Home > Allison Jackson, elections > Jackson blows it with Betty

Jackson blows it with Betty

In a quest for power and glory, sometimes it’s hard to get your story straight.

Today’s Times-Standard exposes a string of gaffs out of the Allison Jackson campaign for District Attorney.  It began when Jackson included local philanthropist Betty Chinn’s name in her public list of supporters without first getting permission.

When Chinn asked her name to be removed, Jackson told a reporter Chinn was being harassed for the endorsement.  Chinn said it’s not true, she simply didn’t want her name on a list about which she was never contacted or gave consent. When pressed, Jackson couldn’t say where she learned of the harassment.

Full story.

  1. humboldturtle
    May 29, 2010 at 10:09 am | #1

    Lucky thing Betty’s not a judge…

  2. McK girl
    May 29, 2010 at 10:11 am | #2

    “In a quest for power and glory, sometimes it’s hard to get your story straight.” That sounds a bit extreme . . . I truly believe that this was, as all parties state, a simple misunderstanding and miscommunication. Allison comes across as caring more about the feelings of Betty Chinn than anything else.

  3. humboldturtle
    May 29, 2010 at 10:11 am | #3

    …though maybe Allison is better in court?

  4. d’herbois
    May 29, 2010 at 10:23 am | #4

    McKgirl-

    bullshit.

    if allison was caught telling the truth she’d just try to lie her way out of it.

  5. May 29, 2010 at 10:37 am | #5

    I spit at government and rebuke Lucifer for the liar he is. Pray God will send suffering to anyone who tries to control humanity through government.

  6. Babushka
    May 29, 2010 at 11:12 am | #6

    So Lady Madonna got busted as a DINO (hangin’ with Bohnhead). No surprise there-look who her supporters are. What’s really troubling is her mental gymnastics which turn “several phone calls” into “harassing phone calls” without, apparently, any further investigation. Do you want this kind of fuzzy logic running the DA’s office? Vote for Gallegos. Allison’s campaign just imploded.

  7. Buzz
    May 29, 2010 at 11:29 am | #7

    d’herbois is so desperately in love with the handsome and perfect Gallegos. It’s embarrassing, and it’s becoming really annoying.

  8. May 29, 2010 at 11:36 am | #8

    Imploded with a minor mistake? VS Gallegos with the “Broken baby cases” which Heraldo pointed out, a video online saying during Gallegos time a case of severe, abuse of a child happened, with a video confession. Yet only got parole. What about all those letters to the editor he plagiarized?

  9. BrokenNoses
    May 29, 2010 at 12:04 pm | #9

    Cap you obviously have never worked in an environment where violence and the results of that violence are an every day concern.

    Gallows humor, the ability to distance yourself from the most heart-rending scenarios involving the most vulnerable individuals is a necessity. The ability to provide some distance between the horror you see, the horror you must intimately deal with and still be able to perform your job are the sure signs of professionals.

    You take issue with a comment made in passing when the issue is the very real and now documented bullshit coming from Jackson’s campaign. Betty never endorsed her, was never threatened for endorsing her and now Jackson and Bohn have been caught just flat out making shit up and Mintz decided to run with it.

  10. Dont be fooled again
    May 29, 2010 at 12:47 pm | #10

    Jackson’s entire campaign is founded on one premise: Vendetta! Resentment seethes from her every pore anytime Gallegos is in the room. I witnessed her actually mocking him to her buddies in the audience while he was speaking at the Democratic Central Committee. She seems extremely emotionally immature and she has the same old guard Humboldt elite financing her that is financing the Bass camp. HumCPR has organized funds from a bunch of like minded folks on the right and is trying to take the county back from the progressives.

    Gallegos, on the other hand, is too dishonest (even by politician/lawyer standards) and too stupid. I’ve lost count how many times he has gotten caught in lying about maters great and small. The astounding thing is that he has managed to avoid being brought up on perjury charges.

    Paul Hagen gets my vote. He is honest, intelligent and dedicated to the cause. I really liked his definition of violence and the way he is covering the whole county door to door.
    He is very available and approachable. Check out his website and see for yourself:

    link

  11. May 29, 2010 at 1:59 pm | #11

    What’s the big deal? This is the kind of a person that always gets elected. Great choices: worst and worser!

  12. Eric Kirk
    May 29, 2010 at 2:10 pm | #12

    I do have to say that I find the story confusing. On the one hand, she says she doesn’t endorse because she doesn’t want to be “political.” But then she confirms she endorsed Bass, but says that that endorsement isn’t political. Couldn’t she have endorsed Jackson without being “political?”

    If the conversation between her and Bohn and Jackson was anything like that, it’s no wonder confusion resulted.

  13. High Finance
    May 29, 2010 at 2:13 pm | #13

    Oh for God’s sake. Jackson & Rex Bohn meet Betty at a dinner & both of them came away with the fact that Betty had endorsed Jackson.

