Shasta County District Attorney Stephanie Bridgett
Shasta County Superintendent of Schools Judy Flores, County Clerk Cathy Darling Allen and District Attorney Stephanie Bridgett have several things in common.
All three women are widely respected elected public officials who’ve spent decades competently serving the citizens of Shasta County without scandal or mishap.
All three have been recognized by their peers and others for their outstanding achievements in their respective professions.
And now, all three women are under attack by the far-right political movement that has surged through the nation, including Shasta County, since the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic two years ago. As nasty as Trumpism was, in the wake of his electoral defeat and the advent of the novel coronavirus, it has morphed into something far worse.
The members of this right-wing political movement don’t believe in science. They don’t believe in expertise, meritocracy or democracy. They can’t properly be called Republicans or conservatives. They don’t believe in taking any collective action to mitigate ongoing catastrophes, whether it’s homelessness, climate change or the COVID-19 pandemic, which during the past two years has killed more than 1 million Americans, including 614 Shasta County residents.
They share Grover Norquist’s perverse desire to shrink government down to the size of a baby and drown it in a bathtub and former President Donald J. Trump’s predilection for owning the libs above all else.
They seek conflict, not cooperation, even if fighting means the perpetually beleaguered white working class they claim to represent gets hurt in the process.
Locally, this far-right movement is led by Shasta County District 4 Supervisor Patrick Jones and is comprised of Tea Party remnants such as Mark and Lyndia Kent, State of Jefferson separatists like Terry and “Rally” Sally Rapoza and militia-aligned strongmen like Woody Clendenen and Carlos Zapata.
Formerly consigned to the margins of Shasta County politics, these rightwing extremists have gained a new lease on life thanks to the largess of Connecticut son-of-a-billionaire Reverge Anselmo, an extreme libertarian who has pumped more than $730,000 into their collective campaign coffers, according to campaign filings and Anselmo himself.
Kent’s sister Lyndia serves as the treasurer for Shasta General Purpose Committee, which received $450,000 last year from Anselmo to fuel its successful effort to recall Shasta County District 2 Supervisor Leonard Moty in February.
In addition to Shasta General Purpose Committee, Tea Party provocateur cum Trumpist Mark Kent has formed the Liberty Committee Pac, which has donated thousands to the three rightwing candidates.
It’s also paid Sinclair media company, which owns KRCR Channel 7, $12,325.
Liberty Committee has not disclosed its donors, but Anselmo said he recently donated another $180,000 to the movement.
It’s a relatively large sum of money compared to past political spending in Shasta County, and they’ve got hundreds of thousands of Reverge Revenge bucks left to burn.
Now, following a national trend, the hard right extremists have targeted school superintendent Flores, county clerk Darling Allen and district attorney Bridgett, all three of whom are respected elected public servants who due to the complex and demanding nature of their nonpartisan positions have generally faced few if any political challenges.
In short, these elected officials aren’t necessarily accustomed to raising campaign money, meaning the tens of thousands of dollars being injected into these races by Anselmo and other right-wing outsiders could turn the tide against this trio of exceptionally experienced public servants.
For the radical right, it’s not about installing competent candidates in these offices. It’s about inserting proto-fascist white Christian nationalist ideologues who will oppose mask and vaccine mandates in the middle of a raging pandemic, rave against queer people and people of color, proclaim election fraud without a shred of evidence and declare government itself the enemy of the people—even as they run for government offices.
Career Prosecutor Stephanie Bridgett vs. Anti-Government Rightwing Corporate Lawyer
Shasta County District Attorney Stephanie Bridgett and friend.
Like Flores and Darling Allen, Shasta County District Attorney Stephanie Bridgett is a well-respected longtime public servant who has, according to her campaign bio, “spent the past two decades prosecuting criminal trials, sending murders, rapists and child molesters to prison for life.”
Bridgett’s long list of supporters includes former Shasta County Sheriffs Jim Pope and Tom Bosenko and current Sheriff Michael Johnson. Former Shasta County District Attorney and two-term U.S. Attorney McGregor Scott has endorsed Bridgett.
