Officers back Chambers' rival, Brauchler

DA: Support may cause conflict; foe says it's common

By Hector Gutierrez, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published July 16, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

Carol Chambers

George Brauchler

More Local News

Comments

July 16, 2008

8:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

raidermom writes:

Go George! Please vote in the August 12th primary so that we can get back to business in Arapahoe Co. (and out of the headlines). For more info on George go to: georgeforda.com
July 16, 2008

9:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

carolchambersforda writes:

Carol Chambers responds:

WHY I DO NOT TAKE ENDORSEMENTS – AND WHY MY PRIMARY OPPONENT WAS WRONG TO TAKE THEM FROM POLICE UNIONS

In the 2004 election, I did not seek or accept any political endorsements. For a District Attorney, endorsements create unnecessary conflicts of interest and appearances of favoritism. Again, in the 2008 election, I will not be seeking endorsements.

The District Attorney elected by and accountable to the people of this judicial district should be the one who prosecutes crimes that are committed here and should avoid anything that impairs the ability to do so.

This year my opponent in the Republican primary has solicited, and boasted about, endorsements from a number of police unions. Those endorsements – from the labor unions known as “fraternal orders of police” – have no place in a DAs race.

Those endorsements create, for my opponent, unethical conflicts of interest. If he was the District Attorney, he would have to assess – personally – the occasional claim of police misconduct. And a principal function of the unions that have endorsed him is to help officers whose conduct has been called into question.

Our police officers are overwhelmingly ethical, honest, and principled. But from time to time, something happens where an officer’s conduct has to be examined. Sometimes the issue is whether an officer has used excessive force. Other times, someone claims an officer has bent the truth. On occasion, an officer is accused of committing a crime.

Whenever something like this comes up, the District Attorney must carefully examine all of the facts, and make the right decision. And sitting across the table – next to the officer whose conduct is being examined – will be union lawyers hired by the very organizations that have now endorsed my opponent. Why would any citizen want to have an elected District Attorney who owes political favors to those groups?

I work alongside police. I am very glad that an officer, under investigation, has support from his union and has the benefit of an attorney to represent the officer’s interests. And, in every instance, my hope would be that the investigation is resolved by clearing the officer’s name. But I don’t at all like the idea of having an elected District Attorney who is unable to remain impartial.

For more information, go to carolchambersforda.com
July 16, 2008

10 a.m.

Suggest removal

carolchambersforda writes:

From Carol Chambers:

In an earlier post, I discussed the main problem with my Republican primary opponent’s decision to take endorsements from police unions – that they create, for him, unethical conflicts of interest.

Here’s the second problem. My opponent has waded into territory a DA should stay out of – the delicate relationship between our city governments and the police unions. Many citizens are unaware of it, but the fraternal orders of police are highly politicized advocates on labor issues such as terms and conditions of employment, officer conduct matters, and collective bargaining rights.

The largest union to have endorsed my opponent is the Colorado State Fraternal Order of Police. The President of that organization, Frank Gale, has said, “The tide has definitely shifted with the FOP. Where once, we were known for being mostly fraternal, especially in the west and southern portions of the United States we have now moved into the labor arena with full force.”

The website for the Colorado Fraternal Order of Police goes on to say: “The ultimate goal of the Colorado State Lodge is to represent all law enforcement bargaining units for pay, benefits and terms and conditions of employment. They have made significant progress with that regard in the past several years.”

Look, whether any more of our local police forces should obtain collective bargaining rights is something to be worked out between our local city and county governments, and their employees. The District Attorney has no role in that process, and I think the DA should stay out of it. But my opponent in the Republican primary has foolishly chosen to wade into this area, and has aligned himself squarely on one side of the police labor movement – the side of the union activists.

carolchambersforda.com
July 16, 2008

10:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

carolchambersforda writes:

Carol Chambers writes:

Here is the third problem with my Republican primary opponent’s decision to take endorsements from police unions.

Police unions, like all unions, are run by a small handful of people who like to claim – wrongly – that they speak for everyone in the group. There are hundreds of police officers and sheriff’s deputies in the 18th Judicial District. They are a very diverse group and, as individuals, have many different points of view. I would imagine that, in the Republican primary, some will vote for me and some will vote for my opponent. And in the general election, some will vote for the Democrat. The idea that the police union leadership can tell its members who they should support, or claim to speak politically for everyone in the union, is patently absurd.

I have done a great deal to help the officer on the street. I have worked with our judges to reduce the amount of time police officers waste sitting around in court. I have created an automated phone-in system that allows officers to easily find out if a hearing or trial has been called off, so the officers can avoid making unnecessary trips to the courthouse. And my staff and I have completed investigations of officer-involved shootings within days – investigations that used to take months or even years to complete.

