Abused babies as political footballs
Allison Jackson is on a roll.
Following the fumbling of her campaign endorsement list in the race for Humboldt County District Attorney, it now appears Jackson grossly misrepresented the outcome of a child abuse case in order to gain political traction.
A Jackson campaign ad levels extremely disturbing allegations against DA Paul Gallegos, saying he let a violent dad slide with simple probation after a laundry list of horrific injuries were perpetrated on an 8-week old baby.
But minutes from court proceedings in the case of People vs. Brian Schooling show Jackson herself first prosecuted the case in 2000, before Gallegos ever ran for office.
A Court of Appeal overturned Schooling’s guilty plea upon finding it was given under an illusory promise that the trial court would “issue a certificate of probable cause upon sentencing…to allow [appellant] to appeal the Court’s ruling that [the] motion to suppress his confession ha[d] been denied.”
The case was then returned to square one with the DA’s office and Gallegos took over. Schooling was in custody for more than 5 1/2 years with no bail allowed until the day he was sentenced after pleading guilty to two felony charges in January 2004.
Schooling was released May 13, 2009, more than 10 years after the charges were filed.
In their zeal to demonize Gallegos, team Jackson misrepresented the case to fool voters into thinking the guy walked.
Desperation? Or just a hazy Humboldt memory impairment? You decide.
Leave a comment
Recent Comments
 | Anonymous on Eureka Police lose big in Mart… |
| 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… |
Top Posts & Pages
The Humboldt Herald 
The Jackson campaign is imploding because they know the race is lost. Rose is in full meltdown mode at her blog and in the T-S comment sections.
All Gallegos needs to do now is stay above the fray and campaign with dignity.
Wow, could she really have forgotten this case then used it against Paul? Ill find out the real story. This is just one side of it.
This is sad. There is a long, true track record of failure that can be used to throw the loser out of office. No need to make stuff up. Save us Hagen!
But seriously, I think there are more than enough dissatisfied progressives for Hagen to challenge Gallegos. A man can’t change his nature. If Gallegos doesn’t lose this year, then he will in the following election as more people open their eyes.
Thank you (again), Heraldo. Link?
I guess we don’t really need a newspaper, at least as long as you continue this service.
There’s no link. It took a review of court documents and a call to the CA Dept. Of Corrections to find the real story.
Jackson should be disbarred or at the very least censored by the bar for the unethical behavior she exhibited, publicly blaming another attorney for her own incompetence. Potential clients should be protected from such a slimeball.
The whole thing seems kind of birdbrained to me.
Well, then, triple-thanks. Do you have anything like document numbers that would allow someone to locate your quotes, or were the quotes from court personnel, or…
You can call the CDC at 916-445-6713 for information on Schooling’s release date. They’ll ask for his CDC #V49341.
The Humboldt County court case # is CR991295S.
Here’s a link to the Court of Appeal that includes the quote about why the case was remanded to the trial court.
Salzman has something to do with this,I know it.I’ll check over on Rose’s blog to see just how.
Of course it was Salzman’s fault that Jackson botched the case in the first place. Give Rose long enough and she’ll find a way make herself believe it.
Thanks, Heraldo.
I only asked because it’s inevitable that, with only six days left in the election, your report will be denied and disbelieved unless it is (very easily) independently verified.
With the additional information you’ve now given, the Jackson campaign will have to resort to techniques like those just above: complaining that the statements may be right, but look at the awful people who are uttering them.
Heraldo, you misrepresent the facts almost as often as the DA you would say anything to see re-elected.
Which facts are misrepresented here?
The second part of your sentence is flat wrong.
This would be fun. Let’s compare Gallegos and Jackson’s win-loss records. How about that, Heraldo? Good times.
Jackson is the one who brought up the Schooling case. Why did she so grossly misrepresent the facts?
That isn’t Jackson’s voice in the ad! It’s Richard Salzman impersonating her.
Dork, you’re an asshat.
once again,having worked with her i will maintain my contention that if allison jackson was caught telling the truth she’d try to lie her way out of it.
Gallegos has ads saying that he’s a surfer. That’s a lie. The one time anyone ever saw him out at the jetty, he got caught in the rip tide and his people had to call the coast guard to rescue him. That doesn’t happen to surfers. He just wants to be perceived as hip and cool to get the dope growers vote/money. He misrepresents too.
Gallegos lies about being a surfer. He went out once with cameras, got caught in the rip tide at the jetty, and had to get the coast guard to rescue him. Now he has ads out in Arcata talking about how he’s an “okay surfer.” He just wants to seem cool and appeal to the young dope grower/smoker crowd with lies about how hip he is.
Well, if that’s true, it’s way worse than horribly misrepresenting an extreme case of child abuse. Thank gawd you’re here to expose him for the fake surfer he is! Voters beware!
The following is an advance reply to all the comments that will follow in the style of 8:48 and 9:11:
Yes, but do you deny Jackson’s misrepresentation of the Schooling case? What did Heraldo get wrong?
Many surfers don’t surf at the jetty but at Camel Rock, so maybe that’s why they haven’t seen him there, assuming anonymous is telling the truth.
This is sad. Allison botched the case, felt guilty about it, and is now running for office to project her own failures onto Gallegos. Gallegos is obviously not the greatest DA in the world, but Jackson and Hagen seem perfectly pathological in comparison. Better an incompetent DA than a crazy one.
Heraldo, you are right. The fact he tries to act like a surfer doesn’t matter and shouldn’t affect how we view him as a DA. But you are the guy who posted an article showing how Cherie Arkley handed her check to the city council and you presented that as news. You constantly bring up inconsequential crap.
PJ, you are right. Lots of surfers surf lots of different spots. However, nobody who can surf has to call the coast guard to get rescued. That is a complete rookie move and I find it funny that his ads in the Humboldt State newspaper still speak of his surfing prowess.
The facts misrepresented here, Heraldo, are fairly basic. Prosecutors don’t advise clients of their appelate rights. Courts do. Judges. Not lawyers. So those of you maligning one of the best prosecutors this county has ever seen over something a trial judge did ought to feel pretty good about yourselves.
Must be those same dang judges that keep letting Gallegos get away with all those illegal plea bargains Jackson always complains about.
Jackson should be ashamed of herself.
Gallegos surfs. Not often because he is kind of busy–ya know?! Maybe the weekend after the election you might find him at the jetty with his kids and dogs.
gj H, nice research, you da Bomb! DA BOMB!
Heraldo, you should show the “reporters” at the Sub-Standard how real investigation can be done. Just kidding (hardly). There are a couple OK reporters at the TS, but their boss, what’s her name, that dim light, has an agenda all her own so not all the news that’s fit to print get printed.
Jackson’s supporter just follow her right off the cliff. First they make up a lie about Gallegos’, then they’ll ask you to debate their lie. When caught in one lie, they quickly make up a new one to distract. Neither she nor she supporters seem to be able to tell the truth.
Sadly, I’m not at all surprised that the Jackson campaign would stoop to this level.
But it’s pretty funny that despite her claims that Gallegos has mishandled so many cases, the one she cuts an ad about was her own screw-up. Kinda suggests she’s running on empty, dontcha think?
