Allison Jackson, Worth Dikeman and Paul Hagen.
The last time Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos had to defend his job on election day he faced seasoned prosecutor Worth Dikeman. Gallegos won, and eventually sent Dikeman packing from the DA’s office.
Current candidate Allison Jackson was a big supporter of Dikeman back in the day, but recently released campaign donation forms reveal Dikeman’s money is on former environmental prosecutor Paul Hagen this time around: Dikeman donated $99 to Hagen’s campaign.
The donation is dated March 4th — the day before Jackson announced her intention to run, which wasn’t a secret. But maybe Dikeman didn’t know of her intentions. Or maybe he had money burning a proverbial hole to throw at any opposition.
Perhaps Jackson will have the opportunity to list him in the next round of disclosure forms.
Dikeman and Jackson worked together in the DA’s office before and (briefly) during the Gallegos tenure. They shared a passionate dislike of Gallegos, and Jackson supported Dikeman both in the failed 2004 recall attempt on Gallegos and the 2006 election.
To peruse an easy list of “high-rolling” donators to this year’s local elections, check out John Osborn’s blog.
Maybe Dikeman doesn’t play the back-rubbing game and is merely backing the candidate he thinks will do the best job. Strange idea, huh?
I wouldn’t be surprised to see Dikeman’s name on Jackson’s list of donors as well as Hagen’s. I suspect Worth may be pretty much of an “anyone but Gallegos” kind of voter.
He may have donated the same amount to Jackson. Typically donations under $100.00 aren’t listed on campaign disclosure forms. That’s why so many choose to donate that amount.
It’s strange that Hagen listed the donors on his form anyway.
what dikeman and jackson shared was a passionate commitment to justice and to treating victims and their families with respect. kind of like what prosecutors are supposed to do.
I wouldn’t read anything into the donation, except that Mr. Dikeman cares about Humboldt County. He would not be for “anybody but Gallegos” (do you really think that he would support the unskilled, incapable Bryson?) but he’s free to support more than one qualified, or nearly qualified candidate. Gallegos is simply not qualified.
Hagen may lose some donations with this mistake. People donate $99 specifically to avoid being listed.
i worked at the da’s office when farmer was in charge, mike robinson’s desk was crapped on and dikeman and wade were the glory twins.
just like dracula,it will take a stake through the heart to finally be rid of dikeman. if he were caught telling the truth he’d just try to lie his way out of it.
Come Home Worth!! We need go honest folks like you and Allison.
I keep seeing Allison Jackson stickers on cars parked in front of Security National. That tells me I don’t want her to be DA. No Democrat should vote for her.
I’ll probably vote for Gallegos. He’s got his baggage, but he’s a good man. Hagen and Bryson haven’t shown why they are more qualified than the incumbent.
Cooper, an example of everything that is wrong with too many of our voters today.
They are the ones who keep electing politicians into office for the dumbest of reasons & spending Wash DC & Sacramento into bankruptcy.
Not liking who a candidate is beholden to is a very good reason not to vote for them, one of the best.
High Finance:
I’ll decide who I will vote for based on my own criteria, thank you. If the SN crowd likes Jackson, that is a problem for me. You don’t have to like it. It just is.
So, you think all the workers at SN are Republican right wingers? I am trying to think of anyone I know there who is not at the upper level who feels this way. Most of the workers I know there are pretty moderate or Dems. Employees at that level do not have to agree with the boss’s leanings. There are Dems at the upper level as well, mostly likely. Arkleys has friends who are Democrats.
Arkley does make some choices that make a lot of sense to most people. I heard a lot of good things about Ms Jackson and think it’s short sighted and closed minded to judge her by a few bumper stickers in front of a certain business.
The sort of people who put bumper stickers on their cars to impress the boss don’t have any integrity either.
I know several people who work at SN and they are all right-wingers.
Jackson’s drinking also concerns me. She has the look of a heavy consumer of alcohol. Isn’t there a DUI in her past somewhere?
Has anyone checked to see how many of those Democrats working at SN have Obama bumper stickers? HA HA!
Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. I thought Republicans are all for that kind of “common sense”.
I’m certain every sitting Republican US Senator carefully examined the health care bill and throughly searched their conscience(and maybe prayed for guidance). And then, to a person, they voted against it. Their votes had nothing to do with who else was against it. They each made their decision on the “common sense” merits.
