Solano County

State high court rejects bid by sheriff candidate

By From page A3 | April 02, 2014

FAIRFIELD — The California Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it had rejected a request made Friday by a spurned sheriff’s candidate seeking to have the top court put him on the Solano County ballot for the June election.

Joel “Tom” Toler of Fairfield received the bad news Friday, a few hours after he appealed a ruling made the previous day by the Court of Appeals that upheld a local judge’s ruling made earlier in the week. The Supreme Court did not post its decision until after the three-day holiday weekend.

Toler was told earlier this month by the Solano County Registrar of Voters Office that he did not have the experience and work history needed to qualify as a candidate for sheriff that is required by state law.

Specifically, officials told Toler he needed law enforcement experience in California within the past five years. Toler earlier this year worked a brief stint as a police officer in a tiny New Mexico town. He believes that was sufficient to comply with the law that does not specifically state the experience must be in California.

No other possible candidates tried to toss their hat into the ring for the sheriff job.

Barring calamity, the only way incumbent appointed Sheriff Thomas Ferrara will not be elected a four-year term of office is if a qualified candidate stages a successful write-in campaign. The write-in candidate would need to file a statement of intent with the Registrar of Voters office between Monday and May 20, two weeks before the June 3 election.

Reach Jess Sullivan at 427-6919 or [email protected] Follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/jsullivandr.

Jess Sullivan

Jess has covered the criminal justice system in Solano County for several years. He was an embedded reporter in Iraq in 2003.

Discussion | 35 comments

The Daily Republic does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Please read our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy before commenting.

  • Bill of RightsApril 02, 2014 - 6:05 am

    There it is. Enough if this comedy show. Maybe next election someone who truly is qualified, both academically and within the law enforcement community, will step up and challenge Ferrera. Toler will never be that person!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • The MisterApril 02, 2014 - 6:29 am

    At least Tom Toler stepped up and tried to fight the corruption in our County government. What's anyone else done? Is everyone else just happy to let corruption continue on for a couple more generations? Have those who meet the qualifications for running for sheriff been scared off by the rantings of the corrupt political insiders and the blow-hards commenting in the Daily Republic? Action needs to be taken NOW or else we will only solidify corruption and cover-up in our County... the incumbent won't investigate or arrest his corrupt cronies, the DA won't prosecute any of his corrupt cronies, the Grand Jury won't investigate any of this corruption (they haven't yet!). The people and the accused in this County are in for a very rough 4 years.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • MDSApril 02, 2014 - 9:16 am

    Okay Mister, but you said part of that corruption is they wouldn't let him on the ballot. You went on to say how corrupt the Judges were too for agreeing with that. It's all part of your giant corruption conspiracy. So please tell us, what politicians in Solano County are the Justices of the California Supreme Court so afraid of that they are also corrupt? Or could it be that maybe you were wrong about that corruption and that the law is clear and that Toler doesn't meet the qualifications, and everybody you called corrupt was correct?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • The MisterApril 02, 2014 - 10:38 am

    MDS, corruption by judges? Hmmm. The system is corrupt; for instance in California, a judge overturns Prop 8, a judge overturns Prop 187, a judge overturns Prop 22, and just for fun... a judge let State Senator Leland Yee out on an unsecured bond. No, MDS, I have no faith that courts will do the right thing and, of course, they'll cloak their proclivities under the color of law.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paranoia Strikes DeepApril 02, 2014 - 12:34 pm

    So anytime a judge issues a ruling that you don't agree with, they must be corrupt? Makes sense to me. Be sure you never lose your tin-foil hat Mister.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • The MisterApril 02, 2014 - 1:44 pm

    PSD... the examples I gave above of judges overturning the propositions are not examples of judges who disagree with me alone but who disagree with the majority of California voters. Why did these judges overthrow the will of the people? I don't know... but the fact (not theory) remains that they did.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paranoia Strikes DeepApril 02, 2014 - 2:18 pm

    Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Proposition 22 was invalidated as it was ruled that same-sex couples had a constitutional right to marry. Proposition 187 was overturned based on the ruling that Proposition 187's effect on the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, the Congressional overhaul of the American welfare system, proved that the bill was a "scheme" to regulate immigration:and the state cannot regulate immigration law, a function that the U.S. Constitution clearly assigns to the federal government. All 3 examples you cited were overturned based on the fact that they were determined to be unconstitutional. The initiative process cannot be used to pass unconstitutional laws or acts. Just like the fact that just because you don't like something/someone makes them corrupt. Just sayin'

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • The MisterApril 02, 2014 - 6:09 pm

