Of Gentlemen and Scholars : the #OCDA2022 #DistrictAttorney Candidates Debate

I had been waiting on the #OCDA April 25th debate practically since I first heard about it from Vern, which was around the end of March. It was the first of a series of three debates, the remainder of which will occur this upcoming week and the week after. 

When the long awaited day arrived, I couldn’t contain my excitement ! I donned a spring-y flowing skirt and flowered crop top and glammed myself up w/ glitter #pinkeyeshadow ( Donna liked it ! ) and headed to the Delhi Center in Santa Ana for the first #OCDA2022 Candidates Debate

April 25th’s debate was hosted by a coalition of #socialjustice organizations ( read:  left-wing activist groups ) that promote agendas in the realm of the “progressive movement”. Some of the issues they seek to advance are in lockstep with the overall ideology of the state and national democrat party, others are further to the left of the establishment democrat platform.  While any organization certainly has the right to schedule, host and promote a debate to introduce candidates for public office, i found it rather odd that in this here instance : all the entities involved, were : without exception very liberal.  Now as you read this; keep in mind that per statutory definition: certain elected offices in california  and nationwide actually – are defined as NON-PARTISAN. In essence, certain offices are viewed as functioning better when the office-holder ( elected official ) does not identify with any political ideology on a professional level, ie in their official capacity. Those offices tend to be #judges, #sheriffs, and #districtattorneys and school board members. 

The reasons those offices are defined as non-partisan is because legislatively, it was determined to be in the best interest of the public to keep them politically neutral. This is why candidates for your local School Board, and any administrator tasked with public safety such as sheriff and district attorney, as well as the judiciary ( judges ) do not carry a political party label, nor are they defined by party affiliation. 

As i see it : for a society to funtion optimally, the citizenry must have confidence and faith in the adminstrators of certain offices  (office holders) . the most obvious example are judges, and law enforcement . thats because while everyone may not know their constitutional rights, there is an expectation deep within all of us that we be treated fairly, without regard to how we vote or which political beliefs we cling to. In both the civil and criminal arena : defendants, victims and witnesses are entitled to have their day in court without any fear of how they will be perceived as ,and treated by the system. In point of fact, most of us demand it.  I dont know of anyone who thinks its a good idea for the offices named above to have a partisan affiliation .  it is embedded deep in the American psyche that all are Equal and that Justice is blind to individual differences. Our #Constitution makes explicit reference to it and our moral laws insist upon maintaining the concept of equal treatment for all. 

Now that you all know why these offices are non-partisan – and the rationale behind it – lets examine the partisanship of races associated with these offices. Its worth noting that the candidates for judge, sheriff and district attorney have NO ballot designation as to party affiliation.  That is because its altogether irrelevant. The offices they seek to win, are : by their very nature NON–political, or rather should i say Apolitical.

Given this self evident state of affairs : it was astonishing – and not a little demoralizing – how very partisan the aura of the event was. One would have to be completely oblivious to reality to not grasp that Monday’s debate was HIghLY politically charged to the max. Not because the three OCDA challengers who were present identifed their political preference, nor did the event organizers. But the atmosphere was so politically charged it was deeply disappointing and more than a little disturbing.

It was patently obvious from the ambience that this was a progressive, social justice oriented event. The very scenery was set up to favor the democrat challenger: #Irvine attorney Peter Hardin. He was quite literally center-stage. Now, being as how it was three candidates present, SOMEone obviously had to be in the center. But the fact that it was Mr Hardin seemed like he was the star of the show, while the other candidates were merely “cameo appearances”

The reason there were only three candidates is the incumbent: #ToddSpitzer, the current #OCDA failed to appear. He was being his usual petulant, pugnacious self and chose to be a lil chickenshit. We already know what a waste of space he is, and no point dwelling on it further herein…

While outwardly, it does appear that every effort was made to treat the candidates equally with respect to the length of time they were allowed to speak & the placement of tables in the foyer to showcase their promotional materials etc : one glaring fact could not be missed : the organizers had invited about a dozen community activists : high-profile individuals representing local activist groups to ask questions of the candidates.