Jeez High, Don’t you think all the money spent on the military has something to do with the bankruptcy situation? Why is always some individual citizen’s fault?
“it”
Well said, Not a Native.
Jackson’s personal appearance is a turn off. She doesn’t look like she takes care of herself. She has the bloated look of an alcoholic. This will turn off voters. Most people put a reasonable effort into their personal appearance. There is something wrong when a candidate for a high-profile elected office can’t be bothered to take care of herself. It’s not professional.
D’herbois sounds like an unprofessional louse with a chip on his shoulder. Worth Dikeman is an excellent prosecutor and Gallegos could have learned a lot from him, but Gallegos is not capable of learning or improving.
Well Moviedad, at least they’ve moved on from blaming poor people for the recession and govt. funding problems.
Cooper represents much of what I detest about blogs and blog commenters. He attacks a candidate because of perceived flaws in personal appearance, and then offers the same intellectual rigor to forecast election results.
Joel is right. I went too far.
Allison Jackson’s appearance is not her problem. Her inability to stick to the truth in court is. Most judges know and plenty of attorneys can testify (not that they will publicly) to this fact.
We do NOT, under any circumstance want her as a DA. It would be the worst thing to ever happen to Humboldt County.
Our entire system of justice would be perverted, as she determines in her mind who is guilty in advance of a jury then does anything she can to get a conviction. Yes it plays well with victims, but it is not the principals on which our system of justice is based. She is quite simply UN-AMERICAN, just as water-boarding was un-American. Sure Cheney and a the rabid right wing think water-boarding was fine, but history will prove them wrong and Humboldt County does not want to go down this road.
Hagen may be unqualified to try felony criminal cases, but at least he does not have a record of deceit and lies.
Yes you did Mr. Cooper
You can say what you want about how Jackson looks, but it doesn’t change the fact shes a life long Dem and shes got good conviction rate. I just want the bad guys in jail instead of shooting up my neighborhood.
You people are a trip. Looks! Really! You got Gags because you thought his good looks equaled good DA. So much for looks.
VS Gags, who determined who was guilty in advance of a jury as you put it, and utterly messed up most cases?
The idea of prosecutors is to take cases, where people have charges against them, and try and stick those charges against those people, by doing anything possible.
Now, if you have anything other than hearsay, like something illegal, be more clear.
Are lawyers require to swear on the bible to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth? Corporations can lie, why couldn’t lawyers? So, how exactly is she “unamerican”, and untruthful? Come on, give examples.
Exactly. He’s never spent a single day as a district attorney. He’s … no, wait
Capdiamont, in his sad, contorted effort to defend, hurts his client.
Cap, a DA wouldn’t bring the case if they didn’t think the accused was guilty. Presumption of innocence is required of judge and jury, not the prosecutor. SHEESH!
Hagen campaigned for Dikeman in 2004.
Another point to consider is that Dikeman donated $99, which technically doesn’t need to be itemized in the 460 forms. Hagen went for complete transparency in his disclosure forms, which is admirable.
So, it could very well be that Dikeman did also donate money under $100 to Jackson and Bryson, but it just wasn’t itemized as it doesn’t have to be.
John, do you really think if I gave Paul Hagen a $47.23 campaign contribution, it would appear in his filings? Do you really think Worth Dikeman was the sole contributor of less than $100?
Let’s at least see Hagen’s ploy for what it is, a dodgy endorsement gesture. Transparent it ain’t, except the transparent grab at Allison’s base. Good luck with that one, Paul.
“Hagen may be unqualified to try felony criminal cases, but at least he does not have a record of deceit and lies.”
yeah that’s right! He leaves the deceit and lie-telling to his campaign handlers= Loco Solutions. pull back the musty curtain and there they all are. PEEWWW
Hey, there are some pretty big UGLY MUGS running for offices this time and most of them are of the male persuasion, why not talk about some of these faces that would scare children? jus look at pat higgins face and body for crissakes
Hagans campaign must have not known they don’t have to disclose contributions of $99 or less. I really doubt this was a “transparency” thing.
Not sure Longwind. But Paul has 9 contributions he disclosed under $100, the lowest being $25. So probably.