She’s a founding member of the Children’s Legacy Center and educates local students about the dangers of human trafficking, bullying and cyber safety. She holds an annual Fraud Prevention Fair to teach seniors and veterans how to avoid scam artists.
Not too long ago, these were the types of endorsements and public service expected of high-ranking officials. Today, according to the radical right, it makes you a member of the hated “establishment.”
Shasta County District Attorney candidate Erik Jensen.
That’s the strategy her opponent, corporate attorney Erik Jensen is pursuing. Why waste all that time doing public service when you can cynically cut to the front of the line by running against the establishment?
“Shasta County is less safe today than it was five years ago,” Jensen proclaims on his campaign website. “Dangerous homeless encampments, illegal marijuana grows, opioid abuse and theft continue to plague our community.”
While it’s true that homeless encampments, illegal marijuana grows, opioid use and theft continue to plague Shasta County, Jensen presents no evidence that the county is less safe than it was five years ago. Crime statistics lag. Last year, the Record Searchlight reported vehicle thefts, robberies, burglaries, larcenies and aggravated assaults in Redding, the largest city in the county, went down in 2020 compared to previous years.
At any rate, Jensen, who fled to Shasta County from conservative Orange County with his family four years ago because it has allegedly become too liberal, thinks he’s the right outsider for the job.
“Our elected officials have had ample opportunity to address these problems,” Jensen claims in his campaign bio. “We need people from outside of the establishment to make the changes necessary to protect our community.”
An appearance by Jensens’ on Terry Rapoza’s “Jefferson State of Mine” radio program was revealing. Rapoza, a radical right separatist who believes far northern California history, culture and morality is so unique it requires its own state, had no issues welcoming the Orange County transplant into the fold. There’s a link to the interview on Jensen’s campaign website.
Jensen told Rapoza he’s not a career politician, he’s been swept up in a grassroots movement for truth. “They approached me,” he told Rapoza. “It’s not about me. It’s about people wanting a change in their community.”
One person wanting a change in the community, i.e., Bridgett’s removal from office, is Carlos Zapata, who has donated $500 to Jensen’s campaign. Zapata was convicted last year by one of Bridgett’s deputy district attorneys for misdemeanor disturbing the peace by fighting.
Zapata participated in an assault on online comedian Nathan “Blaze” Pinkney after Pinkney made fun of Red, White & Blueprint, the radical-right propaganda production company cofounded by Zapata on social media. RWB is being investigated by the Fair Political Practices Commission for alleged campaign finance violations.
Jensen has also received $4900 maximum donations from Shasta General Purpose Committee (largely funded by Anselmo) and the Liberty Committee. So far, he’s raised about $12,000.
Meanwhile, Bridgett has clawed her was to an early lead with $16,000 total on the strength of individual donations from Shasta County’s establishment. Large donors include Sierra Pacific’s Mark Emerson ($4900), retired former McConnell Foundation CEO Lee Salter ($2500) and District 1 candidate/Redding City Council member Erin Resner ($1000).
It should be noted that Jensen is far more than an anti-establishment candidate. He’s gone so far right he’s become an antigovernmental ideologue. Witness this spurious quote, a mash-up of Thomas Jefferson and radical libertarian Ayn Rand, on Jensen’s’ campaign website:
“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”
Like his male counterparts Caples and Holsinger, Jensen did not reply to A News Café’s email query. Like her female counterparts Flores and Darling Allen, Bridgett responded at length to A News Café’s questions.
“It is strange to me that my opponent wants to work in a government job, yet he labels the government as an ‘enemy,’” Bridgett said. “Law enforcement and the due process treatment of those who break the law are quintessential functions of the government. They cannot be performed by private individuals.”
Jensen has claimed he will curb “government overreach” if he’s elected DA. Bridgett isn’t sure what that means.
“I’m not quite sure what he means about curbing government overreach, but I know it doesn’t have anything to do with the job description of the DA,” Bridgett said. “My job is to apply the law equally to everybody. The DA doesn’t get to decide which laws he or she likes and only enforce the ones they agree with.”
