Page 1
Judge Elswick’s Challenger Is Infuriated Over News Story
Albert Robles, in Irate Email, Contends He Was Maligned
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A typographical error in a METNEWS story on the judicial elections has drawn the outrage of Albert Robles who is challenging Judge Carol Elswick in the June 7 primary, insisting that an effort was made to make him look “stupid.”
Other statements in the story, which appeared Thursday, were also protested, including quoting the candidate as saying that the “Judicial Council” had publicly admonished Elswick. He said in an email:
“I misspoke true, but upon realizing my error I corrected it.”
He referred several times to the “Judicial Council” during a telephone interview on Wednesday and only after being asked what the name of the disciplinary body was did he consult the Internet and correct himself, identifying the Commission on Judicial Performance.
The article noted:
“The lawyer proceeded to look up the matter on the Internet and corrected himself as to the identity of the body that disciplined Elswick.”
Robles objected:
“Again, that I misspoke is true, but upon realizing my error I corrected it – let’s see if you correct your errors.”
|
|
|
ALBERT ROBLES judicial candidate |
Typographical Error
A typographical error appeared in the following paragraph:
“Robles acknowledged awareness of the Los Angeles Superior Court judges’ political action committee, which has amassed more than $300,000 for use in campaigns of challenged colleagues. He said a ‘preliminary estimate’ of what it will take to win the contest is between $2000,000 and $250,000.”
It should have said that the estimate “is between $200,000 and $250,000.”
Robles complained:
“I guess accuracy in reporting the news really does not matter to METNEWS, because what I said was that ‘experts tell me it will take about a quarter of a million dollars, two-hundred-thousand ($200,000) to two-hundred- and-fifty thousand ($250,000)’ I never said TWO MILLION dollars ($2,000,000)! Ah but when you misspeak (or in this instance mistype) it is an innocent mistake, but when I do it this requires you to try to make me look stupid? I wonder why - NOT. I ask you, which mistake is more stupid, and which is more innocent - confusing TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000) with two-hundred-thousand ($200,000) IN WRITING THAT YOU DOUBLED CHECKED or confusing Judicial Council with Commission on Judicial Performance IN A RUSHED INTERVIEW that you insisted on proceeding with knowing that I was distracted at the moment?”
Robles made no mention of being distracted. When initially contacted, he said he was “in the middle of something” but would be available in half an hour, and he was phoned then.
Victories Over Incumbents
The article identified Robles, accurately, as “a former mayor of Carson and unsuccessful candidate in 2008 for district attorney.” He objected:
“True, but also true that when I ran the very first time for [the Water Replenishment District of Southern California] I unseated an incumbent AND when I ran for the first time for Carson City Council again I unseated an incumbent and when I was elected as Carson’s Mayor I defeated the former incumbent.”
Robles took exception to this statement:
“Robles’s ethics have been challenged over the years. In 2016, he agreed to pay fines totaling $12,000 for campaign finance law violations.
The former mayor wrote:
“It was for being late – that is not unethical. WTF! I guess you have never been late?”
One Year Late
Allegations centered on Robles’s failure to publicly reveal campaign contributions in the time required. One allegation, relating to finances in 2012, was:
“…Robles and the Re-Elect Committee failed to disclose any financial activity until over 1 year after the required disclosure. This non-disclosure is aggravated by the fact that Robles failed to disclose any financial activity until after his election to a separate public office on the Carson City Council in March 2013.”
It was stipulated by Robles that there had been violations by him of the Political Reform Act. An agreement reached with the Fair Political Practices Commission, which initially sought to impose an $85,000 fine, recited:
“In this matter, Robles failed to timely file multiple campaign statements for multiple committees. In aggravation, Robles has a prior history with the Enforcement Division for failing to file timely campaign statements. Additionally, Robles has been a member of the Water District since 1992 and is aware of his filing requirements. In mitigation, Robles has filed the late campaign statements and has hired a professional treasurer to assist with his filing requirements.”
Campaign Against Cooley
Robles had two criticisms of references to his effort to unseat the district attorney. His comments appear in brackets:
“Robles ran against then-District Attorney Steve Cooley in 2008, criticizing the incumbent for being too aggressive in prosecuting public officials. [No, again not accurate - it was for only prosecuting minority elected officials and letting his white friends off the hook] At the time, the office was prosecuting him for alleged misdemeanors in connection with two campaign mailers.
“Cooley won in the June primary, drawing 64.9 percent of the vote, against Robles’s 19.6 percent and then-Deputy District Attorney Steve Ipsen’s 15.5 percent. In October, [Of what year - to leave the year off is most unfair as it gives impression that this is recent] a jury acquitted Robles on the misdemeanor charges.”
The year was specified in the previous paragraph.
Allegations Fought Off
The article said of Robles:
“Over the years, he has fought off allegations of sexual harassment and of not actually residing in Carson, rendering him unqualified for office there.
He expressed this view:
The juxtapositioning is very misleading and some of the worse journalism I have ever seen, but more importantly I was never ‘render[ed] unqualified for office there.’ This is amazing especially because METNEWS goes out of its way to explain Judge Elswick public admonishment. No editor of any high school newspaper would make such a mistake.”
Quo Warranto
The report continued:
“On Jan. 29, 2020, Div. Five of this district’s Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment removing Robles from the Board of Directors of the Water Replenishment District of Southern California, pursuant to an action in quo warranto brought by then-District Attorney Jackie Lacey. Membership on the board, the court held was incompatible with holding office as mayor.”
Robles interjected:
“In other words, the two offices were incompatible and had absolutely nothing to do with me.”
It related to him in the sense that, according to reports, in 2016 he accepted pay and benefits from the water board totaling $80,092.
The candidate took this parting shot:
“Lastly, I guess you were absent during the lesson my kids learned in high school, that relying exclusively on Wikipedia as a source should never be done and is ONLY done by stupid lazy dumb-fucks who have no appreciation for the truth, i.e., yellow journalism. Get it?”
When asked in the interview on Wednesday about the nature of his law practice, Robles announced he had to take another call. The State Bar website shows only a Post Office box as his address.
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company