Paul Hagen makes it official
Former environmental prosecutor Paul Hagen threw his official hat into the proverbial ring of candidates running for Humboldt County District Attorney. The Journal has the press release.
Hagen is already backed by certain big names in Humboldt’s enviro circles, according to sources.
Hagen will face current DA Paul Gallegos and fellow challengers Allison Jackson and Kathleen Bryson in the race for top cop.
Leave a comment
Recent Comments
 | Anonymous on A Performance Review for Phil… |
| i can T stop thinkin… on BLIND ITEM | |
| Anonymous on Hank Larrabee – Humboldt Count… |
| Anonymous on Hank Larrabee – Humboldt Count… |
 | Anum08 on Another “Golden rule… |
 | Adobe crack on Another “Golden rule… |
 | Hassan001 on Another “Golden rule… |
Top Posts & Pages
The Humboldt Herald 
So he and Allison Jackson appear to be the serious opponents to Gallegos. I’d appreciate any legitimate information on these two.
It’s not just right-wing nut cases like Rose who oppose Gallegos. He has done serious damage to this community, and anyone who has been a victim of a crime knows it.
Hagen is a triathlete? who knew!
I’ll agree: Anyone but Gallegos, but at this point I’d be voting None Of The Above.
Four choices and not one meets your standards Fred? What are you looking for in a candidate?
Paul Gallegos has shown a lot of courage as DA. He has my support, and my vote.
I just ask myself, “Who would Rose vote for?” and vote for the other “guy.” :P
I had lunch with Paul Hagen a few weeks ago.
I am not impressed.
“Four choices and not one meets your standards Fred?”
They all don’t seem to be any different from one another ideologically.Paul’s opponents can critique some mistakes he’s made,but I don’t see where if they were given the same circumstances,they would have done anything much differently.
Hagen never raised his meek little finger whilst we were swimming in enviro crimes, from Maxxam, to Simpson, to Bareilles, to SP, to the Masonite plant, and other timberites leaching dioxins into our Bay. When he did act, it was hardly a wrist slap. Then he fucked up the filing date vs WalMart expansion in Crescent City, losing the case before the courtroom doors opened. He opposed the PL fraud suit with reasoning that betrayed ignorance of the facts and the laws.
Hagen would NEVER stand up to the cops, or corporate criminals.
He needs to stick to organizing land use forums and slinking around enviro events.
While you may not see many lawsuits as apart of Hagen’s history, you will find a list of actual convictions of environmental crimes with not many equals. This includes PL.
why is this guy running?
I really would like to vote Gallegos. I’ve supported and voted for him multiple times in the past but it’s slowly dawning on me (I’m a slow learner and resist changing my mind…a bad combination) that the man is all style and very little substance. Every major case seems to have been plea-bargained away, dismissed or dropped. Every person I talk to who has contact with him comes away frustrated and pissed off. I think I’m searching for a new candidate and the more people we have in the pool the better. Welcome Paul.
You can’t trust Hagen. He represented the Shelter Cove Resort Improvement District utility “Big” it’s when the increased the utility fees by four times in one year. He supported perjured testimony by the general manager in court. It has gone down as the greatest robbery in Shelter Cove history.
Spongy Morel,
Paul Gallegos has been willing to take on challenges that no other DA in America has attempted. It’s easy to forget that it’s willingness to take on challenges that shows someone’s integrity. If they “lose” while fighting for what’s right, that counts in my book as a win.
Even after Maxxam tried to run him out of town for his insistence that corporations could not lie and then say it was just “free speech”, he was still willing to take an objective look at the trigger-happy Keystone Kops that quickly and without justification killed a mentally ill woman who could easily have been talked down for a cigarette.
He brought indictments against the command officers:
I doubt there are many other DAs with that kind of courage. Did he “lose”? Maybe. Did WE win, getting the sort of top-to-bottom overhaul of a department that probably would never have happened otherwise? Yes, for sure.
Hagen hasn’t got the chops for DA. Nice guy, but not DA material. I am not entirely excited with Gallegos either, but I think he is getting comfortable with the office and hearing the disappointment of many of his previous supporters.