For the truly curious, check out the Humboldt Mirror on this issue.
12:27,
Wow, I just /did/ check out the Mirror. It looks like it’s put together by kids from a reform school’s “in” fraternity, doesn’t it? I hope that’s the style you folks are shooting for.
But you don’t appear to accept comments. It’s not hard to guess why.
My recollection of the Jackson “School” ad (which I saw once, on the internet, I can’t recall where) left me saddened that this abuser “got away with it.” But it now appears that the abuser was in prison for more than five years. As for who blew the case, I certainly don’t know enough to come to a conclusion, but I’m confused how Gallegos can be blamed for receiving a case that appears to have suffered from misconduct BEFORE he came on the scene.
Whether he surfs or not.
Schooling was in jail for closer to 10 years. He was arrested in 1999, held without possibility of bail through years of court proceedings, sentenced in 2004 and released in 2009.
Not so fast, heraldo. Stand by for some rather shocking details.
Allison Jackson is well aware that “Time Served” is often a factor in deciding a sentence, though she is cynically pretending that this guy got off with no jail time. When someone has already served 5 1/2 years in jail awaiting trial, that is taken into consideration when deciding on an appropriate jail term after sentencing.
Now if the guy had been free on bail for all those years awaiting trial, and then only got probation and no jail time at all, then she’d have grounds for complaining. But that’s simply not what happened in this case, as she OUGHT to know, since she’s apparently the one who bungled the case in the first place.
Allison Jackson also knows full well that sentences are handed down by *judges,* not DAs. Plea agreements are no different, the judge has to agree that it is reasonable and within the law. But again, she cynically pretends that Gallegos alone is handing down sentences.
Basically, she’s counting on ignorance among the electorate to allow her mischarachterizations to slide on by. Perhaps she has correctly estimated the ignorace of our electorate, but I am hopeful that she has grossly miscalculated.
She sure does look pretty desperate at this point.
Stand by. You can shut this thread down, but you cannot put the genie back in the bottle.
Are you saying Gallegos handled this case well? Are you saying probation was acceptable for what he did to that baby. C’mon, after all these weeks after seeing the Schooling video, this is the best you can spew. If something ever happens to someone I care about, I pray that Allison is there to prosecute the case. Deep inside, I bet you do too.
A lie is a lie no matter how big or small. It indicates a lapse in judgment that we cannot allow in an important position such as district attorney. I happily await reading about each of these allegations from a reputable news source.
C’mon Rose, out with it! I only have a little battery left on my laptop and then I am stuck in this waiting room with only magazines…
Hey “Nice try Andy” do you have a problem with reading comprehension? Apparently the guy was in jail for about ten years, when you add up his time served before and after sentencing. Get some remedial reading help, dude.
Close your laptop and save your battery. Check back in a bit.
NtA apparently doesn’t think that 10 1/2 years behind bars is a real sentence.Maybe he/she would like to try it? Again, the judge hands out the sentence. The DA can present a plea bargain but it MUST be approved by the judge. Maybe you were really volunteering to sit on the jury for that 6 month long trial? Go for it!
I myself have never been all that impressed with Political Footballs. The synthetic leather compound makes them awfully slippery, and you can never quite get that “perfect” spiral.
Yes, Gallegos handled this case well. He personally tried the case and Schooling was convicted of two felony accounts of child abuse. The defendant was incarcerated for a total of ten years for his crimes
Gallegos got the same sentence AJ did when she plead this case back in 2000…Only Paul’s case wasn’t overturned by the Appellate Court.
Jackson is making flat out lies, deceiving the public and is exploiting this poor child for her own political gain. Disgusting.
Schooling was not convicted by a jury, but appears to have pled guilty during trial and the jury was dismissed.
Wait, wait, Rose has something reeealy important to say. She just has to figure out the proper spin once she stops fuming. Clearly all problems in Humboldt can be traced back to Paul Gallegos. He is personally responsible for all the bad things that happen. If only he can be defeated all will be right in the world and everything will be rosey.
Oh it gets even better than that, heraldo. I do feel sorry for Natalynne.
Well. Anybody know any good jokes while we’re waiting for Rose’s bombshell?
How about them Giants?
A liar, a kook and a bitter old drunk walks into a bar. And that’s just the first lady.
Why did the chicken cross the road?
Because it was sick of the stench on Rose’s side.
Well, can’t stick around. Guess I’ll have to come back tonight.
Here, this will kill time:
That is one garbled clusterfuck of a sentence. Granted, Heraldo only wrote half of it, but Jesus bald-headed Christ! Where are we?
Let’s parse this sumbitch. We’ll start with the word “confession.” Schooling confessed. He pleaded guilty. Moving backwards, we see that someone — his lawyer, presumably — made a motion to suppress that confession. As we progress outward, we learn that the court (aka a judge) denied the motion. The guilty plea stood.
Now let’s jump to the beginning of the sentence. The guilty plea was overturned on appeal. Why? Because of an “illusory promise” — one given in the passive tense, so we don’t really know who made it. At least, not based on the evidence provided here. Let’s ignore that for a moment. What was this misleading promise? Someone promised Schooling that if he pleaded guilty, the trial court would give him a “certificate of probable cause,” which is essentially an official right-to-appeal letter. In other words, someone told Schooling that if he pleaded guilty he could have a do-over.
Apparently not true. Whoever made this promise (again, we don’t know — but Heraldo probably does, or should) was either lying or confused, according the the Court of Appeals. Therefore (and somewhat ironically), Schooling did, in fact, get a do-over. This time under Gallegos.
OK, I think I’m clear on that part. But where in this Escherian word puzzle is the evidence that “Jackson herself botched the prosecution,” as Heraldo so confidently asserts? Did Jackson in fact make the illusory promise? If so, where does it say so?
Little help here, H?
Eric, maybe we should each do our own riff on the old “Aristocrats” joke while we wait?
At this point the whole Jackson campaign kinda reminds me of the Gilbert Gottfried version of that joke in the movie: There’s a lot going on, and you can’t help but take a gander, but you’ll probably regret looking.
Ok, perhaps it was Judge Reinholtsen that blew Allison’s case. She must be really pissed at him.
Regrets? She has a few… hm,hm,hm,hm….
la, la, la LA la.
“Non, je ne regrette rien.”
Regardless of the Rose “drama” the following facts appear solid:
1. Jackson has accused Gallegos of letting a violent offender slide.
2. The Jackson ad does not mention that the dad got 10.5 years, and that Gallegos took over the case after it was appealed because of mistakes made by “others” (a judge or Jackson?).
3. Jackson has slanted the story (not provided all of the relevant details) in an attempt to discredit Gallegos by suggesting he allowed the perpetrator to only get probation.
Seems sleezy regardless of how one wants to spin Jackson’s claims. Remember this is an ad approved by Jackson, not a discussion that others have brought to light.
Rose,
When you are ready with your blockbuster, could you please just send up a flare or something? Thanks.
Does anyone know how my power can be out, my laptop running on batteries, but my wireless dsl which requires AC power is still working? I’m not complaining but don’t understand it.