    Then, after the endorsement goes up on Jackson’s website, Betty gets a series of phone calls. She asks Jackson to remove her name & it is removed promptly.

    What constitues harrassment? Probably not one phone call but does four? Ten? A reasonable person could very well come up with the conclusion that the Gallegos campaign or Hagen campaign or both were harrassing Betty with multiple phone calls.

    I said a “reasonable person”, not most of the people who post here.

  14. High Finance
    May 29, 2010 at 2:13 pm | #14

    I misspoke. I said “fact in the second sentence when I meant to say “impression”.

  15. Eric Kirk
    May 29, 2010 at 2:21 pm | #15

    What constitues harrassment? Probably not one phone call but does four? Ten? A reasonable person could very well come up with the conclusion that the Gallegos campaign or Hagen campaign or both were harrassing Betty with multiple phone calls.

    No a reasonable person couldn’t. Not without more information.

  16. Too Funny
    May 29, 2010 at 2:27 pm | #16

    Chinn says she tries to stay out of politics, but endorsed Bass because they are friends and also supported former Eureka City Councilman Chris Kerrigan in his bid for the city council….hmmmm….but she wants to make it clear she stays out of politics.

  17. Anonymous
    May 29, 2010 at 2:37 pm | #17

    If someone you know and respect is listed as an endorsement in a race in which you are undecided, you might call them and ask why they are supporting that particular candidate to help you decide. Isn’t that at least partially the reason for endorsements? A personal rather than political endorsement of a friend is half an endorsement. It says I like them but I don’t have an opinion on their competence for the job.

  18. Bob
    May 29, 2010 at 3:21 pm | #18

    So this line from the TS article is not to be believed:

    Chinn was adamant that she was not harassed and did not receive any pressure to withdraw her endorsement.

    But Jackson and Bohn’s claims are to be believed. Is that what I’m hearing here?

    The lie on Jackson’s part was not about putting up the endorsement with out first getting permission (and then listing Betty’s awards against her wishes), but rather in claiming she knew why Betty asked to have it removed. Did she bother to ask Betty why, or just go on rumors feed to her (her closest advisors are Rose Welsh and Jill & Walt Duffy).

    I believe a lawyer would call that hearsay. But for Jackson, it’s enough to make the claim to a reporter. This woman is a loose cannon that has a need to sensationalize everything and in this case, even her own mistakes. It does not reflect well on her for such a serious job.

  19. Anonymous
    May 29, 2010 at 3:36 pm | #19

    ” Jackson & Rex Bohn meet Betty at a dinner & both of them came away with the fact that Betty had endorsed Jackson. Then, after the endorsement goes up on Jackson’s website,” ( And a printed ad?)

    Is this really the way candidate come up with those lists of endorsements printed in the paper? I assumed the candidate would either get a written statement of endorsement or, at least, have a staff member call and document the endorsement. It seems irresponsible to print someone’s name in an ad based on a comment at a dinner. This is very disturbing behavior for someone asking to be the chief legal officer for the county.

  20. anonymous
    May 29, 2010 at 3:50 pm | #20

    I’ve had a few conversations lately with people whose names have appeared on endorsement lists – and they don’t know why or recall giving permission. These are for a candidates in a variety of races. This seems to be murky territory at times.

  21. Anonymous
    May 29, 2010 at 4:00 pm | #21

    Just goes to show that yard signs are a much better measure of the best candidate. Just drive ( or bike, or walk) around, count the signs and vote for the one that has the most. Simple and easy as that. Or you can READ and LISTEN and WATCH what a particular candidate says and feels and go that way. I prefer the latter. Local politics here pretty much suck, to be honest.

  22. Mitch
    May 29, 2010 at 4:05 pm | #22

    Heraldo,

    Did you turn AJ violet-blue, or is that shot from a broken TV?

  23. May 29, 2010 at 4:28 pm | #23

    She must be reflecting the KEET backdrop. The shot is unaltered aside from a crop and resize.

  24. Mitch
    May 29, 2010 at 4:50 pm | #24

    Memo

    To: Lighting Dept, KEET
    Fm: Mitch
    Re: Ew.

    Somebody ought to try to make faces come out somewhere in the human-pigment part of the spectrum.

  25. mresquan
    May 29, 2010 at 5:20 pm | #25

    From the TS article,”Jackson said that she was later told that Chinn had received “repeated calls,” and was asking to be removed from the endorsement list. Jackson said she didn’t know the content of the calls placed to Chinn, but interpreted them as a form of “harassment.” Pressed for details as to how she came to that conclusion, Jackson largely declined to comment.”

    Well if whomever it was that told Jackson about those calls needs to be kept as far away from her campaign as possible,much like Virginia had to do with the bulldog.
    I understand why Jackson largely declined to comment,as her source was likely someone working closely to her campaign,which put her in a pretty unfortunate and binding situation.

  26. Anonymous
    May 29, 2010 at 5:33 pm | #26

    Be careful of any politician who is always “playing the victim.”

