Metropolitan News-Enterprise


Thursday, April 20, 2006


Page 5


JUDICIAL ELECTIONS: Los Angeles Superior Court Office No.122

Unmoneyed ‘Vexatious Litigant’ Takes on Prosecutor With Solid Financial Backing


The two candidates for this open seat are contrasts.

Robert R. Davenport, an attorney on inactive status, has spent most of his adult life in three roles: student, soldier (active, then reservist) and pro per litigant, sometimes proceeding in forma pauperis. A judge has found him to be a vexatious litigant. He’s ventured into the film industry and has written books. He has never represented a client in a California court, but did work for the Department of Justice from 1979-82. On the last day of this month, he will turn 56.

Deputy Los Angeles City Attorney Daniel Lowenthal gained membership in the State Bar of California in 1994. After a brief stint with a private law firm, he joined the City Attorney’s Office in 1995. Lowenthal has handled both civil and criminal matters for that office. His campaign is not lacking in funds. Though the total once topped $300,000, it’s down to $125,000 after the campaign paid back funds Lowenthal lent it. The candidate is 38.



Deputy City Attorney Has Money to Spare, Scads of Political Endorsements


When Los Angeles Deputy City Attorney Daniel Lowenthal, 38, took out nominating papers on Feb. 24, the prospect loomed that he would draw no opponent in his quest for a Los Angeles Superior Court open seat.

That was not his expectation, Lowenthal said recently, but it was, nonetheless, a realistic possibility.

He had, after all, already raised $300,000 in campaign funds, was represented by the “Cadillac” of political consulting firms, Cerrell Associates, Inc., as well as by direct mail specialist Parke Skelton, and had amassed an impressive list of endorsers in the fields of law and politics.

 And he was from a family with political knack and contacts. His parents are state Sen. Alan Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, and Long Beach City Council member Bonnie Lowenthal, a member of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board. His wife, Suja Lowenthal, is the president of the Long Beach Unified School District board.

Evinces Optimism

Lowenthal did draw an opponent, however. Yet, he does not appear to be particularly worried by the opponent he drew: an inactive member of the State Bar who has never practiced law in the State of California. Lowenthal’s optimism is reflected by his decision not to place a candidate’s statement in the sample ballot booklet.

He will be actively campaigning, though. “I don’t take anything for granted,” the deputy city attorney remarked.

Lowenthal, who earned his undergraduate degree in psychology from the University of California at Santa Barbara and his law degree from Cornell, was admitted to practice on June 1, 1994. He went to work for a Santa Monica law firm then known as Silver, Schaeffer & Hadden, primarily representing peace officer organizations, but soon moved to the City Attorney’s Office.

It was there that he met his wife-to-be, an administrative coordinator of the Office’s Domestic Violence Unit. They were wed in 1996 and have a 3-year-old son.

Lowenthal started out as a prosecutor, but moved to the office’s civil side in 1997. Until quite recently, he headed a labor relations unit.

Relinquishing his managerial status, Lowenthal rejoined the prosecutorial staff, enabling him to use the ballot designation—believed by some elections observers to be a potent one—of “Criminal Prosecutor.”

The lawyer has served two terms on the Long Beach Citizens Police Complaint Commission.

Appointment Not Sought

Despite his political contacts, Lowenthal has said he has never applied for an appointment to a judgeship, explaining that he believes jurists should be “elected and accountable to the public.”

Lowenthal decried the “loophole” in Business & Professions Code Sec. 6006 which expressly allows inactive members of the State Bar, such as his opponent, to run for judgeships. The section was amended in 1989 to provide:

“Those who are or have been enrolled as inactive members at their request are members of the State Bar for purposes of Section 15 of Article VI of the California Constitution.”

The constitutional provision says:

“A person is ineligible to be a judge of a court of record unless for 10 years immediately preceding selection, the person has been a member of the State Bar or served as a judge of a court of record in this State.”

Lowenthal speculated that with term limits instituted, the Legislature amended Sec. 6006 to enable those of its members who had gone on inactive bar status to run for judicial posts, as an assemblyman, Terry Friedman, had done in 1994. (Friedman was elected to the Los Angeles Superior Court, where he remains.)

He said legislative action should be taken to restore the law to its pre-1989 state.


