change in custody status. That is because so many divorces are between people bent on destroying each other. You need to present evidence and put in the proper paperwork, it gets reviewed and a judgment gets issued. I'm not saying that the judge was right to be rude, if he was rude. I'm just saying that he has procedures that he needs to follow to insure fairness and legality. If the mother thought there was imminent danger there should have been the option of an emergency order. My guess is that this was not the judge to hear that motion.
Reply to this
Wow - coming out for the judge. At the very least if someone dies because of a decision you make, you should at least have the decency to serve out your term and go away. Asking to be re-elected is top notch arrogance.
Reply to this
All I'm saying is that it's hard for me to believe that if this judge had any reason to think that the baby was in danger, he would ignore it just to teach the mother a lesson. I think it was a bad decision, but I think it might have been more the procedures in place than this judge being a bad man.
Reply to this
I'm gonna agree with Angela. I don't care how distinguished a career you've had. A mistake like that means you need to step down. Good luck James!
Reply to this
You might not be giving out endorsements, but you're as in the tank for this Hosking guy as Chris Matthews is for Obama. I know that my ex is a psycho and I appreciated any kindness that the judge threw my way during the divorce. I'm glad that you like the guy, an it was an unfortunate decision for the judge to make, but really, the truth is probably a little kinder to Judge Lemkau than all of the press is.
Reply to this
Sorry - the safety of the child trumps any fight between the parents. Garcia never should have been granted unsupervised visits. Where do I send a check to James Hosking?
Reply to this
This is James Hosking. Thank you all (or at least most of you) for your support.
If you want to learn more, or endorse me, or contribute to my campaign - just go to my website - www.ElectHosking.org
You can also e-mail me directly at ElectHosking@sbcglobal.net
Thanks.
Reply to this
I agree that Lemkau was a moron. I hope that Hosking appreciates the gift he is being given in having a judge self-destruct and allowing him an opening. Assuming that he wins, much will be expected of him.
Reply to this
The trick is the prior history thing. Katie Tagle had a restraining order against her in the past and she'd been denied a restraining order against Garcia already by 2 different judges. Not that it matters. Crying mother, dead baby. Nothing else has been in the papers.
Reply to this
Crying mother, dead baby - nothing else really matters. If this is the end result, maybe the other two judges who denied restraining orders were wrong too. No one just murders a baby as a spur of the moment thing. So no - nothing else matters and Lemkau will have this hung on him. The whole system has failed.
Reply to this
Of course other things matter. If Tagle was harrassing Garcia and as a result the baby died, then the judge was right to not believe her. Try it this way: what if Tagle wrote those letters? There's still a dead baby and Garcia still shot Wyatt, but what if the stuff that Tagle showed Lemkau were things that either she or one of her friends wrote? It's possible. Neither the press nor law enforcement have looked into it. It's still possible that this was an attempt to railroad the court that ended up blowing up in Tagle's face. She had a prior history of harrassment and abusing the court--can you really say it's not possible?
Reply to this
Considering that Garcia did exactly what Katie Tagle said he would do, I'd say that those letters were genuine.
Reply to this
And how would anyone have known that at the time?
Reply to this
by looking at the court record or the Tagle submission which showed an EPO. Lemkau did not have to do much - the sheriff already did the work for him. (and, it went WAY beyond a few e-mails. Try HUNDREDS of texts to the grandmother and great grandmother and to Tagle, a 23 chapter novel describing their lives and impending death, sick - truly sick - e-mails, a website, a myspace page . . .) The cop saw all of this and put it in his report. Mazurek saw that an issued an EPO which Lemkau ignored.
Reply to this
-bawlmerrep, the EPO was granted and Katie was trying to get a restraining order and modify visitation to "Supervised".
Katie didn't have much evidence in the prior requests and had made the restraining order requests in Yucca court. The custody case had been filed in Victorville so she had to go to that court to modify that order.
Lemkau saw pages of evidence from Katie and Garcia had denied writing them in his response. He took Garcia's word over pages of evidence from different sources. The papers have been kinder to Lamkau then he was to Katie in court.
Lemkau speaks disrespectfully to litigants and chooses the word of a man and not the safety of a child?