I think the same about Higgins. Hasn’t got the chops, or temperment, to be Supe. He should stay and finish his harbor district term and Hagen should continue to do the good community work that he has been doing of late.
Blah Blah Blah…..follow the drug money. If they are happy with Gallegos they will keep him, if not….a new guy. Farnkly I see no reason for them to boot Gallegos out, he seems to be looking after their interest. Scheech guys…wake up.
Drug money? You ever tried to get a pot grower to donate to anything? You might get a few hundred dollars, but only after you take a few hours to stoke his ego. Now try and get them to vote. Ha. They maybe a big part of the economy but as a political force…?
Who said anything about the drug growers, that isn’t the money. It’s just like the old gold rush…it was the merchants who got rich. But as the Baron Vladimir Harkonnen so aptly said. “the spice must flow”
Always follow the money.
Gallegos is a joke. He is pure ideology, flair, and a pretty face for the cameras. Every “big” case he has pursued failed miserably (Gundersen, case and point). He makes the most ridiculous plea bargains with child molesters and violent criminals. He is barely respected by his colleges. He needs to go, but right now I’m not sure who is capable to fill his place.
Gallegos is getting way to much criticism about a few cases that did not go the way the vigilante public had anticipated, he has acted with courage and a sensibility when representing the people of Humboldt Co. Anyone in the eye of public is going to receive some criticism, but not many other public officials have had shown the “balls” to go after corp interests who are hurting the entire community. With the list of current opponents to Paul, non of which show any potential to be very effective or beneficial to the people, our current DA has my vote.
Yeah. He showed alot of courage prosecuting Sean Marsh. Threw the whole weight of his office at that one. Even traveled to the ‘scene of the crime.’
Gallegos is a socialist, and he wasn’t even born in America!
Have YOU ever seen his birth certificate?
Why has he never shown us his birth certificate, if he’s a REAL American???????
Rose,
Wouldn’t you be complaining that Gallegos didn’t respect the Ferndale Police if he had refused to prosecute Marsh at all? If you have a beef, surely it is with the Ferndale Police?
Rose is ALL about law and order and the DA supporting the cops – unless Gallegos actually DOES it and then she smears him for that as well.
Actually, I think Rose’s comments will probably be helpful.
I know people who remain undecided until Rose makes it clear which candidate is the worst (by supporting one).
Rose is too clueless to understand why checking out the “scene of the crime” in a case such as the Marsh case and the “scene of the crime” in a knife wielding incident would be handled differently. In a child endangerment case, the scene (in this case the intersection where the child walked into the street) is important to determine the extent of danger. A knife wielding case (which she used as an example on her blog) is the same regardless of the location.
“I know people who remain undecided until Rose makes it clear which candidate is the worst (by supporting one).”
Do I know you?
After reading Rose’s blog, I don’t care if he’s an American. I want to see his birth certificate to make sure he isn’t a demon!
I notice the Ferndale Enterprise does not offer any criticism of the police either.
That really shows backbone on the part of their editor.
The DA only works with the evidence that’s brought to them. The real question is why did the cops feel they needed to file charges?
Out of control cops is exactly why we need to keep Gallegos in office!!!
I think he must have been talking about me, because I do that…
If you know how the law works. Wright or wrong Paul has made the best dicisions for this community.
life is good in HumCo
why change it?
re-elect Gallegos
No, no, the criminals have taken over and it’s much more dangerous then it was eight years ago (when the deputies worked for PL and the EPD sent SWAT in where a pack of cigarets would have resolved the situation), just like the police and former DDA’s from Gallegos office were telling us during the recall, and during his last re-election — he’s letting the rapist and murders run free (except for all of the ones he keeps convicting).
Gallegos is absolutely fine as DA and only internet trolls feel otherwise.
You aren’t calling Rose a troll are you?
Mitch wrote”Rose,
Wouldn’t you be complaining that Gallegos didn’t respect the Ferndale Police if he had refused to prosecute Marsh at all?”