I think Salzman made a tactical error bringing up this case. It doesn’t make Paul look competent at all. Wait for the details!
Jack Durham must be drinking the Rose colored kool-aid.
Jack, This is a campaign video paid for by Allison Jackson… What are you talking about?
I’m talking about further diving into this issue and revealing even more details.
Yeah, that seems kinda weird, P.J. Maybe someone a little more tech-savvy has the anwer? Perhaps your wireless router has some kind of internal battery that allows it to keep operating for a while?
Well, we’re all waiting for the additional details that will explain why 10 1/2 years can be described as a screw-up by Gallegos. Feel free to enlighten us, Jack and Rose.
You’ll love it.
You keep sayin, Rose. I hope the bang is worth the wait…
Maybe Rose has a video showing malfeasance in the courthouse. Heads will roll.
I suspect Rose is kateascoting us with her “just you wait” bullcrap. We’ll see.
Woah. Ed and I seemed to have virtually the same thought at the same time!
Golly! For a bunch of bitter righties who DONT work in the courts every day- you all sure know alot about whats going on!
WHERE pray tell do you get all this stuff?
Just wondering.
(Do you even HAVE real lives…?)
You think what Rose has is a bombshell?! Wait til you hear from me. It’s almost ready. No, it’s incredible. Let me give you a hint. Too bad for BelleMarie, I feel sad for her.
Oh god I’m just about to bust.
Stay tuned. It’s big. Awfully big.
OK, here’s another hint: RoseBUD.
It seems to me that if this were a real “bombshell”, Rose would have it ready before the video was made.
It looks more like she’s trying to get the monkey’s to type up something believable.
Ryan, Thanks for the translation.
PJ do you have a UPS?
So, are you going to correct your post?
Under the leadership of *which DA* are the grow houses on my block going to be shut down the quickest?
In summary, an attack piece was deployed on Jackson that had as much truth to it as a Fox newscast… but we believed it because it had a ring of truthiness to it. It felt true in our hearts while our brains were shut off.
Oh, and it took a professional journalist to point it out.
No 4:09-4:10, not quite. 2:33 nails it.
What is a UPS? I have a wireless router connected to dsl and plugged into an outlet.
The post has been edited to remove blame for the appeal. The Humboldt Herald regrets the error.
A UPS is like a surge protector with a battery backup.
And further, 4:09-4:10, there isn’t a single word in Heraldo’s post that you can challenge, is there?
My suspicion is that Heraldo is (or includes) a professional journalist. If s/he doe/isn’t, s/he puts the local version of the profession to shame.
Still no blast from the bombshell?
I agree on 2:33. The ad is despicable in what it contains and especially what it leaves out. Jackson is shameless.
A Priest, a Minister, and a Rabi walk into a bar.
Bartender looks up and says, “What is this, some kind of a joke?
4:15,
Oh. Well, never mind then.
OH, I use a surge protector but didn’t know it had battery back up. But my desktop is plugged into the same surge protector and it went out in a blink when the power failed.
A developer, a supervisor, and a mayor walk into a bar. Bartender looks up and says “I see nothing.”
No, Mitch. I think my original punch line works here as well.
HGas Rose ‘bloomed’ yet? Did I miss it? Rats. Oh, nothing’s happening? Well that’s a shock!
PJ, maybe your laptop is picking up a someone else’s nearby wi-fi connection.
No bombshell yet?
Nope, it’s mine, Dogenpony. All my neighbors’ power was out too. It’s back on now, I was just puzzled, no biggie, but thanks to you and Cap for responding.
I’ve got it! Heraldo is really Oprah Winfrey.
Wow!
Yup, I think Rose has been kateascoting us with her overblown promises of a big revelation. But I’ll check back tonight just in case there’s any there there.
Wait — y’all spun me around 10 times and now I’m feeling dizzy. Sorry.
Humor me: How was the Jackson campaign ad wrong?
Depends PJ, UPS often have a battery backed up side, and surger only side(non battery). Common brands are APC, and Triplite. UPS’s are really good things to have. The bad part of them though is the batteries do age, and die sooner than normal surge protectors.
Here’s Rose’s big scoop:
The walrus was Paul.
Hank,
Essentially, Jackson suggests that Gallegos plead this guy for probation. However, the case originated in 1999, before Gallegos even ran for DA, and after being kicked back from state appeal in 2002, Gallegos took over the case in 2003 and put the guy in prison until 2009.
We’re waiting to hear from Rose just to how Gallegos allowed this guy out on probation when he didn’t get out of prison until last year.
Humor me: How was the Jackson campaign ad wrong?
I don’t know if it was wrong technically, but I do believe the omission of her involvement and the age of the case is significant, whether Allison was responsible for the overturning. It would be nice to read the whole appellate decision.
Actually, it wouldn’t. Arguing about individual cases and how they were handled in a political campaign is extremely problematic.
Don’t worry, you will get to read it all for yourself – the full timeline.
Jokster, Eric,
You are way more generous than I.
Hank,
Oh, for fuck’s sake.
Hey, at least he didn’t require the guy to pass a lie detector test.
I find it hilarious that Ryan Burns is here editing and parsing words.
Ryan, seriously dude, you live in a journalistic house made of so much glass you should buy stock in Windex.
Ground control to Major Rose, are we over the target yet? Is the bombardier ready to drop the big one?
Hey, I sympathize with Hank. There’s a lot of spinning going on, and it can lead to dizzyness.
My advice, Hank, is sit down, take a few nice deep breaths, then watch the Jackson ad and read this thread again. I did, and here’s what I came up with:
After describing in excruciating detail the very horrifying abuse done to the child (with a weird picture of Gallegos in the background of course) Jackson states in the ad that “the D.A. plea-bargained that case out for probation,” which is accompanied by the word “Probation?” on the screen. I guess maybe she’s counting on that question mark to bail her out?
In any event, despite spending nine-tenths of the ad describing the abuse and then claiming that Gallegos “plea bargained that case out for probation” she neglects to mention the small matter the 10 1/2 years the guy spent behind bars. Unless we’re missing an important part of the puzzle (as Rose has been claiming all day), this ad certainly seems to be aimed at intentionally misleading the public about the jail time served by the defendant.
Three anonymous guys walk into a bar. The first guy says to the bartender, “These two guys are liberals.” The second guy says, “These two guys are teapartiers. The third guy says “These two guys are nuts and I’m their keeper.” Who’s telling the truth, and what do they order?
It scares me a bit that Hank Sims asks:
“How was the Jackson campaign ad wrong?”
Watch the ad and consider someone who knows nothing about this case. Yes, it is technically “correct” that Schooling got probation. However, it is very deceiving to NOT acknowledge the time served or the drawn-out nature of the case. Using the laundry list of the child’s injuries adjacent to the photo of Gallegos – as if he caused these injuries – is exploitation of a extremely sad case.
So I’ll humor you, the ad is “correct” in it’s statements, but it is wrong, very wrong in its exploitation and misleading context.
walt,
What do you really believe?
I believe I’ll have another beer.
