Options to Counteract Activist District Attorneys

This has been a recurring theme during the "summer of love" as it's been labeled in the Pac Northwest. On the occasion a quote unquote demonstrator is arrested for some misconduct, generally some violent or destructive behavior during the nighttime rioting/looting spree, it's been reported that said alleged criminals are not being held for very long by law enforcement. The reason, we're told, is that the lead prosecutors in places like Portlan, OR are declining to press charges. I'm not going to even spend time posting links on this; it's been so widely reported so as to make the exercise of tracking down reports and links a trivial matter. Just be aware of WHO and WHERE the reports originate from, as IMO I'd be inclined to trust reports from local news outlets and even consistent, recognizable bloggers over MSM sources.

The notion that a district attorney would refuse to press charges for a subject that police arrested amidst a smorgasbord of unrest has confounded me, in no uncertain terms. Think about this for a minute. For an officer to detain and arrest somebody in this dystopian scene, where it looks like police are vastly outnumbered on the street, that person must've been doing something so over the top, so noticeably wrong, as to make the officers single them out among an ocean of people , for instance, pushing around burning dumpsters (!!), vandalizing cars, knocking down signs, chasing and harassing pedestrians, on and on and on. For example, the instance of some terrorist caught in the act of trying to blow up a hotel in Portland, and allegedly the arresting officers told the woman who reported this terrorist "the local DA would probably just release the guy in a few days". What does this have to do with a political stand on police misconduct?! This is a clear indicator to me that one, the Portland district attorney has lost the trust and support of the law enforcement community, and two, he has gone so AWOL and mentally offsite with politically-motivated behavior, that for the city to maintain law and order, there must MUST be some type of action to if not sanction, completely neutralize this threat to the peace and safety of the citizens of Portland.

So WTF can be done? Can anything even be done? Who would do it?

I got curious about this, and decided to look up how district attorneys are managed in my state (Connecticut). Obviously this is going to differ, and probably differ wildly, from state to state. Nevertheless, you would expect every state to have the basic mechanics of how DAs are appointed, their basic role, and how they regionally split up the state, codified somewhere, most likely a state constitution. In the case of Connecticut, there is a provision in the CT state Constitution that appears mainly relevant: ARTICLE XXIII.

ARTICLE XXIII.

Article fourth of the constitution is amended by adding a new section to read as follows: There shall be established within the executive department a division of criminal justice which shall be in charge of the investigation and prosecution of all criminal matters. Said division shall include the chief state's attorney, who shall be its administrative head, and the state's attorneys for each judicial district, which districts shall be established by law. The prosecutorial power of the state shall be vested in a chief state's attorney and the state's attorney for each judicial district. The chief state's attorney shall be appointed as prescribed by law. There shall be a commission composed of the chief state's attorney and six members appointed by the governor and confirmed by the General Assembly, two of whom shall be judges of the Superior Court. Said commission shall appoint a state's attorney for each judicial district and such other attorneys as prescribed by law.

Adopted November 28, 1984.

In the words of the immortal Phil Hartman .... "I'm just a simple caveman lawyer" ... so while much of the above language appears plain and unambiguous on the surface, the legal nuance and interpretation evades me.

But a few thoughts. In my state at least, the office of the district attorney is a hierarchical department, with a state district attorney serving as an "administrative head", and IIUC the whole shebang is //whithin the executive department//. So my reading of this: each district attorney has an immediate "boss" (administrative head state DA) and ultimately...the governor? If one of the DAs were to 'act out', there would be at least two superiors that could, if motivated, intervene. How does that help? Well, in a place like Oregon, where in all likelihood the local DAs of cities, any administrative bosses, and the governor, are all simpatico and marching to the same beat, sadly it won't be of any use. Things would seemingly have to get so bad as to leave the state's top politicians no choice, meaning their re-election chances would depend on, correcting or simply replacing the offending prosecutor.

An interesting observation, though, seems to be that according to the Constitution, the breakdown of prosecutor districts appears to be a legislatively dictated entity, i.e. "which districts shall be established by law" So hang on. There may not necessarily be a means of replacing a loose cannon DA, but....what if legislators could work around this? In other words, if there's no accountability on the DAs decisions, then simply shrink the area circumscribing his decision power to nill. Is there a minimum size of prosecutor zone deemed legal? What if the law could be changed to shrink the DA of Portland's area of responsibility to 2-4 block radius, hopefully right where either he or the mayor live? So then the process becomes clear: round up enough law makers around the state of OR to draft legislation to neuter the Portland DA. Make him the king of about 4 streets, and extend the prosecutorial districts from surrounding municipalities/communities to reach into the city. Obviously, you need sufficient votes in the legislature to do this, the law has to be amenable to this kind of (let's call it what it is) manipulation, and at least some surrounding DAs need to assent to stepping in and restoring order.