Steps like these have helped the police. It is partly because of such steps that many officers will, in the voting booth, support me. But while I will be honored if individual officers choose to give me their vote, I want to be clear about one thing – I have never sought, or taken, political endorsements from anyone. Not during the last election, and not during this one either. And I certainly do not seek endorsements from police unions, or from any other organization whose endorsement would create a conflict of interest.

For more information, go to carolchambersforda.com
July 16, 2008

10:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Voter writes:

Which endorsements has Ms. Chambers declined to accept?

The automated phone-in system for officers exhisted long before Carol Chambers. That is easy to verify.

Did Ms. Chambers take annual leave for the time she spent posting responses this morning (and for her time doing any campaigning during business hours)? I'm sure that isn't her policy to allow county employees to spend their time online during business hours, right?
July 16, 2008

11:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

raidermom writes:

First of all, whether anyone likes it or not, there has to be a relationship between the DA's office and the police agencies. The general public who watches Law & Order knows this. The officer's go to the DA with a case and the DA says you don't have enough evidence, keep going, etc. The police and the DA's are our protectors and the one's who try to get the "bad guys" off the streets and keep them off. For this many police associations to back only one candidate speaks volumes. Ms. Chambers does not have to accept endorsements and police agencies do not have to ask her permission to endorse her or anyone else. They could just have easily publicly endorsed Ms. Chambers, however, they CHOSE not to do so. Further, having public endorsements from police agencies does not automatically mean that you will be "influenced" or have a "conflict of interest." DA's do not like cops that break the law any more than the rest of us. Mr. Brauchler is a major in the marine reserves. I believe he understands the definition of honor, protect & serve.
July 16, 2008

11:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

citizen_arapahoecounty writes:

I find it interesting that a public servant who is SUPPOSE TO rely greatly on truth rather than fiction would spend so much time making a point that is based in fiction: that accepting an endorsement automatically and without question creates a debt of "political favors" to any organization that exercises their RIGHT to publicly express a preference. I find it interesting, but not surprising when it comes to DA Chambers. It seems Arapahoe County's experience with the outgoing DA involves plenty of droaning about what a DA is suppose to do (i.e. prosecute crimes committed, avoid anything that impairs their ability to do so, and be accountable to the People of the county) which is overshadowed by plenty of press about what the outgoing DA really does do (i.e. misuse of power, perjury, and personal attacks on the perceived "threat-of-the-day.") I still believe Arapahoe County is ready for some truth rather than fiction. Hopefully election time will prove DA accountability is just that. Just because the DA says an endorsement automatically creates a political debt doesn't make it so. Right George?
July 16, 2008

12:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

ConcernedAboutChambers writes:

Ms. Chambers responds on the taxpayer dime? Who is prosecuting crime if Ms. Chambers is busy posting three lengthy blogs in the middle of the work day. Shocking, yet again. As for conflicts of interest, here we go:

1. Ms. Chambers had an Arapahoe County Commissioner nominate her at the Judicial District Assembly -- did that create a conflict? What if she has to prosecute that person?

2. Ms. Chambers' husband, a criminal defense attorney, is chairman of the Republican Party in Arapahoe County -- does that create a conflict? What if a Republican Party officer breaks the law? Conflict Ms. Chambers?

3. Ms. Chambers used $100,000 in Arapahoe County taxpayer dollars to defend herself against allegations of unethical conduct made by the Colorado Supreme Court -- and SHE LOST!! She was publicly censured. Did her use of those dollars create a conflict? How many taxpayers wanted to pay for her defense against the sustained allegations of unethical conduct?

4. More than 50% of the dollars Ms. Chambers raised to run for office in 2004 CAME FROM CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS!! -- Did that create a conflict? How can Ms. Chambers properly negotiate plea bargains with people from whom she accepted campaign funds? Ms. Chambers?

The fact of the matter is, Ms. Chambers cannot and will not receive support from law enforcement because THERE IS NONE!

GEORGE BRAUCHLER FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY!!
July 16, 2008

12:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

carolchambersforda writes:

The Carol Chambers campaign posts (including this one) were put up by a campaign volunteer from a home computer on a vacation day. No taxpayer time was used. The message from Carol Chambers was cut and pasted from the Endorsements page of the carolchambersforda.com campaign website.
July 16, 2008

12:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

citizen_arapahoecounty writes:

So insulting. Truth or Fiction? We know swearing on the Bible only goes as far as how long her employees continue to lie for her. Take one DA, add imagination, remove integrity, and you get a magical volunteer on a vacation day who spends their day off in front of a computer cutting and pasting text rather than enjoying the beautiful weather. Sounds like a B movie to me.
July 16, 2008

2:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

ConcernedAboutChambers writes:

The idea that someone other than Carol Chambers posted the first three notes above is silly. She has already sent out mass e-mails to law enforcement from her work e-mail address regarding this campaign. She will do it again, over and over, because the rules do not apply to Ms. Chambers.

"And we don't believe there's teamwork or an effort of teamwork between the district attorney's office and the Aurora Police Department," Lt. Bret Jeans, president of the Aurora FOP lodge, said.