Garcia needed help, not an enabler to feed his psychotic episodes.
After the fact, Lemkau said he would rule the same way knowing everything he knows now. Hind site is 20/20 and he can't even recognize an error after the fact. He refuses interviews because the truth makes him look bad.
Lemkau: Backed by other judges and lawyers that stand to profit from backing him.
Hosking: Backed by all the major law enforcement groups, papers, citizen groups and more.
Reply to this
I have met/worked with Judge Lemkau several times and he is nothing short of rude, disrespectful and arrogant both inside the courtroom and outside. The fact that he “does not feel guilty” for Wyatt’s death and would rule the same way again is absolutely chilling.
The county would be lucky to have a “normal guy” who is highly educated with 10+ years of experience and has more common sense in his pinky than Lemkau has in his entire body…Hosking has my vote!
Reply to this
Thank you for this article, as those running for Judge positions are not often profiled so well. I will forward your writing to friends and sincerely hope it will help rid us of incompetent judges such as Lemkau. I am grateful that good men step forward, such as Hosking, and if he is elected, perhaps more will challenge arrogant judges! Thank you for doing the research for us.
Reply to this
I have also heard that Judge Lemkau is generally known as an intelligent, honorable jurist. But, one can argue that there should be consequences for grievous errors, even if they are out of character. The only reason I am less than sure is because of the allegations that his opponent’s reputation within the District Attorney’s office is anything but stellar. Did that office bring a personnel action against him after he suffered a criminal conviction involving alcohol and an attack on a police officer? If so, Judge Lemkau’s opponent would appear to be an opportunist looking for a way to side step his own failed career. If so, his election would weaken the bench and do nothing in preventing a similar tragedy from reoccurring. I have seen these allegations posted several places, but I have never seen Mr. Hosking’s response.
Reply to this
Just read the transcript of the hearing.
Judge Lemkau called Katie a liar 3 times in less than 5 minutes.
Judge Lemkau would not let Katie speak.
Judge Lemkau would not look at her evidence.
Judge Lemkau forced her to hand Baby Wyatt over to Garcia.
Judge Lemkau ASSUMED Katie was lying...guess what, he assumed WRONG!
How would YOU like to stand before Judge Lemkau?
How would you like your daughter to have to stand before Judge Lemkau.
Enough Judge Lemkau...We want you out!
Thank God we have someone running against Lemkau or we would have him for 6 more years!
Reply to this
How would you like to have your children taken away based off of someone's claim that you wrote them an email. Sorry. It sucks that a baby is dead, but guess what, people lie ALL THE TIME. An anonymous email isn't evidence and if it were, you might as well do away with the courts completely since anyone can get an anonymous email account. People in divorces and cases like this use the courts against each other ALL THE TIME. The assumption that you can just tell that one person is telling the truth and another is lying without evidence (REAL EVIDENCE) is dangerously naive.
Here's a tip: if you're going to court to save your kid's life, hire a lawyer.
Reply to this
It wasn't just emails, there was also an Emergency Protection Order issued by another judge, which Lemkau and his supporters conveniently forget about when they try to justify his decision. In fact, he has never explained why he thought Katie Tagle was lying.
Reply to this
I thought she got the restraining order from the sherrif, not another judge.
Reply to this
No. 7 days earlier, Judge Mazurek granted an Emergency Order, protecting Baby Wyatt, based on the exact same evidence that Lemkau accused Katie of manufacturing.
Lemkau ignored that Order, and ignored the opinion of the Deputies who knew Garcia was a threat to Wyatt's life.
The system worked until Lemkau got involved.
Reply to this
I'm looking at the Hi Desert star's story on this and it looks like the deputy on call at 911 got the emergency restraining order for Katie. I could be wrong, but isn't the point of an emergency restraining order of this kind to remove the threat until a hearing can be held with both parties involved? I'm saying this because generally, in America, you have to give both parties they opportunity to tell their side of the story. So, giving a restraining order to one party based on a 911 call is basically like saying, 'we'll give you a restraining order for now just in case until such time as someone can look at the evidence.' Am I right on that? I don't know. But you're a lawyer so I assume you do. Would you enlighten as to what an emergency restraining order of this kind actually entails?