Yup, one thing is clear, Allison Jackson has no qualms about exploiting abused children for her own political gain. And that’s almost as sickening as the abuse itself.
tra,
You, too, are far more generous than I. Hank’s question answers itself, and says a lot about Hank.
Jeez! Sorry for asking.
Walt. Believe the keeper.
In 2004, the court sentenced Schooling to “either or”.. Probation, where he could get treatment (after having served 5+ years incarcerated) or prison. The court decided to go with treatment, but then switched to prison. Because of this Schooling spent nearly ten years incarcerated for his crimes.
Once we have Rose’s “bombshell” it will all become clear: Humboldt’s DA, assistant DA’s, and judges are obviously all part of a grand conspiracy to let child abusers off scot-free! Only Allison Jackson can step up and single-handedly save us from this terrible state of affairs. Thank God this great savior is at hand!
“The court decided to go with treatment, then switched to prison.”
And those decisions were made by whom? A judge I would imagine. Correct me if I’m wrong.
But I’m curious what made the court “switch” from treatment to prison? Any word on that?
Rose! My computer is powered up again. What’s your news? did I miss it? I only have 10 minutes and then someone else gets this computer..
Thank you for calling Rose. She’s temporarily recalibrating, but will return your call as soon as possible.
In the meantime, please listen to this short recording of great moments in the George W. Bush administration. It will only take seconds of your time.
Plea bargaining good. Mandatory minimum sentencing bad.
9/10 guilty people will plead guilty.
If this dude referenced in this ad had been successfully tried and convicted for child abuse in the first place, he prolly woulda served less time. What he did was bad but what are they gonna do? It’s not like he’s gonna be doing all day for that.
Treatment wasn’t available so he was remanded
back to the department of corrections.
Ah, I see.
All in all, this case seems to involve a pretty complicated set of circumstances, but in no way does the end result resemble Jackson’s claim that “the DA plea-bargained that case out for probation” with it’s implication that he walked away scot-free without going to jail. In fact, he had already served significant jail time before the sentencing, and ended up serving quite a bit of jail time afterward.
Imagine the same excat Jackson ad, except that she ends by saying “…and the abuser spent ten years in jail for his crimes.” More accurate, but not quite the message she’s pushing, I guess.
exact, not excat!
The fuse on that bomb is way too long.
The longer Rose stalls before dropping her “bombshell,” the more it looks like a case of kateascoting.
It’s so funny to have Ryan Burns asking a blogger to do an “investigation”! The NCJ is famous for running conclusion on issues that they could get confirmation on by simply calling the principals involved and instead they just run their best guess and wait to run a correction the following week. This story seems to have been pretty well researched, but if Hank and/or Ryan wanted to, they must know a journalist they could ask to do the same research themselves.
It would be nice if as much of a critical examination was made of Jackson’s allegations, when she makes them, instead of only when they are challenged.
Did these folks completely miss the Betty Chin episode? They certainly didn’t report on it. That says so much about how Jackson operates. Nothing is ever just a mistake, it must be a conspiracy and she say so based on rumor (even if she can’t remember who she heard it from), I mean hearsay, isn’t that the legal term for it?
Did you know that Allison Jackson cut a plea bargain with Jason Whitmill (in 1995) over 10 years before the car accident that killed Nicole Quiqley)? If she had sent him to prison back then, he would not have been free to have committed his next crime, which Gallegos locked him up for, but Jackson points to as having let him out of jail days before the car accident.
Bob @ 8:57,
If Jackson’s plea deal with Whitman was over 10 years before the car accident, then he would need to have been locked up for more than ten years in order for you to state that he wouldn’t have been free to commit his next crime ten years later. Right? So what was the crime for which Jackson made a plea deal with him? Would it have really brought him ten years in prison?
In general, I think see where you’re going with this line of attack: Allison likes to play monday morning quarterback with other people’s plea deals, but she might not like it so much if she was the one being second-guessed. I’d just advise you to be sure to get your facts straight, unlike Jackson, and don’t leave out important context just to make her look bad.
Maybe Rose is enriching uranium for a nuclear bomb.
Maybe she’s consulting with kateascot on her info release strategy!
It’s a long way to Niger to get the yellow cake, and those aluminium tubes are awkward to carry…
Give Rose time. She’s such an effective part of Jackson’s campaign what with the ads and everything. She’ll think of something. Just you wait.
Maybe she’s secretly cracked ‘Fusion’ nuclear power?
Maybe her bomb blew up on her when she was checking to make sure it would work.
Maybe she’s secretly cracked, period.
Time for bed. Good night, Rose, wherever you are.
apparently rose has yet to drop her golden turd into the punchbowl-probably busy photoshopping a picture of gallegos into a taliban scene.
Well, I’m going to bed. Maybe I’ll fall asleep to an episode of Lost. It’s written kind of like the campaigns this year – almost like somebody’s just making everything up as they go along, and still making it interesting. Sort of.
ZZzzzzzzz…cheesy
If fat man and little boy had taken this long to drop, we’d still be fighting WWII… Come on Rose!!!!
You do realize that you look like a complete tool, don’t you?
If Allison Jackson is paying you to run her PR, you should be fired and give her back her money. You aren’t helping her campaign at all.
Any news of an explosion in McKinleyville?
Just got up. Has Rose dropped her bombshell yet? Did I miss anything?
Wait for it…..
If Rose’s goal was to divert discussion on this thread from the misrepresentation in the Schooling ad, I’d rather not see her succeed.
So let’s recap with a bit of tra 5:29:
After a night of sleep, I think the real problem with AJ’s video is the assertion that the current DA’s office is broken based on the “evidence” of this case. Nice try, but I’m sorry AJ and Rose–you’re wrong.
Maybe Rose is trying to PETAL her story elsewhere? I don’t know where it STEMS from but I’m ROOTING for her. It does have a strange BOUQUET!!!
Skunk cabbage, perhaps?
First warriorscomeouttoplay promises us he is going to out Heraldo this week. Then Rose teases with an announcement she’s going waylay Heraldo with a big bolt from the blue.
But all get is a big fat nothing. Party-poopers both of them.
I am still waiting for Rose to answer my question about how exactly Richard Salzman was involved in the Betty Chinn fiasco like she stated he was over on her blog.You all have to wait in line for your responses.
Oh good, now folks will have another reason to bother Betty Chin, by calling to confirm what ever Rose alleges.
Maybe Rose is trying to play the “how to keep idiots in suspense” game. She hasn’t gotten this much attention in….well….ever.
I’ll take that as an acknowledgment of your status PJ.
Jackson did in fact make the illusory promise. This is true. It may take someone else from the court who remembers this case to confirm.
The best thing I ever saw on Rose’s blog what when yesterday she asked to see proof! That’s rich, coming from her. I wonder how often she asked that question on the Humboldt Mirror?
I hear that Rose also has news on Obama not having a birth certificate!
I guess when Rose says, “not so fast”, she really means it.
I’d say not-so-fast too. A couple journalists have raised red flags on the claim (on this page no less) and one (correct me if I’m wrong) implied we may be seeing a newspaper article that delves into the issue with heretofore unmentioned details.
Jack Durham said he was going to “diving into” the issue and “revealing even more details.” So far, nothing here or on his web page.