Is Mr. Jeans someone of questionable integrity Ms. Chambers? Go ahead -- speak your mind. Is he some union-minded hack who is more interested in wages than fighting crime?

More than half your office has left prosecution Ms. Chambers in the last three and a half years. Why is that? Your relationship with the Arapahoe County bench is in a shambles, you're the first elected District Attorney to be publicly censured by our Supreme Court in decades, and law enforcement wants you out. You spent $100,000 in tax payer funds to defend your unethical conduct (that's right, found to be unethical). You complained when you took office about your salary not being high enough. Please tell us -- what have YOU done to advance the ball for prosecution? And none of this nonsense about lower crime rates.

Nothing you have done individually has lowered crime rates in your jursidcition. STATEWIDE, crime is down in all jurisdictions. When it goes back up (due to the economy floundering, I might add), will we be able to blame you for that? Based on your logic, we will.

This is a race about leadership and integrity.

This is a race about George Brauchler.

www.GeorgeforDA.com

And a last word on these law enforcement endorsements -- or -- for those who wear the uniform -- the endorsements of heroes. Did any of the organizations that has supported Mr. Brauchler come to you first and say, "Ms. Chambers, we really want to endorse you for this race."? Whose endorsement did you turn down Ms. Chambers? PLEASE TELL US ABOUT ONE ENDORSEMENT YOU TURNED AWAY.

Most of us are guessing that your endorsement list looks much like your Christmas gift list: my husband, my Assistant District Attorney . . . . And that's it.
July 16, 2008

7 p.m.

Suggest removal

tinskin writes:

District Attorney Carol Chambers has my support and support in the law enforcement
community. So what if some union leaders support the Brachler, that only hurts him.
If he has to prosecute an officer how can he remain nuetral? Chambers does not
accept endorsements from any one. I applaud her. There should be a separation
between the DA's Office and the police.
July 16, 2008

9:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

ConcernedAboutChambers writes:

Tinskin: Your idea about a separation between the D.A.'s office and the police lacks insight. You see, there are few legal relationships that are more symbiotic. Without law enforcement investigations, Ms. Chambers would have nothing to do. Without a prosecutor, policemen would have authority to do nothing more than prosecute traffic infractions. There is a cooperation element to the relationship that is pivotal in the successful crime fighting mission of all peace officers.

Think about it -- Ms. Chambers says she will accept no law enforcement "endorsements" because of the possible conflict -- I emphasize POSSIBLE. If that's the case, how could she take money from anyone as a donation? Is it not POSSIBLE the same person could step across legal boundaries and face prosecution from her office? How could Ms. Chambers allow a county commissioner to nominate her for this race at the judicial district assembly? Is not such a nomination an "endorsement" that could eventually result in a conflict should that same commissioner speed down Arapahoe Road?

The truth of the matter is Ms. Chambers has the worst relationship of any prosecutor statewide with her own police force, and she could not pay them for an endorsement. No one knows better how a prosecutor's office is functioning than the men and women in blue. That said, the endorsements for George Brauchler are both eye-opening and profound.

Those Brauchler endorsements amount to a vote of no confidence in Ms. Chambers.
July 16, 2008

11:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

AnotherFormerDAEmployee writes:

It seems to me that Carol Chambers and her handful of supporters are desperately spin doctoring her record in office. As a former employee, I'm not the slightest bit disgruntled. However, I do think the voting public has a right to know the truth about Carol Chambers. In my personal opinion, she is certainly the most Machiavellian politician I’ve ever known. Carol is trying to dismiss the employee turnover in her office, but it really has been insanely, outrageously high. In almost every case I know of, employees were leaving because of Carol‘s behavior. Something is not right when a District Attorney is hateful, vindictive, and mean-spirited to her own dedicated employees. Many pillars of the DA’s office, some of the most experienced, competent, hardworking legal professionals in Colorado--fantastic resources for our community--were driven away by Carol’s behavior. It’s a sad story when a DA is more interested in personal and political self-seeking than in doing what’s best for the community.

If he's elected, I think George Brauchler will be a welcome and much needed improvement to the DA’s office.
July 17, 2008

6:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

lhansen writes:

Clearly the police unions want more power and influence in the DAs office.
July 20, 2008

8:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

NotOnMyBlock writes:

Not On My Block

Carol Chambers must remain the DA for District 18! I live in WestRidge Glen, Highlands Ranch, Douglas County, and the State of Colorado in the United States of America. I am a private citizen who lives on the same street as George Brauchler, the District 18 challenger for the District Attorney’s Office. He will not receive my vote, or the 17 votes available to members of my family, all native Coloradoans in District 18. Let me tell you why. It all happened in my neighborhood and on my block.

