Founder
Ronald Payne
Chief Editor
Steve Ostrowski
Email
[email protected]
Website
The Online (PDF) issue (this no longer exists, as of 2010-08)

The Davis Enforcer is an on-campus student publication for the Christian Democratic Party, and is now part of AS Papers. Two issues have been released thus far, and both were printed at the Davis Enterprise. It is a four page newspaper meant to detail mainly ASUCD news and information. Articles are written by staff and various other members of the campus community, some anonymously. It is printed in black and white and currently free of advertisements. An attempt was being made to hire people to find advertisers. It has been widely ridiculed as ASUCD election propaganda, and issues typically contain many spelling errors and grammatical mistakes.

The publication was founded by a $750 grant to Steve Ostrowski by The Leadership Institute: Conservative Training for Tomorrow's Leaders, a national organization whose "mission is to identify, recruit, train, and place conservatives in politics, government, and media." The Institute sent a packet in the mail to the staff on how to make noise and how to take over ASUCD. Most ASUCD insiders and observers believe that this noise-making is the entire mission of the paper.

Distribution

Facebook ad

The first issue was distributed on on November 15th 2006, the same day as the Fall ASUCD election. The first edition was intentionally placed in AS Papers and Aggie newsstands, violating various regulations as the publication was not affiliated with AS Papers at the time.

On Tuesday February 13, 2007, three months after the initial publication, the Enforcer published their second issue. This time around, the publication affiliated with AS PAPERS and utilized their distribution infrastructure legitimately.

The Davis Enforcer also used Internet distribution through Facebook ads (only around ASUCD elections, of course).

ASUCD Court Case

The paper was the defendant in the ASUCD Court Case #41, Laabs v. AS PAPERs (Davis Enforcer). The second issue contained glowing articles about certain ASUCD candidates and not others. Brent Laabs alleged, inter alia, that these stories were tantamount to endorsements. While AS PAPERS publications are free to make political endorsements, they are required to invite each candidate running to an interview, which they did not do. The Enforcer, of course, argued that the stories did not constitute endorsements. The ASUCD Court found that while the stories were unquestionably endorsements in the usual sense and that the DE intended to make endorsements, they were not endorsements in the context of ASUCD. The ASUCD bylaws require that certain forms be filled out in order for the endorsement to be official. No such forms were ever filed by the Enforcer and they won the case on what most considered to be a technicality. After the case, a committee was formed to close the loophole that gave the Enforcer their victory. No proposed changes were made due to free speech concerns.

Staff

Comments:

You must be logged in to comment on this page. Please log in.

2006-11-15 22:08:24   All the Davis Enforcer enforced was my disdain for individuals who can't write. If you're going to publish propaganda, try writing it about something people are actually concerned with. You didn't even spell the names of Student Focus candidates correctly. What a shining endorsement. —JillWeinstein

2006-11-16 10:35:05   The only effect the Davis Enforcer will have will be adding more weight to the recycling bins. —JamesSchwab

2006-11-16 13:23:05   I picked one up yesterday (out of the ASPAPERs rack at the MU) and let me just say that this is nothing more than a soft money donation to the campaigns of Student Focus and Steve Ostrowski ordained independent candidates. Steve, how come you didn't go to the the Green party looking for writers. Oh wait, because this is propaganda... the Green party tries to stick to the inconvenient truths of the world and politics, which is probably why we lose so often. Anyway the Enforcer is nothing but fluff. Heck, I think I'll pick up a few extra copies and stuff a pillow with them - that is if I wasn't worried that any of the ridiculous ideas would seep into my head through osmosis. Steve, I advise you to stop trying to help with people campaigns and instead simply pray. Let Jesus determine the winner. Jesus certainly does not believe in the separation of church and state. Oh wait, as Christ said in Matthew 15:21 "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." Therefore allowing for a separation between governments and the divine. So that means leave God out of the pledge of allegiance. And on that matter, the pledge of allegiance violates the second commandment anyways so I guess as Evangelicals, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. I'll stop rambling. —RobRoy

2006-11-17 03:20:26   I love propaganda. Writing it is fun, and reading it can be hillarious. Why? Because it doesn't stand up to the truth. And, Steve, sorry bout that last night, and if ya want to, you can remove this comment. —MaxMikalonis

2006-11-18 00:21:01   The only problem was that this was written so poorly. I think that all laughter was largely a product of terrible composition...and certainly not reflective of quality propaganda. Also, I think about 20 people on campus actually read it. —JillWeinstein

2006-11-18 22:27:46   The humor in the enforcer is rather subtle, but quite ROTFL inducing. It appears to be geared more towards the ASUCD savy consumers, however. I suggest that the Supreme Editors tone down the amount of insider language so that non student government people know what its talking about, or revamp it into a pro-LEADing Focus publication. —JosephBleckman

2006-12-15 11:55:36   In the PDF version available on this page Steve has illegal reprinted photos of Rob Roy and Dan Xie. —PaulHarms

  • True, interestingly the quoted material from the Wiki is properly attributed. All that has to be done is put a "Photo from DavisWiki" as a photocredit caption and he'd be set (at least the Rob Roy one, not sure about the other). — jw

2007-01-25 22:19:38   Is this a joke? I haven't seen the publication on campus. —TusharRawat

2007-01-25 23:15:40   We are involved in AS Paper's new advertisement deal. —SteveOstrowski

2007-02-10 20:26:40   It's real in that it had one briefly released volume. I had to get one through Joseph though. —CarlosOverstreet

2007-02-12 23:30:30   I liked the Suyat and Peake quotations, I pray that they didn't really say that stuff. —GregWebb

2007-02-12 23:34:23   How come the Aggie Spoof is not called the Davis Enforcer? —JamesSchwab

2007-02-13 07:20:17   i was thinking the same thing....they should really think about calling it that this year —JillWeinstein

2007-02-20 16:42:21   I picked up issue 2 without knowing anything about the Enforcer, and found that Ostrowski is both the subject of the front-page article and the chief editor. There's not much I can add to that. Oh, wait. Make that TWO front page articles that mention Ostrowski.—GeoffJohnson

  • One has to make news to report on it. —SteveOstrowski
  • Actually, I have to correct myself here. It's THREE articles. Steve, don't you see writing about yourself as a conflict of interest? —GeoffJohnson

2007-02-20 16:55:32   News is something relevant and has an affect on one's life. Ostrowski is not relevant nor does he have an affect on anyone's life. —JamesSchwab

2007-02-20 16:58:38   But there's no indication, save for the bottom of the corner of the back page, that you wrote this. No author is attributed. If people can't trust your journalism, how can they trust your politics? Let me rephrase that. What you've written is clearly meant to appear to the untrained eye as a newspaper, but by definition, it can't be objective if the author is the subject. That's subversive and unfair to the people whose vote you are asking for. —GeoffJohnson

  • I am not asking for anyone to vote for anyone or for anything. The authors are left off because I have no intention of getting others sued in ASUCD Court. —SteveOstrowski

2007-02-20 17:09:43   I don't know what you guys are talking about, the Davis Enforcer is as fine as a newspaper publication as the Weekly World News or other such publications. People walk by, pick it up, flip through a pages, read the news, have a giggle, and walk away. Long live both! (And besides, the Comic Press News always runs out quickly, and I think this paper helps.) —ES

2007-02-20 17:12:44   It's good you don't look into the other AS PAPERS publications. —SteveOstrowski

2007-02-20 19:54:28   "none of the current Davis Enforcer members have any experience in journalism or English[sic] which may hinder the affectiveness[sic] of the first issue". So, I guess journalism is yet another field that evangelicals consider expertise to be a "hinderance". —JesseSingh

2007-02-20 19:58:58   First of all none of us are evangelicals, in fact most of us are Catholic. And most AS PAPERS publications are not journalism students. —SteveOstrowski

2007-02-20 20:59:27   The lawsuit only had a minor effect on AS PAPERs' decision not to distribute the Davis Enforcer. The main reason is that the Enforcer was already on probation for failing to volunteer enough at the office. —BrentLaabs

2007-02-20 21:10:51   There is a conflict of interests though. The Davis Enforcer is under the editorial control of the Christian Slate, and of Steve Ostrowski. The Christian Slate is under the control of Steve Ostrowski. The Christian Slate has repeatedly said (on fliers and facebook) that their webpage is this Davis Wiki one. Interestingly enough, the Christian Democratic Party page *does* list endorsements on their so seeming official site. And the link between the two is obviously very clear and stated on multiple pages, much less it's all in Steve O's hands. And the two that the Christian Democratic Party endorsed coincidentally had a segment about them in the issue (the only prez/VP combo with a segment!). Just reading the rest of the issue makes it obvious to everyone it's not exactly objective 'reporting' of news. Since you didn't use the word endorse, then obviously it's not one. >.> I guess this court case is a huge thing in "letter of the law" vs the spirit of it. —ES

  • Actually, the letter of the law supports this one too. Since the endorsement clause is the only thing that allows AS PAPERs to bypass the requirement that an ASUCD unit may not make a public statement on elections, he still has to follow that clause whether he makes endorsements or not. —BrentLaabs
  • Is this really necessary, you are only slowing me down a little and giving me a lot of information to send to other places. Isn't this more helpful to me than to you? —SteveOstrowski
    • You keep on hurting someone I care about. There is nothing I won't do to stop you from doing that, and I will work against you in any endeavor no matter how much it hurts me. If you keep destroying those around you, then I will destroy you. —BrentLaabs
    • Well said, Brent! —KevinPowers
    • Never assume that the information for the DE is only comming from me. Look around in ASUCD and there will always be someone who is assisting me with information. As for Pham it was accurate without a doubt. —SteveOstrowski

2007-02-20 22:32:20   If the paper were another vessel of LEAD (even a puppet conservative paper), I doubt half of you would have anything to say about it... —CarlosOverstreet

  • You're right. Because no one from LEAD would have violated the bylaws (which were written before LEAD existed, by the way). They would have done the interviews, because they are professional. And they wouldn't use a paper with ambiguous authorship and minimal production values to spread lies about their opponents. Hell, Student Focus wouldn't do that either. Only the Christian Slate has so little honor. —BrentLaabs

2007-02-20 22:44:17   Brent... are you stealing DE papers? —CarlosOverstreet

  • No, because SJA has specifically told me not to take multiple papers out of the rack and I fear the wrath of Don Dudley. See California Aggie Printing for more. —BrentLaabs
  • A small percentage of Enforcers are going through AS PAPERS on a daily basis to catch thieves, don't try it. —SteveOstrowski
    • Well, thanks for the admission of guilt! —BrentLaabs
    • It was always anticipated that LEAD would try to steal some of them. —SteveOstrowski
      • So wait, as small percentage were placed in stands, and they somehow disappeared? zOMG, someone might be taking your paper and reading it!!!!!11!! —BrentLaabs
      • Not when all of the racks are empty in multiple places. I will find out soon enough, but this has happened all over the country and thus I am in suspicious mode. —SteveOstrowski

2007-02-20 23:32:41   I think everyone here, especially Steve, needs to stop being such little kids fighting over nothing. I seriously think we should just delete this page since it is such a source of argument on the wiki and detracts from other pages getting viewed or editted as all the editors seem to be focused on this insignificant battle here. I also think that if the creator of this publication wanted it to be taken seriously he would not have given it the name 'enforcer' (who's gonna read something like that?), he wouldn't have made it's symbol the Imperial emblem from Star Wars (possible copyright infringement?), and he wouldn't have put a crybaby that looks for conspiracy under every bush in charge as the Editor in Chief. —JamesHaile

  • Uhmm no because deletion of a page that has info on it is bad. It's a real thing at Davis and the reason there are so many edits is because there seems to be some resistance from some ASUCDers. —SteveOstrowski

2007-02-20 23:37:23   Also, where can I get a copy of the Enforcer? —JamesHaile

  • It should be available for download at the PDF link above. —CarlosOverstreet

2007-02-21 17:40:46   I love how the enforcer logo is a star wars empire logo spinoff, it fits nicely with 'chief editors" aim of empirestv... —StevenDaubert

  • Spinoff? I'm pretty sure it's just the Galactic Empire's logo with the letters 'D E' MSPainted into it. —TravisGrathwell
    • as corny as MSPainting DE is, it's still a change, and not the origional logo... Hence why I used spinoff. ThomasLloyd has offered his un lawer semi educated oppinion below and I will take his statement at face value.

2007-02-23 10:26:35   Steve! You should have told me you were running an article on the ASUCD Supreme Court! I would have loved to give an interview. —TimCoady

2007-02-23 11:24:12   I dont pretend to be a real lawyer, but I've had enough Intro to IP to say that the use of the above logo is probably not a sufficient transformative use to avoid copyright enforcement. —ThomasLloyd

  • It is probably not legal for DE's use, but since the Wiki is about DE, not actually DE itself, it is an illustration of a logo rather than a logo usage. I.e., we can have a screen shot of UCDavisLife.com with the Aggie logo as an example of what they were before they became UDavisLife.com, even though it has been asserted UCDavisLife and Aggie Logo was an illegal use of the UC Davis trademark (as opposed to copyright, which that entry erroneously asserts). —JabberWokky

2007-02-23 18:36:34   I saw the enforcer in the silo today... It had a full page Christian Slate endorsment! Turns out there man running is also an editor! I speed read some of the article and then threw it in the trash. In hindsight I should have used the recyle next to the trash. —StevenDaubert

2007-05-02 19:03:46   You people are assaulting the Enforcer for spelling issues and lack of journalism experience of the editor(s). Most of the attacks on the Davis Enforcer I’ve read on this page are simple-minded and dismissable, despite how intricate these people are trying to sound with their arguments. Your attacks are pathetic only because they address that which is well outside of the crucial point that the Enforcer is trying to convey. Your attention to irrelevant details illuminates the way you draw attention away from what is actually being said in the Enforcer. It seems like people care a lot about who YOU are, Steve, and how they can label YOU as unimportant, so that less people read the Enforcer. That is a classic defense, using the high level rhetoric that you can find by scrolling up a bit, instead of putting your point simply, the way a real, good-natured and educated human being would do.

Bashing the Enforcer the way you are makes you a disgrace not only to our campus, but to supporters of free speech everywhere. It is as much propaganda as the issue of the California Aggie that i read today, May 2, 2007, which quoted officials criticizing DCR members for their capture the flag game on the QUAD, labeling it as racist and disrespectful while including NO derogatory quotes regarding the protestors down the block that made countless students late for class and hundreds ordinary citizens frustrated. Let's also disregard that the same person wrote both articles. Disrespect? Your attacks on the Enforcer show your hate and fear for people just like Steve that you so deeply conceal. And for good reason, because what he writes reeks of truth and reality, and it makes your blood boil how much of a wake-up call it is, unlike the sugar coated crap you are fed for breakfast every morning. If you read thus far, thank you for your time. I can only hope that there are more of you out there that see this the way I do.

And another thing....that logo is probably reminding you of the dark side for a reason. Steve, touchè. —boristheblade

2007-05-09 18:59:32   I find this "publication" extra difficult to read knowing the Chief Editor and some of his thoughts. In regards to an article printed in the California Aggie about an anonymous, racist midterm turned into an African-American studies course, the Chief Editor wrote If you want to destroy an idea you need to silence them in the press, find those who did it, and disappear them. (Free Speech! Right Boris?) Seeing that ideology expressed by a supposed "newspaper", the Chief Editor and founder no less, makes it difficult for many, myself included, to attempt to take this publication as anything other than a skewed ASUCD political propaganda. —EdWins

  • My blog entries are of course separate from the Davis Enforcer and I am correct about that midterm. Because it is out in the open it gave that racist idiot a forum and it gave him publicity he didn't deserve. If you want to play the media game right you silence extremists. —SteveOstrowski
    • And who gets to decide who's extreme enough to silence? There's a difference between silencing extremists (whatever that means), and as you suggested, a newspaper deliberately not reporting on a story because it makes UC Davis look bad! "This makes UC Davis and the city of Davis look bad. Because of one person our reputation is going to be ruined because this had to go to the press. Why should the entire community pay for the idiocy of one person. Yeah, newspapers shouldn't report any news or issues if it only involves one person. Let's keep all that stuff quiet, shred it. Then again, maybe one day newspapers will have to figure out the balance of good and bad. -ES

2007-05-10 02:34:51   I demand a copy of the first Davis Enforcer. —GregWebb

Add tags