Reply to this
The sheriff can't issue an EPO. Only a judge can. But, the sheriff's deputy did look at the evidence (website, hundreds of text messages to the mother, grandmother and great grandmother), e-mails, a 23 chapter novel with details of their lives and death, the prior history of both parties, the myspace entries, etc) and then took the mother to judge Mazurek - the same judge who previously said something to the effect of 'you haven't shown me enough evidence - bring something more'. When the deputy brought Tagle to Mazurek, with the evidence, he granted the EPO. The deputy then gave the EPO AND the POLICE REPORT to Garcia's parents and told them "YOUR SON NEEDS HELP; He is going to kill someone." (I am not picking on the Garcia's - I completely understand their need to remember things differently to protect themselves). An EPO is only granted in the face of an imminent threat of harm and is short-lived. The parties then need to go back to their regular judge (Lemkau) to finalize restraint or custody modification. The hope is that an EPO averts and imminent threat and is the jolt people need to get help. Garcia (both father & son) would still be alive if Lemkau had taken a moment to read the evidence or even look that the status of the case on his computer. Even if he ignored the fact that Tagle submitted a copy of the EPO, the case record on line would show the EPO, approved by another judge. Lemkau should have considered this and did not. If fact, he has NEVER acknowledged that an EPO existed - and in the transcript, he cut the mother off everytime she tried to mention it.
It would have been easier for Lemkau if she had an attorney to argue for her. But we shouldn't have to have attorneys in order to receive justice. Not everyone can afford an attorney and the county does not have the resources to pay for attorneys for everyone. The job of the judge is to sort through smoke & mirrors, games and crummy presentations to figure out what is real and then to make a well reasoned decision. Lemkau never did any of those things.
Reply to this
Tagle and Garcia stood before Judge Lemkau five weeks before their Jan. 21 appearance and worked out a joint-custody agreement on their own. Then Tagle sought out three judges for a restraining order. Why didn't she go back to Mazurek with the "evidence" instead of taking it to Lemkau? Tagle acted like a high-schooler seeking a better grade. And then, when she didn't get it, she had her friends, new boyfriend, and ex-husband harass Garcia until he snapped. Then the sheriff bungled the manhunt. You know what happens when you cry wolf one too many times? A sheep gets killed. It's convenient to pin it all on Lemkau but it's hardly the whole story.
Reply to this
the whole story is that this is a great incident to use to clamp down on father's rights. Hey ladies, if you have access to hotmail, you can take your ex-husband out of your children's lives. Just go judge hopping until one believes your story and if they don't, get them fired.
Reply to this
Not sure I see the jump to father's rights or judge shopping ... Tagle sought help in the criminal court (because a death threat is a criminal action). She couldn't provide anything to the first judge - who correctly sent her away (judge Harris). She went back to court and the next available judge was Mazurek. She didn't have anything more to offer (remember - she's 23 year old kid - I doubt she understands how to present a case; after all, it looks so easy on Law & Order!). Again, Mazurek properly sent her away - until a cop brought her in and helped her by providing a thorough police report detailing the threats he saw (website, hundreds of texts to Tagle, her mom & her grandmother, my space entries and dozens of sick e-mails). Once Mazurek saw the evidence, he dd the right thing and issued and EPO. This goes into the court's computer system. Lemkau chose to ignore the existence of the EPO and HE STILL IGNORES its existence today.
The only thing this case is about is the fact that the judge did not do his job. It is not about whether the mother or father is right or wrong, whether she pushed him too much, whether father's rights should trump mothers or vice versa. It is about reviewing the evidence, competency in his job (Lemkau) and his conduct, which was reprehensible. Plain and simple, Lemkau failed.
Reply to this
This is James Hosking. Thank you all (or at least most of you) for your support.