    Oh PSD... you still don't believe in the Constitution as the law of the land, do you? Slavery was "Constitutional", as was imprisoning Americans with Japanese heritage, as was drafting you and forcing you off to fight the banksters' wars. Maybe you missed some of my previous posts on this subject, but a good place for you to get up to speed is to read Lysander Spooner's "No Treason, the Constitution of No Authority" and Albert Jay Nock's "Our Enemy, The State". If that's not enough, then check out Ellen Brown's recent book, "The Public Bank Solution". BTW, she's currently running for CA Treasurer. Read these, PSD, if you wish to educate yourself. Don't read these if you wish to remain a fool and a tool.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • MDSApril 02, 2014 - 1:13 pm

    So just to clarify, everybody else is corrupt, but if it's a person you happen to like, then you support them trying to scam their way onto a ballot using a fake job in New Mexico and lying about their full time experience in California claiming it was as a regular police officer when it was reserve officer time? That's all perfectly fine with you and you support that behavior, but everybody else is a crook? You don't have to answer, it won't matter anyway.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • The MisterApril 02, 2014 - 1:49 pm

    MDS... I like you. Does that make you a crook?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • MDSApril 02, 2014 - 2:13 pm

    Probably, Guess I'll go turn myself in at the jail!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • S KApril 02, 2014 - 7:01 pm

    Many reasons to just stop voting. As my son says, it doesn't make any difference at all. Also how about a qualified Deputy Sheriff stepping up to the plate???

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CD BrooksApril 02, 2014 - 6:33 am

    The Toler saga is history but you still have a choice, educate yourself. Write-in or give in. VOTE.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • S KApril 02, 2014 - 7:02 pm

    I don't think writing in Toler would make a difference. They will still over rule the VOTERS!!!!!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • MDSApril 02, 2014 - 8:51 pm

    It's not "they" that will overrule the voters, it's the law. If you don't like the law then the law needs to be changed. It really doesn't matter that much anyway, Toler couldn't have won even if he was on the ballot. He would have got the disgruntled person vote and that would have been about 5% and he would have lost.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • BobApril 02, 2014 - 6:52 am

    Ok I've been following these rants and raves about our County Sheriff being corrupt, yet I haven't heard any specifics about the corruption If you can't be specific and point out the corruption and file charges, then no law has been broken, which makes me wonder why the same people continue to complain about ?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • The MisterApril 02, 2014 - 7:14 am

    Obviously, Bob, you haven't been paying attention. Sort of indicative of how we got in this position, eh Bob?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Jose MadreApril 02, 2014 - 8:07 am

    So....the Sheriff is notified about a concern certain groups have regarding the ability of the Coroner's pathologist and her work. They start an internal investigation and end up firing her. The Sheriff office doesn't violate their employee's rights, yet their corrupt????? Ok "The Mister", you sure got the smoking gun there, don't ya!?!? Take off your conspiracy glasses for once.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • ? Maybe the Coroner was asked to falsify reports, and refused?April 02, 2014 - 8:12 am

    Unless there is further investigation, we will never know all the facts? Some of the gist of the cases is not all evidence being provided to the defense?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • MDSApril 02, 2014 - 9:20 am

    Maybe the pathologist was wrong and was over stepping her role in the process and was offering opinions that were outside the scope of her medical examination and she got fired for that? For example when she sent an email to a prosecutor stating that a dead 13 year old girl who was found nude in a park, may have died during consensual sex versus being kidnapped and raped. Tell me how she concluded that from the autopsy? She should have been fired.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Curious ObserverApril 02, 2014 - 7:42 pm

    Maybe I am naive, but it seems to me there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the DA and the Vallejo detective speaking with the Pathologist. I will use another example to make my point. If a person wants to build a house they have to take a permit and submit plans for approval. If those plans are not approved, would it not be reasonable and acceptable for the person’s whose plans were denied to be able to contact the individual who made the decision and ask clarifying questions, submit additional information and ask whether, with this additional information, the plans could be approved? Would that be corruption or trying to coerce the individual’s whose job was to approve the plan. Personally, I don’t think so. Similarly, it seems reasonable to me that the District Attorney who is assigned to make the decision whether to try the case and the officer who is investigating the case should be able to contact the Pathologist to ask questions, present additional information, and then ask whether this information changes the Coroner’s report. Has anyone reviewed what the pathologist job is? I did, you can find it on the Solano County Human Resource website under job classifications/Forensic Pathologist. Guess what folks, talking to the DA and investigating officer and providing interpretation of the autopsy finding is part of the job. And, from what I read in the papers, the Pathologist has never changed her opinion on the Vallejo death. So, I question where exactly is the corruption and coercion?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • The looking glassApril 02, 2014 - 9:33 am

    www.sheriffrecall.org intire story on this site. I recommend selecting " All the sheriff's men " first