  27. Cutten
    May 29, 2010 at 5:34 pm | #27

    Allison Jackson was given every opportunity to get a pass on her first mistake of listing someone with out explicit permission. But NO, she wanted to go on the attack. It had to be someone else’s fault that this mistake had happen, so she throws mud at her opponent with accusation based on what someone (Rose Welsh and/or Rex Bohn?) told her. No evidence and no first hand testimony, just hearsay and rumor.

    Mintz simply reported on what Jackson told him. Too bad Jackson does not rely on the facts when she makes her case.

    Here’s a quote from today’s Arcata Eye story on this:
    Chinn also wants to clarify that she hasn’t had to deal with any harassment. “This is a loving community and to come out and say that I’ve been harassed is not true,” she said.

    Once Betty was contacted, it makes Jackson look pretty bad. And this woman wants to be DA? I don’t think so.

  28. Humboldt Politico
    May 29, 2010 at 6:54 pm | #28

    Not to defend Allison if there was a misunderstanding, but many times candidates will rightly assume if they get a donation from a person, that person is a supporter, especially if it is a well known member of the community and they are put on the public list of supporters.

    Therefore, did Allison get a donation from Betty?

  29. anonymous
    May 29, 2010 at 7:04 pm | #29

    Betty would never want to stir up controversy like this. Knowing her, however, I feel there may have been an honest miscommunication at the outset. That said, it seems a little opportunistic of Jackson to play up the endorsement in the first place, as it sounds she did on her website. In her favor, it sounds as though she removed the endorsement immediately upon request and genuinely feels badly about dragging Betty into the limelight. Maybe time to let this story go…

  30. mresquan
    May 29, 2010 at 7:16 pm | #30

    Agreed,in part,as it appears that she has a bulldog on her team who had no qualms about feeding Alison malicious and unsubstantiated jibberish.I would feel more inclined to trust that Jackson was completely innocent here if at some point during her interviews she showed that she dealt with her bulldog and ensured readers that the person was no longer affiliated with her campaign.

  31. Lodgepole
    May 29, 2010 at 7:27 pm | #31

    Bro, you’re spouting unsubstantiated gibberish about some imaginary bulldog.

  32. Anonymous
    May 29, 2010 at 7:31 pm | #32

    I wonder if this kind of thing is what the British had in mind when they said the American idea of democracy would never work. I mean the carping and pettiness. Remember, the candidates we support are 100% good and their opponents are 100% evil. Once we understand that, we are fully prepared to enter the electoral fray. Hey Hey!

  33. mresquan
    May 29, 2010 at 8:36 pm | #33

    “Bro, you’re spouting unsubstantiated gibberish about some imaginary bulldog.”

    No.The person responsible for ensuring that Jackson had info about Betty Chinn asking for her name to be removed due to threats or whatever,likely has the mindset that Jackson needs to be elected no matter how it happens.

  34. Anonymous
    May 29, 2010 at 8:48 pm | #34

    “When pressed, Jackson couldn’t say where she learned of the harassment.”

    Mresquan: Perhaps their is no bulldog, just Jackson speculating about harassment. Either way, an irresponsible move for someone asking to be the county’s top lawyer.

  35. Allison J.
    May 29, 2010 at 8:58 pm | #35

    It really disappoints me that Rex Bohn can be such a great man socially, giving back to his community on a daily basis, then such a weasel when it comes to politics.

  36. Lodgepole
    May 29, 2010 at 8:59 pm | #36

    I’m not sure whether you’re omniscient or just paranoid.

  37. Ghost of Mabel
    May 29, 2010 at 9:03 pm | #37

    High finance,
    Although I don’t always disagree with you, as an English teacher I can’t let you get by with “Oh for God’s sake.” Surely you don’t intend to represent God? Students in my class would recognize that your words are not only gramatically incorrect,(i.e. no subject and verb, therefore a fragment), but the phrase itself is somewhat of a cliche.

  38. Ghost of Mabel
    May 29, 2010 at 9:06 pm | #38

    This is just an opinion from a ghost who wandered the streets of Eureka a long time ago.

  39. Anonymous
    May 29, 2010 at 9:14 pm | #39

    GoM,
    I take exception with your use of the phrase, “somewhat of a cliche”. This phase is both a cliche and needlessly ambiguous. It is either a cliche or it is not.

  40. mresquan
    May 29, 2010 at 9:25 pm | #40

    From arcataeye.com

    “How did the supposed endorsement emerge and what constituted the perception of harassment? Jackson said that Chinn was with Rex Bohn, one of her friends, when they met last February. “I asked Rex to contact her to ask if I could use her name and was told that she supports me,” Jackson continued.

    She said that in mid-May, Chinn left a phone message indicating she wanted her name removed. When Jackson asked Bohn about it, “All I was told was that she’d received numerous contacts who told her it could jeopardize her work,” Jackson said.

    She said she wrote Chinn a letter thanking her and explaining that “I felt ill that anything from this could affect her work because I care about her so deeply,” Jackson continued.