There is an older bloke here in our quiet neighborhood. He minds his own business, but will lend a hand when a neighbor needs it. He’s never too busy to help mow your lawn if needed, shovel your sidewalk, and he’ll even swing by with his snow blower to clear a driveway if the snow gets too deep. You never even have to ask. He’s not anyone special, and he certainly isn’t perfect, (who is?) but he is what the old school calls a Neighbor. And he lives on my block.

He goes to work Monday through Friday like most of us do. On weekends, he chases his grandchildren around the yard and tosses a baseball with them; he washes and maintains the family cars, performs upkeep on his home, and cares for his lawn. But oh my gosh what a lawn! The yard the old bloke keeps is simply devotion in gardening and is radiant with growth! And last Friday, on July 11, in the early morning hours, George Brauchler’s campaign sign was plucked smack into my neighbor’s yard!

It may be best to point out here that the old bloke and Brauchler had a minor falling out about a year back. But that’s their business, right? What the old bloke did next was incredible! He respected the ownership of that sign, what it stood for and left it alone. That sign represented the First Amendment, and our constitutional right to Freedom of Speech! Brauchler & Co. retrieved their sign by mid morning. It had gone AWOL during the early morning hours from the Brauchler front yard.

Well Sunday afternoon rolls around, and the old neighbor decides to give Carol Chambers, the incumbent District Attorney for the 18th Judicial District, equal billing on his property and carefully groomed lawn. He placed a “Carol Chambers for District Attorney” sign on his property. The sign didn’t last 7 hours before it was removed by persons unknown! Could this be happening on my block?

To Be Continued....
July 20, 2008

8:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

NotOnMyBlock writes:

Continued:

Another “Carol Chambers for District Attorney” sign was up within minutes of the removal of the first sign. The next day, the baby buggy set (aka the stay at home Mommies) and friends of the Brauchlers launched a plethora of "GeorgeforDA" signs in their yards like lambs following one another. Marcia Brauchler vocally expressed frustration at the one, single, and lone “competitor” sign in my neighbor’s yard. The broad just couldn’t stand it. A “GeorgeforDA” sign was promptly placed as close as possible to my neighbor’s sign on Douglas County School property, which is perfectly legal. After all, we are all endowed with the same constitutional right to Freedom of Speech.

Now, my neighbor decided then and there that he had had enough of her childish behavior and her name calling. My neighbor proceeded to post his own handwritten sign in the open space, and implemented his constitutional right to Freedom of Speech. Brauchler’s wife removed the sign. The creative old bloke then posted his own handwritten sign on his own property, AND MRS. BRAUCHLER PROCEEDED TO CALL THE DOUGLAS COUNTY SHERIFF!! Visibly agitated, she verbally called a private citizen a “Criminal” for placing a sign in his own yard. Could this be happening on my block?

The responding officer was unable to act upon her complaint or issue a summons. No law had been broken. Did Mrs. Brauchler assume she had elitist rights that surpassed the constitutional rights of an ordinary citizen? Scandalous or slanderous? What was happening here? And could this be happening on my block?

The “Carol Chambers for District Attorney” sign disappeared again during the night. But my neighbor is a hardy citizen, and replaced the “Carol Chambers for District Attorney”, sign, because it is his constitutional right as an American citizen! And someone keeps taking it. And it keeps happening! And this is happening on my block!

While I’m not sure Brauchler endorsed the removal of my neighbor’s “Carol Chambers for District Attorney” signs, I can’t understand why any decent American citizen would presume to dishonor the constitutional rights of a fellow neighbor and private citizen. None of the “GeorgeforDA” signs have been stolen, either during the night or in the light of the day.

To Be Continued...
July 20, 2008

8:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

NotOnMyBlock writes:

Continued:

In the past seven days, many of us in this neighborhood have lived with the chaos of a campaign conducted by George Brauchler. It has entertained some. But it has ultimately disrupted the indisputable rights afforded to all citizens of this country. The events of the last week have given me cause for concern. I have not and will not place a “GeorgeforDA” sign in my yard. And not on my block.

I hold in my hand my ballot for the Republican Party primary and I will NOT vote for Brauchler. The conduct of his wife and his inability to diffuse a personal and emotional situation is not in keeping with how a public candidate for the DA’s office should conduct himself. Brauchler is not ready to assume the role of the chief law enforcement officer in our community. And, I refuse to DISHONOR the Constitution of the United States of America by giving him my vote.

I hope to wake up one day in the near future before the Election Day primary on August 12 and see a “GeorgeforDA” sign in every yard of my neighborhood. For every redundant sign that has littered this neighborhood, it is one less sign that will be visible in the greater community. That’s because the “Georgefor DA” signs will all be on my block. But not in my yard.
July 21, 2008

9:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

ConcernedAboutChambers writes:

NOMB -- you have got to be kidding. Yard signs issues will decide your vote and that of your similarly thinking gene pool? I suspect most of you don't really understand what a District Attorney does . . .