Oh joy. This is going to be a fun race. All the way to November.
d’herbois Says:
March 28, 2010 at 11:23 am
i worked at the da’s office when farmer was in charge, mike robinson’s desk was crapped on and dikeman and wade were the glory twins.
just like dracula,it will take a stake through the heart to finally be rid of dikeman. if he were caught telling the truth he’d just try to lie his way out of it.
I don’t know about “telling the truth” but Worthless Dikeman in court did not present a lot of facts and seemed to be very unprepared. That is why is earned the “Worthless” name. I now would not vote for anyone he supports.
Jackson was the only one to confront the other worthless attorney (Faust when he was acting acting as the County Counsel after Falor was fired). She actually got it right and read the entire sentence that Faust and Kirk Girard put into the wording when they were trying to convince the Supervisors that PalCo could just build anything they wanted on their land. That was not true but as we all know (or should know) the Supes just do not do the research on the topics that come before them and accept “staff’s explanation”. Talk about lies —-
Still waiting to see the candidates debate for this one. Maybe that will show who is the right one – or not. Donations to me don’t count as far as my vote goes on any of the candidates. Sometimes cream rises to the surface but sometimes it gets curdled on its way. Just going to wait for a while and see how this really sorts out before I make a real decision in June.
Excatly PJ! That is I was trying to get across. I was replying to another poster, that tried too infer a prosecutor who thought the person was guilty, and trying everything they can to convict them in court, shouldn’t be voted for. I thought that was SOP for DA material. The poster couldn’t come back with any real info, why we shouldn’t voter for her.
TW at 7:55 is another one of those weak minds. I’d like to know, if I have a “client”, where is my money? I could sure use some. LOL.
Actually, a prosecutor and officer do have an ethical obligation to evaluate the evidence and follow up leads on evidence which point to innocence. Unfortunately, there is no mechanism to enforce the abstract ethical principle, and many prosecutors will push a case simply to punish an individual simply for having pissed off an officer for whatever reason. You may ultimately be acquitted, but you may go broke fighting the charges.
Exactly Eric.
Of course by that standard, Hagen’s famous case against Ira Granat (spelling?) is a classic example of not only going broke defending yourself, but in that case, bring driven by relentless prosecution to suicide.
We should want our prosecutors to act ethically. Jackson is known to act otherwise.
As to successful prosecutions, Gallegos keep piling them up. He’s done about a dozen and half cases, half are for murder and everyone ended in conviction.
Even his plea deals are solid, getting 14 years for the driver in the Quigley case is just one example. Yes the grieving father (and Jackson supporter) wanted execution or at least a life sentence, but the law does not provide for that. 14 years is more then most any other case of this nature. It’s not hard to check, just google “gross vehicular manslaughter” sentence, or add while intoxicated, still less then 14 years, where they let the judge and jury decide the case. Plea agreements are a victory for the prosecution, if they can pressure the defendant to take a maximum sentence. The idea that this was a bad resolution for justice is just silly, albeit helpful to the candidate the victim’s family supports, and you can bet Allison will exploit this grieving father’s words thorough out this campaign. She’s already had her boy Tom Cookman reading it on KINS.
Court Hound, I’m not really familiar with the Ira Granat sitution other than what I’ve heard from people charged up about it. Apparently Paul was asked about it in his CLMP interview last night at the end of the hour. I’ve only listened to the first half, so far, but I look forward to listening to the rest tonight.
“Actually, a prosecutor and officer do have an ethical obligation to evaluate the evidence and follow up leads on evidence which point to innocence.”
Neither Cap nor I said anything different, Eric. An ethical prosecutor wouldn’t charge someone if the evidence pointed to innocence.
Hagen has demonstrated that he will cover deceit and political corruption to the farthest extents “allowed by the law”. Just take a look at his work for the Resort Improvement District of Shelter Cove.
Neither Cap nor I said anything different, Eric. An ethical prosecutor wouldn’t charge someone if the evidence pointed to innocence.
It’s not just a question of not charging if the evidence points to innocence. The point is that the obligation is to just as vigorously investigate evidence which points to innocence as which points to guilt. I can’t count how many police reports I’ve read where they list the names of witnesses who have something to way which points to innocence but the police didn’t bother to call.
That is a serious problem, Eric. What is the solution?
A sanction that reverses the burden of proof if leads have run cold on evidence which should have been investigated before the defense attorney has been hired or appointed.