    Attributing the situation to miscommunication, Jackson emphasized that she truly believed Chinn had endorsed her and that after hearing she’d gotten numerous phone calls about it, she was concerned for her.

    “I am deeply saddened by all of this and the way it’s been spun,” said Jackson.”

  41. May 29, 2010 at 9:55 pm | #41

    “Cap you obviously have never worked in an environment where violence and the results of that violence are an every day concern.

    Gallows humor, the ability to distance yourself from the most heart-rending scenarios involving the most vulnerable individuals is a necessity. The ability to provide some distance between the horror you see, the horror you must intimately deal with and still be able to perform your job are the sure signs of professionals.”

    Umm… your right, being in war zones, I never experienced “gallows humor”. The problem you fail to see, is that a professional, knows to tailor their speech to the audience. For instance, in training, etc you deal with casualties. However you never address that person as a casualty, that would show lack of tack, and may send them in to shock, then death.

    Office humor should stay behind closed doors.

  42. High Finance
    May 29, 2010 at 9:56 pm | #42

    “All I was told was that she’d received numerous contacts who told her it could jeopardize her work”

    Hmmmm, if that doesn’t at least sound like it could be harrassment I don’t know what would.

    And sorry teacher lady, I am not a teacher.

  43. the reasonable anonymous
    May 29, 2010 at 10:00 pm | #43

    So, let’s see how this all breaks down:

    (1) Allison Jackson’s campaign runs ads listing beloved local philanthropist and advocate for the homeless, Betty Chinn, as endorsing Jackson. Betty Chinn tells reporters she never endorsed Jackson. Okay, I auppose we can chalk that one up to miscommunication and sloppy campaign work. If it had ended right there I would have said, well, that was unfortunate, but no big deal. But then:

    (2) Allison Jackson announces that though she “appreciates Chinn’s support,” that she’s removing Chinn’s name from the list of endorsements because Chinn had asked for it to be removed after being “harrassed” about the endorsement. At this point she was still trying to make it sound as if Chinn really supported Jackson, but just wanted her name removed from the list due to the “harrassment.” This was either (a) a cynical ploy to try to turn her own mistake into a political cudgel against her opponents, or else (b) a stupid mistake that could easily have been avoided had she had the common decency to talk to Ms. Chinn, rather than entertaining rumours and engaging in speculation. Then,

    (3) Chinn responds to the “harrassment” story by telling reporters that not only was she NOT harassed by anyone, but that she NEVER endorsed Jackson in the first place. But Jackson wasn’t done trying to use Chinn for Jackson’s gain, so,

    (4) Jackson claims that she feels terrible about the situation, saying “I simply cannot engage in a political scheme that puts someone in the spotlight that doesn’t want to be in it,” despite the fact that this is exactly what she did, not just once, but now several times (first with the false claim of an endorsement, then with the false claim of harassment). Surely Allison MUST be done with her manipulation and doubletalk at this point, right? Wrong, because next,

    (5) Allison tries to have it both ways by saying “I thought that statement was crafted carefully enough that it would put this issue to bed,” adding that she even specifically asked Mintz not to run the story in an effort to protect Chinn’s privacy. So, first she claims that her false statement about alleged harrassment should have set the record straight. Of course it didn’t, it just spread even MORE false information. But then she also claimed that she asked Mitz not to run the story, supposedly out of concern for Ms. Chinn’s feelings (Mintz says she never made any such request). So, according to Jackson, she “carefully crafted” her (wildly innacurate) statement in such a way as to “put the issue to bed,” but then asked that it not appear in the paper. So then how was it going to set the record straight? Quite nonsensical.

    So we have, at best, sloppy campaign work that resulted in a beloved local philanthropist and homeless advocate being falsely listed as endorsing Jackson, reckless indifference to the truth as demonstrated by her failure to get the sroty right even the second time around, an attempt to smear the supporters of her rivals’ campaigns with a false accusation that they were harrassing her “supporters,” a sickeningly condescending claim to care about the privacy of the person whose privacy she had repeatedly assaulted, and then a claim (not backed up by the reporter) that she had asked the reporter not to run the “harrassment” statement (despite her simultaneous claim that the “carefully crafted” but totally false harrassment statement would have somehow set the record straight).

  44. the reasonable anonymous
    May 29, 2010 at 10:01 pm | #44

    About the only thing Jackson said that I actually believe is accurate was when she called her false harrassment claim statement “carefully crafted.”

    Oh, yes, I think it was carefully crafted alright, though not in the way Jackson was implying. It seems to me that it was carefully crafted to make it seem like Ms. Chinn had endorsed Jackson, and was still a supporter, but just wanted her name off the public list due to harrassment, presumably from supporters of Hagen or Gallegos.

    Of course when you’re working with three or four simultaneous lies, you have to craft your statements very carefully indeed, and even then you’re still likely to get caught, as Ms. Jackson found out, despite all her careful craftiness.