That said, what exactly entitles you to refer to Mr. Brauchler's wife as a "broad" and the neighborhod mothers as the "baby buggy set?" Either you are a chauvinist -- or you're simply the wife of that poor misunderstood bloak to whom you refer. Everyone is waiting for your video and still shots of the people stealing your yard signs. And then you'll probably join Geraldo in finding the Lindbergh baby. Please stop trying to fool your neighbors -- they all know who you are. The self-sponsored, misunderstood pity party routine has grown old.

Back to the important stuff -- Mr. Brauchler picked up another endorsement this week -- from the Sheridan Police Department. For those of you scoreboard watching:

Brauchler 8
Chambers 0

And what's with these mailers on behalf of Chambers -- who is paying for that stuff? For those of you interested, do a little research at the Secretary of State's web site and you will discover that just one person is paying for such mailers -- and it isn't Ms. Chambers with taxpayer funds.
July 21, 2008

10:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

InHisName writes:

To NOMB - WOW! Sign Wars! Brauchler & Co. true colors are coming out. I think a call to the American Civil Liberties Union is in order. Is there censorship or some type of suppression going on out there?

I would bring this issue to the forefront for the voters to decide for themselves. Blogging is nothing more than electronic conversation, true freedom of the press is the pillar of a free society. Time to deliver the truth on the news or in newsprint as that makes a much more compelling point.

I have concerns about Brauchler after all the defaming publicity statements his committee has put out against an incumbent who has served these counties well.

But then, on the other hand, Brauchler may be looking for some free media coverage.
July 22, 2008

4:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

ACLUReporter writes:

To NOMB: Your Freedom of speech is protected in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights and is guaranteed to all Americans. Since 1920, the ACLU has worked to preserve our freedom of speech. Call now and take action to protect the right to free speech. “Everyone” is usually one person using a plural to quash your first amendment right. Contact media@aclu.org.
July 22, 2008

5:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

InHisName writes:

In My Opinion
After meeting one of the Brauchler campaign workers (and there aren’t very many of them), little insider secrets slip out. Here’s what one staffer boasted:
Raidermom, vudumom, Baileymom what’s with all the “mom” user names? Hint hint - could it be the Mom and Brauchler’s wife?
Formerdaemployee and AnotherFormerDAEmployee - could it be George Brauchler? He’s been a former DA twice in Jeffco and Arapahoe County, according to the attorney’s in Douglas. He wants back in!
Sheepherder, ConcernedAboutChambers, citizen_arapahoecounty - more Brauchler’s working the spin. The writing is all the same and the anger is too deep rooted to be a so widely dispersed.
Don’t sweat it folks, 21 days and you can go back to acting normal.
July 22, 2008

6:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

blondhotandIknowit writes:

My favorite show is Dr. Phil! I love Dr. Phil! I TIVO everyday and he has some good advice for all, not just politicians. The candidate and his family could benefit
by way of counseling and intervention. There are resources available. Campaigns are difficult and people over evaluate everything - their family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, peers, etc. A support system is so important during these episodic situations. Some suggestions - take an early morning walk by yourself to meditate, try yoga, and when you feel the pressure of the campaign getting to you, take 10 long, deep, cleansing breaths. Implement these right away, and you’ll be ready to step into a leadership role. In case the win goes to Carol Chambers, you are already ahead physically and mentally for your next venture. I wish I could vote, but I am an Independent and can’t vote in this round.
July 22, 2008

12:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

raidermom writes:

http://www.sos.state.co.us/cpf/Contri...

Frank Azar for D.A.? (cut & paste the link above)

The District Attorney's race in the 18th Judicial District is heating up. I have received increasing amounts of campaign information from each candidate. From George Brauchler, I have received two voicemails, one from him and one from a police officer telling why he is endorsed by law enforcement. From Carol Chambers, I have received two huge, full color brochures from a group called People for Victims Rights. I’d never heard of them and they sounded impressive, so I looked them up on the Secretary of State’s website. Turns out that People for Victims Rights is a political action committee that has existed for two weeks, is located in Jefferson County , and has no “People,” just one donor who bankrolls the entire organization to the tune of $60,000. That donor is notorious attorney Frank Azar.

In a race between the candidate endorsed by law enforcement and the candidate bankrolled by Frank Azar, the decision is clear: I’m voting for George Brauchler.

George Brauchler for District Attorney!
georgeforda.com
July 22, 2008

3:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

raidermom writes:

Both sides of a campaign can play hardball apparently. George Brauchler signs keep disappearing at the corner of Mississippi & Tower Rd., but miraculously Ms. Chambers' signs stay up.
July 22, 2008

4:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

josh writes:

I can't believe that NOMB is going to waste the most precious thing a citizen has, a vote, because of a sign dispute. I don't know George Bruachler or Carol Chambers, but I have googled them both and done other research to make an informed decision with my vote. Here is what I found:

Both are experienced prosecutors.
Both are active in the Community.