If Paul didn’t follow protocol and go with the officer presented to him,Rose most certainly would have added it to her list of “Paul hates cops” antics.The Marsh case is a fine example of him being damned if he does,damned if he doesn’t.
“Paul Gallegos has been willing to take on challenges that no other DA in America has attempted…”
The problem is, he doesn’t know how to do his job. Ask any survivor or victim of a serious crime in Humboldt County. He’s derelict, incompetent, and dissembling.
Spin won’t get it. The jury took about 30 seconds to tell Paul ,” you a dumb ass”. It’s taken the rest of us about 6 years to figure it out. But we did. Good bye Paul ,hello Allison.
Yes, yes, yes, Allison Jackson is exactly what this county needs.
She will our own Ed Jangels (Kern County DA)!
Hey 7:48 if you are referring the so called GRAND jury, then don’t make me laugh. That is a totally political football and the next one will be even worse, now that Rob has his little errand boys sitting on it. Talk about “spin”, that’s one area that the right has mastered.
Prosecuting Marsh had nothing to do with the cop – aside from the initial complaint. Marsh was RELEASED due to lack of any case – then Gallegos for some unknown reason resurrected the charges and went after the guy full bore. There is no logical explanation for his actions. None.
It is part of the schizophrenic nature of his prosecutions, though.
Important to note the charges in that case – the guy’s kid walked a couple feet in front of him on a quiet Ferndale street.
Rose knows nothing of what she speaks. I love how she puts stuff out there as if she was there (like her claims to know of conversations that happen inside the DA’s office and such), but the fact is the cops must have filed charges with the DA.
Hell, they handcuffed the guy, isn’t that alone a fair reason to criticize them? Oh no, Rose would never dare due that, the only LEOs she will criticize work for the DA.
Poor Rose thinks being “released due to lack of any case” (which was not the case) means charges were dropped? It makes me dizzy just watching her spin.
Let me clarify…
Being released on $50,000 bail is not “released due to lack of any case.” Investigating a possible crime before filing charges is what we expect from a responsible DA, at least we rational people do.
Ferndale Police Chief Lonnie Lawson, who happened to be in the area at the time Marsh’s son allegedly headed into the crosswalk, pulled over to talk to Marsh after witnessing the alleged incident. Marsh, states the Chief in his report, was asked for his identification several times but refused to show his license. Instead, Marsh identified himself by name only.
Marsh has contended that his son was under his watchful eye the entire time he was visiting with fellow merchants on Main Street and did not enter the intersection, and in fact could have been hurt by the chief’s action of pulling into the crosswalk.
The chief, apparently frustrated with Marsh’s attitude, instructed him to turn over his young son to Ferndale Real Estate’s Jake Drake, while he handcuffed Marsh after calling for backup, and put him in his patrol car. Drake has stated that she was a stranger to the chief and was concerned about him turning over the child. (Drake, along with several other Ferndalers, is scheduled to testify at the trial.)
Marsh’s nine-months pregnant wife eventually emerged from inside Abraxas Shoes where she had been shopping to learn of her husband’s situation.
Marsh was then taken to the Humboldt County Jail, where he spent the night on $50,000 bail. He was released in the morning. More than six weeks later the case was reopened and Marsh was arraigned.
Originally the DA’s office told The Enterprise the case was “rejected” due to further investigation needed. However, Gallegos on Tuesday said, according to the file, a complaint request was received June 1 and filed on June 5.
“It was not originally rejected,” he stated.
However further clarification with the criminal desk at the DA’s office shows that a “statement of probable cause” from the FPD was filed on June 5 and not a complaint. “The case was declined on June 1 “due to further investigation needed.” And it was not until July 18 that the case was reopened – after Main Street merchant Polly Stemwedel filed a complaint against the chief.
…Meanwhile the detention slip from the jail provided to The Enterprise states that Marsh was released from jail because “there was insufficient grounds for making a criminal complaint.”
Maybe Jane has some inside information that there was more going on. Speaking of spin.
