Thursday, October 26, 2006


Jeff Schwarz: prosecutor/candidate/blogger

As Heraldo notes, Jeff Schwarz (candidate for Arcata City Council) is a blogger. He apparently has 14 blogs, although only two are on blogspot linked from his profile, and they appear to be campaign blogs with one ending in August and the other taking off from there.

I found this one in a general google search, but I don't know if it's his. The problem with google is that he's sharing hits with a professional baseball player, and possibly some others. I don't know what our Schwarz looks like, but I doubt this guy is him. And I don't think he's an advocate for intelligent design either.

In any case, he raises some interesting issues warranting some discussion. Too bad he didn't promote the blog earlier in his campaign.

Also, if his blog is going to substitute as a campaign site, he ought to put more into his profile. He should also link us to his other blogs.

Update: Jeff Schwarz posted over at Heraldo's. Apparently he either misspoke or Heraldo misheard. He has 14 posts on his blog, not 14 blogs.

He ought to spend more time doing his job ! The one he makes $75,000 a year for but doesn't seem to be very successful.

His bid for Arcata City Council is just a shame. Swartz 's campaign is not and has not been a serious attempt to run for office. He just wants some publicity (or should I say good publicity) or he is trying to take some votes from another candidate. Not that this Bozo will pull many votes.

And then we're back to the issue of "moral turpitude" for prosecutors. He says, on public radio, that he has 14 blogs but it doesn't appear that he does? Sounds a little fishy. If he lies about something like that, on the radio, what else will he lie about?

I think you (eric)need to get to the bottom of this! Have Swartz tell us the blogs that are his. And then the DA's office ought to check his computer to see if he's blogging on duty OR doing anything else inappropriate !!!!!!!
It's apparent from his blog that he posts some of his ramblings of weekdays during work hours, as it lists the dates and times.

At least his boss, Paul, had the common courtesy to take six months off of work when he ran!!!
Well, you can visit his blog and check the times of his postings, although he is entitled to lunch and coffee breaks. And an attorney doesn't necessarily work 9 to 5. Since I work on average 10 hours a day, and sometimes well into the night, I take breaks to blog throughout the day (used to devote the breaks to personal writing, which has unfortunately suffered since I started up this hobby). Keeps me sane.

But visit his blog and tell him yourself. His comment section is open.
Hey-- this guy is a freak.

Seems he has an email address using the term "lady in a cage" then Paul changed his assignement to sex cases with kids.

Pretty questionable with an email address like that. Perhaps he really likes the assignment!

And with the way he blows off those cases, I would hope that the women up at HSU would rally against this creep.
I think that's probably a reference to the movie of the same title 10:56.
does it matter...still creepy
What's that movie about ?

And Eric you're being too kind to Mr. Swartz. I doubt if he's put in an 8 hour day since he started at the DA's office. It would appear as though he does more blogging that prosecuting. Swartz is known for having the feet up on his desk, reading the paper.

How many jury trials has Swartz completed since he started at the DA's office? I'm not a Gallegos fan but I know the boss has tried more cases that Jeffy.
Lady in a Cage was a film noir story that came out sometime in the 1960s, and was about the alienation of urban America as found in stories and urban legends about people being victimized in the streets as residents watch from their windows without so much as calling the police. The plot - an elderly woman is trapped in an elevator during a hot summer day's power outage, and passerby's ignore her screams and pleas for help. Instead, she attracts the unwanted attention of thieves and a group of young sadistic punks who play cruel mind games with her while ripping off her apartment.

There's some violence between the various bad guys that is disturbing even though it's graphically tame by today's standards, but there's nothing sexually appealing about it no matter what your appetite.

It's more about the consequences in terms of the triumph of predators and sadists where there is apathy and alienation. Without "defending" Schwarz, it's possible that he is moved by that theme. But why not ask him?
OK, what's up with the lady in the cage bit?
Well, how about on his blog?
What you don't want Hugo on your blog? You have Heraldo why not Hugo?
On his blog, Schwartz says that "The Collector" by John Fowles is his favorite novel (it's listed first, anyway). Talk about a lady in a cage! This fellow is obviously attracted to fantasies of captive women. If I were female, I wouldn't date this guy....
Well, his blog is a campaign blog, but if he continues with it or starts a new one that will last beyond the election, I'll include it in my list. I'll post a link to anybody's blog without regard to sex, race, national origion, religion, political ideology, or even talent. The only requirement is that the blogger is writing from Humboldt or Mendo counties.
For a DA's office that is perpetually short staffed and with "filings up" he takes an awful lot of breaks!

It's probably easy to when you dump everything before trial or as in the Garza case, during trial.

And by the way Eric, a government attorney does not have the wide latitude of daily scheduling that somebody in private practice has.
True enough. He has to be in court every day. But has he missed court appearances?
No Eric he's usually there to dump felonies down to misdomeanors without regard to race, creed, color, religion, sexual preference, or public safety.
After numerous trials were dumped one after another one Monday morning, the judge was heard to ask Schwartz, "Are you going to dismiss this too?"
Well, as I said, I've never met the man nor seen him in action.
Schwartz daily schedule:

8:30-9:00: dump preliminary hearings.

9:00-10:00: post on election blog.

10:00-10:30: coffee break.

10:30-11:30: read paper with feet up on desk.

11:30-1:30: long lunch in Old Town.

1:30-4:30: court, if I have to. Otherwise, repeat schedule above.

Collect county paycheck. Suckers!
Okay, that's pretty funny.
pretty accurate.
Takes an hour to read the local papers?
Yes but Hugo has AADD ! and a funky beard.
Hugo is a leak in the government payroll !
Has anyone found any of Swartz's 12 lost Blogs ? Gee that would mean he lied ! How can that be ?
I addressed that in an update to the main post. He posted over at Heraldo's.
My bet is that Swartz wins the Arcata election by at least a 225 margin. Swartz is the man!! Go green!
Try finding someone ( the elected DA does not count)
who will say some version of any of the following, and supply verifiable facts to confirm:

The staff at the DA's office respects Jeff as a hard worker and dedicated prosecutor who fights for victim's rights and to protect the publice

Jeff always puts in extra hours, he's in early, out late, and doesn't mess around during the work day

I've seen Jeff do several trials in Humboldt Countyand he's always prepared and on top of the facts and the law

I trust Jeff to handle my files when I can't be at work

Jeff is always the guy offering to help others

Or maybe there is no one left there who fits that description
There is one DDA that fits that description and it CEERTAINLY is not Jeff !!

Jeff Swartz; the mere fact he is cashing his paycheck should outrage taxpayers. Notice I say taxpayers and not the community.

Look at the DA's fab four.... Hugo, Alan the forgerer, Arnold the sycophant, and Paul the plagiarizer. Wow. And I've heard rumor that there is some new gal that is pretty much worthless but has so far been keeping under the radar.

Don't blame me, I voted for Dikeman.
Swartz is nothing but a lazy, lazy, lazy shister that's been allowed to play prosecutor.
You know, these accusations are curiously lacking in detail or factual support.
Mr. Kirk, you previously stated that you have never watched in action. So you really don't know. But of course you're Eric V. Kirk and you know everything because you're a lawyer, you have a blog, and a weekly talk show on KMUD. You are soooooo impressive.

As to the smug elitist comment, with an asshole tone, you frequently state you opinion based on nothing more that your opinion but everyone with a different opinion is supposed to supply facts, photo's, or documents. You are quite the hypocrite! And your ego is getting out of control, AGAIN!

How bout this fact. Swartz has not succesfully completed a jury trial since becoming a Deputy DA. The closest thing to a win was when he caved in on the Garza case during jury selection. The guy is affraid to go to preliminary hearing. Why ? Because he is lazy and doesn't bother to read the case files.

Stick up for him as you will, everyone in and around the second floor knows he's a joke. But he is loyal to Gallegos so that makes up for all his faults. Get a crip Eric. When the balloon goes up you are going to have soooo much egg on your face.
No, I don't know. I just don't find any of these posts particularly illuminating.
some people refuse to see facts when staring them in the face

one trial since he got here, hung it

tubed Garza with the goofiest deal ever ( I am sure, Mr. Kirk, that you are a big fan of lie detectors)

blew the pleas in Garza by not getting Harvey waivers to the dismissed counts, then blamed probation for not taking the dismissed counts into account

has judges asking if he's just going to dump all his cases

is roundly despised by the DA staff
(you do remember the Journal piece, yes?)

Mr. Kirk, if you want to claim competence in the face of the above
you go to court for a weeka and watch, then come back and tell us why you would hire him.
Actually, instead of tossing up your own strawmen, why don't you actually read what I've said about it?
Eric - thanks for being so irrational. It is comforting that you air your stupidity for the rest of the universe to see. Me, I will stick with a little critical thinking and seeing this stuff for myself. But, hey, you can't go up and witness this shit as you say it because you have a job...yeah, blogging. Try moving your lazy butt up to Eureka and witnessing it....oh no, that would mean you would have to admit you are wrong which is impossible for a smug elitist close minded boob.

Keep rationalizing is amusing.
close minded boob ? I like that, it kind of fits.
What you said was you

"wasn't" at the crime scene OR IN THE COURTROOM.(Emphasis added).

You have never spoken to anyone connected to the prosecution, or rape crisis, or victim witness. Your sources are either second hand or defense oriented.

You always respond by demanding facts and rarely supply your own.
Difficult questions you ignore or
respond with deflection. See above.

And as for strawmen, if they are so flimsy, how about addressing them?

Isnt there something in the law about an admission by silence, or
an adoptive admission?
yeah, take that eric
Uh anon 10:16, I don't quite know how to respond.

You might want to head over to Wikipedia and look up the term "straw man."

And no, there's nothing in the law about admission by silence where the 5th Amendment is invoked.

My source - one source - was in the courtroom watching the proceedings. What she said about the proceedings is very consistant with what Schwarz said about his own witness, the victim, not wanting to go forward with trial.

But for the politics of the Gallegos hate brigade, this wouldn't even have been a public topic of discussion. Prosecutors negotiate plea bargains or even drop cases all the time when the evidence becomes questionable. But in deference to the victim, he can't really talk about it. So it's left to the moron brigade to monday morning quarterback the issue to suit your anger and frustration at having lost now three elections in a row.
Yes but we still have Bush for our commander in Chief. You folks lost that one.
Eric, you say you never met Swartz but you are his devout champion?

Is it just in blind support of your pal Gallegos?

Swartz is a ambulance chasing defense attorney. He took a job as a prosecutor, he is a defense attorney at heart. He doesn't like cops, he doesn't like prosecutors (and Gag's is not a prosecutor) he doesn't like prosecuting criminals, he spends his time goofing off and running for city council in Arcata. My bet is still less than 50 votes. Did you read his election blog ? He is so full of crap. If you haven't read it you should. In fact if you have I can't believe you defend him. Oh well.

Why would a "successful" defense attorney ( switch to being a prosecutor at 54 years old? I can only guess but I'm positive he doesn't give a shit about victims or justice. Swartz acts like all the criminals arrested are the victims. If nothing else he is accepting money and benefits for a service he is not providing.

But you are his champion. Well keep you eye on the ball Eric. You just never know what will happen down the line. Things sometimes come full circle.
Mr. Kirk, where did the 5th amendment come into this? You feel some need to invoke your right to silence? Interesting.

I think what you mean to say is that if a person, by act, word or some combination thereof, in response to a question or accusation, invokes the right to silence or to an attorney (they are separate amendments, don't you know) that the prosecutor cannot characterize such responses as
admissions. You, sir, have until now, not asserted your right against self incrimination (that's number 5) or your right to counsel
(that's number 6). However, neither can be asserted in a civil
proceeding, and one likes to think that, at least on one's own part, that this has been a civil proceeding.

However, being called a "hater"
and a moron leads me to feel that you, Mr. Kirk, cannot be considered
particularly civil on this ocassion.

Sore loser, maybe, but civil, no.

Lapsing into invective, is a sure if subtle sign of intellectal slippage. How is it one equates
concern over Mr. Schwartz's demonstrated insouciance about
his job with hatred of Gallegos? Or, for lack of a better term,

If morons are the only ones upset over the quality of work being done by certain prosecutors, there
are an awful lot of morons with law degrees on the second floor, most of whom are not dda's.

Clearly, Mr. Kirk has demonstrated a lack of interest or ability to engage this issue on the merits.

Not for the first, nor last, time,

Adieu, until you are in a better mood.
Or at least until after lunch.
Swartz is a ambulance chasing defense attorney.

That's a contradiction incidently.

Anyway, I'm not defending anything about Schwarz except the Garza plea. I believe he made the decision based on the best interests of the victim. That's based on what I heard and what was reported in the media about her testimony, and her wishes.

However, being called a "hater"
and a moron leads me to feel that you, Mr. Kirk, cannot be considered
particularly civil on this ocassion.

Point well taken. I was annoyed, and got snippy. I apologize.

However, re the 5th, I only brought it up because somebody said something about "guilt implied by silence." There is a jury instruction that demands that the juror not read anything into the invocation of the right to silence. It's hard to do, but you're not supposed to assume the silence means guilt.

Tell me, when is a victim of gang rape happy to go to court and testify against her perpetrators?

Probably as happy as any rape victim, victim of domestic violence, or gang violence.

While a victims wishes should be considered, they should not be the driving force or 99% of all domestic violence cases would be dismissed.
Well, if she had embelleshed the story at any point, or been caught in inconsistencies, or just didn't seem believable, the prosecutor has to consider that as well - in light of her wishes to avoid trial. Because really, there was no other evidence upon which to convict.
If the prosecutor, i.e. Schwartz, did not believe the victim, then why was he so seemingly "outraged" with the probation officer and the judge actions?

You can't have it both ways.