    Meanwhile, Betty Chinn has more honesty, modesty and compassion in her little finger than Jackson has in her whole campaign.

    I sure hope Jackson loses some votes as a result of this fiasco, she certainly deserves to.

  45. mresquan
    May 29, 2010 at 10:08 pm | #45

    I guess one should not be all that surprised by all of this especially when you look back at what she tried to pull on Ed Denson just before she was fired by Gallegos.

  46. the reasonable anonymous
    May 29, 2010 at 10:16 pm | #46

    HiFi,

    the “jeopardize her work” claim came from Bohn, not from Chinn.

    From the Arcata Eye: “When Jackson asked Bohn about it, ‘All I was told was that she’d received numerous contacts who told her it could jeopardize her work,’ Jackson said.”

    Had Jackson simply called Ms. Chinn and got the story straight, rather than relying on the spin from her yes-man Rex Bohn, she wouldn’t have wasted her time “carefully crafting” a false allegation of harrassment, and indeed could have “put the issue to bed” at that point.

    Instead, she went with rumor and speculation, and a spin that falsely implied that Betty had been and still was a “supporter” of hers, and that Betty had been pressured to withdraw that support. Perhaps this was simply more campaign incompetence — or perhaps it was a cynical but ineffective attempt to deflect criticism and derive some political benefit from the situationby making a baseless accusation against the supporters of rival candidates. All things considered, it looks more likely to be the latter.

    Anyway, Bohn claims she was harrassed and her work threatened, Chinn says nothing of the sort occured. I think I’ll choose to believe Chinn over Bohn & Jackson. As will just about everyone else reading this story…except for those who are intent on defending the indefensible due to partisan tunnelvision.

  47. Rosey
    May 29, 2010 at 10:16 pm | #47

    This whole ordeal just reeks of Rose Welsh

  48. the reasonable anonymous
    May 29, 2010 at 10:19 pm | #48

    Good point, mresquan. Making groundless allegations seems to be a specialty of Jackson’s.

    Heck, one of her main campaign “issues” is the ridiculous claim that Gallegos has made hundreds of “illegal” plea bargains, yet she never explains why the judges in all those cases allowed this “illegality.” I’m starting to think she’d say ANYTHING to try to get elected. Fortunately, at least some of her prevarication is backfiring on her. Couldn’t happen to a nicer gal!

  49. the reasonable anonymous
    May 29, 2010 at 10:41 pm | #49

    Allison Jackson, in the Arcata Eye: “I felt ill that anything from this could affect [Chinn's] work because I care about her so deeply.”

    Yeah, Jackson cared about Chinn SO DEEPLY that she didn’t bother talking directly with her after the first “miscommunication” and instead spent her time “carefully crafting” a completely inaccurate statement based on rumor and speculation and designed to continue to mislead the public into believing that Ms. Chinn HAD endorsed Jackson, and continued to “support” Jackson.

    Jackson cared SO DEEPLY that rather than call Chinn and get the story straight, Jackson “carefully crafted” her spin in such a way as to redound to Jackson’s political benefit by falsely claiming Chinn had been harassed over the phone and her work threatened, presumably by supporters of Jackson’s rivals. Yeah, she cares SO DEEPLY about Ms. Chinn.

    It seems like the only thing Jackson cares about “deeply” is getting revenge on Paul Gallegos. If so, she’d better start looking for something else to care about after (she loses) the campaign.

  50. Anonymous
    May 29, 2010 at 10:42 pm | #50

    And aren’t we lucky that Rex is running for supervisor too!

  51. the reasonable anonymous
    May 29, 2010 at 10:48 pm | #51

    Say what?

  52. the reasonable anonymous
    May 29, 2010 at 10:52 pm | #52

    “I am deeply saddened by all of this and the way it’s been spun,” said Jackson.

    Translation: “I am extremely frustrated that no one is buying my spin.”

  53. the reasonable anonymous
    May 29, 2010 at 11:50 pm | #53

    In response to Nimby @ 11:31:

    Just to even things up a little, I’ll note that Gallegos often tilts his head back, trying in vain to make his humorously oversized forehead a little less prominent, while Hagen has perfected the PeeWee Herman look. Good, now that we’ve got that out of the way…

  54. Anonymous
    May 30, 2010 at 12:45 am | #54

    I’m glad to see Allison Jackson getting so publicly cozy with Rex Bohn. That will cause progressives to flee from her camp. And there were a few progressives supporting her, until now. It will also unite the left behind Gallegos or Hagen if Jackson survives the primary. If there was any doubt about Jackson’s allegiance to the Republican right, there isn’t now. She is their candidate.

  55. Lodgepole
    May 30, 2010 at 8:01 am | #55

    Mresquan, work with me here: Who is the “bulldog” you want fired? Out with it son.

  56. High Finance
    May 30, 2010 at 8:18 am | #56

    Oh spare us your dismay, 12.45am. Gallegos is incompetant, anti timber & pro drugs. Hagen is even further left than Gallegos.