I know that there are many ATS community members who actually live in Oregon, and I hope you all are safe, and doing as best you can amidst the pandemic, the rioting and now the horrible fires burning there. I'm hoping that the fires are brought under control soon, and that your families and properties are safe and secure. Maybe, not maybe, assuredly some of you all know the state code much better than I, and have already thought through this yourselves. Perhaps there are even some lawyers among you too. Very interested in your thoughts on this incredibly unique situation, and if you've heard of any organized resistance to try to usurp control of criminal prosecution from some of these rogue DAs.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Hmmm....thats a lot of words to ask a question with such a simple answer.

There is nothing the Federal government can do, that doesn't further erode states rights in the long term.

Unlike the Federal government, which is a representative republic, state and local authorities are democratically elected, where majority rules.

Only the voters in those districts can force change, and apparently they are happy with the situation. Otherwise they would do something about it.

Who knows, maybe they will.

I guess you could peaceful assembly in their office and remove them by the people and do a citizen's arrest, I mean after all you are fighting injustice so do what thou wilt.

originally posted by: Mach2
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Hmmm....thats a lot of words to ask a question with such a simple answer.

There is nothing the Federal government can do, that doesn't further erode states rights in the long term.

Unlike the Federal government, which is a representative republic, state and local authorities are democratically elected, where majority rules.

Only the voters in those districts can force change, and apparently they are happy with the situation. Otherwise they would do something about it.

Who knows, maybe they will.

Thanks for your reply. While my post was lengthy in nature, you seem to have misinterpreted some key points within it.

One, the options I outlined had zero, ZIP to do with the Federal government. Both options 1 and 2 involved state level actions.

Two, no NOT all district attorneys are elected officials, as is clearly documented in the Connecticut state constitution, particularly the article I provided, and readily available elsewhere. In our state, the DAs serve as appointed officials to Criminal Justice Commission.

Now I will grant, not being a resident of Oregon, I'm not familiar with how things work in the state, so it may well be their DAs /ARE/ elected. Even in that case, surely the option of a recall election would be available, as is the case in other positions in which officials are elected by the citizens.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

I think you are missing my point as well.

You are assuming a majority of citizens want it to change, when it is obvious that isn't true.

Whether the DA is an elected position, or not, isn't relevant. Some elected official must have appointed him, if it isn't an elected office. Or am I wrong?

In places where the DA is an elected position, there has been a strong push by PACs and groups backed strongly by NWO type orgs to elect these DAs like the one in Portland, the one in San Fran, the one in St. Louis, and others.

They're moving to work down ballot and in the localities to undermine the rule of law with their own activist intent now since they have trouble winning on the state and national level.

Well the problem is simple. The state of Oregon is owned top to bottom by the DNC.

In Missouri, the Saint Louis DA is in very hot water at this time for her similar actions because the state is controlled by the RNC.

www.thegatewaypundit.com...

Or just search for "Kim Gardner under investigation" if you refuse to read from Gateway Pundit.

The only solution for Oregon is local at this time and it appears the "leaders" of Portland and Oregon enjoy watching their cities burn.

a reply to: Fools

Yes, and this is the reason why we haven't had as much nonsense in the state. The state government is controlled by the RNC, including our AG at the state level. So even though local governments might be democrat controlled, they can only get away with so much of this stuff.

There have been protests and some minor rioting, but the state government isn't playing the game and they're making sure it gets handled if the locals won't step up. St. Louis is more out of control than KC, but it always has been.

a reply to: ketsuko


Indeed, Saint Louis ran by complete loons. It's like they want to compete with Chicago for first prize in idiocy. It's such a shame too - because otherwise Saint Louis could be such a great place to live and work.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

originally posted by: Mach2
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened
There is nothing the Federal government can do, that doesn't further erode states rights in the long term.

Well... Trump deputizing all OSP officers allowing any of their arrests to be prosecuted federally rather than locally seems to have done just that trick... wonder if that is purely something in the Oregon Constitution that allowed it, or if it could be done in all other States...

originally posted by: Fools
Well the problem is simple. The state of Oregon is owned top to bottom by the DNC.

In Missouri, the Saint Louis DA is in very hot water at this time for her similar actions because the state is controlled by the RNC.

www.thegatewaypundit.com...

Or just search for "Kim Gardner under investigation" if you refuse to read from Gateway Pundit.

The only solution for Oregon is local at this time and it appears the "leaders" of Portland and Oregon enjoy watching their cities burn.

Thanks for the link regarding "Kim Gardner". Sounds like exactly what we're discussing here. Seems like she is indeed clutching for a life preserver after allegedly acting as some kind of traveling celebrity prosecutor (???).

originally posted by: Mach2
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

I think you are missing my point as well.

You are assuming a majority of citizens want it to change, when it is obvious that isn't true.

Whether the DA is an elected position, or not, isn't relevant. Some elected official must have appointed him, if it isn't an elected office. Or am I wrong?

Touche, although I think your original point was more in the vein of disputing the possibility of brokering any change without a popular vote. Seems to me my second point would not really require much input from folks living in Portland, if the laws setting the prosecutorial districts in Oregon were open for change in the state Constitution, and if the legislators there were of an opinion to act.

That being the case, though, you raise a valid and rather unassailable point, I must concede. If it's true the people of Portland are OK with the status quo, which I'm not necessarily privy to or have a read on, then there is no impetus for ousting the DA, neither within the city, and certainly not outside it (i.e. doubtful state legislation would aim for a legal end around if they felt Portlanders were happy with anarchy).