The striking differences that relate directly to the job of District Attorney are in the areas of integrity and job performance:

George Bruachler: a Major in the Army reserve who teaches military prosecutors how to do the job. Exercised his right to free speech to comment on gays in the military during a radio program. And according to NOMB may or may not have moved some campaign signs.

Carol Chambers: 1st month in office, demanded a pay raise from the County Commissioners; promised compensation to the victims of Sex Assaulter Brent Brents but failed to follow through; threatened an attorney with a grand jury proceeding on behalf of an acquaintance; was found guilty of misconduct and disciplined by the State Supreme court disciplinary board; used over $100,000 dollars of taxpayer money to defend herself for those charges; was accused of prosecutorial misconduct by not disclosing evidence in a sex assault case; filed a death penalty case behind a prison murder then billed the Dept of Corrections $200,000 of tax payer money, was removed from that death penalty case by a District court judge for prosecutorial misconduct. Banned an Elbert County Sheriff Sargeant from testifying because he arrested an acquaintance for DUI, accusing him of misconduct that he did not commit.

I think its clear who the better candidate is. The U.S. Constitution allows everyone to make bad decisions. Looks like NOMB is exercising that right.
July 22, 2008

7:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

lhansen writes:

Josh - you do not have your facts straight. Ms. Chambers did not demand a raise. She questioned why the salary for the DA, which had already been approved, was being lowered once she won the election? She suspected that the commissioners, the majority of whom supported her opponent, were giving her a little political payback. However, she was satisfied with the answer she was given and has developed a great working relationship with the commissioners from all four counties and has earned their respect. One Arapahoe commissioner placed Ms. Chamber's name into nomination at the 18th Judicial Assembly and praised Carol's "can do" attitude.

Ms. Chambers NEVER banned an officer from testifying because he arrested an acquaintance - that is a flat out falsehood. Intersting that you don't name the "acquaintance".

And, every jurisdiction that has a DOC facility within its borders bills DOC for the costs associated with the prosecution of crimes that are committed in the DOC facilities. You see, DOC facilities are state owned and the prosecution of crimes committed within those institutions is the responsibility of the state and state wide taxpayers. The local district attorneys agree, at the behest of the state, to handle those prosecutions. But Josh I think you would agree that it would be unfair for the local taxpayers in the county in which the facility is located to bear the entire burden for the cost associated with the prosecution of those crimes. Accordingly, PURSUANT TO STATUTE, DOC willingly pays the local district attorneys to prosecute these crimes. DOC and the state do not have the resources to do so. Ask Mitch Morrissey, the elected DA in Denver if you don't believe me.
July 22, 2008

7:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

lhansen writes:

BTW Josh, nobody believes you when you say you do not know either Chambers or Brauchler, you are obviously a Brauchler supporter.
July 22, 2008

8:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

AnotherFormerDAEmployee writes:

Assistant District Attorney Leslie Hansen has a very nice job working for Carol. Leslie has a lot to lose if Carol loses this election. She is not impartial, to say the least.

Carol’s public furor over her salary was an embarrassment to the office. I’ve heard very different things about the Commissioners’ views of Carol, but it would not be proper to repeat them. Only the Commissioners can or should speak for themselves. If they’re silent on the subject, I’m sure it’s for a good reason.
July 22, 2008

11:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

weeweechew writes:

What on earth are you political followers accomplishing taking stabs at one another when there is an old bloke AKA Lawn Man?

I want to vote for the Lawn Man or Old Bloke or could someone give me his name? Just post it. I want him, because he can do my lawn anytime! I want a man who knows how to work with his hands and his brains, knows how to think like an American instead of taking jabs at a lady DA. On the SOS website they have the candidate’s address so I drove around but couldn’t find the old bloke, and there are about 5 houses with very nice yards but where is Lawn Man? A lady at the mail boxes said he wears a cowboy hat too!! It’s too hot for this! I want that Maverick!!

Lawn Man for DA!!

Vote for Lawn Man!!!!!
July 22, 2008

11:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

weeweechew writes:

Lawn Man for DA!!

Vote for Lawn Man!!!!!

Weeweechew a very good night.
July 23, 2008

6:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

NotOnMyBlock writes:

I referred to Brauchler’s wife as a broad because she is a woman, fairly wide and walks like a broad.

Interesting dialogue, thank you ACLU Reporter, (sorry InHisName, but Brauchler gets the free media coverage).

Call placed to the local ACLU office, they have provided the name of an attorney in the Evergreen/ Golden area. Steps initiated to open a case form; suppression of freedom of speech is also reportable on the encounter form. Initial information provided and a more comprehensive report will follow.

I also decided to inform the old goat and his wife about this blog in preparation for a call from the media. Also forwarded this website link to “lawn man” and gave him Channel 9 wants to know, Channel 7 and Channel 4 phone numbers. One of the homeowners came home from work early yesterday to take my call, thought Brauchler indicated the “falling out” was over. Surprise!! Can’t take Brauchler as a man of his word!