JEEZE Rose! What part of “further investigation needed” don’t you understand? The case was NEVER dropped, it was put on hold until an investigation could be carried out. You know, where officers check out the “scene of the crime,” question witnesses, etc? Being released from jail for insufficient grounds (because an investigation was required) does not in any way mean there are insufficient grounds to make a criminal complaint. It just means they don’t KNOW yet.
As someone who has known Lonnie Lawson for many years, let me just say that he is an arrogant azz who should never have been given a badge. It is possible that if Marsh had been adequately deferential to Lawson rather than uncooperative he would never have been arrested. That being said, it is still the DA’s office to investigate and prosecute crimes, not file charges irresponsibly before an investigation.
“Important to note the charges in that case – the guy’s kid walked a couple feet in front of him on a quiet Ferndale street.”
Some days Ferndale streets are quiet. Some days they are bumper to bumper cars. I actually saw a local kid being hit by a car right in front of Abraxas in 1976.
That’s right – it was two men at loggerheads. And one had a badge, so he handcuffed an innocent man and made him spend the night in jail.
Nice to see you championing that, “Jane.” You don’t have kids do you?
Yeah, “further investigation” probably included a nice lunch in Ferndale.
Let’s hear a RATIONAL explanation for pursuing that case. Besides the “Paul Gallegos can do no wrong” argument. It’s laughable.
The one with the badge always wins, Rose, and usually you cheer them on except when there is an opportunity to bash Gallegos. Your hypocrisy would be stunning if you had ever shown even the tiniest bit of integrity.
People are arrested for child endangerment all the time. The child doesn’t have to have already been injured to have been in danger. Hopefully the Marshes won’t let their toddlers walk into the street in the future and I would bet that when Mr. Marsh is asked for identification in the future he will show it along with a good attitude. There seem to be more arrogant badges around than reasonable ones.
Rose is a poor advocate. I would not want her on my side.
Please don’t stop Rose from ranting.
It makes it so much easier for the rest of to what NOT to agree with.
Her hypocrisy can be stunning at times.
It must gall you guys to no end, that Rose bests you most of the time in your exchanges.
Even when you gang up on her by five to one.
I am a prosecutor. I am on vacation for a week and can speak as a private citizen. I am 56 and have been a lawyer since 1979. I used to work in the Humboldt DA’s office. I have worked in the public and private sector. I have done civil rights work specializing in police misconduct. I own a house in Humboldt. I plan to live there when I retire. After ten years service in the Humboldt DA’s office I left in 2006 because I could no longer reconcile my views and values with those of the administration. I am a supervisor in another office,and in addition to my management responsibilities I prosecute sex crimes and homicides. I know Mr. Hagan well. In my personal opinion, Hagan is an honest intelligent honorable man who has a good intellect and good values. He is a good listener. He returns calls.
He learned to be a good team player and to respect his co-workers. He is an environmental lawyer, which means he is a master of detail, a studious and hardworking person who is ready and willing to absorb material that daunts most of us. I believe he is realistic about pot (which I think should be legalized). He has sufficient law enforcement experience, and he is more than capable of assembling a good team and running an efficient office with good standards. In short, I will vote for him. I have posted this elsewhere.
I have yet to see Rose make any consistent, logical argument. She spews her spin, lies about what she said and then vanishes from the thread. See the latest meth lab thread for an example.
Are you registered to vote where you don’t actually live, Mr. Isaac?
How’s Hagen’s record on felony prosecutions? Oh, he’s never done on. Yea, that sounds like a good choice for DA.
What’s Gallegos record since taking office? Over a dozen cases and not one loss. Half of them were murder trials.
No, give me the guy who’s never done a felony criminal trial.
Yea, yea Issac, you and Ward and Dikeman and Jackson and Hagen and Bryson, were all unhappy with the reform that Gallegos brought to the office (and/or unhappy being fired), just like the bad apples at EPD are unhappy with Gar, but it turns out it’s the peoples office and not yours.
I do hope Mr. Isaac responds to my question since it would give insight as to his principles. He seems to be claiming he is planning to violate voter registration laws by being registered to vote where he doesn’t actually live. I don’t believe planning to live in Humboldt County in the future or owning a home in Humboldt County qualifies him for legal residence if he lives elsewhere.