In any event, whether or not Portlanders are not able to raise enough racket to voice their displeasure, or if they really don't mind utter breakdown of a Western civil justice system in their city, nothing happens in a vacuum. What's to say that some knucklehead they 'catch and release' tomorrow doesn't scurry over the border to Washington or Cali and decide to turn their shenanigans into a traveling road show, which they (Antifa) have been know to do. Then what was originally a Portland problem, becomes a statewide and potentially nationwide issue. This raises a point of culpability and accountability of the Oregon and Portland legal system, should a terrorist like Mr. Hotel Gaslighter actually succeed in a different city.

If you host a gathering, and an individual their consumes too much alcohol, and rather than preventing that person from driving home you don't involve yourself, you can be held financially and criminally liable for that person's reckless behavior, in some places. A rather apt analogy IMHO.

We are witnessing and experiencing a matter of political, and really philosophical juxtaposition ("I don't have to prosecute terrorists in my city because, Trump and Right Wing") that in my living memory I don't recall seeing before. I really would rather Portland clean up its own act, rather than some unfortunate and preventable incident create a situation where others are forced to act.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened



Dox Them . Nobody deserves Not be Held Accountable for Not Upholding the Law they themselves are Entrusted to by the American People . Exposure of Corruption is Justice .

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Hmm, but don't we already know who 'they' are in this instance? I guess I could take your meaning in a broader sense to mean literally publish where the Portland DA lives, the type of car he drives, his favorite spot for coffee etc etc.

As much as I'd like to see this guy removed, something about doxxing makes very uneasy. Feels like fighting fire with fire, which though might initially satisfy our urge to get back at folks, in the long run it sets a bad precedent IMHO. I wish doxxing were simply not a thing anyone did, as it even reads in your member postscript, privacy is very special privilege that in my view a right that only accused criminals should vacate and even then, where do we draw the line, do spouse, kids, relatives end up as collateral damage?

It's probably moot anyway, the people that would quote unquote demonstrate and actually make this guy's life uncomfortable should they know intimate details of his existence, pretty much seem to agree with him.

originally posted by: Lysergic
I guess you could peaceful assembly in their office and remove them by the people and do a citizen's arrest, I mean after all you are fighting injustice so do what thou wilt.

Well the DA isn't prosecuting anyone so heck make it a riot and do whatever. It's all legal now without a prosecutor lol.

The Federal Govt has a duty to ensure the Constitution is enforced and rights are protected.

This was proven in the Civil War.

99.9999% of you can revolt but the Feds have a duty to defeat all of you to protect me the good citizen.

States dont have hardly any autonomy in this matter. States cannot legally allow my rights to be violated and if they do the Feds job is to put an end to it.

This "sounds" scary, and yes the Civil War was insanely scary.

So don't blame the Feds for upholding the Constitution when they march in and crush the insurrection.

Blame the anti-American lunatics for failing to enforce and uphold the law of the land.

Yes, it's time for Federal prosecution. There's plenty of laws that can be used. Here are just a few:

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights
This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).
It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.
Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245 - Federally Protected Activities
1) This statute prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference, or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person or class of persons because of their activity as:
A voter, or person qualifying to vote...;
a participant in any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States;
an applicant for federal employment or an employee by the federal government;
a juror or prospective juror in federal court; and
a participant in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
2) Prohibits willful injury, intimidation, or interference or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force of any person because of race, color, religion, or national origin and because of his/her activity as:
A student or applicant for admission to any public school or public college;
a participant in any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by a state or local government;
an applicant for private or state employment, private or state employee; a member or applicant for membership in any labor organization or hiring hall; or an applicant for employment through any employment agency, labor organization or hiring hall;
a juror or prospective juror in state court;
a traveler or user of any facility of interstate commerce or common carrier; or
a patron of any public accommodation, including hotels, motels, restaurants, lunchrooms, bars, gas stations, theaters...or any other establishment which serves the public and which is principally engaged in selling food or beverages for consumption on the premises.
3) Prohibits interference by force or threat of force against any person because he/she is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or class of persons from participating or affording others the opportunity or protection to so participate, or lawfully aiding or encouraging other persons to participate in any of the benefits or activities listed in items (1) and (2), above without discrimination as to race, color, religion, or national origin.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life or may be sentenced to death.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened
Just an FYI, a good chunk of those Portland Demonstrators are career actors. Small #, mostly extras or one liner type stuff in B movies and family productions whatever they can find to boost their resume in vain as they did not believe the reality that the real stars are those that do the nasty things the directors and producers want from them for their role.

How many of the women up until just recently had no problem blowing or boning a director when for a $5 million dollar gig plus royalties fro licensing??

Anyways, you have seen alot more folks simply handing people coffee at a table or delivering a package or just chatting on their phone off to the side than those who are the center attraction. It is those folks who form a bulk of these rioters. The riot is their current gig, and their states are paying them to be out there using some very clever accounting and subsidy money.