Paul Graves
By Allen Payton, Publisher & Editor
In the race for District Attorney there is one candidate who has the experience to be the top prosecutor we need in Contra Costa County. That’s Senior Deputy District Attorney Paul Graves.
Unlike his current boss, Interim D.A. Diana Becton, who was appointed on a 3-2 vote of the Board of Supervisors, last year, Graves has 22 years of experience prosecuting crime in our county. She has never prosecuted a single case. Yes, Becton served for 30 years as a judge, but that’s not the same thing.
Also, Graves was the first candidate to declare and was willing to run against his former boss, Mark Peterson, who had not yet resigned following a controversy regarding lack of disclosure of loans to himself from his campaign funds.
Becton only entered the appointment process after Peterson’s resignation, which doesn’t show me a serious interest or commitment to the position.
Although accused of being part of the problem, Graves was not part of Peterson’s inner circle. He’s running to restore integrity to the office. Becton on the other hand, admitted to plagiarizing large portions of her application for the position. Yet, three supervisors still voted to appoint her.
The third candidate in the race, businessman and attorney Lawrence Strauss, is opposed to the death penalty – even for cop killers. That to me is an immediate disqualification. If you’re going to be the top prosecutor in the county, you need to be willing to follow and enforce all laws in our state, whether you agree with them or not.
Another thing to look at is who is backing the candidates. Graves has the support of all the Deputy District Attorneys, as well as all of the police officer associations, in the county. Those who enforce the law know Graves is the one candidate who will do the same.
Becton’s backers include the ultraliberal, former San Francisco D.A. and now U.S. Senator Kamala Harris and worse, the soft-on-crime billionaire George Soros. Why are they interfering in our county’s law enforcement? Do we really want to model our D.A.’s office after San Francisco’s? Of course not.
Worst of all, Becton is missing too many days from the office for a job that pays her more than $250,000 per year.
We need a prosecutor who will restore leadership and integrity to the Contra Costa D.A.’s office. Voting for Paul Graves will accomplish that.
This editorial is misleading. The editorial writer falsely claims – as the Paul Graves for DA campaign has been doing for months – that Graves was not one of ex-disgraced Mark Peterson’s top aides. That is simply not true, Graves was a key member of Peterson’s leadership team for several years, that’s well known. Graves entire campaign is predicated on the fact that he was a top aide to Peterson, he is asking voters to vote for him because of his management experience in the Mark Peterson led DA’s office. Peterson, as has been widely reported, was arrested and prosecuted for embezzlement and for lying about his embezzlement activities (perjury). Peterson was prosecuted, and he had to resign from his job as DA, he’s also been disbarred from the practice of law. In light of the fact Graves was a top aide to a DA that is now a convicted felon – and a disbarred lawyer – it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to replace the disgraced ex DA – Mark Peterson – with one of his top aides, but that’s what this wacky editorial is telling voters to do. The editorial is telling voters to vote for Paul Graves, a top aide of Peterson.
Graves and his campaign people, apparently, have convinced this Herald editorial writer that Graves is a clean as a hounds tooth – it was just his former boss and mentor Mark Peterson – who was the crook. We voters are supposed to believe that only Mark Peterson was dirty, that the people around him at the DA’s office, his top aides – like Paul Graves – were all squeaky clean. Why we are supposed to believe this is not clear. Has there been any comprehensive investigation of Mark Peterson’s activities at the DA’s office during the 7 years he ran it? Did we have a Bob Muellar type of investigation of Mark Peterson’s stewardship of the DA’s office?. Did anybody try and make a determination whether or not Mark Peterson was engaging in other criminal activities during his years as our DA?
In fact, we have had no investigation whatsoever of the things that were going on at the Martinez DA’s office during the Mark Peterson – Paul Graves era. What was the story on Peterson’s ties to this billionaire casino mogul AD Seeno? As many know, Seeno financed Peterson’s entire run for DA in 2010 – there would not even have been a campaign without Seeno.. As many also know, Seeno’s Contra Costa offices kept getting raided by federal authorities when Peterson was DA, Seeno also was indicted for federal tax fraud. While federal authorities were crawling all over the Seeno empire, here locally Seeno was untouchable.