If you want to learn more, or endorse me, or contribute to my campaign - just go to my website - www.ElectHosking.org
You can also e-mail me directly at ElectHosking@sbcglobal.net
Reply to this
Everyone, including I expect Judge Lemkau, were deeply saddened by the outcome of this case. But, the facts are being ignored in the rush to demonize the presiding judge. Robert Lemkau is a truly kind and gentle soul who professionally is known for his tremendous work ethic and attention to detail. That is why it is so inappropriate to characterize the judge’s decision in this case as being flippant or one that was hastily made without proper study. One must remember that judges must follow the law using the facts that are provided them.
Reply to this
Sorry about all of this. It's a sad, sad situation for both of the families and the family court. I'm sure Judge Lemkau does feel bad, but in any other job, a screw up this big is grounds for someone to get fired. It doesn't matter what his intent was, it's the result that counts. I'll be voting for Hosking on Tuesday.
Reply to this
I've heard from people who would know that the only reason that Lemkau was in family court was that he handled criminal cases badly. That shows what priority the county puts on families in this county. If you're elected and you can't cut it once in office, they ship you off to deal with divorces and custody matters. I guess they don't think it's as important as a murder case. Oh, wait - this is a murder case.
Reply to this
I know this ended badly, and some horrible mistakes were made, but Garcia was apparently good in covering over his motives. He seems like a classic sociopath, an excellent liar and manipulator. If Katie had trouble gathering any credible evidence, Lemkau couldn't really do anything. Especially if as recently as December they worked out a voluntary visitation agreement. I haven't heard anything except that Lemkau is very diligent and puts in long hours studying cases. I find it hard to believe that he ignored obvious evidence that Garcia was a danger.
Reply to this
Thank you for this. Judge Lemkau has been very forthright on his Web site. See for yourselves at http://www.VoteJudgeLemkau.com
Reply to this
forthright? Really? Doesn't answer why he ignored and EPO or the sheriff's review of the evidence and threat. Blames Tagle, blames the cops and makes up stories about the person challenging him. All he does is try to gain favor with family law attorneys and minor's counsel (which he only began to support about 6 weeks ago) by saying that everyone should have a lawyer. How on earth would we pay for this when the county is already on furlough?? Family law attorneys and Minor's Counsel had to love him for the income. The judge's job is not easy, but if he can't do it without having a chorus of attorneys, he isn't fit for the job.
Reply to this
Oh, come on - being diligent and taking time means nothing if you're not working smart. If it takes you 10 minutes to read something and understand it, and it takes someone else 5 hours, you can go two ways. Either the 5 hour guy is way thorough, or too stupid to understand what a normal person could plainly see. I'm "not inclined" to believe this judge is a super genius.
Reply to this
This is messed up. All I know is what I'm reading here, but I have to go with the judge needs to go. This isn't the sort of mistake where you say I'm sorry and continue on. He really shouldn't wait for the election. He should just resign.
Reply to this
This guy Lemkau looks like a piece of work. Even if the truth is halfway between those defending him and those that want him out, I'd still have to go with replacing him. I know that a judge has to rule on the evidence, but if he was a prosecutor and any good at it at all, he should have had a better sense of who was lying. Even if not, as a former prosecutor, he could have done deeper questioning. He dropped the ball in a way that can only be considered incompetent. He's done.
Reply to this
...just not with the author of this article, TV reporters, radio shows, The Dr. Phil Show, etc, etc, etc, etc...
Honestly, I looked at that website and it is filled with so much negativity and hate that it made me ill.
Can't Lemkau stand on his own merits? Like the author of this article said - Hosking's site is positive and sticks to the issues in this election.
Lemkau tries to build himself up by tearing Hosking down. After 30+ years in law, he should have PAGES of awards and accolades. Instead, it reads like "my poker buddies (the other judges and the attorneys that have to work with me) endorse me - and here's a couple that think Hosking is a piece of crap."
Lemkau is pathetic. I ALMOST feel bad that he has nothing to show at the end of his career - but that's the wages of mediocrity.
Reply to this
I have two kids and an ex-wife who is addicted to drugs. If she could show up with an email and take away my kids, she would. I don't know about Lemkau, and I don't honestly care. I do know that Hosking says he would have handled it differently. That to me means that he would and will be accepting unsinged emails in his courtroom as evidence. That makes him dangerous to me. I realize that what he's saying is probably just campaign BS and that, most likely, he will act like any other judge does and will, but he says he won't and because of that I cannot risk voting for him and showing up again in court with my ex-wife in front of Hosking. My kids are too important to me. I assume that this won't matter as it looks like Hosking is going to win, I just ask that he will be realistic about how much some people lie in family court.