I will be Delighted to send the link to all our neighbors, most I’ve spoken to don’t know about this site.

It’s time for Brauchler to decide what backdrop to use for his media pitch.
July 23, 2008

7:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Chambersmustgo writes:

How can Carol Chambers say it is wrong to accept endorsements from police when she requested Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson Robinson endorse her for DA at the 18th Judicial Assembly? He spoke on her behalf to nominate her for DA, and yet, somehow, this isn't an endorsement? Give me a break. Have you ever told the truth, about anything?
July 23, 2008

7:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Truth_Seeker writes:

Instead of arguing about who asked for what endorsement, and what that means, has anyone thought to ask the single most important question in this race? Which candidate will best protect the community and evenhandedly enforce the laws of this state?

I can tell you this, Carol Chambers has done more to put repeat offenders in prison than any other elected official in this state. Before she took office, habitual criminals would routinely get plea bargains that resulted in them serving a fraction of the sentence they originally faced. Similarly, people who escaped from halfway houses, generally having multiple felony convictions, used to get nothing more than a year tacked onto their sentences. Carol changed that by imposing stiff new policies on habitual criminals and escape cases that have resulted in VASTLY higher penalties for repeat offenders, often three or four times higher than what they would have received in other jurisdictions or in Arapahoe before she took office.

By that measure, Carol has been a terrific success. How do I know this? I worked for her and was here to see those changes put into place. If you don't believe me, ask the defense attorneys who call Arapahoe county "Arapahell" because of the stiff plea bargain policies, or the thousands of victims who have seen offenders properly punished, or ask a crook, if you can find one, and ask them which district in this state they would LEAST like to be prosecuted in. I guarantee the answer will be Arapahoe County. Heck, you could even ask all the former DA's office employees who are behind Brauchler's candidacy, and they will be hard pressed to deny this too.

I haven't heard anything about what George Brauchler plans to do to make this community safer. All I have heard is a lot of juvenile nattering from his supporters.

So if you care about the most important job of any district attorney, protecting the community, you might want to consider voting for the candidate who has proven she can do that. That's what I care about.
July 24, 2008

6:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

weeweechew writes:

I still can’t find lawn man! I rode around and around yesterday, then I went to Starbucks by Santa Fe. They never see him there. NOMB- does he like coffee? Then I went to Wendy’s and think I saw BlondHotand Iknowit and ConcernedAboutChambers, because one was a broad and the other was a blond, go figure. They pointed in the direction where old bloke lives but it was hot at 92° and getting cloudy. So I just got on my bike and went home. If you see a Hottie Mommie on a bike tomorrow on your block, that’s me! I have 3 more friends helping me look. We’ll find him!!
LAWN MAN FOR DA!!
VOTE FOR LAWN MAN!!
WeeWeeChew will help us find the old bloke!
July 24, 2008

5:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

ACLUReporter writes:

Thanks NOMB, in follow up, I will confirm that the parties have spoken to the necessary officials. For on candidate, the timing will be perfect, for another, disastrous. That's politics.
July 27, 2008

7:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

InHisName writes:

The Brauchler blogs have become somewhat redundant and full of condescending droll. It’s a shame too, because I have heard Brauchler speak publically and he can be expressive.

Unfortunately, his team of bloggers undermine his message and sabotage (unbeknownst to them, I’m sure) his points. I skip most of those, and for good reason. The blogger is always “concerned” about something, (“ConcernedAboutChambers”, “ConcernedRepublican”) and they manipulate the information to such a degree, Brauchler comes off as stumping superfluous old points with no new thoughts on how to better run a department he has indicated is void of leadership.

In response to a previous post by a Brauchler supporter, understand that the “backing” of a department does not equate to the backing of each individual employee of the dept. That is what equates to votes.
The indication (on the boards and one the street) of an ACLU violation makes me feel uneasy. I don’t want to vote for a future District Attorney that may be in the news on issues related to violations of the First Amendment of any citizen.

As a Republican voter in District 18, I’m not convinced yet.
July 27, 2008

10:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

blondhotandIknowit writes:

As a real estate investor, I’m more concerned with property values. Will property values go down in my neighborhood if a DA lives in the neighborhood? I have heard that concern from my neighbors, especially if the DA has an association to a questionable cop, disgruntled former county workers (we don’t want any “postal” type behavior here) and other state employees who use government computers to advertise for Brauchler. Will my neighborhood be safer on not safe if Brauchler wins? He was quoted in a newspaper article I pulled up that he "got the bad guys". Maybe he wasn't referring to criminals but the people on his team.
July 30, 2008

6:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

NotOnMyBlock writes:

I hold in my possession a video (with audio) taken in April 2005 at a party held in honor for Major Brauchler by his wife. Marcia Brauchler emotionally thanks all her neighbors for being “true neighbors”, and addresses some of her guests personally by name. The old bloke (AKA Lawn Man) received her words of praise with accolades, as did many.