Copyright 2006, Metropolitan News Company



Non-Practicing Lawyer Seeks Judgeship Despite His Claim He’s Impeded in Field of Law


A genealogy website provides this information on Los Angeles Superior Court candidate Robert R. Davenport, who will be listed on the June 6 ballot as “Disabled Veteran/Attorney”:

“Robert Ralsey Davenport was born in Brookline, Suffolk, Massachusetts…30 Apr 1950. He married an unknown person in Alexandria, Virginia…25 Apr 1981.”

Uncertainty over the identity of the spouse is inexplicable inasmuch as the website is maintained by Robert Ralsey Davenport.

But much concerning Davenport is inexplicable—including his quest for the Superior Court bench in light of his resistance in recent years to working in the field of law and his professed impeded talents in the area. Other aspects to this candidate apt to raise eyebrows are that he has been declared a vexatious litigant, has been arrested for trespass, and has put forth as a campaign issue that he’s the only Christian in the race.

Foot Fungus

Though admitted to the State Bar of California on June 14, 1988, he has never practiced law in this state (except as a pro per), and has been on inactive status since Jan. 1, 1989. He has testified that his ability to function in the field of law has been diminished by virtue of the very condition that renders him a “disabled veteran.”

That condition, onychomycosis, is a fungal infection, incurred while in the Navy. Davenport was on regular active duty in that branch from March 23, 1973-Jan. 20, 1977 (then active duty in the Reserve until Jan. 20, 1977, followed by inactive duty in the Reserve until Nov. 30, 1982). The condition is essentially a dermatological one which causes his toenails to be opaque, white and brittle. It was initially determined in 1980 to be 0 percent disabling, but Davenport succeeded in getting that boosted to 10 percent in 1987, and, with his complaints of foot pain, to 50 percent in 1996. Of particular relevance to his insistence that he can’t work in the legal field is his testimony that the medicine he takes for the foot condition causes headaches and renders it difficult for him to concentrate.

That testimony came in Davenport’s administrative appeal of the 1989 denial of vocational rehabilitation benefits. He wanted money to help finance his studies for a master’s degree in film arts.

The Board of Military Appeals rebuffed his contentions on Sept. 10, 1991 (just as it had done in 1988 when Davenport contested a like denial of such benefits). The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (then known as the Court of Veterans Appeals) in an opinion rendered March 30, 1995, recounted some of Davenport’s testimony before the board as to why he needed to veer from law into filmmaking:

“When asked how his service-connected disability would interfere with his employment in the legal or business fields, but not with the type of work for which he now wished to be trained, i.e., the film industry, he testified that in the film industry he would spend his time in a dry atmosphere, i.e., an office or a studio, and that the film industry allowed a more casual dress code which would permit him to wear tennis shoes and athletic socks….He also contended that the headaches caused by the medication for his foot condition (griseofulvin) were much more of an impediment to a career in law or business because of the stress which accompanies jobs in those fields.”

The court, though skeptical of Davenport’s claim that he had an employment handicap, remanded the matter because the board had applied a regulation which conditioned vocational rehabilitation benefits on the existence of a nexus between the service-connected disability and any employment handicap. The operative statute, the court said, “does not require that there be a causal relationship between the two.”

Senatorial Displeasure

That March, 1995 decision drew the ire of then-U.S. Sen. Alan Simpson, who chaired the Veteran Affairs Committee. He said at a hearing in June that the decision would enable some veterans “to milk the system dry” and commented:

“This decision is about a law student’s fungus. We’re going to do something about this one.”

Congress did act to abrogate the decision in Davenport v. Brown. In 1996, the definition of “employment handicap” was amended to specify that it be an impairment “resulting in substantial part from a service-connected disability.”

On remand, the Board of Military Appeals again found against Davenport, determining that he had no employment handicap. In a Nov. 21, 2000 opinion, Veterans Law Judge V. L. Jordan noted that Davenport’s “employment history includes working as an attorney for the United States Department of Justice [1979-82] and as an executive vice president, director of business affairs, creative executive, and executive assistant to the chairman in the entertainment industry.”

Jordan recited that Davenport had in May 1998 spurned a lucrative screenwriting job offer. He concluded:

“The record shows the veteran has not obtained or maintained suitable employment for reasons solely within his control.”

Davenport appealed; the veteran-claims appeals court again kicked the matter back to the board, instructing it to consider superseding legislation; on May 24, 2002, the board reaffirmed its determination; and another appeal is now pending.