Rose claimed that “the complete timeline” would make things look different. So far, nothing..
I’ll keep an open mind, but so far nothing I’ve seen suggests anything other than the fact that Jackson cut an extremely misleading ad implying that the abuser walked away scot-free, whereas he actually served about 10 years behind bars for his crimes.
With the election right around the corner, I would think that if Rose and Co. had anything, they would get it out there ASAP. Unless, of course, what she has is just more misleading spin, in which case expect her to drop it the day before the election, when there won’t be much time to fact-check it.
Yeah, maybe because Jack publishes a weekly newspaper. It’s how, you know, he makes a living. People pay to read his news reports and research.
Has Ari Fleischer announced the discovery of those WMDs yet?
Where does Lee Uselessanski stand on this issue?
So we’ll see his “even more details” in the next edition of the McKinleyville Press? Great, I’ll be looking for that.
Meanwhile, Rose doesn’t publish a newspaper, she runs a blog. Other than “not so fast” there’s nothing there either.
So how long does it take to post the “complete timeline” that will supposedly demonstrate how Jackson’s misleading ad isn’t misleading after all, and that the abuser serving 10 years behind bars for his crimes is an example of Gallegos screwing up the case? Well it’s certainly a tall order, so I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what, if anything, Rose can come up with.
Heraldo writing “Ok, perhaps it was Judge Reinholtsen that blew Allison’s case.” was good enough for me to withhold judgment. I’d trust Rose’s account as much as I’d trust Heraldo’s. I’ll wait for Jack’s report.
Heraldo corrected his mistake, removed the claim that Jackson had mishandled the case, and apologized for the error.
If Jackson had the integrity to admit that her ad was misleading, and apologized for it, that would be something.
“Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.”
Ari Fleisher March 21, 2003
Rose is following That Other Bush Doctrine.
And then there was Rumsfeld, who said something along the lines of: “We know where the WMDs are. They are north, south, east, and west of Baghdad.” Now THAT’s covering all the bases!
Hey Richard,
What you’ll find when you look at the record is that the perp pled guilty. He got 10 years. But, due to the problems already noted above, charges needed to be refiled. Gallegos first tried to get the guy on probation! Then, when that didn’t work, he took the plea bargain route, which gave the guy 8 years instead of the original 10. That just about sums it up.
Because 2 more years in prison is worth another lengthy, expensive trial when the guy had already been in prison for (?)4 years. That still doesn’t explain Jackson’s ad which misleads people to believe the guy did NO TIME and Gallegos’ plea bargain let him off with probation.
Besides, isn’t it pretty standard for people to do half their sentence if they behave themselves while locked up?
How many years did the perp end up serving altogether, pre and post sentencing? Ten?
How many years did Allison Jackson’s ad acknowledge that he got? Zero.
And therein lies the problem with the Jackson ad.
Reasonable Anonymous,
You are correct. That ad is misleading, to say the least. That paints Allison in a bad light. The facts of the court case, in which Gallegos tried to give the guy probation, paint him in a bad light.
The guy had already served 4 years by the time Gallegos entered the fray, Jack, and it wasn’t just probation – it was rehabilitation.
tra,
Just be glad the abuser didn’t have his dog sign a letter to the editor. Jack Durham, Hank Sims and who knows who else would be calling down the SWAT team.
But because it’s just a matter of a DA candidate trying to mislead the public into thinking that the current DA let a child abuser off with no prison time, all Durham, Sims, et. al. need to do is pretend that Jackson’s ad is nothing more than a teensy eensy wittel miscommunication. Pure, total, pathetic bullshit. Did I say pathetic? Did I say bullshit?
Thanks for your straightforward response, Jack.
Right now the fact that Jackson’s ad was extremely misleading is pretty well established. Whether the facts of the court case put Gallegos in a bad light or not is not yet clear to me. I am aware of the following documentm related to this case:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/32397581/People-v-Brian-Schooling
I will review this document and try to see what it tells me about Gallegos’ handling of the case.
If there is any other document or source I can look at, Jack, feel free to let me know what it is. If possible, please direct me to the portion of this or any other document that supports your assertion that “Gallegos first tried to get the guy on probation. Then when that didn’t work, he went the plea bargain route…”
Another poster claimed that the issue was that there was an attempt (after he had already been in jail for a number of years) to get the guy into a treatment program, but when that wasn’t available he ended up continuing behind bars. Is that an accurate summary of what happened, and is that what you are referring to?
I must say that seems to me that if the actual, verifiable facts about how the case was handled clearly put Gallegos in a bad light, the Jackson campaign wouldn’t have needed to make such a misleading summary of the outcome.
So, the squabble is with regard to 2 years on a sentencing?
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
No, it’s with regards to who Hank Sims and Jack Durham like.
I like Hank.
Mitch, we need to give credit where credit is due: Jack stated at 2:42 that the Jackson ad was “misleading, to say the least.” I think that’s a fair summary of where things stand with that ad, though I’d add that it’s pretty clear to me that it was a case of *intentionally* misleading the public.
And among us non-lawyers, intentionally misleading the public is sometimes called “lying.” A “lie of omission,” but a lie nonetheless.
I’m open to the idea that Gallegos may not have handled the case as well as he could have, but I have yet to see any clear-cut evidence to that effect.
Sadly, there will be plenty of folks who saw that ad, but not this post or Jack Durham’s admission that the Jackson ad was “misleading, to say the least,” and some of those folks will simply remember this episode as “Gallegos let a viscious child abuser walk away scot-free” — which is pretty much what Allison Jackson seemed to be aiming in her misleading ad.
And she’s running as the “reformer” who will bring higher standards of professionalism to the DA’s office? Well, she’s not off to a very good start. Fortunately, I think she’s going to lose, depite (or maybe because of) her use of these kinds of unethical campaign tactics.
tra,
I would think the word “malicious” would apply to “intentional lies of omission in order to deceive”.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
Remand to a resident mental health facility, which is how I read those papers, facility where a felon is to spend his time on “probation” and NOT ON THE STREET is still incarceration in my book.
One way would get the guy mental health treatment, the other way he got no treatment. BOTH ways, he was off the street.
Tell it like it is people. This guy NEVER saw a free day until 2009. Period.
To say anything else is a lie. It is beyond contemptible, and furthermore, if I had any doubt about voting for Gallegos, I don’t anymore… I AM!
AJ’s omissions continue…she conveniently “forgot” to disclose the contents of the probation report.
Schooling was offered probation because the victim’s mother and the defendant’s wife wanted him to get treatment. Treatment and probation was the “preferable” sentence.
Read the report; It is public record.
Jackson continues to use deception and fear tactics as the mainstay of her campaign strategy.
Mitch,
With regard to the Salzman Follies, I really think it’s time to stop bringing that up over and over again whenever you’re not happy with the point of view of one of the journalist who covered that episode. Sure, the NCJ made a mountain out of a molehill (not uncommon in small-population areas where sometimes there just isn’t all that much interesting news to feed the news hole), but let’s face it, Salzman walked right into it by trying to be a bit too clever in his attempt to get his own opinions into print a bit more often than other people are allowed by the same publications. Not exaclty the crime of the century, not worth all the huffing and puffing and editorial handwringing that was devoted to it, but not exactly an innocent mistake on Salzman’s part either. (I don’t know enough about Durham’s coverage of that episode to comment on it).