Some of Bridgett’s critics on social media and at Board of Supervisors meetings have claimed, without evidence, that the DA’s office has a low conviction rate. It’s baloney, Bridgett says.
“The supposed conviction rates offered by my opponent are grossly misleading,” Bridgett said. “They use their own particular criteria to cherry pick data to support the lowest number possible. In reality, our overall conviction rate is 92.46 percent.”
That being the case, Bridgett says it’s a mistake to focus solely on conviction rates.
“The job of a district attorney is to do justice,” she said. “Sometimes that means we don’t prosecute cases where we believe a crime was committed because we don’t think we can prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and sometimes justice means we take a case to trial when we believe a crime was committed and we want a victim to receive justice.”
Another quality Bridgett shares with her cohorts Flores and Darling Allen is nonpartisanship. That’s as it should be, given that the trio hold nonpartisan elected positions. A common thread in their thought process is inclusion, whether it’s giving every student a fair shot at a decent education, making voting more accessible to the public or ensuring that criminal justice is meted out fairly.
Meanwhile, their three male opponents are hyper-partisan hacks hoping to capitalize on the last vestiges of Trumpmania. They’re seeking a shortcut to public office without putting in the blood, sweat and tears necessary to do the job. In a straight showdown based on skill and experience, Flores, Darling Allen and Bridgett would pummel their would-be usurpers. It’s not even close.
Unfortunately, money rules the game in American politics, and an angry son-of-a-billionaire from Connecticut, seeking to destroy Shasta County government because it had the gall to require building permits for his winery more than a decade ago, has money to burn.
If the rightwing fanatics he’s sponsoring assume control, it’s a safe bet Shasta County will burn too.
Bonus Section: Law and Order with Stephanie Bridgett
As mentioned above, Shasta County District Attorney candidate Erik Jensen did not return A News Café’s email query. One question posed to Jensen was, “How many cases have you prosecuted?” While he didn’t reply, the answer from his campaign materials appears to be zero.
As a career prosecutor, Bridgett has tried hundreds of cases. A News Café asked Bridgett to share her three most memorable cases. Following are the cases that Bridgett says helped make her the prosecutor she is today.
People vs. Miguel Rodriguez (05F3429), 2008: “This case involved the Defendant bringing his 14-year-old niece up from Mexico to live with him in Shasta County. Not long after their arrival, Defendant began to forcibly rape her while using force to restrain her. This occurred numerous times. He also threatened her to keep quiet, saying she owed him for the money he spent bringing her from Mexico and that if she spoke he would hurt her and her family. After a lengthy trial, the jury convicted the Defendant of all counts and he ultimately went to state prison. Though I handled many jury trials similar to this case, this one stood out as memorable because the young victim sent me a high school graduation announcement several years later thanking me for helping her and making it possible for her to go to school and graduate. This case solidified my career as a prosecutor, making it my passion, not just a job.”
People vs. Danny Greg Uecker (07F1278), 2009: “This case involved Defendant stalking two separate, unrelated women. He was on parole at the time and had a lengthy criminal history, including multiple strikes. Both cases came into my office at separate times and both as misdemeanors. I reviewed them, noticed the similarities and then worked with a Shasta County District Attorney Investigator to build a felony case. After a lot of work, and digging into his past, I was able to file two counts of felony stalking, four strikes and other enhancements. The case proceeded to jury trial and after three weeks the jury convicted him on all counts. He was ultimately sentenced to state prison for 50 years to life and the case made new law in a published appellate decision on stalking.”
People vs. Mark Duenas (12F7155), 2018: “This case involved a husband in Cottonwood stabbing his wife in their family home as she laid in bed, ultimately killing her. He called 911 sometime later after the murder and pretended that he found her dead. He was present when law enforcement arrived, and the case took several months to put together before he was arrested. The case was almost entirely based on circumstantial evidence. After reviewing the case, I was convinced he was guilty but knew it would take putting all the pieces together to paint a clear picture to the jury. After a lengthy trial, he was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for the murder of his wife.”
Read Part 1 of this series here and Part 2 here.
###