Becomes Student Worker

Despite the board’s 1991 affirmance of the denial of benefits, Davenport did enroll in the Spring of 1990 as a full-time graduate student in the School of Cinema-Television at USC. He gained employment as a “student worker.” Davenport was fired, and sought unemployment compensation. His claim was denied based on Unemployment Insurance Code Sec. 642 which provides:

“ ‘Employment’ does not include service performed in the employ of a school, college, or university, if such service is performed: [¶] (a) By a student who is enrolled and is regularly attending classes at such school, college, or university....”

He acknowledged awareness of that statute when he gained employment.

Davenport contested the disallowance of benefits all the way to the Court of Appeal which on May 18, 1994 affirmed the trial court’s denial of a writ of administrative mandamus. In a published opinion by then-Presiding Justice Charles Vogel of this district’s Div. Four, it found the statute clearly barred the payment of benefits.

Relations between Davenport and the university were not smooth. Davenport caused some students unease one day when he appeared on campus in battle dress uniform—seemingly armed. As that incident was recounted by USC in a 1966 demurrer to Davenport’s fourth lawsuit against it (based on not being allowed to change his degree objective):

“Plaintiff was unable to register for classes in the spring of 1992…because he was placed on a student conduct hold by USC. The hold resulted from an incident where plaintiff entered a campus building wearing military gear and carrying several mock weapons from the film school prop department. As a result, the building was evacuated and police were summoned.”

Becomes a Bruin

In 1996, Davenport enrolled at UCLA to complete his graduate studies.

Retired Los Angeles Superior Court Judge William Huss—who came to know Davenport through a military fraternal organization—recalled that Davenport telephoned him once to inquire whether UCLA campus police had jurisdiction when they arrested him off-campus, in Westwood Village, at about 2 or 3 a.m. Davenport’s presence in an area where cruising was taking place apparently aroused their suspicions.

(Huss, who left the bench in 1995, noted that by the time Davenport came to California, he was no longer married.)

The retired judge said he did not provide free legal advice to the caller.

In 1997, Davenport was a candidate for the post of external vice president of the UCLA Graduate Students Assn. His platform, published in the Daily Bruin on April 22 of that year, included a proposal for graduate student parties. He wrote:

“We need parties, just like the undergrads. Good parties. With food, drink, and music. So we can mingle. Have a good time. Meet some interesting people. Get laid once in a while.”

Davenport added:

“Vote for me—let’s cut down the hassles of being a graduate student and party on!”

The Daily Bruin reported on May 6, 1997:

“The race for external vice president was…a landslide, as history graduate student and incumbent council member Grace Chee easily crushed Robert Davenport from the School of Theater, Film and Television, 523 to 225.”

Excessive Benefits

Davenport’s studies at UCLA were subsidized by the government. Undaunted by the Court of Veteran Appeals’ March, 1995 kibosh on his claim for vocational rehabilitation benefits, Davenport in August, 1995, applied under a different provision for veterans’ educational benefits, which were granted.

What had gone unnoticed in the granting of those benefits was that the program provided for a maximum of 48 months of assistance and Davenport had already received 45 months of financial help.

During the time he was on inactive duty in the Naval Reserve, he had received educational benefits while attending St. John’s Law School from January, 1977 to June 1979, while taking a bar–review course during June-July of 1979 in preparation for the New York bar exam (which he passed), and while studying for a master’s degree from Harvard Business School from September, 1982 to May, 1984.

When the gaffe was unearthed, the benefits in connection with his studies at UCLA were cut off, and Davenport appealed.

“Under the plain language of the statute, the Court of Veteran Appeals said in a Dec. 17, 2002 decision, once Davenport completed his studies at Harvard, “the veteran was thereafter entitled to receive only three months…benefits.”

The Army was correct, the court said, in finding “that the veteran has received more than 23 months of education benefits to which he was not entitled under the plain statutory language.”

Davenport attained his master’s degree in film arts in 1999.

In 2003, he again sought office—this time, not a student office, but the post of governor of California. He was one of 247 Californians who filed papers to run in the election to replace Gray Davis if recalled, but was one of 112 whom the secretary of state found had not properly qualified for the ballot.

Commander Urges Ouster

But a greater disappointment befell Davenport that year. In May of 2003, Col. Elton C. Bruce, commander of the U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Command, directed that action be instituted to remove Davenport from the Reserve, in which he was a lieutenant colonel. Davenport had been appointed a commissioned officer by the judge advocate general in 1991, but actually had not been eligible for that appointment.

It was barred in light of Davenport’s honorable but involuntary discharge from the Naval Reserve in 1982. His ouster was based on his having been twice passed over for promotion.