Reply to this
Hey Dad + 2...wouldn't you agree that every case is different?
We all know there are psycho moms ans well as psycho dads out there, but the bottom line is the children must be protected and if that means delaying a decision at the inconvience of a mom or dad to guarantee the children are safe, so be it.
The problem with Lemkau is he had a closed mind and shot from the hip.
Wouldn't it be better to have someone who approached it differently?
Ask Baby Wyatt, I bet he would agree.
In my opinion Lemkau must go!
Reply to this
I'm not sure I get you. Baby Wyatt's dead, you can't ask him anything, and if every case is different...well, mine's different than Katie Tagle's, but a judgment on unsigned emails isn't going to change from case to case. Either the guy allows them as evidence or he doesn't. He shouldn't by law which means, at least it sound to me like it means, that Hosking is going to ignore that under certain circumstances. I don't trust people to ignore the law in certain circumstances. I'm already at the mercy of family court, I don't want to make it worse by having some guy who thinks he knows better than the law. The thing you have to realize, and this is something that it sucks to have to learn, is that people in family court try to pull off some amazing BS. Every woman in family court's been abused, even when it's the husband with a black eye. I feel bad for Tagle. I think the real problem there was that she didn't seem to know enough about how court's work. My 2 cents.
Reply to this
Katie wasn't judge shopping. On short notice the courts assign who is available. The EPO was done in one court, but she had to go back to the Victorville court to get the visitation modified.
There were emails and text msgs, easy enough to verify their origin through law enforcement forensics. And a book he wrote, over 20 chapters, on his own website. Very easy to identify it's origin. Anything can be admitted into evidence by either party and all these things can and should be allowed into evidence. If Katie was lying they would have been evidence against her.
Dad+2, if your X is on drugs there are ways to handle that. Or are you implying something that isn't there? Hosking said he would handle it different. He didn't say he would find in favor of the woman every time. As a matter of fact, he can't say how he would rule on any case. He was saying he would treat the litigants with respect.
Rosalyn, your either buying someones BS or your making up BS. There are no records of Hosking getting arrested. He was cited for being "intoxicated in public" at a beer festival, when he was in his 20's. And there's no record of it because when it was said and done it was expunged. I've seen this in similar cases.
I know how I'm voting. My daughters live in the Victorville area and if they have to go to court I don't want them in front of Lemkau.
Reply to this
Destertdog;
My wife made a polite inquiry for relevant information regarding our support of Mr. Hosking. Your response avoided answering the key issues and rudely invoked bull feces as an argument. You did, however, indicate that Mr. Hosking was arrested and convicted.
Once again, hopefully on a more mature level: 1) what were the facts surrounding Mr. Hosking’s arrest and conviction and, 2) did the district attorney’s office bring a personnel action against Mr. Hosking as a result of the conviction and for his inappropriate use of his official badge? Perhaps Mr. Hosking could answer directly? Thank you.
Reply to this
There is a difference between maturity and making stuff up. First, you lied. Very immature. I didn't say he was arrested, you did. He was cited. If you say everyone that is cited has been arrested, then I was arrested for having the light over my license plate out. I must have been convicted because I replaced the bulb.
Kyle, Susan, and you and your wife are trying to make this something it's not.
First, this happened before He was a DDA.
Second, his job hasn't been "at risk" because he was hired well after the fact. Yes, The DA hired him with a ticket on his record.
Third, you're lying again implying inappropriate use of his badge when he didn't have a badge to use.
Hosking has answered all these allegations, himself.
Dad plus 2: I'm saying that you are implying that Hosking won't follow the law. If fact, the reason Lemkau was in Victorville family court instead of criminal court is because he doesn't follow the law. He would make rulings that didn't follow the law because... did he think he knew better? Or maybe he just didn't know. Either way doesn't matter.