In essence, Salzman tried to get around the rules, got caught, the NCJ made a big, noisy unnecessarily dramatic deal of it, and in my opinion neither Salzman nor the NCJ came off looking real good in that episode. But at this point, other than Rose and you (sorry to have to group you like that!) I don’t think anyone else really cares all that much about it anymore.
Meanwhile, the NCJ does a lot of great reporting on a lot of issues. So I’d advise* that you stop attacking the messenger for a message that you didn’t like several years back. It makes you seem as if you’re holding a grudge that is perhaps a bit disproportionate to the offense. (Perhaps Hank is, too, in which case he too should get over it.)
(*As always, my advice is guaranteed to be worth every penny you paid for it.)
“HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE” says: June 3, 2010 at 3:27 pm
“tra, I would think the word ‘malicious’ would apply to ‘intentional lies of omission in order to deceive.'”
Yep, malicious seems to be an appropriate word to describe Jackson’s deceitful ad.
Again, I’ll note that this is the same woman who is claiming to run as a reformer who would bring a higher level of integrity and professionalism to the DA’s office.
I guess that would all kick in AFTER the campaign? Cuz she sure is setting the bar low at the moment.
Jokster says: June 3, 2010 at 3:31 pm
“Remand to a resident mental health facility, which is how I read those papers, facility where a felon is to spend his time on ‘probation’ and NOT ON THE STREET is still incarceration in my book.
One way would get the guy mental health treatment, the other way he got no treatment. BOTH ways, he was off the street.”
I guess the concern that some folks would have is the idea that he would have had a more “pleasant” and less “punishing” stay at the mental health facility. Also the question of whether it would have been a “locked facility” which would relate to whether he could have potentially walked away and committed more crimes.
On the first point, I understand why it would play that way with the public, many of whom probably picture those in “treatment” lounging around, doing arts and crafts, getting weekend passes to leave the facility, and sitting in comfy chairs telling sympathetic counselors about their troubled childhoods — though I’m sure this image is entirely inaccurate as to the kind of facility and program he would have been put into.
On the second point, I don’t know for sure if it would have been a locked facility or how the security would have compared to straight incarceration, and that could be a legitimate complaint if it would have been a lower-security situation.
All in all, I personally feel that it probably would have been better if he DID get at least some mental health treatment / rehabilitation, as this might well have reduced the chances of him committing crimes in the future. But at a gut level, most folks would have rather seen him just sit in prison longer, and in fact that’s what ended up happening.
Gallegos never tried to “give” the defendant anything. What he did was get the guy to enter an open plea of “guilty” and the judge is who tried to give him probation.
“Schooling was offered probation because the victim’s mother and the defendant’s wife wanted him to get treatment. Treatment and probation was the ‘preferable’ sentence.”
Ah, if true, then another piece of the puzzle is revealed.
Wait, I though Jackson was all in favor of having victims and victims’ families’ wishes taken into account? Huh.
I guess that only applies when she agrees with what those victims and families want. Go figure.
Jason says: June 3, 2010 at 4:13 pm
“Gallegos never tried to ‘give’ the defendant anything. What he did was get the guy to enter an open plea of ‘guilty’ and the judge is who tried to give him probation.”
Jack Durham, would you care to provide a rebuttal to this interpretation of the facts? Rose, how about you?
Jackson also omits that Gallegos was taking this case to trial. She failed to attach the files that pre-date 1/24/04. Schooling accepted an “open plead” and the jury was dismissed.
Unless Jack Durham or Rose are going to tell us that Schooling did NOT server 10 years for the crime, Jackson owes the community a retraction for implying that Gallegos’ action resulted in Schooling getting ONLY probation. This is clearly what this deceitful ad suggests.
At the least Durham and Rose should acknowledge this fact (the 10 years served) in whatever story they release. Otherwise, they are complicit in Jackson’s deceit.
The only “bombshell” I can imagine is one that says Schooling did not serve 10 years and Gallegos let him out and there was no punishment for his crime – somehow I don’t see that being the case.
Would a person who didn’t have severe mental illness batter a baby?
My prediction is Rose and Durham will produce a convoluted time line with vague implications and language that describes every obscure element of the case as well as who Salzman called when, etc.
It will be everything BUT a straight forward statement that Schooling served 10 years, plus probation for his crime – contrary to what is implied by the Jackson’s deceitful and exploitive advertisement.
You apparently aren’t familiar with the McKinleyville Press, one of the better written and researched newspapers on the north coast. I would say the best, but I haven’t read Ferndale’s paper.
P.J., you raise a tough question. I certainly think that such severe and horrific child abuse seems about as “crazy” (to use the vernacular term) as it gets. But then I suppose you could say the same thing about anyone who commits murder or rape, isn’t that “crazy” behavior, too?
Seems like it to me, but I still think most murderers and rapists and child abusers should be put in prison, not a mental health facility. Trying to figure out to what degree someone should be held responsible for behavior that seems to stem (at least in part) from a malfunctioning brain, is one of the hardest things out justice system tries to do.
But in this case, I don’t think the argument is that he was not responsible for his behavior because he was literally insane and “not able to tell right from wrong,” the issue is that he already was behind bars for years and would remain incarcerated in one form or another, but as part of that term of incarceration it may have been in the interest of the public to try to get him some treament that might have reduced the chances of him committing additional violent crimes in the future, after he was to be released.
I agree, Reasonable; but without treatment in prison, at the end of their sentence they are released – probably sicker than they were before they went in.
Not better by Jackson’s standard. She want vengeance, not justice. Whether or not this sick person gets help is not her concern.
Apparently Jackson is all for victims’ families influencing sentences…unless the victim’s family wants the perpertator to get some treatment as part of their sentence. Then, it’s screw the victim’s family’s wishes, Allison knows best.
Please visit Allison Jackson’s facebook page and read the facts with links provided to court documents. She has the knowledge, the experience, the heart, and the smarts to navigate our laws and courtrooms, our District Attorney’s office needs her sensibility and courage. Vote for Allison on June 8th.
Exactly! There are some cases where the families begged her NOT to go to trial, because the kids were going to be forced to get on the stand and they would have to relive the terrible ordeals and essentially have to suffer the entire tragedy twice; but she cared not of their pain, only of her own glory.
“She has the knowledge, the experience, the heart, and the smarts to navigate our laws and courtrooms…”
And, of course, the ethical flexibility to run intentionally misleading campaign ads.
the reasonable anonymous suffers from OCD and cannot bear going more than a few hours without accusing someone of have impaired reading comprehension. Sadly, he doesn’t even recognize his own OCD!
Is it wrong to seek strong punishment against serious criminals?
“Hanging one scoundrel, it appears, does not deter the next. Well, what of it? The first one is at least disposed of.” H.L. Mencken
Oh I am sure that Jackson is 100% unbiased. These are her paid ads! Of course she is going to defend them with her side of the story. She is blatantly omitting facts and doing her best to paint herself the victim’s rights advocate–but at what cost? Deception is not a good quality in a DA.
tra,
It’s not a grudge about the Salzman affair. It’s the realization that one side will be held to one standard, and the other side will be held to a different standard.
