The state landlord group,aided by current and former Monntain View city councilmembers, is paying professional circulators to trick voters into signing the "sneaky" petition to repeal restrictions on rent increases in older (pre-1995) apartments. Don't sign and if it still makes the November ballot, vote against it.

That same line of rhetoric is being repeated, in rigid unison, at every hand by people who want to do your thinking for you. It's as misleading as it claims the petition to be! The new initiative didn't come from "the state landlord group" but from diverse MOUNTAIN VIEW residents including families who own small rental propertly, and also renters who know the downsides of rent control. It does not "repeal" rent control even if the vacancy-rate threshold is crossed (the rent board still decides). It does favor longterm and lower-income renters, by reducing the incentive for high-paid tech workers throughout the county to descend on Mountain View and displace locals (a side effect of Measure V never acknowledged by those who pushed it).

If you want to think for yourself, read the petition and Make Up Your Own Mind! It's your inalienable right, and no one has any business telling you what to think with their own cynical spin. Of course, if you're OK with others doing your thinking for you, go right ahead. . .

Vote NO on the recall

Skrzynecki is wrong to state that Judge Persky ignored the victim. Persky said, among other statements acknowledging the victim, “And the victim in this case was extremely vulnerable… “And as we’ve heard today, as I heard at trial, there was both physical and devastating emotional injury inflicted on the victim.” Persky also read some of the victim’s statements out loud during the proceedings.

Skrzynecki says Persky “ignored the prosecutor's recommendation of six years in prison.” However, prosecutors regularly recommend higher sentencing than expected--it’s part of their sentencing recommendation strategy. The probation officer was a woman, who thoroughly researched each side, conducted interviews, and presented her unbiased sentencing recommendation to Judge Persky.

UC Law Dean Chemerinsky strongly opposes the recall. He said, “Judges should not be punished for following the recommendation of the district attorney and the probation department. If a district attorney thinks the sentence was lenient, they can appeal it, but don’t recall the judge.”

Pittman says Persky’s supporters describe Turner’s actions as an “inebriated student’s momentary lapse of judgment.” Fiss says McManis “implied her drinking caused her assault.” That’s not true; McManis merely stated that Emily Doe had been drinking before she went to the party. McManis never said it caused Doe’s assault. According to the court documents, Doe had four shots of whiskey before the party—plus vodka and beer at the party. And Doe told police she has a history of blackout drunkenness.

Judge Persky didn’t make any of the aforementioned statements. Judge Persky is not responsible for what others say.

Pittman says Emily Doe was “fully unconscious.” But that’s not true. According to paramedics at the scene, Doe was able to move her head and open her eyes, and her Glasgow score was 11—this does not characterize full unconsciousness.

Turner got a stiff sentence for what he did; jail time, probation, rehab, and the dreadful life-altering life sentence as a sex offender, that will severely restrict the remainder of Turner’s life.

The recall campaign’s supporters have had their false claims such as bias, rape, and White privilege refuted by credible authorities, so now the Recall’s absurd strategy is to blame Judge Persky for what other people say.

Vote NO on the recall.

Persky should be recalled. He has a consistent history of light sentences for rapists and pedophiles. The pro-persky group has a big campaign of misinformation, but most of us see through it.

Voting yes on the recall!

@Nah - The history you mention regards a number of plea deals, which are agreements between prosecution and defense as to what will best serve the public and the defendant. The recall campaign has distorted Persky's sentencing record to serve their purposes. The NoRecall campaign is being led by several ardent feminists with backgrounds in criminal justice, who recognize the recall campaign's spin for what it is.

And here's something to think about - a survey of a group of high school students who were presented arguments for and against the recall showed that over TWO-THIRDS would vote no after hearing both sides. I think they were able to see which side was putting out the misinformation.

Michele Dauber has been spewing [portion removed] misinformation about Judge Persky [portion removed] since Brock Turner’s conviction in 2016. Meanwhile, Judge Persky has been barred from discussing the Turner case and defending himself due to legal ethics—this is like Judge Persky defending himself in a fencing match without a sword.

The Recall’s fake claims of bias, rape, and White privilege have been refuted by the Commission on Judicial Performance and other credible organizations [portion removed.]

It’s good to hear what commenter “Voting No on the Recall” said, that of the high school students who heard both sides of the recall issue, 2/3 of the students opposed the recall. Let’s hope the majority of Santa Clara County voters are as smart as the high school students who voted no on the recall.

Vote NO on the recall.