Richard, that article is based on Garcia's mothers statement. A woman clearly in denial that her son was that mentally unstable. She didn't call the cops when she knew he was off the deep end (A crime not to report a crime). Then she expects the cops to let him go? She's grieving and she's wrong every step of the way. With that kind of logic is it hard to take a leap that that's why Garcia turned out like he did? Placing blame on everything else except where it belongs?
To voters, look who is backing them:
Lemkau: other judges maintaininh the status quo and lawyers who stand to gain from backing him.
Hosking: Virtually all law enforcement, many professional groups, all the major community groups, all the papers, all the DDA's, several lawyers and law firms and the list goes on.
Just like propositions, I look at who is backing them. Right to vote? Backed by PG&E. They raise the rates right after the election? 2 years before we can vote to change it.
Reply to this
Desertdog-
What do you mean am I implying something that isn't there? She doesn't do the drugs while we're in court. I really honestly don't care if the judge treats me with respect. I'm not there to make friends. I care that the judge consistantly applies the law. That matters more to me than if the laws sometimes fail (which they unfortunately sometimes do). If I know that my ex-wife can't pull anything crazy and get away with it, that's good because I know that she would try to bring in anonymous emails and things like that.
Obviously, everybody has to vote for what's best for them.
Reply to this
One last Meet & Greet for James Hosking in Rancho Cucamonga on Friday, June 4 from 4 - 8 PM. The address is 10737 Laurel Street. There will be food and drink. Come on out and size James up in person. Everyone is invited, bring the kids!
Reply to this
I'll be there. I want to check him out in person.
Reply to this
Every time I think about moving to California, you guys cure me of it. Good luck to Mr. Hosking. There is the larger issue though. Just about all government has become out of touch with what the voters want. You can look at health care, Cap and Trade, gays in the military, and pissing on Israel. The big O is spending all of his time trying to fix an oil well when he has no engineering experience, but he takes time off to play house party with Paul McCartney. It's a good thing that Mr. Hosking is stepping up. We need more people to do that and replace these addled and corrupt politicians whose only goal in life is to spend our money and get re-elected. Let's get more people like Mr. Hosking and clean out the incompetent boobs that fill our government at all levels. Vote!!! Vote for REAL change that transforms this country back into America. Cut the deadwood loose!!!
Reply to this
Hey large - what stepped on your last nerve? Haven't heard you this PO'd in a long time. I agree that more private citizens need to get involved in the process. Not only as voters, but running for office. You have candidates taking out machine politics in VA, NJ, MA, Utah, PA and FL. It needs to happen everywhere. Thank you James Hosking for stepping up and trying to get at least one elected official replaced with someone who isn't out of touch. It needs to happen over and over again across the country.
Reply to this
New tax bill John. I'm getting tired of picking up the tab for every charity case in America. I used to consider my taxes the membership fee to America, and too my state. I don't seem to be getting much value for my money anymore. Lately it's like they are trying to put me out of business, and convert me into a welfare recipient.
Reply to this
I guess BP is feeling your pain too. Let's go after the only people with a prayer of capping the well. That's a fine strategy. It is time for more regular people to step up and take charge. Chris Christie is doing a fine job of it here. He might actually save us from past government idiocy.
Reply to this
I'm going to check out that meet and greet. I wasn't even really aware of this race. All I was hearing were the non stop ads for governor and senator. I mean, I heard about the story, but not about Lemkau or Hosking. Looks like I need to pay more attention. Thanks for bringing this up.
Reply to this
Rosalyn's and Husband of Rosalyn's questions raise some serious concerns. Could someone knowledgeable about these issues please respond.
Reply to this
I've been following both campaigns and I can't believe someone suggesting Hosking is running a clean campaign. His whole premise is what a jerk Lemkau is. I have also heard the arrest allegations about Hosking and that they occurred while he was a DA, and he was very close to losing his job over it...crazy stuff. It's a hard one, but I have to say Lemkau has my vote.
Reply to this
This is James Hosking again. I've always acknowledged my arrest. It occurred almost a decade ago.
