Sit Back and Enjoy Parts 1-5 of a Conversation That Might Bore You to Death


So here’s what happened.

Voice of OC published an article on my being removed from my position as DPOC Vice Chair at the same meeting that it endorsed me for OC District Attorney.   It’s often conservative (and in a few cases unstable) commenters weighed in.  As I can comment quickly, I decided to play along and participate — and in the process I ended up explaining a lot of things about my campaign and its philosophy that I hadn’t said anywhere else.  And my interactions with a commenter who calls himself “beelzebub” — who strikes me as being almost the prototypical intelligent, engaged, feisty and cynical Orange County conservative — turned out to reflect a lot of the conversations that I’ve had with conservatives across the county.  As it was all already written down, I decided to compile it and publish it.


I find much of the conversation — and the jousting within it — to be interesting and at times funny.  And much comes out that tells you quite a bit about local politics here.  I can’t tell you that all or most of it puts me in a good light, although I hope that it does and I’m sure that some others will say that it doesn’t, but it puts me in an honest light, and that’s pretty useful for you as a voter.  Enjoy it — if you’re bent that way!


We start towards the end of the conversation, so if you haven’t read at least the last part of Part 4 it may not make sense.  Then again, even if you have, it still may not make sense.  But I hope that it will — and that you find it illuminating!

Skeletons having conversation - fudd and bugs

This will be one of the most unusual statements from a candidate you’ll have seen this week!

70. Greg Diamond posted at 8:58 am on Wed, May 14, 2014.

Beelz — while based on most of our shared values I think that I should get your vote, I don’t think that I’m going to get your public pledge. (I think that you’ll still vote for me in private, though.) Here are the issues you raise:

(1) I am not “championing ‘ illegal foreigners’ over unemployed Americans” — but I realize that you’re not going to believe me. You seem to have a misconception of what the DA’s scope of responsibility is: as DA, I’m not Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”); I do not directly enforce immigration law. HOWEVER, I am in a position to address the concerns you DO raise about illegitimate competition for jobs, because as a plaintiff’s employment lawyer I can assure you that many employers DO hire unauthorized residents because they believe that they can coerce them into putting up with illegal labor practices. By enforcing those laws, I can reduce that illegal competition for employment. THERE, your and my interests coincide, and it should be a significant point in my favor — but if you’re more interested in raising a broad screed against people working here illegally then I don’t expect you to credit it. It’s a pity, but you should be happy for the opportunity offered to you here for you to be able to reiterate your values.

(2) You misinterpret my explanation for why I think that it might be hard to get a perjury conviction in those cases with a JUSTIFICATION for perjury. I do not think that it is justified. But I do think that it’s a harder crime to prosecute than you think. And in a situation where someone may be breaking the law under duress from one agent of the county government, it’s going to be hard for another agent to get that conviction — while leaving the higher-ups free of responsibility. Did you want the answer that might get your vote — or did you want the truth?

(3) As for “Jurors should have an obligation to explain the rationale of their verdict” — perhaps they should. In that case, we should build such a requirement for mandatory speech — mandatory because jury service is itself mandatory — into the requirements for jury service. But it’s not there now — and given that it’s not there now I’m not going to pretend that it’s a requirement. By that way, such a requirement would have at least two downsides: (a) it would further deter honest citizens from jury service, which is something we don’t need, and (b) such mandated speech is likely unconstitutional.

(4) I’ve explained to you why I suspect that the law does not allow what I agree ought to be a common-sense act of transparency in the Loggins case. I’m not sure why you don’t follow what I’m saying, but I think I should rest on my former statements.

For all that, I do stand for equality under the law. I hope that that’s enough for you. It not, then … “THAT’S ALL, FOLKS!”

71. beelzebub posted at 11:14 am on Wed, May 14, 2014.

Mr. Diamond – You said in your earlier post that illegals take many jobs that Americans don’t want. That is SUCH a diversionary and disinenuous statement – because as an employment attorney you darn well KNOW that illegals have stolen millions of jobs in industries like construction, manufacturing, hospitality and landscaping that precludes unemployed US citizens and military vets from entering the work force! And about 30% of our jail beds in OC are occupied by ILLEGAL FOREIGNERS! It costs $40,000-$50,000 to care for them! As a US citizens and candidate for the DA you should be OUTRAGED!! And as DA you should throw the book at them for causing so much financial and social damage to our State and nations to send a mesage south of the border!!! You are supposed to be an AMERICAN representing US CITIZENS! Not an American representing foreign lawbreakers!! Perhaps you’re confused who the DA should protect and honor???

You are REALLY stretching it by implying that the SSA executives may have subordinated perjury by it’s social workers and promoted harm to a mother and her children. During REAL investigations if this were the case (and there is NO basis to what you speculate) the cops would arrest the perjurers and roll them over to turn state’s evidence against the execs. Stop making excuses for bad people. You are running for DA, not for ‘Community Organizer”!!!

RE: jury verdicts – you make it sound as if the law is the law – unless it can be conveniently ignored for politically correct people stealing our jobs or for gov workers perjuring themselves in court of law communications. STOP WITH THE EXCUSES, MR DIAMOND! Focus on ‘EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW’!