Bruce approved findings that Davenport knew that he could be appointed under those circumstances only if he obtained a waiver by the secretary of the Army and hadn’t applied for one; that he lied on his application as to the length of his active duty in the Navy; withheld Navy documents reflecting adversely on him; and lied that he received his bachelor’s degree from Middlebury College and his master’s degree in film arts from UCLA “with honors.”

The commander also approved findings that Davenport failed to correct records reflecting more retirement points than he had actually earned based on service in the Navy, and adopted other findings as to various acts of deception.

Bruce said he intended to place a reprimand in Davenport’s file “for submitting false and misleading information in applications.”

The report noted that a 1996 “memorandum of reprimand” had been issued to Davenport for falsely stating that he was receiving no disability benefits when, in fact, he was. The reprimand was later removed from his file based on a procedural error in issuing it.

Also reflected was that he was threatened in 1980 with ouster from the Naval Reserve because he “never reported for duty furnishing legal services in his U.S. Navy Reserve unit.”

‘Other Than Honorable’

On Feb. 23, 2004, Col. Debra A. Cook, then head of the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, wrote a letter to Davenport saying:

“[Y]ou were recently considered for involuntary separation by a board of officers.

“I have received the Report of Board Proceedings. The findings and recommendations of the board are approved. You will be issued an Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge from the United States Army Reserve.”

However, on May 28, 2004, a letter was sent to Davenport by Captain Kevin K. Damon of the Army’s Office of Inspector General in response to a request for a review of the discharge procedures. Damon confirmed that the three-member board of officers had been improperly constituted because none was, throughout the proceedings, serving in a full-time capacity.

He advised:

“Since you are no longer a member of the United States Armed Forces, the appropriate agency to assist you with any future actions regarding appealing the results of your separation board or your subsequent discharge is by petitioning the Army Board for Corrections of Military Records.”

Davenport’s discharge was upgraded to “honorable” in November, 2004.

Seeks Navy Reinstatement

Meanwhile, Davenport sued late in the Spring of 2004 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to gain reinstatement in the Navy, contesting his 1982 discharge 22 years earlier. On Jan. 6, 2005, Judge Gary Feess dismissed the action with prejudice based on the expiration of the statute of limitations. The final adverse administrative decision was made by the Board for Correction of Naval Records on July 13, 1994, he noted, and there was a six-year limitations period.

“If Plaintiff felt he was mistreated by the Navy’s decision to discharge him from service he should have taken care to assert his rights, not sit on them for almost ten years,” Feess wrote.

On Jan. 25, 2005, Davenport filed an application to appeal Feess’s decision in forma pauperis. He declared that in 2004, his total income was “$646 for the entire year.”

Feess denied the application on Jan. 31, 2005, finding that the appeal was in bad faith and frivolous.

Author of Books

At least part of the $646 which Davenport received in 2004 was presumably from royalties on his various books. His most prominent one was “Roots of the Rich and Famous,” published in 1998, telling of the links of various celebrities to other famous persons—such as F. Scott Fitzgerald being a descendant of Francis Scott Key, Lee Marvin having Robert E. Lee as an ancestor, and Count Dracula and Nathan Hale being in the family tree of Prince Charles.

In an interview available in streaming-audio on the Internet, Davenport discusses that book. In the course of the interview, he set forth a theory in connection with the 1692 Salem witch hunts:

“I always found it rather fascinating and mysterious as to why, all of a sudden, your friends and neighbors are burning you at the stake as a witch, because it is rather inconvenient. My—the theory I find most interesting, is that they had a really damp crop that year, and as a result, a mold formed on some of the crops which is called ergot and its chemical composition is really close to LSD. So, it’s really very possible that everybody in Salem was just tripping out….That’s what you call a really bad trip.”

(Actually, none of the supposed witches was burned. Nineteen were hanged and one was pressed to death.)

On his genealogy website, Davenport traces the descendants—including himself—of Rev. John Davenport, the founder of the city of New Haven, Connecticut, as well as Yale College.

Argues Against Expulsion

It was another ancestor— Lt. Hezekiah Davenport—who was a founder, along with other officers of the Continental Army, of the Society of the Cincinnati. The group was formed in May, 1783, and its first “president general”—later to become the first president of the nation—was George Washington. Membership in the society is hereditary.

On Feb. 15, 1999, Davenport appeared before members of the Connecticut chapter to argue against his proposed expulsion from it.

The umbrella group’s founding document, called the “Institution,” authorized expulsion of “any member who, by a conduct inconsistent with a gentleman and a man of honor, or by an opposition to the interest of the community in general, or the Society in particular, may render himself unworthy to continue a member.”