As some may know, it was widely rumored – I’ve heard this all over town – that this Mark Peterson had a gambling problem, a bad one – which is the reason he started embezzling from his campaign accounts. Did Peterson embezzle from the DA’s office too? Did Peterson compromise criminal cases for money, What exactly was going on at the DA’ office during the seven year Peterson ran it? If Peterson was engaging in unethical and illegal activity during his time as our DA – other than just embezzlement – who knew about this? Did Peterson’s top aides – at the highest level -, like Paul Graves or Tom Kensock, cover things up? Were Peterson top aides themselves involved in illegal activities like Peterson was? What is the nature of Paul Graves ties to AD Seeno, if any? These are all questions that I have – as a voter. Were these questions answered? No, they were not answered. In fact, we had no Bob Muellar like investigation of the Mark Peterson era at the DA’s office. County officials didn’t launch an investigation, no outside authorities did either. All we voters have been told is the following; Mark Peterson was a crook and an embezzler.
You don’t have to be a Phi Beta Kappa to figure out why no investigation was done. If Mark Peterson was compromising civil and criminal cases for money the county would become targets of litigation for the next 20 years – there would be lawyers coming out of the woodwork, law suits flying – I mean county officials didn’t want to know what was going on when Mark Peterson ran the DA’s office – they just wanted him out – that’s pretty clear. It’s also kind of clear they didn’t want any of Peterson’s top aides to replace him either, the Board of Supervisors passed up the chance to appoint two of them to the vacant DA’s job.
In this editorial the writer is asking Contra Costa voters to make a real leap of faith. They are telling voters this; even though we had this horrific scandal at the DA’s office – which led to the DA being arrested, prosecuted, and disbarred – everything else was just peachy at the DA’s office. We voters are not supposed to wonder if other criminal activities took place during the Peterson era, we are, not supposed to wonder why no comprehensive investigation took place of Peterson’s activities either.. While we – as voters -don’t have a clear picture – at all – of what was going on at the DA’s office when Mark Peterson ran it, we are supposed to conclude that Paul Graves – one of Peterson top operatives. a key member of Peterson’s leadership team – is the “right guy” to now run the DA’s office. This argument, obviously, is just ridiculous – at every level. I mean the editorial writer has just not thought things out – at all! His views don’t even pass the laugh test.
To buttress this unbelievably flimsy argument – that we should vote for Paul Graves – a guy who was Mark Peterson’s top aide, a guy that actually was mentored by Peterson, the editorial writer says we should do this because the police say we should. He says Graves has the support of all the police officers associations in the county. While he says this in the editorial, he fails to point out that these same police officer associations supported Mark Peterson 4 years ago – they gave him money for his campaign – money that Peterson turned around and embezzled. The police officer associations, along with Sheriff David Livingston, were actually among Peterson “victims” when he was caught embezzling!
The fact that these police officer associations were enthusiastic supporters Peterson – who turned out to be an embezzler and perjurer – kind of indicates to me that maybe these police officer associations don’t know what they are doing when it comes to deciding who to endorse for the DA’s job. I think any fair minded person would be skeptical of these police officer associations; they tell us to vote for Peterson, he turns out to be a embezzler. Not one of these police officer associations, I should mention, have come out and said, “Well this Peterson guy played us for fools, we give him money for his campaign, he then steals it”. In fact, these POA’s and Sheriff Livingston. who were victims of Peterson’s embezzlement activities, have said nothing about the Peterson affair, all they have done is tell voters, “Hey, we’ve got the perfect candidate for DA, Paul Graves. Forget the fact the last guy we endorsed ripped us off and got carted off to jail”. I mean that sums up the views of these dopey POA leaders, they are just not credible.