However, every last representative was from a “social justice” organization, ie from a left wing advocacy group.  Not a single #conservative entity was invited to posit a question to the candidates. This alone speaks volumes.

Additionally ; the pre-approved questions were overly slanted in favor of leftwing ideology. This was Pete’s Pageant, he was there to slay and kick some ass. The other two participants were set up for defacto failure.

Lets look at who the other two participants were and why they were doomed : first, lets talk about the easy one :

#BryanChehock. A staff attorney for the Drug Enforcement Administration, ( #DEA ) : Mr Chehock is barely running a pretense of a campaign. He has a ( perfunctory ) website : www.bryanchehock4ocda.com which lists as contact information a gmail address. I cannot make this up. He doesnt even have a email address at his own domain. He also has zero promotional literature or campaign paraphernalia.

A cursory review of OC Register interviews reveals that Mr Chehock fails to reply to specific questions on the issues .

The OC Register, for a period of about 4 weeks: ran a recurring feature where they would solicit opinions from all OCDA candidates ; including the incumbent, Spitzer. More often than not Mr Chehock altogether fails to participate.  In miscellaneous articles referencing Spitzer that were published by OC Register, Voice of OC and LA times : Mr Chehock was referenced as not having responded to inquries.  So what is he doing exactly ? 

When yall figure it out, let me know ! hmu on Twitter @asian4liberty

The next OCDA challenger is #MichaelJacobs. A former career prosecutor who spent 3 decades at OCDA, under three different DA’s: Mr Jacobs knows that agency better than anyone I’ve heard of. During his lengthy career, he prosecuted cases everywhere on the criminal justice spectrum, but his specialty was Homicides. Mr Jacobs also served in the capacity first of a senior, then a supervisory deputy district attorney. His reputation as a jurist is impeccable, and his record is without blemish. During an era when respecting the #ConstitutionalRights of a Defendant was sneered at and looked down upon, Mr Jacobs went the extra mile to ensure that innocent defendants were not unjustly charged. He did this by initiating a policy that cases had to be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure they qualified for prosecution. If a case didnt meet the standards, he would rightfully cause it to be dismissed. For those tragic scenarios where someone was unjustly convicted and sentenced to prison: #MikeJacobs instituted a mechanism to ensure the wrongfully convicted had a form of redress.  In addition to these accomplishments, Mr Jacobs invented the TRACKRS program , the mission of which was to re-open unsolved murders and other serious / high crimes of significance.

Despite his arguably superior qualifications : Mr Jacobs was not well received by the audience.

It was painful to watch how leading the questions were. The questions submitted by the community activists and approved by the debate organizers were, i felt nothing short of #entrapment. There was only one correct answer – the progressive, social justice response. Indeed, before the debate was even half-way through, both Mr Chehock and Mr Jacobs could be heard softening some of their positions. They were literally being pulled to the left on core issues. Mr Chehock came off as the ultimate empty-head, regurgitating vague , nebulous talking points while artfully dodging point-blank questions to avoid offending the audience.

Mr Jacobs stood his ground and dug in his heels a few times, but in one instance : eventually veered to the left in what appeared to be an attempt to appease the audience.. Throughout this time, Mr Hardin had a captive audience who seemed like paid cheerleaders. He got every question right and was enthusiastically received at every turn. 

If anyone doubted Mr Hardin’s agenda previously, he eviscerated all mysteries. He has disabused us of any hope of law-and-order. He doubled down on his policies and even embraced a more radical version of ideals than he had previously articulated on social media and in the press. While Mr Hardin is very polished and a gifted orator, the ideologies he spouted should concern anyone who has a vested interest in public safety.

Mr Hardin was in his element ; he outshone the other opponents because this was his turf, he was in his home base. Were the event not so partisan, and the questions not slanted in favor of him, I daresay he would’ve fared far worse. 

Each of the three lawyers have made a living prosecuting criminal offenses. Its unknown whether Mr Chehock has ever dabbled in defense work of any kind. Mr Jacobs worked as a #defenseattorney in private practice while awaiting resolution from the County as to whether he should be re-instated to his job after being fired by the T(rain) Reck. Mike Jacobs did prevail and returned to OCDA to resume his prosecutorial career, but his bitter dislike of Tony Rackaukas is not lost on anyone who speaks to him. 

Its difficult to ‘grade’ the presentation of the 3 attorneys, because as lawyers; they are already highly skilled at public speaking. However, in reviewing my mental notes and watching some vids I took at the event; i would have to say the best “delivery” came from Bryan Chehock. He was unflinching, supremely confident and didnt miss a trick .

Thats <not> to say I favored his responses, he was dodgy AF. He was , however nothing less than a stellar speaker. 

The second best delivery was that of Mr Hardin. http://www.petehardin.com

I can tell he was a JAG ( Military Attorney ) . He exudes professionalism and self-confidence.

But as goes Pete Hardin, it should be noted : The job of a prosecutor is to convict the guilty – and obviously ; to exonerate the Innocent by not pursuing cases that have no merit. At the same time : crimes must zealously be prosecuted. Regretfully, I dont see Mr Hardin putting anyone in jail for hardly anything, save the most aggravated felonies.

He stated with specificity he wont be prosecuting misdemeanors & in #California : any theft / larceny below $950 is a misdeameanor. He brazenly touted policies that even George Gascon has since walked back. He would be more of a clusterfuck than George Gascon has been in LA.  That is because #LosAngeles and #LACounty is a huge metropolis, and those generally are crime-infested as it is. #theOC is more orderly and has less overall crime. So if Mr Hardin takes the helm at #OCDA, everyone should sleep with their Glock within arm’s reach.

Bryan Chehock isnt worth mentioning any further because he has no ideals. I am firmly convinced that he and Pete Hardin know each other from the Federal Arena and that he was planted as a spoiler candidate. Nuff said. That leaves only one rational choice :  Mike Jacobs. He has the qualifications, experience and knowledge to be the Administrator of Justice here in Orange County. 

For these reasons : I ask everyone vote Mike Jacobs for OC District Attorney


If you are free on May 4th, which is this Wednesday: please do join us at the Elks Lodge for the 2nd OCDA debate, which is also the last in-person event of that nature.

Please arrive by 4pm, event commences at 5pm sharp

The final debate is May 10th, but is a virtual ie cyber event only.

The May 4th debate will be in Fullerton and is hosted by the North OC Bar Association. Entry is first – come first serve with licensed attorneys getting preference. In case it needs to be clarified : one can be an attorney and not be licensed or otherwise eligible to practice law;  hence the term “licensed attorney”

Bring your Dora the Explorer sleeping bags and Sponge Bob NoPants pillows and camp out all day outside the locale to ensure your coveted spot. You know, just like you all did in pre-covid days on black friday.

Me, Vern and Donna cant wait to meet you !!!! 

Also, for your Enlightenment: This author invented the hashtag #toddspitzerforprison2022 but its not patented, so PIMP IT like there’s no tomorrow !

DISCLAIMER : This author was materially involved in the crafting of Mr Jacobs’ candidate statement, but is not a member of his Campaign. 

About Love Cameron

Im a geeked up nerd with a headstrong drive to succeed. While most of my aspirations and ambitions have thus far eluded me, I remain the eternal optimist. I'm also on the high-functioning end of the Autism Spectrum, and this makes even simply aspects of daily life a humongous challenge. I'm fierce in my convictions and #based in my ideology. My defining identity is as a Christian and thats probably why I'm a conservative. I am *NOT* a republican, but NPP. I hope to write one day for TownHall or the Epoch Times or Wall Street Journal. I have severe social anxiety and dont play well with others, which likely accounts for my multiple divorces. My hobbies are history and singing and interpretive dance. I speak four languages, ask me what they are ! I'm a immigrant and identify as a Patriot. I believe America is Exceptional. thought I'm super proud of my heritage. I played Lady MacBeth in high school and have a dramaqueenish flair. If I ever grow up, I want to be a advocate for the Rights of Children, Criminal Defendants and persons with Disabilities.