Davenport was accused of reprinting a 1938 book belonging to the society, “Original Members and Other Officers Eligible to the Society of the Cincinnati,” contrary to the group’s expressed wishes (based on inaccuracies in the book) and verbally abusing staff members of the society at its headquarters in the District of Columbia.

Davenport read a statement in which he contended he was the victim of false charges leveled by “drug dealers, and persons who have [been] accused of everything from embezzlement to grand larceny,” adding:

“Members of their gang have even been sent to prison as the result of conviction of felonies. Are these the types of members you want in the Society of the Cincinnati?”

He insisted his detractors were “nefarious individuals, who unfortunately have infiltrated the hereditary society community” and were waging a “campaign of terrorism” against him.

The vote in favor of expulsion was 17-1, the negative vote being his own.

The Superior Court of Connecticut denied Davenport injunctive relief.

Sues Society Again

In 2000, Davenport sued the Society of the Cincinnati, as well as various other military/patriotic fraternal groups, such as Sons of the Revolution, and some of that group’s members including Huss and retired Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Alexander Early III (who died in 2004).

The action was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court and transferred to Orange County.

In his 29-page amended complaint, Davenport sought general damages in the amount of $8.2 million, special damages of $2 million, and punitive damages of $33 million, plus attorney’s fees. The pleading alleged:

“Collectively, the Defendants have been pursuing a campaign of terrorism against Plaintiff for the past six years. They are known throughout the hereditary society community by the collective name of the Lineage Society Terrorists.”

The complaint contained a lengthy attack on one defendant whom Davenport characterized as “homeless, penniless, a fraud, a charlatan, a con man.” It was averred that he was “[o]ne of the ringleaders” of the terrorists.

Among Davenport’s numerous allegations was that there had been a trespass into the garage of the apartment building in which he dwelled (on UCLA’s university row) and the defendants squeezed “super glue” into the locks on the doors of his automobile.

He asserted that various statements that had been made about him were libelous including Huss’s reference to him in a letter as “looney” and “crazy.”

Huss recounted that he resumed active bar status in order to represent one of the defendant organizations, the Aztec Club of 1847 (founded by soldiers who had fought in the U.S.-Mexican War). The Aztec Club had suspended Davenport from membership in 1997.

The former judge sought a declaration that the plaintiff was a “vexatious litigant” based on having brought at least five unmeritorious actions or proceedings within the past seven years as a pro per. Orange Superior Court Judge Michael Brenner found the motion meritorious, declaring in an order dated Sept. 7, 2000:

“The Court finds that Plaintiff, Robert Davenport, is a vexatious litigant.

“The Court finds that because of the rambling allegations of the Amended Complaint Plaintiff, Robert Davenport, will not prevail to a reasonable probability.

“The Court finds that security shall be furnished for the benefit of the moving parties by the posting of a ten thousand dollar ($10,000) bond by Plaintiff, Robert Davenport.”





Proceedings were stayed. Brenner later imposed a $250 sanction on Davenport for making unauthorized motions.

Davenport—impecunious despite holding a law degree and two masters’ degrees—failed to post the bond, and the action was dismissed.

Davenport’s Arrest

The plaintiff subsequently moved for a sealing of the records in the case based upon references in it to his arrest for trespass. In one of his causes of action, Davenport sought damages based on the defendants causing that arrest.

On Nov. 14, 2001, Orange Superior Court Judge Kim Dunning denied the motion. The judge held, according to the notice of ruling, that “Penal Code §851.8(b) does not provide authority for sealing records which simply refer to an arrest.”

The provision authorizes motions to destroy police arrest records where no charges are brought.

As Huss recalled the incident, Davenport got into a fray with a Sons of the Revolution member, John Justice, at the group’s library in Glendale and “hit him with a coffee pot.” Davenport was arrested and charged with a misdemeanor, but the charge was dropped, he said.

Records show that a charge was brought in People v. Davenport, 8GLL0448. The incident occurred on Sept. 11, 1998.

Davenport has contended in court papers that it was Justice who attacked him, attempting to stab him “through the heart with a pen,” and that the defendants told police officers that the facility was open only to members when, in actuality, “[t]he Sons of the Revolution Library in Glendale has received an exemption from property tax because they operate as a public library.”

Huss recounted that on a prior, Davenport showed up at a Sons of the Revolution board meeting at the library “and became very loud and obstreperous and someone summoned the police,” who effected his removal.

