Is SJC Councilman a Plagiarist?

September 26, 2011 Uncategorized 10

San Juan Capistrano’s conservative councilman Derek Reeve, a “pinhead” for naming one of his dogs “Mohammad” according to Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, may be a plagiarist.  HT to the SJC Patch for this story, which compares and constrasts Reeve’s conservative writings with passages lifted nearly verbatum from other publications.

Reeve told Patch.com that he may have “accidentally mixed his research with his prose,” but Patch.com found multiple examples where passages are lifted without attribution.  They’ve asked Reeve for an explanation and several days have passed without a response from Reeve.

From the Patch.com story (see Derek, this is called “attribution”):

In one case, an entire post submitted by Reeve matched content from other publications. In others, as much as two-thirds of Reeve’s essays were a patchwork of paragraphs identical to material written by newspaper columnists and reporters for such publications as The Oregonian and The Hill.

All told, Patch found dozens and dozens of such passages, including this paragraph from a post Reeve submitted Sept. 6 about E-Verify:

In lower-immigration states, U.S. citizens still harvest crops, mow lawns, wash windows, and flip burgers. But in California, a huge supply of illegal labor has driven wages for these kinds of jobs so low that it is disproportionately illegal immigrants who are willing to take them.

It appears to be nearly identical to this passage from a July 16 guest column by Richard F. LaMountain for oregonlive.com:

In Vermont, North Dakota, and other lower-immigration states, U.S. citizens still harvest crops, mow lawns, wash windows, and flip burgers. But in many other places, a huge supply of illegal labor has driven wages for these kinds of jobs so low that it is disproportionately illegal immigrants, any more, who are willing to take them.

Initially, Reeve said the duplication “was not intentional,” and that he must have mixed his research with his own prose. Eleven days ago, when presented with more passages from multiple blog posts, Reeve promised to respond to Patch’s questions. He never did so, even after additional requests for comment.

At Concordia University, one of two local colleges where Reeve teaches political science, the employee handbook says: “Plagiarism may be unintentional or intentional. Both are serious academic violations.”

Concordia warns students and faculty not to copy and paste information from any electronic source without fully documenting that material, nor are they allowed to “call it their own because they have altered it in some minor way.”

A university spokeswoman did not return messages seeking comment for this story.

There are several more examples in the SJCPatch story. 

Before the Muhammad the Dog story, in which gave a conflcited at best excuse for using it as an example of free speech instead of intolerance towards Muslims, Reeve was best known for advocating for a change in local gun laws to allow residents to pack unloaded weapons in SJC public parks.

10 Comments

  1. It’s Really Not About A Dog Named Muhammad.

    “Two supposed US allies, the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia, were up to their eyeballs in the 9/11 attacks against the United States. Through the “al-Yamamah” deal brokered between the Saudi kingdom and the UK’s BAE Systems arms supplier, a large amount of off-the-books money was diverted to irregular warfare, including funding 9/11 hijackers”.

    http://www.larouchepac.com/bae911 (For articles and videos)

    911 Ten Years Latter
    http://www.larouchepac.com/10yearslater

  3. Bob Graham Calls on Obama To Investigate New Information Linking Saudis to 9/11 Hijackers
    http://www.larouchepac.com/node/19469

    “Former U.S. Senator Bob Graham of Florida, who chaired the Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11, is calling on President Obama to investigate the new disclosures linking Saudi nationals living in Sarasota, Florida, to the 9/11 hijackers”

    “This is the most important thing about 9/11 to surface in the last seven or eight years,” Graham told the St. Petersburg Times. “It’s very important for the White House to take control of this situation. The key umbrella question is: What was the full extent of Saudi involvement prior to 9/11, and why did the U.S. Administration cover this up?”

    Article continues at link above.

    More at http://www.larouchepac.com/bae911

  4. Dan,
    When is President Obama going to keep his promise that he PUBLICLY made to families of the victims of 9/11 namely to release the 28 PAGES OF THE OFFICAL GOVERNMENT REPORT OF THE 9/11 COMMISSION?? Why are you so silent about it ?? Your supposed to be such a liberal do-gooder! Well, here’s a chance to do some good!!!
    Find out, as Robert Lauten, alludes to in his comments above,
    WHY THE TRUTH OF SAUDI INVOLVEMENT, including George Bush’s Bosom Buddy,
    the Saudi Ambassador to the US, from 1983-2005, Prince Bandar, has been, in effect, A TOP SECURITY STATE SECRET!!
    Why is Obama protecting George W. Bush and the role of the TOP SAUDI OFFICIALS, who are close associates of the British Petroleum Company of the British Commonwealth Empire??????
    Whose side is Obama on? The American side, of the side of Treason?
    Whose side are you on, Dan? I assume you will immediately contact the White House and demand that Obama stick to his promise and release those 28 pages, which by the way, Sen. Bob Graham a Democrat from Florida, who was a member of the Commission, has publicly demanded!!
    Thank you very much for your efforts in getting to the TRUTH, Dan.

  5. Robert and Gerald —
    Consider this your only warning; the post at hand has to do with possible plagiarism by a SJC council member. Try and hijack the post again, and I will delete your comments.

    The vast majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi; that is nothing new. The Saudi Ambassador to the US has diplomatic immunity in this nation as our diplomats have in other nations.

    Your concept of Treason is humorous; you boys must be posting from a bar….

  6. I realize this is entirely superficial of me, but that photo is either photoshopped or he has an oddly shaped head. It looks like a peanut. Does this make me a bad person for mentioning it?

Comments are closed.