Wednesday, September 13, 2006

More Coverage of Allegations Against Reed; Reed Offers Defense

ABC-7 picked up the story on the recent allegations made against Chuck. The print story and the video coverage is available here:

The story is yet to be picked up by other major SJ blogs or by the Mercury News.

In the article, Chuck defends his contested votes with two positions:

(1) He charges that the attorney bringing the charges, Mann, is a supporter of Chavez; and

(2) The votes he made without recusing himself he claims dealt with policy issues rather than specific property.

I am guessing this second argument is that he needn't recuse himself when voting on general policy that benefits his clients but should when voting on specific ordinances that benefit them...

Noticeably absent from Reed's defense is his claim that he made in the original KTVU story that he did not know about the conflict of interest at the time he voted. My buddy SJ Rookie thoroughly discredited that defense two posts ago. Put simply, the timeline proves that he did know about the potential conflict of interest at the time of the vote in question...

Other than those defenses, ABC's story did not present too much else new about the story. However, what was different was Councilmember Cortese's response to the controversy:

"I want to withhold judgment until I hear what he has to say, but it's a troubling set of facts that have been presented."

Cortese - who has not endorsed either candidate - provided much more of a negative response in the KTVU story. It remains to be seen whether or not Cortese is going to make a splash in the final weeks before the election. A onetime front-runner, Cortese has a great deal of credibility and support in the community. Time will only tell...

The article adds that Reed received $10,000 dollars to represent Los Esteros. This leads us to a question we posed about a month ago: who else has Chuck's law firm represented?


At 9:10 AM, Anonymous Merc news = Pro-Reed said...

Take a look for yourself...

The primary and secondary headline reads: "Complaint aims at candidate

The first sentence begins with "A San Jose attorney who is co-hosting a fundraiser for a rival mayoral candidate..."

It's like they can't even begin to report the story without trying to delegitimize it.

When they wrote about COMPAC, you bet the first thing out of their mouth was never "A group headed by someone who has actively campaigned against Chavez..." They didn't even disclose their role in COMPAC!!

It's painfully obvious who the Mercury News wants to win this election... I can't believe they look themselves in the mirror and think they're truly journalists.

At 11:45 AM, Anonymous d.h.k. said...

I posted this about a month ago. I figure since you asked, I'll repeat my answer:

"Is there any chance Chuck isn't too proud of his employment as an attorney? His campaign website's bio is pretty dull with respect to this point ("Chuck has been an attorney in private practice in San Jose since 1978, specializing in environmental, employment, land use and real estate law, and commercial litigation.") Seriously, look at his city council web page: ( It doesn't say a thing either besides the same empty descriptions. Google Reed and "law firm" and you have to sort through hundreds of links before you can even find the NAME of Reed's firm let alone WHAT he did there (and what type of clients he represented...) I don't know, call me CRAZY, but if I were the MANAGING partner and CEO of a law firm, I'd PROBABLY have the name of that firm somewhere on my website. For the record, the firm's name is Reed, Elliott, Creech & Roth.

Here are three FUN facts about Chuck's law firm:



That's right! Mr. Reed's law firm will fight for you, drunk-drivers of San Jose! In California, 1643 out of 4120 traffic fatalities in 2004 involved alcohol. I don't blame Chuck for not having anything related to THAT part of his firm's practice on his website...

WANNA JOIN THE MASSES AND FILE AN ASBESTOS CLAIM?,+Elliott,+Creech+%26+Roth%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=41

Another delightful practice area of Mr. Reed's law firm that isn't commonly mentioned in the papers. Today, there are more than 8,400 asbestos defendants. Asbestos lit has forced 41 companies since 2002 to go bankrupt, leading to 60K lost jobs! (The Impact of Asbestos Liabilities on Workers in Bankrupt Firms, Sebago Associates (lead author: Joseph Stiglitz), 2002.) Estimates out there suggest that 90% of successful plaintiffs don't have malignant claims. (Asbestos Litigation Costs and Compensation: An Interim Report, RAND Institute for Civil Justice, 2002 (updated 2005).) Well, given that asbestos litigation has been estimated to cost American businesses $70 billion since 2002, and on average, only 42 cents on the dollar end up in the hands of the 'victims', who could blame Reed's firm for getting a piece of that pie?

CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS?,+Elliott,+Creech+%26+Roth%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=61

Reed's firm represented these plaintiffs in what was a monumental case that ended up in the California Supreme Court. This case expanded the doctrine of strict liability to include window manufacturers for damage caused to other parts of the home. What is strict liability? It means that plaintiffs do not need to show that the defendant was at FAULT in order to recover! (And you wondered why insurance rates and housing costs were through the roof???)

I have nothing against Reed. I have nothing against Chaves. I'm on board with the "be honest about your background" posts that came up yesterday or the day before.

If anybody can do some digging re: Reed's legal career, I think it'd be beneficial to us all to find out a little more... "


Post a Comment

<< Home