8:43 Seems a lot of the “bad apples” (many more than you mentioned who left the office or sides with those against Gallegos) are pretty good ones… From my view listening to all of them I am thinking Gallegos is a good enough guy (and I’ve enjoyed him at dinner parties) but perhaps not the best candidate for this job.
I own a house in Humboldt. I spend time there, I pay taxes there. If I choose to register there, I believe the law says that’s where I can vote. If I am wrong, please post your authorities. Anonymous has one opinion, I have another. Mine is based on 30 years of experience in court and personal acquaintance. And I am using my own name.
Owning property, paying taxes and spending time at an address doesn’t qualify you to register there unless that is your permanent residence. An absentee landlord could make the same argument you do. You are required to re-register when you move and vote in your current district. Planning to return to Humboldt on retirement doesn’t seem to qualify.
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_faq.htm
No, Jane, whoever you are, the fact is one is not legally required to re-register when one moves. If you think that is the case, I again invite you to post your authority for that. I assure you, it will not be the California Secretary of State, whose website confirms that one may relocate and retain one’s original domicile. Certain folk in these discussions tend to resort to ad hominem attacks rather than addressing the issue. The point of my post was- I have a legitimate interest in Humboldt, I have some relevant experience, and I think Hagen would be a fine DA.
And I used my own name to make that point. Plainly.
How’s Andrew Issac at his new job?
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=83651205840
I Am Against Rape, Are You?
This is a group for anyone who is (or wants to support those who are) upset about how our DA, Bob Lee, Andrew Isaac, and Prosecutor Ross Taylor refuse to prosecute rape cases…
Andrew Isaac sent a message to so many women in so many cities across California that unwanted sexual activity during a therapeutic massage does not constitute a crime,
You are a straw splitter, Isaac. You are not required to register in the first place. You ARE, however, required to use your current address when registering and it is illegal to vote in a district in which you don’t reside. Claiming that you plan on relocating to a district in the future does not qualify you to vote there.
How about you respond to the link by Anonymous 10:38, Mr. Isaac? On reading the newspaper articles quoting you, it seems that you don’t care to prosecute sexual assault crimes if the victim doesn’t have obvious injuries.
“SANTA CRUZ — Charges against a Santa Cruz massage therapist accused of sexually battering a female client during a massage session earlier this month have been dropped.
The District Attorney’s Office chose to not file charges against Kenneth Jeffrey Lord, who also goes by “Crow Ken Lord.”
“We concluded that no crime had been committed,” assistant district attorney Andrew Isaac said. “This does not mean we don’t believe the what the complaining witness said… Inexcusable behavior is not necessarily a crime.”
Prosecutor Ross Taylor reviewed five hours of audio and video evidence Saturday before making the decision to not take the accusations to court. Lord, 49, was released from County Jail on Saturday, according to jail staff.
“This was not a close call from our perspective,” Isaac said.
Isaac said that prior to Lord’s arrest Thursday night, the District Attorney’s Office advised police the case was weak.
“It is a bad thing when someone is charged with a crime he didn’t commit,” Isaac said. “That said, there was some very, very bad behavior here.”
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_11929526?IADID=Search-www.santacruzsentinel.com-www.santacruzsentinel.com
“Bad behavior” being sexual battery but apparently Mr. Isaac doesn’t consider that a crime.
How am I at my job? Interesting question, whoever you are. Try googling the case. If you can manage the google search, you still will never know all the facts, because of the privacy issues. Getting around those can be done, but not on Google. You might want to remember, I was a civil rights plaintiff’s lawyer between prosecution jobs. I also prosecuted Army officers for rape and Army MP’s for brutality as an Army JAG. I won those cases. I am a better prosecutor for those experiences. Or maybe you would prefer someone like Martha Coakley. A prosecutor is supposed to be a gatekeeper, not a tolltaker.