    To the “Republican Right”, Allison Jackson is the only place to go. That is no indication she is any kind of darling to the conservatives. She could be just the least worst of options.

  57. Anonymous
    May 30, 2010 at 8:22 am | #57

    Geez, Reasonable Anonymous, get a life. The interesting things about this story are that Allison hangs out with and listens to Rex Bohn. Rex is extremely personable, has always seemed sincere but like VB extremely weak when it comes to details, policy or big picture. The other interesting thing is that the TS thought this to be significant enough to go above the fold with the story. The rest are just amateur hour screw ups by people new to political campaigns. There is no reckless behavior or condescension here. Sloppy, I’ll agree with. If the TS detailed all the sloppy campaign work for each candidate on the front page, they would run out of room.

  58. Anonymous
    May 30, 2010 at 8:33 am | #58

    The point about Rex Bohn is that if you are a candidate affiliated with him in any way, you will lose any and all progressive support in Humboldt County. Jackson should have figured that out before she professed to be a lifelong Democrat to rooms full of Democrats.

  59. the reasonable anonymous
    May 30, 2010 at 8:45 am | #59

    Sure, maybe this was just a perfect storm incompetence by the Jackson campaign. Or maybe it was initial incompetence, compounded by the Jackson campaign’s attempt to turn the situation to their own advantage. I think the latter is much more likely.

  60. Anonymous
    May 30, 2010 at 8:57 am | #60

    Yup, word on the street is that Rex plans to run for 1st District Supervisor.

  61. May 30, 2010 at 8:58 am | #61

    He wouldn’t be much more successful than Vevoda.

  62. mresquan
    May 30, 2010 at 9:03 am | #62

    Who should be fired lodgepole?

    “All I was told was that she’d received numerous contacts who told her it could jeopardize her work,” Jackson said.”

    The person relaying this info to her.

  63. humboldturtle
    May 30, 2010 at 9:06 am | #63

    Somebody could waste a lot of money running Rex for supervisor.

  64. McK girl
    May 30, 2010 at 9:29 am | #64

    There is no “there” there. That’s all I have to say.

  65. humboldturtle
    May 30, 2010 at 9:36 am | #65

    How ’bout Hagen, blaming HCDCC for him getting fired?

    (tidbit: NCJ)

  66. Lodgepole
    May 30, 2010 at 9:41 am | #66

    “The person relaying this info to her.” Is this person your supposed bulldog?

    If only mresquan was a judge, and not some Party errand boy.

  67. May 30, 2010 at 9:51 am | #67

    Jackson was described by a supporter at her campaign kick-off thusly:

    “What is the difference between Allison Jackson and a pitbull? A pitbull will eventually let go.”

  68. humboldturtle
    May 30, 2010 at 10:03 am | #68

    “Hagen is convinced that his termination was retribution for questioning the endorsement process of the Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee, which ultimately backed Gallegos for reelection.” (NCJ)

    Looney tunes or some kind of clever? Hagen did not work for the local DA and was himself a member of HCDCC.

    The comment section is good, too.

  69. High Finance
    May 30, 2010 at 10:05 am | #69

    A “pitbull” for a DA is a good thing.

    Or are you telling us that is a derogatory term for a woman candidate ?

  70. humboldturtle
    May 30, 2010 at 10:26 am | #70

    Here’s what Hagen’s old boss said a while back:

    David Eyster – Ukiah Hayward, CA Thursday Apr 29

    It was a surprise to read that the Sierra Club, an organization that I respect, has endorsed Paul Hagen to be Humboldt County’s District Attorney. As a former prosecutor also currently seeking public office in Mendocino County, it is my belief that the elected DA of any county should be a lawyer who has demonstrated a special aptitude and fitness for prosecution work and can set forth on the campaign trail a track record of personal success in handling serious and complex criminal matters. Most elected DA’s have shown exceptional trial and management skills that promote public safety, job one of any DA. I don’t believe Mr. Hagen has these qualities or experience so any endorsement by any entity of Mr. Hagen comes, of course, as a surprise. I was the senior supervisor and lead criminal trial attorney for the Mendocino County DA’s Office when Mr. Hagen started as a prosecutor many years ago. As an aside, I was the prosecutor who personally prosecuted and convicted former Humboldt County District Attorney Bernie DePaoli of felony misconduct that ultimately landed him in prison. I consider myself a good judge of young legal talent and it was never a secret that I opposed Mr. Hagen’s hiring. While certainly engaging at times, I found Mr. Hagen to be one of those people who only talked a good game. I still chuckle when I recall how he became terribly angry that he was not invited to a criminal procedure training session that I routinely held for our summer law clerks, volunteer interns who had only completed their first year of law school. None of the office attorneys had ever attended – or even asked to attend — this law clerk-oriented training session. No self-respecting attorney who has passed the Bar exam and is working in a DA’s Office should require such a beginner’s course but, unfortunately, Mr. Hagen was the exception. So there is no confusion, I have not had any contact with Mr. Hagen since 1996 so, perhaps, he has improved his legal skill set in the intervening years. Maybe he has finally developed jury trial skills, or now has experience with developing and managing office budgets. Maybe he has served as the supervisor of a felony trial team, or personally handled notorious and violent cases like those we read about that give us chills. The District Attorney is a very important position in any county, especially these days when it comes to public safety and tight budgets. Before you cast your vote for the June 8th primary, I encourage all of my neighbors to the north to take a critical look at Mr. Hagen to make sure he still isn’t a one-trick environmental pony who has no real experience with the important business of public safety.