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Hound DogApril 02, 2014 - 10:27 am

    Quailifications have nothing to do with the request forwarded to the courts. They were ask to issue a order placing Toler on the ballot. The letter from the Senitor who wrote the bill was thought to carry more weight. The guy who designed and wrote it but was not given any voice at court. Salt Lake City cop went to Orange County CA 2009

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • boomApril 02, 2014 - 11:25 am

    Well, if did besides me got the underlying meaning behind this story? We need a legitimate candidate to file a statement of intent before May 20th and we can write him/her in! Toler deal is over, but he did bring public awareness to the fact we need a new Sheriff in town. The next Sheriff should be smart enough to lobby the supes to split the Sheriff's and Coroner's office, thereby avoiding the troubles of the current regime. Any takers out there?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Curious ObserverApril 02, 2014 - 8:05 pm

    Boom, I think you are right, that is the gist of the article. The author seems to be one who writes to create controversy and does not appear to be very objective. He appears to jump at the opportunity to write anything negative he can find or puts a spin on the issue that makes it appear negative. If, through the news paper, he can encourage someone to run a campaign against the Sheriff, then he will have a subject to exploit for news articles through the elections. He fails to acknowledge or even research information that would be contrary to what he is publishing. It doesn't seem to me there is much journalistic integrity in some of his articles but it does, apparently, sell papers.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • MDSApril 02, 2014 - 12:30 pm

    The Senator who wrote the bill specifically put language in the bill requiring any candidate for Sheriff to have a certain amount of full time California, law enforcement experience. The language is clear and all the courts agreed. If he meant to write something else, then he's stupid.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • BubbaApril 02, 2014 - 4:36 pm

    Toler, get the message, the people of this community know your a NUTCASE, bow out and GET OUT! BOOOOOOOOOOO TROLLER!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Da BossApril 02, 2014 - 9:46 pm

    Bubba, you are absolutely correct. Toler is crazy. BTW, he has quite a work of fiction that is going to get him named in a libel and or slander suit from his webpage. What a liar.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • MaryApril 02, 2014 - 7:46 pm

    If anyone is interested in talking to Leonard R. Alexandre please feel free to contact him by email at [email protected]

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Hound Dog's sisterApril 02, 2014 - 8:02 pm

    I read government 24004.3 and penal 830.1 or 2 It doesn't have"California"one time. I have been to the court and read the declaration signed by the Senator. He makes clear what he wanted and why. If to split the coroner and sheriff is only due to, its to much truth for one person to manage,there is merit. I happen to notice no deputies were fighting for Ferrara.Except those here.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Curious ObserverApril 02, 2014 - 8:14 pm

    HDS, as I understand, it is the "California" Government Code and the "California" Penal Code. That means it applies only to California. Also, as I have posted in a couple other threads, the Solano County Deputy Sheriff's Association and all the other law enforcement associations in the County are endorsing Sheriff Ferrara. So, I am not sure what you mean by no deputies are fighting for Sheriff Ferrara. Seems like an endorsement means they want him as their Sheriff. I find it hard to believe if there was such widespread corruption as some seem to indicate, that any law enforcement association would endorse him. And to address the inevitable question, no, I do not work for the Sheriff's Office.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Da BossApril 02, 2014 - 9:50 pm

    CO, the DSA filed suit in the last election to keep Toler off the ballot as not only was he not qualified, they knew he was a liar and a nut!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • MDSApril 02, 2014 - 8:57 pm

    California has a law that says it is illegal to rob somebody. No place in the text of that law does the word "California" appear. Therefore if somebody commits a robbery in New York then they can be arrested and brought to California and tried here for that robbery in New York using your logic. How come you people simply can't understand that California laws apply to California, not New Mexico. The Superior Court, Appellate Court, and the California Supreme Court didn't have a problem understanding this simple legal concept.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Athena D. AlexandreApril 02, 2014 - 8:04 pm

    If anyone is interested in talking with Leonard R. Alexandre please feel free to contact him by email at [email protected]

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • SalApril 02, 2014 - 11:32 pm

    Has anyone noticed how The Mister supports two candidtes: Tom Toler and Pam Bertani, despite their mediocrity and lack of qualifications, and claims all others including State Justices, to be corrupt? What gives?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Recent Articles

  • Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • Special Publications »

    Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service (updated 4/30/2015) and Privacy Policy (updated 4/7/2015).
    Copyright (c) 2016 McNaughton Newspapers, Inc., a family-owned local media company that proudly publishes the Daily Republic, Mountain Democrat, Davis Enterprise, Village Life and other community-driven publications.