If you want to know how I am at my new job, try looking googling my name along with Yepez(victim was 5), Doud (killed his wife), Colegrove( rapist), Demayo (child molester), Peasley (child molester), or Aguilar (killed his wife). Of course, that’s just the last 12 months. If you want ancient history from Humboldt, try, for instance, Squeaky Frank (serial molester, 400 years plus), or Johnny Crowl (serial molester, 172 years, plus or minus), or Pantoja (killed his wife, had to try him twice, 15 to life on second degree second time around). I was good enough at my job in Humboldt so that leaving was my choice.
How are you at your job, whoever you are, as if anyone should care, because isn’t the point here, who would be good at the HUMBOLDT DA’s job?
Or isn’t that what you want to talk about?
And my last name, whoever you are, is spelled Isaac.
Jane, whoever you are, missed you while I was responding to another person who has no real name.
When you tell us all who you are, and what your experience is, and when you have read all the reports, and reviewed the 5 hours of videos, and figured out why not one single prosecutor who did review all the facts instead of relying on an internet post, could find a crime, maybe then your opinion will have some validity. Right now, it looks like you read a facebook page. Wow, look at all the time lawyers waste going to law school and look at all the time wasted reading reports and talking to real people.
And I thought you’d want DA’s who stand up to the police. Silly me. What color ink should I use on my rubber stamp from now on?
And hey, show the world how balanced you are. Do a search and post all my cases. Let people decide for themselves what kind of prosecutor I am.
And what does this have to do with who should be DA in Humboldt?
Jane, whoever you are, if by straw splitter you mean I read the law, you are for once correct. If you think I am wrong, cite the web page.
Andrew Isaac has clearly put away some real scumbags. Nice job.
From the Yepez case:
DeMayo case:
I posted the site with the requirements for voter registration, Mr. Isaac. It stated clearly that you MUST register using your current address and if you relocate you MUST re-register before you vote. If Humboldt is your permanent address and Santa Cruz only temporary, fine. But previously living in Humboldt and / or planning to retire Humboldt doesn’t make you a resident NOW.
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_faq.htm
Is sexual battery a crime, Mr. Isaac?
Gee, my kids in college vote by absentee using our address, even though they have moved in different locations and states and rent apartments and houses, have new addresses. I have never heard that they had to re-register to vote when they live somewhere else for a period of time…
You are supposed to register to vote from your permanent address. Mr. Isaac lives in and is employed by the County of Santa Cruz. He should be registered to vote there, not where he used to live or plans to retire.
I think the important thing is that a person doesn’t vote twice. I know our elections in Arcata area are felt by some to be skewed by HSU students’ and their ideas for the community. Reading from the voter rules, and this sounds like it can be read without date parameters legally- it does not give a deadline to change your registration, which I see as permission to not change it indefinitely:
I have just moved. Am I required to re-register?
Your voter registration should always reflect your current residence. However, if you have moved from your home into a temporary residence that you do not intend to use as your permanent residence, you can continue to use your prior permanent residence where you were previously registered to vote as your address for the purpose of voting.
How long is temporary? Mr. Isaacs has been living in Santa Cruz for a number of years now. Maybe the election office has the answer?
Andrew – you got sucked in! You might want to check out this West Wing clip before you continue too far.
Short responses, and when attacked preferably just a smart assed remark which reveals the absurdity of what you’re responding to. Don’t feel the need to justify yourself or your record. Make the simple points in case someone normal might be reading, and don’t take anything personally. Take it from a blogging veteran.
It just seems beside the point and kind of nit-picky. He’s not voting twice. There doesn’t seem to be a legal time limit.
Jane, whoever you are, it’s amusing that your response to my endorsement of Mr. Hagan, in which I said not one negative thing about the incumbent, is an anonymous personal attack on me. Keep it up, it makes its own quiet statement.
Jane, whoever you are, sexual battery can be a felony or a misdemeanor. I have prosecuted it many times at both levels. I am (when I am back at work) prosecuting a Mr. Mena for, among other things, sexual battery. In the case to which you have referred, linked above, no such battery was committed, nor was any other crime. According to every single prosecutor who reviewed it.
