Vulgar cartoon-as-campaign-flyer in Monterey County supes' race hits Prunedale.

[Editor's note: This story has been updated to include new information as to when the leafleting took place; an earlier version of this story stated the flyers were dropped after local blogger Royal Calkins ran a piece from former prosecutor Ann Hill. The flyers may have started appearing as early as Sept. 11, before the Hill piece ran. In addition, an extended comment from Calkins has been added to the end of this story. It was received as an email at 12:24am.]

And you thought the serious mud-flinging ended at the Monterey County sheriff's race? 

Avert your eyes if you're easily offended. 

A yet-to-be identified someone leafleted cars at the Prunetree Shopping Center with a vulgar cartoon rendering of retired Superior Court Judge John Phillips, who's running for the District 2 office in the county supervisors race, (and really, there's no way to put this delicately) cross-eyed, drooling, tongue hanging out and fornicating with Lady Justice. The message on the cartoon suggests Phillips was a bad judge who couldn't follow the law.

"Do I want him representing me? No thanks. I'll vote [Ed] Mitchell," the flyer reads. 

The flyers may have been dropped as early as Sept. 11, days before former Monterey Herald editor Royal Calkins ran a piece on his blog by retired Monterey County prosecutor Ann Hill claiming Phillips showed disdain for female victims and witnesses. In the piece, Hill writes Phillips was the subject of a complaint filed by a young female witness to the Commission on Judicial Performance. At the end of its investigation, the commission reported that an unnamed Monterey County Superior Court judge received a letter of reprimand for making inappropriate comments to a female witness. Hill, meanwhile, writes that she received backlash after giving a statement to a commission investigator. 

The Weekly began receiving letters about the flyer this morning, all similarly worded, and late this afternoon obtained a copy of the cartoon from Phillips' campaign manager, Plasha Will.

One woman wrote she was forced to have a conversation with her 10-year-old son after the child removed "a nasty, graphic, indecent pictoral [sic] of his opponent." While the flyer was apparently produced anonymously, the woman, Suzy Jarschke, blamed Mitchell.

"Nobody should have to see this type of inappropriate, lewd, garbage, especially not my child or anyone else's. I am so offended and disgusted I will never vote for Ed Mitchell," Jarschke writes.

A second letter came in a few hours later from Sal Alvarez, owner of Ichiban Sushi in the Prunetree Shopping Center. "Shame on the Mitchell campaign…that is NOT good for my business and I think may be illegal. Not to mention that the content was vulgar and offensive. How low will someone stoop to win an election?"

Good question, Sal. 

Will says she believes someone from Mitchell's camp had something to do with the flyer, and says Calkins, as a former newspaper editor, has connections to cartoonists with enough ability to produce a rendering of Phillips cross-eyed, drooling and fornicating.

Asked via email if he thought it was possible one of his followers was involved, Calkins responded as follows: 

"Since everyone is following me, I suppose there is a decent chance that could be true. Also seems likely to be someone who lives in the area and who has access to pen and paper."

Mitchell, who had stopped by the Weekly's office for a conversation about fracking (not to be confused with fornicating, although, when you think about it, both involve someone getting screwed) reacted with anger and astonishment when shown the cartoon and asked about any connection. Mitchell said he hadn't seen the cartoon, denied there is any connection to his campaign and demanded an apology from Will for suggesting it.

"Whoever did it, I call upon them to step up and say who they are. That's not appropriate," he says. "Plasha Will has no basis for making that statement [and] owes an apology to my campaign." 

From Calkins: "The lameness of Plasha's insinuation is exceeded only by your decision to publish it. Also, it isn't always a wise choice to decide that something happened at a certain time because you happened to have learned about it at that time. People were complaining about the Phillips flyer as early as Sept. 11 and I received my first complaint from a Prunedale resident on Sept. 12… Also, your question to me doesn't match Plasha's assertion. You asked me to respond to her saying she suspected one of my "followers" could be behind it. In your article, she alleges i played some active role.