I went to my first ever "home brew festival" in Temecula. I wasn't used to how strong homebrew is, and got very intoxicated. I was "arrested" by sheriffs' deputies, who released me with a ticket for California Penal Code 647f - public intoxication. I went to court and pled guilty. The judge gave me misdemeanor probation. At the end of probation, the case was dismissed. I was a DA at the time, and the DA's office gave me a week without pay.
During this campaign, Lemkau's supporters have accused me of: having a pending domestic violence case against me; being convicted for "attacking a police officer"; and even "resisting arrest. All of these are complete fabrications. I've gone so far as to talk about my arrest on the radio. Lemkau's supporters know the truth - but nobody seems to care when they point out that I got too drunk at a beer festival in my 20's - so they lie to distract people from how horrible their candidate's record is.
I have never commented on any part of Lemkau's life other than his record as a judge. Lemkau considers it dirty politics to discuss his record.
I'll let the actual readers of this article make up their own mind - but I'm sure Lemkau's supporters will make up some new false claim to distract people from Lemkau's record. What else can they campaign on? Why else would Lemkau have hired Jay Shotwell Public Relations?
Reply to this
Whereas encouraging ones supporters to refer to your competitor as "babykiller" is pure as the driven snow.
Reply to this
LOL. THAT is the big disgrace? That's a just a good story to tell your grandkids.
OK, Lemkau-People, lets see some actual proof that this ISN'T true . . . or just stop - you're embarrassing your candidate.
How about Lemkau get on here and tell us what made him so callous toward an infant? Or, would that be too on-point?
Reply to this
I stand corrected on the timing and the out come. Thank you Mr Hosking.
Reply to this
There's a front-page story in today's San Bernardino Bulletin titled "Family Law Attorneys Voice Support for Judge Lemkau." You might enjoy reading it. http://www.votejudgelemkau.com/SBB67.pdf
Reply to this
Lemkau Campaign wrote: There's a front-page... Funny article that the only people quoted are Lemkau supporters that stand greatly to profit from his election? Is the Bulletin even a real paper?
Reply to this
I'm not sure if I heard this right, if anybody knows for sure I think this is an issue to. Lemkau retired from the DA's office when he accepted the judgeship. He is now collecting his full pension from the DA's office as well as a full salary as a judge. He's collecting about $200k per year this way. That sounds like double-dipping on the taxpayers to me. Whatever happened to actually being retired to collect a pension?
Reply to this
I heard that too. I think it was on John and Ken, a few weeks ago. That's pretty common though, it's why California is broke. People retire after 20 years, start collecting a pension and then get another government job and double their money, at least. It's not right in any case. The practice should be stopped.
Reply to this
Wait a minute! You mean I'm paying this guy TWICE with my taxes!! How screwed is that!?!?
Reply to this
That's how it works out. Him and probably everyone near retirement age in a government cubicle in California.
Reply to this
One more reason to kick him to the curb.
Reply to this
Its actually worse than you thought.
He was hired when prosecutors still accrued Social Security. When they stopped doing that, they gave everyone on the payroll an extra 7% bump in their pension.
He worked long enough to get 100% retirement from the DA's office (about $138k).
PLUS he was appointed by Schwarzenegger at a time when the County was giving a $20k a year "bump" to judges, because some complained they couldn't afford to buy medical insurance, etc.
So, to review:
$138k in pension
$10k from the +7% SocSec thing,
$178k judicial salary
$20k "bump"
============
$326k a year
Reply to this
even if you want to believe the Garcia side of things - and I give you that they are hurting and the truth is probably that both parents could have acted more like adults - if you think the mother was the instigator and you have the death threats in hand, set it over for a full hearing, tell the parties they need to get their evidence in order, tell the unrepresented mother that you will expect her to get help proving up her claims - like subpoenaing the cop who drove her to Mazurek's court room to get an emergency order. Order supervised visitation until the next hearing. Any true parent would rather be ordered to supervised visitation than to lose the child altogether.
What you do not do, under any circumstances, is release a baby to a man you call a psychopath and then tell the whole world that you basically think the child is better off dead by saying you would make the same decision again even knowing the ultimate outcome of the case.
If you've become so jaded that you make a snap decision and won't even listen to a party alleging death threats, you are no longer fit for the job of being a judge.
Reply to this