    (Thanks, Bob)

  71. Anonymous
    May 30, 2010 at 11:57 am | #71

    Fact check

    He was not or ever been Hagen’s boss.

  72. humboldturtle
    May 30, 2010 at 12:00 pm | #72

    Sorry, Bob’s bad, and I repeated it. “Colleague” maybe? Shucks, anyhow – Re-elect Gallegos!

  73. Cutten
    May 30, 2010 at 2:19 pm | #73

    Bullshit 11:57

    From Eysters:
    “I was the senior supervisor and lead criminal trial attorney for the Mendocino County DA’s Office when Mr. Hagen started as a prosecutor many years ago.”


    A supervisor is also your boss. But if it makes you feel any better, the DA himself, Norm Vroman not only asked for Hagen’s resignation, but declined his services when he was then hired by the CDAA

  74. Anon
    May 30, 2010 at 2:33 pm | #74

    Betty Chin was getting calls about her endorsement of Allison Jackson back in April-I was present for one of them.

  75. Skeptical
    May 30, 2010 at 3:24 pm | #75

    Despite what some sloppy Mendocino DA (yeah, right — now there’s an office that really has its shit together) says about Hagen, Gallegos is simply not qualified for the office. It’s not like he hasn’t had plenty of time to figure it out.

  76. the reasonable anonymous
    May 30, 2010 at 3:24 pm | #76

    And your point is…?

  77. the reasonable anonymous
    May 30, 2010 at 3:25 pm | #77

    Sorry, that was in response to 2:33.

  78. the reasonable anonymous
    May 30, 2010 at 3:42 pm | #78

    “gallegos is simply not qualified”

    Quite a claim. But it doesn’t match the facts. Gallegos has years of experience as our DA, has won the vast majority of the cases he’s tried personally, including very serious felonies (which Hagen has far less experience with), violent crimes are down significantly during his tenure, and he has done all this despite being undermined by Terry Farmer-era dead-enders like Dikeman and Jackson, and, most significantly, despite major cuts in his budget.

    Meanwhile Hagen has prosecuted, what, like ONE felony case in his entire career? Oh, but according to the North Coast Journal, he only drinks water and his “reasoning” is that since the body is mostly water, drinking anything else “pollutes” the body. No word on whether he only eats raw animal tissue based on the fact that the rest of the body is made up of raw animal tissue. And THIS is the guy you think is more qualified to run the DA’s office? Mr. Precious Bodily Fluids? (Or is it Mr. Purity of Essence?)

    Meanwhile, as demonstrated by the topic of this thread, Jackson is heading up the Gang who Couldn’t Shoot Straight.

    Gallegos isn’t perfect, but given the choices, he’s clearly the best.

  79. Ghost of Mabel
    May 30, 2010 at 9:17 pm | #79

    High Finance,
    “Least worst” ????
    A “pitbull” for a D.A. is a good thing.

    Sounds like you’ve been watching too many Sarah Palin videos, alone in your living room late at night, with the lights turned down low.

  80. anonymous
    May 30, 2010 at 9:29 pm | #80

    This is a tough race – in terms of figuring out who to vote for. I was actually leaning toward Hagen earlier. Have talked to a number of people within the legal community who support him – although maybe as the best of not the greatest options. I know Gallegos and like him personally but, again, looking to legal community input – much is negative. Then, we have Jackson – not really an option from what I can see – though has some supporters I respect – other than Betty Chinn. : ) Objective input, anyone??

  81. Anonymouser
    May 31, 2010 at 8:02 am | #81

    Good question 9:29. We need more information. I’m not considering Gallegos, but I’d love to see one of his employees write a defense of his utter dereliction in the Quigley case.

  82. mresquan
    May 31, 2010 at 11:53 am | #82

    Unbelievable.I just visited Rose’s watchpaul blog,and she has found a way to place the blame of the incident onto Richard Salzman.

  83. the reasonable anonymous
    May 31, 2010 at 12:01 pm | #83

    No surprise there. In Rose’s twisted little mind, it was bound to be either Gallegos or Salzman who was to blame.

  84. Anonymous
    May 31, 2010 at 12:50 pm | #84

    Mresquan: Your mistake is reading Rose’s blog. Almost as futile as reading the Mirror. If they get more than 20 posts in a week they’ll actually think the rest of the world gives a crap about their blather.