In think any fair minded voter – who takes the time to think things out – can readily see why the Board of Supervisors did not appoint Paul Graves to the vacant DA’s job. It just made little sense to have this big scandal – a DA being arrested and prosecuted – and to then turn around and appoint his top aide to the vacant DA job. The Board does not know what was going on at the DA’s office when Peterson ran it, they obviously don’t really want to know – no comprehensive investigation or audit was done of the DA’s office – the Board just wanted new people to run the office, the wanted to “clean house” – get rid of Peterson’s people, which has happened.
The top people running the DA’s office today, DA Diana Becton, and her second in command, Venus Johnson, are NOT Mark Peterson people. Because they are not people that worked for Peterson, manged for Peterson, or were mentored by Peterson, you can sort of rest easy, you can assume there no longer is an corruption going on at the DA’s office. Cleaning house at the DA’s office was the right move – the office is no longer under a cloud of criminality. It’s a new day at the DA’s office, which is great to see.
LA,
Just because Graves was one of the top Deputy District Attorneys in the department when Peterson was DA, doesn’t mean he was part of Peterson’s clique.
In fact, Graves was the first candidate to step up and challenge Peterson when he was still the incumbent, still Graves’ boss, and before he resigned.
Becton didn’t jump in until after Peterson resigned and the appointment process had begun. So, she’s a political opportunist, not someone who was really interested in the position or willing to challenge the incumbent D.A. even after his campaign finance foibles were known.
Trying to play the guilt by association game is not going to work. You can’t blame Graves or hold him accountable for what Peterson did, which was a personal and political campaign finance matter, and had nothing to do with Graves or any of his good work as a Senior Deputy District Attorney while Peterson was D.A.
Plus, the female Deputy District Attorneys support Graves over Becton, as well. So, quit trying to play the gender card. That won’t work, either.
Allen Payton, Publisher & Editor
Diana Becton is endorsed by the East Bay Women’s Political Alliance, Emily’s List, and the California Nurses Association. Becton, not Paul Graves, is the candidate of all women’s groups that are endorsing. Labor unions? Becton’s has got them all, except for a few public safety unions and this tiny Contra Costa Deputy District Attorney’s Association (CCDDAA). Insofar as these women DA’s that work in Martinez, the ones that are members of (CCDDAA), it’s not clear if all of them are supporting Graves or not. Graves locked a lot of these women DA’s up before Becton was appointed, But now the situation at the DA’s office has changed considerably. Some of these early endorsers of Graves are walking back these endorsements, if not publicly, at least privately
As you may recall, not a single women deputy DA applied for the appointment to the open DA’s job after Peterson resigned. There were several women DA’s that were clearly qualified to get the appointment. Why didn’t they apply? Many believe it’s because Graves and his enforcer Aron DeFeriari -who runs the Deputy DA’s association – strong armed the women that were considering applying – intimidated them out of applying. I have heard that from several people; common sense tells this happened. A women had NEVER been the DA in Contra Costa County, there was incredible pressure on the Board of Supervisors to appoint a women – it was an embarrassment that not a single women has EVER has held the top DA job in CoCo County (for 166 years men have held the job!), We have terrific women judges, women deputy DA’s, women public defenders – I have seen many of them at work, they are just great. But none of CoCo Counties great women deputy DA’s applied for the appointment. What’s with that? In fact, you can surmise the reason the two judges applied for the appointment is because they were not intimidated by Graves and DeFerari into staying out of the appointment process, Graves and DeFerari couldn’t get near them to do intimidate them into not applying. These Judges were not afraid of Graves and DeFerari
Voters in East County, West County, and Central County too, are asking what’s with this old boys club that’s been running the DA’s office for generations? Isn’t it about time to get rid of the old boys club at the DA’s office? I think a lot of voters believe that, which is why Graves is likely to get swamped at the polls on election day. His support is limited to the old boys club of ex-DA’s, some police officer associations, and the few pockets of right wing voters in our county, in places like Danville, Blackhawk and Alamo.