I wouldn’t mind if there were one standard, applied roughly equally. But it’s become extraordinarily clear just how much a pol can get away with if they’re in the club.
Also, I kind of expect a certain degree of sleaze/rascalhood (by the other side) and rascalhood/sleaze (by my side), I figure it’s part of the biz.
But when I grew up, journalism was considered a nice, dishonorable profession that would bend over backwards to stick up for the poor and the powerless. It turns my stomach when I see much of today’s journalism, which has turned Mencken’s motto into “afflict the afflicted (hey they’re funny) and comfort the comfortable (they host the best parties, at least in DC).”
Oh I’m well aware of my status as OCD: Opinionated Commentator Dude.
Okay Mitch,
To me it comes off as a bit of a grudge about the Salzman episode. But I’ve said my piece, feel free to carry on as you were.
“Is it wrong to seek strong punishment against serious criminals?”
No it is not, nor did anyone say that it was.
However, airing an intentionally misleading ad that gives the impression that the current DA let a serious child abuser off scot-free (whereas he actually spent many years behind bars for his crimes), well, that IS wrong.
And that’s the issue here. Jackson has clearly demonstrated that she’s all too willing to exploit abused children and intentionally deceive the public to try to win office. Truly repulsive behavior, and quite out of place for someone claiming to bring a higher standard of integrity and professionalism to the DA’s office.
Perhaps this is what they mean by “faith-based politics” — we’re supposed to have faith that she’ll show more integrity and professionalism in office than she demonstrates in her campaign?
First off, the good writing in the McK Press is mostly the work of Daniel Mintz, a freelancer who sells his stuff to Jack, to Kevin at The Eye and to Ted at The Indie.
As to truth in reporting, anyone who says Paul cut a plea deal for probation is either lying or assuming, as he never agreed to any terms, Gallegos simply accepted a plea of guilty and the judge did the sentencing. Why would you go to trial if the person pleads guilty (assuming you are not just looking for glory)?
That’s what the lawyers call an “open plea”. It is very different then when they make a deal where the person pleads guilty and accepts a prescribed sentence such as in the Jason Whitmill case, where he had to accept a 14 year sentence and wave his right to appeal.
I just check in at Rose’s blog and I see she has posting that says “if you have to poll, you don’t know your community”. So based on that I guess Rose can predict the outcome of elections in advance.
I’d love to hear her prediction for the 4th, the 5th Assessor and DA. Then we can find out how well Rose “knows her community”.
“Why would you go to trial if the person pleads guilty?”
Actually at that point the prosecutor would really have no choice. If the defendant pleads guilty to all the charges the prosecution is bringing, then there’s nothing to “try” them for, they are Guilty as Charged, and the case proceeds right to sentencing.
Now if the prosecutor dropped or reduced certain charges and in exchange the person pled guilty to the reduced charges, then that would be considered a plea bargain, even if there was no particular sentence agreed to by the prosecutor. But it doesn’t appear that’s what happened here…at least not from what I’ve been able to glean from the court documents and the discussion here and elsewhere.
Jack Durham says:
June 3, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Reasonable Anonymous,
You are correct. That ad is misleading, to say the least. That paints Allison in a bad light. The facts of the court case, in which Gallegos tried to give the guy probation, paint him in a bad light.
Where the heck does Jack Durham get off saying that “Gallegos tried to give the guy probation”? It seems clear that it was the judge that “tried” to offer that, but it never happen (due to his being declined treatment). Jack says, “the facts of the court case…” Now how is it a journalist can reference the facts, and get the facts so wrong?
Now the “fact” that our local reporters spend so much of their time commenting on other folks blogs, may explain why they don’t do more of their own investigative reporting when it comes to fact checking these candidates’ ads.
I’d like to see Jack’s rebuttal to this.
Jack? You still ramblin’ around over here somewhere?
no matter what he said or what he does, this isn’t journalism here, it’s blogging and commenting, it’s nice to see someone using their own name, let’s not discourage it by getting all bent out of shape, we all have fallen off the old high horse before I think.
Thadeus Greenson tackles plea bargains and the Schooling case in particular:
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_15226179
See the motion to withdraw plea.
Who tried to give Schooling probation/treatment? Judge Cissna, the probation department (based on psychological review and the victim’s mother/defendant’s wife’s desires), the defense and the prosecution.
The motion to withdraw plea is just one piece of paper amongst a whole pile of papers that make up a case. Cherry picking pieces that best fit the story one wants to portray doesn’t tell the whole story and does a disservice to the public… that is called deception.
Incorrect. The DA struck a deal with the defense to give the perp probation after the perp suddenly claimed, 5 years after the incident, that he had multiple personality disorder (which, oddly enough, Gallegos didn’t challenge!) Of course, this had to be ruled on by Cissna.
Again the use of the word “probation” rather than the more accurate “rehabilitation program.” Makes you wonder if it is due to bias in the DA race.
To Jack Durham:
1. How many years did Schooling spend incarcerated for this crime (whether waiting for a trial or part of subsequent punishment)?
2. Is this time served typical, shorter, or longer than one would expect for a crime of this nature?
3, Does the Jackson Ad (the focus of this posting) mention anything about Schooling’s incarceration?
4. Do you think this ad is misleading?
The rest of this seems like noise about a complex case that involved more than one prosecutor and more than one judge (I think?)
The T-S article backs up the basic thrust of Heraldo’s original post: That Allison Jackson’s ad was extremely misleading. Even Jack Durham admitted as much upthread.
There’s no getting around the fact that Jackson cut an ad that was quite clearly intended to give the false impression that the abuser walked away scot-free, whereas he actually spent many years behind bars for his crime.
If Jackson will exploit abused children and mislead the public so blatantly in her quest to smear Gallegos, is there anything she wouldn’t lie about?
And she’s running on a promise to bring greater integrity and professionalism to the D.A.’s office?
There’s no way Jackson should ever get the keys to the DA’s office. She’s demonstrably dishonest and will apparently stop at nothing in her quest for revenge.
Where are all the pro Jackson people on this? Rose has gone MIA, Crawford, HiFi, ANon, et al have been peculiarly silent on the very serious issue of Jackson’s obvious lack of integrity.
From the T-S article:
“While much of the community may not keep track of plea bargains and how the agreements are communicated to the families involved, Jackson said those issues are of great importance to victims.”
“‘If you are a victim, it really, really matters,’ she said.”
Yeah, Jackson is all for victims’ preferences being given great weight in sentencing decisions — UNLESS, of course, the victim’s and victims’ families’ opinions conflict with her own, as in the Schooling case. In that event, apparently the victims can just go pound sand, while Jackson cuts a deceitful ad, exploiting their tragedy for her own political gain.
Classy.
The TS article included what seems like backpeddling from the Jackson campaign:
“Their criticism isn’t about one single case, but a pattern of behavior.”