  85. Anonymous
    May 31, 2010 at 2:31 pm | #85

    To: “reasonable anonymous”

    Over the years, a lot of good people voted for Terry Farmer.

    We deserve better than to be called “dead-enders.”

    We are still citizens, buster, and we still vote.

  86. the reasonable anonymous
    May 31, 2010 at 2:41 pm | #86

    I was referring to Dikeman and Jackson, who did what they could to undermine Gallegos from within the D.A.’s office, and then, after they were fired, launched revenge-based campaigns based on lies and distortions — again I refer to Dikeman and Jackson.

  87. mresquan
    May 31, 2010 at 2:50 pm | #87

    So apparently from the standpoint of an anonymous comment left on her Salzman Strikes Thread is that it apparently was Salzman who contacted Rex Bohn and told him that Chinn had received harassing phone calls.

  88. High Finance
    May 31, 2010 at 3:21 pm | #88

    Ghost of Mabel, you’re an idiot, but you are funny!

  89. Lodgepole
    May 31, 2010 at 3:37 pm | #89

    Your bulldog!

  90. Anonymous
    May 31, 2010 at 4:08 pm | #90

    What is the real story on what happened to C.A.S.T. and the children it is supposed to protect after Paul became District Attorney?

  91. anon like me
    May 31, 2010 at 5:35 pm | #91

    Probably one of the worst things for Humboldt was that Dikeman was not elected. He was a superior human being in every way to Gags. A real life hero during Vietnam, a great attorney, he would have made a great DA. The lies and distortions came from old buddy R. Trent and crew.

    TRA, your fact are off on this topic. your statements of fact are not facts. This is odd as many times on other subjects you are more on the mark.

  92. the reasonable anonymous
    May 31, 2010 at 5:43 pm | #92

    Well, just to take one example, I think that Dikeman showed his racist stripes when he tried to keep Native Americans off a jury because of his prejudiced beliefs about their ability to render a fair verdict. But in any event, Dikeman is ancient history.

    Now we have Allison Jackson who is running around accusing Gallegos of making lots of “illegal” plea bargains, but she can’t seem to explain why the judges in all those cases approved the plea deals.

    Gallegos isn’t perfect, but he’s miles ahead of those two clowns.

  93. mresquan
    May 31, 2010 at 9:11 pm | #93

    I am sure that somehow Salzman was involved in the situation where Jackson accused Ed Denson of forging signatures as well.

  94. 4 Being Real
    May 31, 2010 at 9:23 pm | #94

    How about focusing on statements from our “competent” District Attorney in the KMUD Debate heard on KMUD April 27. Just go to the archives http://www.kmud.org.
    The bashing of Allison is so passive aggressive, sexist and getting really old.

  95. Anon
    June 1, 2010 at 8:38 am | #95

    Isnt Mr Quigley supporting Allison Jackson? Thought I saw that someplace.

  96. Anonymous
    June 1, 2010 at 1:37 pm | #96

    In some people’s eyes, I am “only an Anonymous” but my vote on June 8 will count as much as anyone’s.

    I want a hard-thinking, world-wise, highly competent District Attorney.

    I want a D.A. who has more sympathy for the law-obeying people of Humboldt County than for the law-breaking dope-growers and illegal aliens who live among us.

    I want our laws to be respected and enforced.

    My choice after sifting the evidence for eight yars and seeing what the incumbent has done to our County and its people? After seeing what has become of my own part of the town I live in? I will be voting for Allison Jackson.

  97. Babushka
    June 1, 2010 at 3:26 pm | #97

    These last posts are really off the wall. Sounds like the Jackson camp is getting desperate. Bashing Allison is sexist? Allison is going to change the drug laws and take over homeland security from the ICE? I don’t think so.

  98. Not Impressed
    June 1, 2010 at 8:34 pm | #98

    Nobody seems to have noticed that Gallegos lied in the debate when he claimed to have lowered staff costs.
    Family Support Services (formerly under the DA) was transferred to the state. Gallegos did nothing, but is taking credit for the “savings.”

    Chalk up another one for “Captain Groovy.”

  99. Mr. Nice
    June 1, 2010 at 8:47 pm | #99

    Gallegos is gonna win again. These new candidates are just as bad as Dikeman. Gallegos is a surfer-attorney with pimp, candy-color ties. These other people are weird. Y’all can go ahead and keep telling us about how you are gonna vote for them, but they ain’t winning, not in Humboldt.

  100. Humkev
    June 3, 2010 at 12:31 pm | #100

    This just in: Mother Theresa’s organization is denying that the late humanitarian supports Allison Jackson. Rex Bohn will soon issue a statement about how the misunderstanding occurred while they were sipping tea in a sidewalk cafe in 1992.

  101. Anonymous
    June 3, 2010 at 5:54 pm | #101

    “Gallegos is a surfer-attorney with pimp, candy-color ties.” Thanks Mr. Nice, I was really struggling with a reason to vote for someone in this race.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,161 other followers