And, whatever you do, here’s a couple of questions for you. How many felony sex crimes have you prosecuted? How many have you defended? How many times have you appeared to defend or prosecute a criminal case in Federal District Court, Federal Circuit Court, state trial courts, or State Supreme Courts? How many interviews of victims and defendants have you attended, conducted, participated in? How about autopsies and murder scenes?
Here’s an approach you might take for your next shot at me. Call people like Glenn Brown or Kevin Robinson and ask what I was like as a DA. See what they say. Then publish that.
As for voting. You got part of it right. But part wrong, and I think you missed a bit. Or did you leave it out? Which is it, I wonder, sloppy or dishonest? The issue has actually been to the US Supreme Court recently involving taxpayers with residences in the Hamptons (I’m sure you know all about it) but for current purposes try this
DEBRABO WEN SECRETARY OF STATE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1 ELECTION
Click to access 08301cm.pdf
Your voter registration should always reflect your current residence. However, If you
have moved from your home into a temporary residence that you do not intend to
use as your permanent residence, you can continue to use your prior permanent
residence where you were previously registered to vote as your address for the
purpose of voting.
We rely on Elections Code §349 and the ruling issued by the California Supreme Court
in Walters v. Weed in 1988,
Elections Code § 349 reads:
(a) “Residence” for voting purposes means a person’s domicile.
(b) The domicile of a person is that place in which his or her habitation is fixed, wherein the person has the intention of remaining, and to which, whenever he or she is absent, the person has the intention of returning. At a given time, a person may have only one domicile.
So, Jane, whoever you are, you can see that the law is explicit. One is allowed choose to regard a job as a temporary job, the residence associated with that job as a temporary residence, with the residence from which one is temporarily absent as one’s permanent domicile from which one may be currently absent, but to which one has the intention of returning.
Kind of like when I was in the Army. Long commitment, but didn’t plan to stay there. Voted absentee at home, not on base, not
from the town or state where I was based. It’s legal. That’s how Lincoln got the soldier vote, in large part. I could vote where I live now. I choose not to. It’s good to have choices, isn’t it?
Like you choose not to use your real name.
I have a number of residences, but only one domicile. Which seems legal per the case law cited above. Look on the bright side,
I get taxed in Santa Cruz (among other places) but I can’t vote there.
Unless I change my mind. You’d be surprised how often one’s mental state is important in the law.
Fair enough, Mr. Isaac. Like I said WAY up the thread, “If Humboldt is your permanent address and Santa Cruz only temporary, fine.”
However, “After ten years service in the Humboldt DA’s office I left in 2006 because I could no longer reconcile my views and values with those of the administration.” could certainly be construed as negative, a subtle smear, in fact, without being specific about what the issues really were.
I would see a negative feeling about an area to want to vote in a community as compelling as a positive feeling- ie: you want change… Anyway, why don’t we move on…The legality seems to be proven and the reasons seem to be up to the voter.
My second paragraph was unrelated to why he votes in Humboldt. It was due to his first paragraph at 12:43 that he was endorsing Hagan but hadn’t said anything negative about the incumbent.
Jane, you’re mighty thin-skinned on someone else’s behalf.
I made it clear I left on my own terms and for my own reasons. Whether my reasons were good, bad or otherwise, they were mine and mine alone. To the extent I participate on behalf of any candidate, it is my intention to say nothing negative about any of them.
People who want negative personal attacks can get it from you and other anonymous posters.
Construe away, whoever you are. Anyone who knows me knows that if I want to smear, it’s not usually all that subtle. As in the Yepez case, Heraldo linked above, I tend to do it face to face. Using my own name. Oh, did I just subtly smear you? Well, at least I was specific and it seemed like a fair reply.
I note that the adult in the conversation appears to be Anony.Miss. Ciao bella.
Alright, so now I know I’m not voting for Andrew Isaac. Cross that off. So, who’s left, everyone?
If Hagen is your boy, I have a lower opinion of him. I don’t care what kind of prosecutor you are, this is about his candidacy.
Note that I made this point using an internet handle on a blog.
Merci! And PJ can be a lot of fun. She adds some spice here and here too. Thanks for your great comments and legal interpretations. I will take your recommendation for Mr. Hagens into account when I vote. Sounds like we are lucky to have him running.