Also, your implication that because a victim does not want to testify that they must be lying is way off base. It is a very frightening process for somebody who has been terrorized by the people she must face in court and testify against. Many times victims are intimidated by the defendants for their family or friends. A conscientious prosecutor will assist a victim through those feelings and not let a defendant's intimidation determine the outcome.

Do you think this woman might have been a little intimidated by three men who tied her to a tree and raped her over some marijuana?
See, I don't know. I never spoke to her. Did you? You're talking platitudes and generalizations, based on newspaper reports and blog posts. Schwarz was the one who dealt with her personally. He's the one who interviewed her, prepped her for testimony, advised her, and heard about her fears, uncertainties, and doubts. He's the one to make the call. Not you. Not me. Him.

And to second guess his decision on the basis of your broad generalizations and platitudes isn't merely erroneous. It's irresponsible.

You don't know what happened to the case. You can only guess. Give it a rest.
Eric Kirk,"Well, if she had embelleshed the story at any point, or been caught in inconsistencies, or just didn't seem believable, the prosecutor has to consider that as well - in light of her wishes to avoid trial. Because really, there was no other evidence upon which to convict."

Right back at you Eric,

"You don't know what happened to the case. You can only guess. Give it a rest."

You do the same thing defending a case that you do not have first hand knowledge of. If that is your standard for an opinion then you shouldn't be allowed to blog much of anything.

I only want to make the point that you seem to miss that it is natural for a victim of crime to be scared to testify (ask Rape Crisis, ask Victim Witness, I have talked to them about this), and it is not right for a prosecutor to turn that fear into a justification for dumping a case.
If you think otherwise, you are not the compassionate liberal you try to portray yourself to be.
No fucking way. What Swartz did on the Garza case was wrong and what he continues to do is wrong. You can't spin him pretty cause he's Pauls butt boy. His performance needs to be pointed out. People have a right to know. He should resign or be fired. And that's my opinion.
The point is, I don't know what the prosecutor was dealing with. Neither do you. It was the prosecutor's call. It's irresponsible to second guess him because you don't have the facts.

End of story.
I've got more of the story than you'd like to think Erwic.
No Eric, wait til we hear "the rest of the story" Standby for news" ..... that's a quote from Paul Harvey
But you don't care to share it?
Erwic I'm not the one going to be sharing it, or telling the story. I'm just going to sit back, enjoy life, and wait for good things to happen !
Eric - you don't know shit from shinola.

I know exactly what happened and Scwartz was peeing down his leg in fear of having to try that case.

And so does everyone else in the courtroom, the courthouse and on the fourth fact one prosecutor left right afterwards who had been involved in the case.
What's the matter Erwic, cat got your tonge ?

It must be difficult always coming to the defense of Gallegos and Swartz when they screw up? The seem to do it with more and more frequency.
No. Just bored with circular arguments over wild speculations. See, unlike you, I'm not an expert of something I know little about.
Eric you're not an expert on anything. Your legal opinion and research abilities have already been shredded on line.

You think you're so clever, so smart, but I guess that's just the elitist *&&^%$% in you.
4:05 got you Eric.

What a crack up!
Unfortunately, Eric is too dense to realize that some of these bloggers have a lot of first hand knowledge about what happened.

Of course (yawn) Mr. Kirk will continue to try and justify this after admitting he doesn't know shit about what happened.

Wow...sure glad I don't need your legal skills to help me out of a jam. Did someone take the bar for you or are your critical thinking and reasoning skills reflective of a decaying legal education?
Actually Eric's ego is soooooo big, and for no apparent reason, he can't see that many of the bloggers are much brighter than him. And I'm not talking about his buddy Greg.
Unfortunately, Eric is too dense to realize that some of these bloggers have a lot of first hand knowledge about what happened.

If that's the case, they sure haven't cited any of the facts to support their arguments. It's the same thing, over and over again.
It's the same thing you refuse to
The bloggers have first hand knowledge, and you don't.

The bloggers know rape crisis, the victim, the lawyers.
You mentioned one second hand
source, and declined to confirm
whether the source was connected to the defense or the prosecution.
But I think you referred to the source as female, which means none of the lawyers in the case.
And I doubt the description you gave came from anyone connected to the prosectution, except possibly
the trial attorney, whose reaction to the case has been pithily described above.

At least one defense attorney has privately described the current condition of the da's office as
"a disaster for the community"
but a boon for the defense bar.
Eric couldn't lie straight in bed!
Jeffrey Schwartz that appears in my blog at is an Anthropology professor at University of Pittsburgh, and as far as I know he's not an Intelligent Design defender.

Best regards from Brazil,

Enezio E. de Almeida Filho
A post-Darwinian via Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend and the evidence of design in Nature
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Free Website Counter
Free Web Site Counter

Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
To see more details, click here.
Click for