RE: Loggins. The LAW is not supposed to agree with gov workers lying in court or with illegals stealing our jobs either, Mr. Diamond! It seems as though we have adopted a ‘selective anarchy’ system that allows the authorities to pick and choose which laws have merit and which don’t.

FOCUS ON IMPARTIAL JUSTICE, MR. DIAMOND! Anything short of that is a stain on the principles of our beloved nations!

Good day!

72. Greg Diamond posted at 2:15 pm on Wed, May 14, 2014.

Stanley Fiala says:

I am voting for Tony the lesser evil.

Thank you for what I consider to be a cherished endorsement, Stanley.

beelz, I think that we’re at an impasse. You’ve made your four points; I sympathize to some degree with all of them. From the bottom: I agree that the law may lead to a bad outcome in the Loggins case — but it’s the law, sir, and my job will be to uphold it. I would like jurors to comment on major verdicts like this — but the cure of coercing them to do so is worse than the disease. I agree — do I really have to say this? — that perjury is bad; I also, though, think that it’s bad, largely because it is way too convenient, for an organization to displace responsibility for its wrongful acts on the front-line people who implement them. (Would I use the threat of prosecution to “turn” such witnesses into cooperating with a larger investigation? That is certainly a possibility.)

Unfortunately, despite that I can accept that unauthorized residents DO take away some jobs from U.S. citizens and other authorized workers, you seem to want me to join in a loud and sweeping anti-immigrant crusade. I’m not going to do that. Some of your facts are wrong — but more than that your tone is wrong. I will happily engage in a debate with you about immigration policy after the election, but I won’t do so now because while it suits your agenda it has little to do with my prospective job as DA.

I’m sorry that you don’t see that focusing on labor law enforcement is where we have common ground, despite where we might disagree — but you don’t. If that’s your bottom line issue, then you will indeed vote for Elmer Fudd rather than for me. At least you know one more thing about me: I won’t pander for votes — and I’ll take the consequences of not doing so.

I have (seriously) enjoyed talking with you — but now it’s time to return to my focus on campaigning. ¡Adios!

73. beelzebub posted at 3:22 pm on Wed, May 14, 2014.

I thank you for the discussion, Mr. Diamond. TR would have never answered those questions publicly. I respect that. For that you get a point for ‘courage’. In fact, if this were a horse race for my vote we would be rounding the turn onto the final stretch you would be leading TR by a full 7 lengths. However, Elmer would be ahead of you by 2.5 lengths! That could change with YOUR efforts! If by June 1 you could CONVINCE me that you would apply the law EQUALLY, that you would champion US citizens over illegal foreigners, that you would NOT be a government employee or cop bootlicker, that you were NOT up for sale to the Democrat or GOP parties, that you would prosecute the Chair of the OC democrat party just as fast as a homeless man IF the two committed identical crimes, that you would NOT tell gov leaders what they wanted to hear but rather what they NEEDED to hear, even if your budget would suffer as a result!

If you can CONVINCE me of this by June 1 – you get my vote and beat Elmer at the wire by a full half length!.

And if you can’t – Elmer takes home the trophy.

May the best man win.

Good luck and good day!

74. beelzebub posted at 11:26 pm on Wed, May 14, 2014.

Never said that Mr. Diamond had 100% certainty of getting my vote, Stanley. I told him that he would have to work for it and EARN it. At least the man had the nads to answer my hardball questions. Give him credit! TR would never do that! But Elmer Fudd is still in the lead. Mr. Diamond can close that gap and overtake Elmer – but it’s going to take some hard work! My aforementioned conditions would allow Mr. Diamond to close the gap and even win my vote! I never count a man out until the fat lady sings!


Btw, Mr. Diamond. Don’t forget. You are an EMPLOYMENT attorney – NOT an Immigration attorney! As such, you have a SWORN OBLIGATION to protect workplace rights! Part of that is to ensure that UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN WORKERS do not steal jobs from US citizens and authorized workers! You should be a HUGE PROPONENT of E-VERIFY, IF you take your sworn oath seriously! And as DA you should ask all county employers to implement E-VERIFY in the personnel hiring and retention practices of their businesses! Otherwise, I would question whether you take your sworn oath seriously and would be an ideal canidate for the DA office!

We are almost @ 200 comments, Mr Diamond. Why not respond one more time and put us over the top so that we can put this puppy to bed once and for all?

Waiting anxiously with bated breath……..


beelz — you’re never going to guess what I did with our conversation. I hope that you enjoy it, whether or not I ultimately receive your vote!

About Greg Diamond

Somewhat verbose attorney, semi-retired due to disability, residing in northwest Brea. Occasionally runs for office against bad people who would otherwise go unopposed. Got 45% of the vote against Bob Huff for State Senate in 2012; Josh Newman then won the seat in 2016. In 2014 became the first attorney to challenge OCDA Tony Rackauckas since 2002; Todd Spitzer then won that seat in 2018. Every time he's run against some rotten incumbent, the *next* person to challenge them wins! He's OK with that. Corrupt party hacks hate him. He's OK with that too. He does advise some local campaigns informally and (so far) without compensation. (If that last bit changes, he will declare the interest.)