So will I, Anony.Miss. But I might vote for Hagan anyway. :)
Hagen, sorry.
Jane! Ouch!
I’ve seen Mr. Andrew Isaac practice his craft in the courtroom. We could certainly use his talents in any position he would occupy/accept/run for in our county.
Mr. Isaac thank you for your past service to our citizens and county. Seems you have a serious fan club up here.
Your endorsement will be highly regarded by many. Best wishes.
Did you hurt yourself, 6:42?
You may have showed up for a massage, but you are going to get much more. If Hagen has his way, your utility company will be a “police power” and you and your family will be treated like the taxi drivers in San Francisco. You will not be able to count on “justice” being the rule in court. Perjured testimony, harassment, and outright lies will be the new standard to overrule the correct decisions of the lower court. That is my personal experience. Voter beware.
Yes Jane,
I hurt myself from laughing so hard, watching you twist yourself into knots in your conversation with Andrew Isaac; Thanks, it was highly entertaining.
Ask Issac about the David Chain chase.
Hagen said in The Independent today that:
As DA “Your forte absolutely should not be being a trail lawyer”
I guess that makes sense if you have never once tried a felony case in your entire career, yet you’re asking voters to make you the head prosecutor; but even if you don’t think the DA should personally be trying cases, wouldn’t you want him or her to be skilled at doing so, that is, for it to be their “forte”?
Maybe we don’t even need for the DA to be a lawyer?
Hagen seems to think Kevin Hoover deserves pro bono representation for his criminal conspiracy to violate the privacy of residents at their homes in Arcata.
The pair of them are misusing the shield law — which is designed to protect journalists from being forced to disclose their private sources to the police — to protect a fake journalist (and real suck-up to the Arcata Police no matter what shit they pull, even to the point of taking control of City Hall) in his illegal searches on private property as the cats paw of the cops.
The idea that Arcata’s brand of repression should be exported to the county is a frightening throwback to the days of lawlessness that saw the county sheriff and various other top officials go to jail for mass corruption.
I’ve lost my trust in Paul Gallegos but no way in hell would I ever vote for Paul Hagen under any circumstances. Time to put a woman in charge, either way.
Hagen is counting on his quiet conversations about how is going to “close down every grow house in Arcata” to win over support from not only Kevin, but the Arcata City Council and others, but it’s still not clear how he intends to pull this off. As it stands now, if the cops bust a grow house that is in violation of the law, Gallegos has been prosecuting these folks, but the cops won’t bust them, with but a few exceptions.
Hover’s endorsement is almost as much of a deterrent to vote for Hagen as Issac Andrew or Rose Welch’s endorsement.
Arcata represents a minority of this county’s voters. Hagen being strongly tied to those liberal fascists is a reason for most of the rest of the county to not vote for him.
Some of the Arcata folks and others on the far left, who believed that Gallegos was an ideologue like them are now disillusioned as they have found him to be independent of their agenda and in the case of the city council (and Board of Sups for that matter) their authority, as he does not (and should not) answer to them, only to the law …and the voters.
“liberal fascists”? what is that?
Misusing the shield law? First thing that comes to mind is that widespread misuse of the intent of the 215 permits, and how that abuse, greed for big bucks, and messy/wasteful behaviors has trashed Arcata. Anyone trying to make a living in rentals, real estate sales, or merely trying to find a nice and safe neighborhood around here is hyper-aware of this.
Try better rental agreements and periodic inspections of your property. I don’t see any landlords complaining about the increased rental rates.
Zoning and land use it one way to start to address grow house and Arcata, to their credit they are trying to do that. Homes should primarily be for living (a one room garden may be reasonable, as is backyard greenhouse, or converted garage in a house that’s occupied; and move commercial or agriculture uses to appropriately zoned areas. I believe one of the the Med MJ clubs has their grow oppression out at Dan Johnson’s commercial part off West End Rd.
Complain about higher rates? They had to be changed to cover losses. We don’t have a problem personally much anymore but the neighborhoods are still screwed up and look nasty. Not good for people living, only plants.