What it seemed to say was: It’s not about this one case, that we got caught characterizing in a misleading manner. Look at other stuff and stop asking questions about this case because we can’t really justify the deceit of the ad.
And then there was Mr. I-only-drink-water-because-the-body-is-mostly-water-so-anything-else-would-be-polluting-it, Paul “Precious Bodily Fluids / Purity of Essence” Hagen:
“Hagen also contends that lots of cases are pleaded down to lesser charges that bear no relation to the initial offense the defendant was arrested for, but COULD OFFER FEW SPECIFICS.”
Maybe it’s the flouridated water messing with his head?
“Mr. I-only-drink-water-because-the-body-is-mostly-water-so-anything-else-would-be-polluting-it, Paul “Precious Bodily Fluids / Purity of Essence” Hagen:”
That’s going to stick! I love it!
I actually don’t think Hagen is such a bad guy, and he’d certainly be my second choice after Gallegos.
If it turns out to be Hagen vs. Jackson in the runoff, I’ll vote for Hagen despite his rather odd reasoning on what to drink and what not to. Jackson is simply too much of a liar — her willingness to exploit abused children in a clearly deceitful ad should make it clear to everyone that she doesn’t have the integrity and judgement to serve as DA.
But as far as Hagen goesm, it’s hard not to poke a little fun at him for his Precious Bodily Fluids fetish. Wonder where he stands on flouridation?
In case anyone is interested in parsing this further, here are some comments I just posted on Rose’s site (I know, probably a waste of time and effort):
By the way, I DO think that a legitimate question COULD be raised as to whether placing the offender on probation and in a treatment program at that point would have been appropriate or not. But first I would have to know the answer to a couple of questions:
Would it have been inpatient or outpatient treatment, in other words would this guy have been in fact walking around on the streets of Eureka (or whereever) on a day-to-day basis?
If in-patient, would the treatment program have been in a “locked facility” or not? If so, would security at that facility have been equal to the security of a state prison?
If not, that raises a legitimate question of whether putting him on probation, in a treatment center would really have been as good from a public safety point of view.
And naturally, just the idea of treatment as opposed to prison certainly would raise the issue that his experience in treatment would likely be less “punishing” than the same amount of time in prison, again depending on the nature of the treatment facility, as well as the nature of whatever level of security prison he was sent to instead. Anyway the differential in how “punishing” his time would have been could have implications both in terms of justice, and deterrence.
And finally (though it should probably have been my first question), there’s the question of whether or not this guy really did or did not have legitimate mental health problems that couldn’t be addressed in prison. If not, obviously he shouldn’t have been given an option of going into a treatment program. But if he really did/does have serious mental health issues, then getting him some adequate treatment rather than just warehousing him might have actually been the best outcome from the point of view of what would most reduce the chance of him committing other violent crimes in the future.
I really have no idea what the answer to many of these questions are, and I suspect neither does anyone but a very small number of people who were most closely involved in that case at that particular point, including the judge, the probation officer, the mental health experts, the DA and the victim’s family. However, I think the fact that all those parties I just named apparently thought that the probation/treatment deal would have been appropriate suggests that perhaps it would have been. If not, then ALL those parties, not just Gallegos, would have to have been wrong.
If Jackson had asked the right questions and brought out a more fair representation of the facts of the case (not just the gory details followed by a chery-picked fact that concealed the actual process and outcome), perhaps we WOULD end up concluding that Gallegos, the judge, the probation dept., the mental health experts, and so on, were all wrong. It’s at least a possibility.
So perhaps (depending on what the answers to the questions are that I asked above) there COULD be a legitimate argument to be made that Gallegos (and everyone else) was too “soft” on this guy, but that’s not the argument Allison Jackson made in her deceitful ad. She took a serious short-cut past “the whole truth” and ended up with an ad that isn’t anything like the truth.
She oughtta be ashamed.
[then Rose asked if I agreed that Gallegos should explain more about this case]
Rose, if I were an advisor to Gallegos (I’m not), I would certainly encourage him to answer questions about this case as clearly and completely as possible, within of course the restraints imposed by confidentiality (he probably can’t say much about the mental health records, for example) and the bounds of professional standards related to privacy.
Despite those retrictions, I think he (or someone in his office) could and should certainly answer some of the questions I raise in my earlier post related to what the conditions of the probation/treatment would have been, whether a locked facility, etc.
Now I can also imagine that if he believes he’s done nothing wrong here (and I’m sure he does) the advice he may be getting from his political people may be that it is politically disadvantageous to feed into this story, since Jackson’s misleading narrative of the process and outcome will continue to get some play even as he tries to set the record straight. So, I don’t know what he will actually say, beyond what he has already said.
But personally, I think he should answer as clearly and specifically as possible, even if it’s not the best move politically in the short term. Because in the bigger picture, it’s important to educate the public on how the process actually works, what some of the variables are, and why it is so easy for low-integrity campaign attack ads to mislead the public. This episode related to Jackson’s deceitful ad is certainly an opportunity do some public education on the whole plea bargaining issue.
Basically, I think there are two issues here:
(1) Did Allison Jackson put out an extremely misleading ad?
and
(2) Did Gallegos agree to a plea deal that went too “soft” on the defendant.
I think the first question has been clearly answered: Yes, Jackson put out an ad that was clearly designed to mislead the public. She ought to be ashamed, and we ought to take her lack of integrity and judgment into account in deciding how to vote. You (Rose) may not want to recognize the wrongness of what jackson has done here, but even Jack Durham, who seems to agree with you that Gallegos went too easy on the perp in this case, admitted (here) on Heraldo’s blog that Jackson’s ad was “misleading, to say the least” as Jack put it. Can we at least all agree on that, Rose?
As far as the second question goes, it has not yet been completely and clearly answered to my satisfaction. I’m all for getting to the core truth here, as to whether Gallegos (and the judge and everyone else involved in the case at that point) went too easy on the child abuser. If Gallegos agreed with a deal that might have put this guy directly out on the street, unsupervised, not in a locked or secured facility, and/or if the guy’s mental health issues were not legitimate, then (even though Gallegos was only one of the parties that went along with that deal, and even though in the end the guy ended up going to prison) Gallegos should take his lumps and voters should take this situation into account as they decide who to vote for.
In closing, I would point out that if Jackson hadn’t taken her short-cut past the truth, and had raised the issues in a responsible way, we would only have been dealing with question (2), whether Gallegos screwed up or not. It’s Jackson’s own fault that her deceitful ad is now part of the story.
If Jackson was caught telling the truth she’d lie her way out of it…
Three attorneys walk into the bar.
The first one says, “I’m running for DA because I’ve already done the job well, I’m tough on crime, and I promise “Justice for ALL”.”
The second one says, “I’m running for DA because I believe in protecting the future and I don’t think either of my competitors care enough about the environment, spiritual values or the people of this county.”
Allison Jackson says, “I’m running against both of you jerks because only a woman of my legal stature can defend the rights of the abused babies and downtrodden in this county but I’ll buy you both a drink, we’ll drink to my candidacy because I deserve to win and then when I’m falling down drunk and I convince one of you to drive me home, YOU can get the DUI!” (it’s worked for her in the past).