Left wing radicals in District 18? An ACLU probe? I understand it all falls apart late on August 9 for Brauchler. That’s the last weekend to campaign and right before the election.
The not so nice talk and name calling Marcia Brauchler did will come to fruition that evening. Remember how Newt’s Mommy undermined his credibility?

It happened again, right on my block. Timing is everything.
August 9, 2008

12:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

SilpacTalk writes:

WNAL and CAC– I can only imagine your desperation and panic when team Brauchler realized that the Littleton Herald (and 6 other community newspapers, that’s right, count them, 7 total) published a lengthy, forthright and candid piece on the incumbent, Carol Chambers. Here’s the link for the readers who missed the piece:

http://www.zwire.com/site/index.cfm?n...

Littleton Republican voters have really been turned off by the Democrat – style antics of Brauchler. To capitalize on UNION endorsements, of all things, on top of Brauchler’s smears against Islam and his anti-gay statements is more than any Republican should have to bear.

Let’s not forget how Mr. Talk Show Host Brauchler accused John Edwards of going for the sympathy vote when his campaign revealed that Elizabeth’s breast cancer had returned! What a child! I’m thinking at this point you’ll play the sympathy vote card yourself. Get real!

Do you think this district needs a dose of your “stinking thinking” power trip? Caplis is better off without you. Listeners can enjoy Dan and Craig speak to the issues of the day.

George Brauchler is the candidate who is panic stricken. When Brauchler looses this race, he may actually need to get a real job. A call placed to Feldmann, Nagel and Associates yielded more questions than answers. Don’t count on my hard earned taxpayer coin going towards Brauchler’s salary.
August 11, 2008

8:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

MyVoteIsIn writes:

A very intriguing race . . .

Lots of emotion on the blogs -- I suppose that is typical. Reminds me of Ritter and Silverman years ago (not the blogging, but the bitterness). I have researchd these two individuals a bunch, talked to co-workers and former co-workers.

The research reveals the following: Ms. Chambers has certainly been willing to take a stand on several, controversial issues. From her own salary to habitualizing criminals every time out, she has come under fire for taking self-righteous, unorthodox approaches to a number of self-perceived dilemmas. She has certainly made a stink with the judges out there (in Arapahoe County she threatened to clog dockets and a judge in some rural county called her office "unethical" within the last few months). No matter the light cast upon these episodes, one mistake is forgiveable, two bring scrutiny, three raise eyebrows and four is absolutely enough.

And then there is this ethics issue with the Colorado Supreme Court that is really a big deal since she is the first publicly censured DA in a century. That cannot be a positive.

Then you have Mr. Brauchler -- clearly the less-experienced prosecutor in terms of years, but it appears he has done an awful lot in those years. He stuck his foot in his mouth with the Navy comments and apparent homophobic remarks on the radio, but I am not so sure that disqualifies him from serving in public office. His service in the Army reserves is admirable.

Grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, but in this case, it appears Ms. Chambers has planted some really ugly weeds on her side.

My vote is in: Mr. Brauchler.

I cannot imagine he would beat any other incumbent coming form inside the incumbent's party, but Ms. Chambers had the chance to do great things and spoiled it with multiple errors in judgment and a seeming unwillingness to admit fault. Those errors have cost us taxpayers more than $100,000 by her own admission. That's simply unacceptable.
September 24, 2008

11:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

NotOnMyBlock writes:

Honestly, in my opinion, the biggest factor in George Brauchler losing the race was the conduct Marcia Brauchler utilized during the election. As per my previous posts, Marcia Brauchler sabotaged George’s campaign efforts because of her spiteful and pitiful behavior. Big point - our block hosts “neighborhood dinners”, and Brauchler’s wife manipulated so many of our neighbors against “lawn man” and his spouse, the dinner coordinator sent a “false cancellation” to all attendees, to “uninvite” lawn man, etc. Then of course we were all re-invited to the neighborhood dinner on a different date. I even feel stupid, and somewhat guilty, acknowledging that we even attended. I did have the decency to call “lawn man” about the neighborhood antics, and I wish I had the same level of dignity he demonstrated. He really didn’t care if a handful of neighbors couldn’t stand up to Marcia Brauchler’s campaign of hate; all she has done is corrupt our neighborhood. The broad has been pretty indifferent to me since I refused to put a “GeorgeforDA” sign in my yard. Quoting John Hickenlooper, the fine mayor of Denver, “there is no benefit in having enemies”, but Marcia Brauchler doesn’t get it. “Lawn man was Dis-invited to a neighborhood get-together, but George Brauchler was Dissed by 8400 plus voters. This is a story that will not go away. I guess what comes around, goes around. Karma $ux$.

Home › News › Local News

Officers back Chambers' rival, Brauchler

DA: Support may cause conflict; foe says it's common

By Hector Gutierrez, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published July 16, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More Local News

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs