State Rep. Daniel Patterson will probably not be using the “family man” label in his campaign literature this year, like he has in the past.
The freshman Democratic lawmaker, who is running for a second term in Legislative District 29, is evading service, according to the Pima County Sheriff’s Office, for an order of protection filed by his estranged wife as the two settle the details of their divorce.
According to the Pima County Sheriff’s Department and Pima County Superior Court records, Patterson and his wife, Jeneiene Schaffer, filed for divorce on Aug. 27, and on the same date, his wife filed for a restraining order against him.
A deputy called Patterson the next week to serve him with the order; Patterson said he would meet with the deputy later that week. On Sept. 2, a few minutes after he was supposed to walk into a downtown county building and sign for the order of protection, Patterson called the deputy to say that, at the advice of his attorney, he would not accept the papers. According to a report from the sheriff’s office, the deputy told Patterson that his actions would be considered an evasion of service, and would be filed as such.
The deputy was unable to serve Patterson at home, because he is not living at the family home, his wife said, and only has a P.O. box listed with the courts and the sheriff’s office.
In fact, none of the many people that the Weekly spoke to knew, or were willing to say, where Patterson is living.
Since moving out of the family home in June—less than six months after his wife had a double-mastectomy operation for breast cancer—he has not told Schaffer where he is living, she said, although she asked him when he visited their daughter.
“I don’t know (where he is living),” said Pima County Democratic Party chairman Jeff Rogers last week, before he wrote a letter—as a friend of Patterson’s, and not as the county party chairman—to Tucson Weekly senior writer Jim Nintzel (which Rogers later forwarded to editor Jimmy Boegle), encouraging the Weekly to stop pursuing this story, claiming it involved a personal matter, and nothing more.
Where Patterson is living is an important detail, considering that in June, the Maricopa County Superior Court threw a Republican legislative candidate off the ballot after a private investigator discovered he was not living in the appropriate district.
Rogers said that the sheriff’s department is “full of shit” in saying that Patterson evaded service, because they can serve his lawyer with the order at any time. This is a personal and family matter, he said, and restraining orders are routinely filed to gain leverage in divorces “when angry people are angry at their spouse.”
When the Weekly later spoke to Rogers, he said he was no longer speaking on his behalf, and that we should call David Lipartito, Patterson’s attorney.
Lipartito said he did not consider Patterson’s actions to be an evasion of service, because evasion of service is more like when a server comes to a house, and someone runs out the back door. In the end, he said, the matter was “splitting hairs.”
Lipartito also said he didn’t know where Patterson was living, but that he understands Patterson is living within LD 29. But even if he is not, these are special circumstances, said Lipartito.
“My understanding is that you can leave for short periods of time; you don’t have to be at your house every day. He’s obviously in a transitional period. He’s going to establish a more permanent residence (in the district),” said Lipartito.
Patterson declined to speak with the Weekly before our press deadline, and in an e-mail statement, he said only: “My wife and I have agreed to get a divorce. This is a hard time for me and my family. Sadly, there are some rumors around that have no merit. I have always supported my family, I still do and I will continue to. Divorce is a difficult private personal family matter and I am asking people to please respect that.”
During the last legislative session, several people told the Weekly, Patterson was seen less with his wife, and more with his campaign manager, Georgette Escobar.
“It’s not that I was suspicious,” said Democratic state Sen. Paula Aboud, of midtown Tucson’s District 28. “It’s that I was concerned with Daniel’s behavior. I see him at 8 o’clock in the morning at events with her; I see him at events at 8 o’clock in the evening up there (in Phoenix) with her. In fact, I see him with her at all events that he’s at. … And I wonder: What is a campaign manager doing in Phoenix during the session?”
However, Laura Elias de la Torre, the Democratic Party chairman of Patterson’s Legislative District 29, which stretches from south of downtown to southeast Tucson, said people can be quick to jump to conclusions about female campaign managers and male candidates. She said she’d experienced it herself as a campaign manager.
“I don’t think they do anything inappropriate,” she said. “The problem is (Escobar) is there, and Jeneiene (Schaffer) isn’t. … So the timing is bad for him to, coincidentally or not, have a good-looking campaign manager shortly after his wife went through a mastectomy for breast cancer.”
Patterson, who is publicly funded through the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, paid Escobar $500 per month from June to August for campaign work, according to Clean Elections documents. She was also identified as a “voter” speaking on his behalf in a recent campaign advertisement.
Attempts to reach Escobar by phone and at a residence listed as her address were unsuccessful.
In total, the Weekly spoke to more than a dozen Democrats about Patterson. Several sources are members of the same caucus, and the Weekly agreed to withhold their names.
“It was very clear,” said one Democratic lawmaker. “Sometime around January, there was a substitution, not only at legislative events and at lobbyist events, but at (Democratic) Party events in Phoenix and in Tucson: It was the removal of Jeneiene (Schaffer) and an insertion of Georgette (Escobar).”
Schaffer agreed talk to the Weekly, but would not comment on specifics of the restraining order or the details of their marriage or divorce. She said Patterson is paying the bills and a weekly allowance for food, but she is broke and having a hard time taking care of their daughter. On Sept. 11, she even wrote a post on her Facebook page asking people for financial help.
She said the post on Facebook was not a shot at Patterson.
“I’m out of money, and I need to feed my child,” she said. “I tried to keep it a secret as long as I could. I am not out to get him.”
This article appears in Sep 30 – Oct 6, 2010.
I can’t wait until next week. I suppose The Weekly will have a story about “councilwoman has an alien love child.” Maybe you can start putting the Weekly in the checkout lane of the local supermarkets.
When Tucson is suffering from a dearth of serious local news coverage, I just can’t believe that The Weekly has stooped so low as to throw out all this rumor and innuendo about a person’s failed marriage.
There is a huge election at hand with potentially dire consequences and this is what you cover?
Don’t believe the hype.
Lots of talk, no proof….
Hmmm… very weak story based on rumors. I love how they throw in the mastectomy comment like somehow it’s a reason for the divorce… the Weekly stooped pretty low to make something like that up and put it in print.
It would be nice if the Weekly stick to real journalism.
My statement was that I was “concerned” about Daniel. I have not spoken to him and I should have before Hank talked with me. Now that I’m looking at the article and seeing that Daniel is in divorce proceedings, which I didn’t clearly know, I understand the reason why I was worried for Daniel. He and his family need to resolve their personal lives in private. I apologize for anything I might have implied that could have implied something less than appropriate. I wish the family a peaceful transition. And, for the public, I have always known Daniel to be a forthright and honest person.
If you want to see something interesting…..Check out Daniel’s finance reports they are filled with oddities. Hotel stays…mileage reimbursements….petty cash….
Wow, Chairman Jeff Rogers thinks, and feels empowered to tell reporters, that the Sheriff’s Department (led by a Dem) is “full of shit.”
Way to help your party, Mr. Chair!
Well, Patterson does have an anger management problem. I’ve always voted for him because I agree with him on all the issues, but as a person? I wouldn’t want him mad at me. I’m not surprised at the order of protection. I am surprised, though, that he has hidden his address. I mean, if he’s afraid of his wife, he could take out an order of protection against her. Hiding his actual address is just kind of a needlessly shady move.
the charges of infidelity wouldn’t be anything to crow about if Daniel hadn’t promoted himself as a “family man” and used images and video of his wife and kid during his first run for office… but still no real smoking gun here..
Jason 7912: those are legit campaign expenditures…. unless you can prove those items were specifically NOT campaign related…
BTW, annoyed Dem, a sheriff’s deputy could very well have been overstating things… they often will to get someone to comply with an order (or confess to a crime), or likely, to save the deputy the hassle of trying to track him down or filling out paperwork on why he didn’t serve Daniel with the order
“I apologize for anything I might have implied that could have implied something less than appropriate.”
Wow, did they misquote you, or did they write it right? ….”It’s that I was concerned with Daniel’s behavior. I see him at 8 o’clock in the morning at events with her; I see him at events at 8 o’clock in the evening up there (in Phoenix) with her. In fact, I see him with her at all events that he’s at. … And I wonder: What is a campaign manager doing in Phoenix during the session?”
This is why so many of us these days just don’t quite believe anything anyone of either party says about anything. You obviously engaged in gossip, got caught and now you are saying that, “I might have implied that could have implied something less than appropriate.”
I guess it all depends on what the meaning of is, is. Many of us have come to the conclusion that many of us probably could govern, but we have come to accept the fact that we have done too many stupid things in our lives to put the voters through the exposure of our pretty tame dirt. Then there are those people who just keep saying and doing stupid things and figure they can parse their way out of it. They are probably right.
This is yellow journalism at its worst. This is a non-story, a character assassination; a voyeuristic journey in to the private lives of public people. Shame on the Tucson Weekly for printing this drivel and shame on those who delight in the tragedy of others.