The retired jurist said he reported to the Army Reserve the information he had acquired that Davenport was receiving food stamps under two separate accounts.

Sanctions Imposed

The only instances of Davenport practicing in the Los Angeles Superior Court were in cases in which he represented himself. In one case, he sued attorney/executive Warren Adler and Soaring Eagle Productions, Inc. A settlement was reached and put on the record in open court on March 2, 1989.

Two days later, the defendants’ attorneys sent Davenport a settlement agreement for his signature comporting with the terms placed on the record. He ignored it for a month, then served his own proposed agreement which added terms that had not been agreed upon.

Then-Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Jack Newman entered judgment in accordance with what the defendants submitted and imposed a $2,500 sanction on Davenport for bad-faith conduct aimed at causing delay.

Davenport appealed. Div. Five of this district’s Court of Appeal affirmed on Nov. 19, 1991 in an unpublished opinion by Presiding Justice Paul Arthur Turner, who said that the facts justified Newman’s actions.

The California Supreme Court denied review. Although Turner’s opinion revealed no federal issues in the case, Davenport sought certiorari in U.S. Supreme Court. On Oct. 5, 1992, he was turned down.

In one of the four actions he filed against USC, sanctions were imposed against Davenport on Feb. 1, 1996, in the amount of $10,000 based on the frivolousness of his 79-page complaint he filed in U.S. District Court.

Seeks New Position

Now, Robert Ralsey Davenport (born Robert Bruce Davenport, but who changed his middle name apparently to adopt the middle name of an ancestor) is jobless, and seeks employment on the Superior Court.

His bid for judicial office was initiated with apparent optimism that he would prevail based on his chosen ballot designation as “Retired Judge Advocate.” However, the Registrar-Recorder’s Office, after reportedly consulting the Office of County Counsel, rejected that label, as well as his second choice, “U.S. Judge Advocate.”

In 1980, Davenport, having gained a license to practice law in New York, requested a change of his Navy Reserve “designator” from that of “Navy Flight Officer” to “Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps.” But there is no indication that this occurred. Feess said in his 2005 opinion: “It does not appear that Plaintiff ever received this change of status or at least that it did not appear in his records.”

In any event, there is seemingly no evidence that Davenport enjoyed the title of “judge advocate” either while in the Navy or Army reserve.

Davenport declined to be interviewed for this profile. He reportedly also refused to meet with the Editorial Board of the Los Angeles Times and absented himself from an orientation reception of the Los Angeles County Bar Assn.’s committee that rates judicial candidates.

Fills Out Questionnaires

He did, however, fill out a questionnaire for the League of Women Voters, and the information he provided appeared on the group’s website at Under the category of “Top Priorities if Elected,” Davenport stated: “Only Christian candidate for this office.”

His opponent, Deputy City Attorney Daniel Lowenthal, is Jewish.

Lowenthal said of Davenport’s remark last week, when it was posted:

“I find it offensive. I’m not sure what else to say. I’m kind of shocked.”

He said that if it had come “from anyone else,” he would have inferred that it was a “play to the anti-Semitic vote.” But, coming from Davenport, he continued, it cannot be stated with certainty what the intent was.

“I’m just not sure of his mental stability,” Lowenthal explained. “I don’t know what his thought processes are.”

Rendering the matter more curious is that in his amended complaint in the 2000 action against the Society of the Cincinnati and others, Davenport mentioned that he has Jewish relatives and claimed to be the victim of anti-Semitism.

(Davenport is himself a Roman Catholic, according to information he supplied to the League of Women Voters.)

The pleading said:

“The Defendants are aware that Plaintiff has many Jewish relatives.

“The Defendants have sent large amounts of anti-Jewish information about Plaintiff to persons listed in the Hereditary Society Blue Book, and to other members of the lineage society community.

“On or about August, 1999, the Defendants, without Plaintiffs consent, trespassed on Plaintiffs above mentioned premises, and painted a Nazi Swastika on said property.”

The webpage was removed by the League of Women Voters on Monday, and Davenport was asked to revise his submission so as to comport to the “terms of participation.”

On Tuesday, the page was back up, with reference to Davenport being the only Christian in the race removed.

Yesterday, Davenport sent an e-mail to candidates in other judicial races saying:

“I’m doing a survey of the religions of those running for judge.

“Could you please tell me yours?”


Copyright 2006, Metropolitan News Company

MetNews Main Page       2006 Judicial Profiles