If he is such a stellar and moral person, than do your own public records search this is not the first time he’s been in trouble(there is proof) and obviously he’s been living with her(Escobar) since he moved out judging by where his car is parked regularly. I for one cannot trust politicians to do what’s right for their constituents when they cannot be honest with themselves, their wife, and their child. The masectomy was a fact, just like breast cancer is a fact, it was crappy what he did period!A politician chooses and wants to be the public eye, they know the consequences just like the rest of us. If they lie once they’ll lie again, I am proud to have a friend like Jeneiene who stood by a politician and supported his career for much longer than was good for her or her child. I am a democrat and not willing to condone the actions of politicians just so I can pretend I’m serving a greater good. A lack of ethics, addictions, and impulse control gets people written about in newspapers and magazine’s not ‘yellow’ journalism. All this is rather two faced and backstabbing, people who know Jeneiene and have spent anytime with them as a family know the truth and shame on all of those in this political game who would abandon a woman they considered a friend just because it’s an election year. Thanks for getting some of the truth out there Hank and the Tucson Weekly
This may be the lowest piece of “journalism” ever by the Weekly. Rumor, conjecture, hyperbole and innuendo all rolled into one when the issue has nothing to do with the fact that Daniel Patterson serves his district well and stands up to the right wing leadership in Phoenix. I am saddened for his family but I am sickened by this ugly smear.
Ms. Schaffer has a well earned reputation as angry women. There are many around town that can attest to that. Who contacted the reporter? I wonder…
The reported my not have been contacted by anyone. Divorce filings are public record. A good reporter keeps a weather eye on the public records list.
When it was revealed the Newt Gingrich served his wife with divorce papers to her hospital bed when she had cancer while publicly attacking Clinton’s behavior and posing as a defender of family values, we all pointed to it as a classic example of political hypocrisy.
If a local politician runs on being a family man and then, when his family needs him, is nowhere to be found by said family, it is legitimate to point out his hypocrisy.
Supporters of Patterson are accusing the deputy of exaggerating of not just serving Patterson’s lawyer, and Jenenine of having a reputation of being ‘angry’ (unsubstantiated and typical accusation). Everybody around Patterson is wrong…hmm.
So it is Democratic party policy to attack the spouse of a candidate when they are engaged in a battle during elections?
Would this woman (victim) be referred to as someone who would “suck off the system” by any self-respecting Democrat if she weren’t in a battle with a party candidate?
Is it the practice of party faithfuls to accuse a recent victim of cancer in the longest recession on record to be guilty of child endangerment when asking friends for assistance?
If this vicitm has a reputation in the party circles as a very angry and selfish person than based on some of the party member comments here, she is in the right party.
This doesn’t resemble the party I claim, but then again, if in all of Tucson this is best we can do, I might defect.
What would help Patterson is if he would be up front about what is going on and where he is living. He doesn’t have to spill all the personal details, but he could issue a statement outlining things in broad strokes. Instead, he’s slinking off to hide; that doesn’t look good and it suggests wrongdoing on his part. If he doesn’t want there to be rumors– in the newspaper or elsewhere– he should get out in front of this story. Also, releasing a small amount of information publicly would be the adult thing to do.
This would be great sport if it weren’t for the family situation. Democrats practicing Donner Pass dining etiquette.
Apparently Janiene and friends are out for blood! And the Weekly seems happy to help make this domestic squabble a public affair. I guess it was short on real news this week.
Families evolve, change, and look lots of different ways. We all know that. Mr. Patterson is supporting his family and that’s the right thing to do. So, in my book, he’s still a “family man”. Perhaps, if we leave these people alone, they will find a way to support each other and their child in an altered relationship provided by divorce. They agree; the marriage is over. Let them move on and heal. I, for one, wish them both well.
Oh dem public officials say one thing in public and plan other things in private. Believe it. I can’t say that I blame them but to try and stop the free press from doing their job – shame on them.
Bravo to the weekly to report what’s going on. As for the democratic officials bashing the weekly they should heed the proverb ‘ he who lie down with dogs wake up with fleas’
People need to remember that there is a child involved here, especially but not limited to Jeanine and Daniel. They need to do what is best for their daughter and not play games of hide and seek or revenge with each other. They need to sit down with or through their respective lawyers and work out a settlement that puts their daughter first. Other parties need to but out, and they need to quit using their friends and colleagues in a war by proxy.
The real issue here is that someone in office is not representing what he claimed to be. Unfortunately, there are many people who would like to look beyond the fact that Rep. Daniel has claimed to be running for family values, when this in fact is not the first time that such issues have occurred between the family. Daniel has a scary record of violence, domestic and other, and he should be held accountable before he charges forward in the name of families. I was appalled the first time he ran, knowing too well his history, but am further saddened to know what has transpired at the expense of his loyal wife and child. We cannot forget that where the most important work is, is within our own small circles, and what we teach our children.
I would be angry if I were Jeneiene, but I am ashamed that Daniel has been allowed to get this far politically when so many in the community knew too much of his history.
You lie, ‘old tricks’, which may be why you try to hide behind an alias and won’t use your real name here.
My wife and I have agreed to get a divorce. This is a hard time for me and my family.
Sadly, there are some rumors around that have no merit. Don’t believe the hype.
I have always supported my family, I still do and I will continue to.
Divorce is a difficult private personal family matter and I am asking people to please respect that.
Rep. Daniel Patterson
Tucson-LD29
DanielPatterson.net
305.9828