Home > Uncategorized > Back to Baciks

Back to Baciks

Pacific Lumber gets a new Vice President

Well, if there were hopes that Pacific Lumber was turning a new leaf by ridding itself of the mean-spirited Robert Manne, who infamously insulted suffering local residents impacted by PL’s high logging rate by saying they “lead empty lives,” those hopes have been dashed into the mud-clogged Elk River.

The newly appointed Vice President of Pacific Lumber is attorney Frank Bacik, a partner in the Ukiah-based law firm Carter, Momsen, Oglesby & Bacik, who is a longtime lawyer for Pacific Lumber. Recently Bacik represented a “front group” claiming to be Freshwater and Elk River property owners who embraced PL’s logging like a lovesick teenager. Bacik insisted the group was not affiliated with the timber company.

Bacik will replace his law partner, Jared Carter, as PL’s vice president.

In addition to fighting of behalf of PL, Bacik has worked on several cases in Mendocino County. In one case he fought against a lawsuit brought by people who were physically sickened by a giant composting operation. The Anderson Valley Advertiser gives a colorful report of Bacik’s courtroom techniques.

On cross examination by Frank Bacik, one of the Mileck-Guntly attorneys defending them against the lawsuit, Mrs. Meaders was accused of smelling the manure of her own horses, mules and sheep, and her own compost pile. She was also berated for not driving over to the compost facility to make sure that was where the odor was coming from. How did she know for a fact that the odor was not her next door neighbor’s leaking septic tank, or a dead deer? Implied in Bacik’s tone was that Mrs. Meaders was an utter crack-pot. She isn’t. Her testimony was clear; her claims substantiated in the official files.

It was a big mistake by Jared Carter’s law firm to have Bacik work over Mrs. Meaders. He’s hugely overweight, with a surly, curled Dick-Cheney lip. His questioning style is to whine, degrade and humiliate witnesses. (On the other hand, Jenny Chandler, lead counsel for Mileck-Guntly is pleasant and dignified.) Mrs. Meaders serenely held her own with the repulsive, villainous Bacik.

Chandler and Bacik tried every unscrupulous trick in the book to influence the jury the second week of the trial. Stephens and Jones were finally driven to complain to the court clerk that Chandler, Bacik, and Mileck were continually huddled and talking loudly right next to the jurors waiting in the hall during the breaks. Just before the jurors were to be dismissed for the day on the seventh day of the eight-day trial, Chandler loudly made two motions for “non-suit” (meaning the lawsuit should be thrown out by the judge because plaintiffs had not proven their case). Motions are supposed to be made out of the jury’s presence.

Judge Leonard LaCasse dismissed the jury and then chastised all the attorneys equally for Jenny Chandler’s “inexperience in a jury trial.” (Chandler seemed competent enough, but would have come across to the jury much better if she had left Frank Bacik under his rock.)

Oh well. You win some and lose some. But some things never change. Pacific Lumber is sure to stay the course under Bacik’s leadership.

  1. Eric V. Kirk
    August 29, 2006 at 2:50 pm

    Chandler is no longer with the Carter firm, and I agree with Anderson that she was/is very professional. I haven’t had any direct dealings with Bacik however.

  2. Anonymous
    August 29, 2006 at 3:39 pm

    Off topic I know, but can anyone explain why Buhne is so solicitious to the Arkleys? Just wondering.

  3. Heraldo
    August 29, 2006 at 8:31 pm

    Funny how the professional one left the firm and the big bully succeeded Jared Carter.

  4. Anonymous
    August 30, 2006 at 1:50 am

    Hey, there is no room for professionalism and ethics at MAXXAM/Plunderco! They’ve got a war to fight! Got to take back this county from all the hippies and HSU whackos!

    “Off topic I know, but can anyone explain why Buhne is so solicitious to the Arkleys? Just wondering.”

    Actually it’s not really off topic, since the Arkleys are allies of Plunderco.

    Buhne is a loyal friend of Kevin Hoover, quite possibly Hoover himself. Hoover is a political ally of the Arkleys, and is probably financially and politically compensated for his services.

  5. Eric V. Kirk
    August 30, 2006 at 10:26 am

    Hoover is not Buhne, nor is he a political ally, and he is certainly not compensated for by Arkley or he’d have a much bigger office.

  6. Anonymous
    August 30, 2006 at 3:43 pm

    Hoover is not Buhne,

    Do you really know that for a fact, Eric?

    nor is he a political ally, and he is certainly not compensated for by Arkley or he’d have a much bigger office.

    You seem to know some very important things about Hoover. Is he a friend of yours? How do you know he isn’t an ally of the Arkleys — because he told you that? Because that’s what he tries to make it look like in his paper?

    As for “not being compensated by the Arkleys”, Hoover wouldn’t necessarily have “a much bigger office” if he was. That would be a bit obvious, don’t you think? He can be compensated in many other ways, such as with political and legal protection from his many, well-deserved enemies. And by simply keeping his little small-town paper afloat financially when times are tough. A little help with new computers as needed, help with a bill here and there at critical times.

    And Hoover repays Arkley by using his Eye to get votes for Dikeman. And by perennially trashing and sabotaging every leftist City Councilmember who really stands up for progressive causes.

    Obviously Hoover can’t be an open ally of the Arkleys. He wouldn’t last long in Arcata if was. Hoover has to try to make it look like the Arkley Eye is an “independent” newspaper.

    But you know all about devious things like that, don’t you, Eric? You’re a lawyer, after all.

  7. Eric V. Kirk
    August 30, 2006 at 4:31 pm

    First of all, Hoover has never gotten along with Gallegos. I remember a NoHum report about it 4 years ago. And Arkley, Jr. meanwhile supported Gallegos against the recall to the tune of 12 thousand dollars.

    Secondly, while I don’t know Hoover that well I would have no problem calling him a friend. He has an intellectual honesty that gets him into trouble with everybody. That’s a rare quality in a journalist.

    Do you have any proof as to the Arkley money, or are you just assuming that any variance from party line involves some sort of material gain?

  8. Anonymous
    August 30, 2006 at 5:30 pm

    “Arkley, Jr. meanwhile supported Gallegos against the recall”

    Arkley Sr. started and financed the recall campaign. Senior is Kevin’s hero. A “philanthropist”, no less.

    “while I don’t know Hoover that well I would have no problem calling him a friend.”

    Hmm, why does that not surprise me? I’ll bet you like his friends Sims and Hodgson too, right?

    “He has an intellectual honesty that gets him into trouble with everybody.”

    Hey, that’s a good one! You know Eric, if your legal practice ever dries up you could still make a living as a stand-up comedian!

    “That [intellectual honesty] is a rare quality in a journalist.”

    Ain’t it the truth! Rare indeed. More rare than even you would guess.

  9. Anonymous
    August 31, 2006 at 9:55 am

    First off, Mr 5:30 (and others), you are making the most ridiculous of allegations with no support whatsoever. Does the phrase “burden of proof” mean anything to you, or do you just believe that those kinds of rules only apply to folks whose opinions differ from your own? If you have facts or evidence, then present them. Otherwise, your word counts for nothing.

    Personally, I have enough familiarity with all of the players you are talking about to believe that you are way, way off base. However, that is simply my opinion, based upon my own experiences. I would not assert my opinion as anything more than that: Opinion. You are certainly welcome to yours, and are welcome to express it, but please keep clear on the difference between opinion and fact.

    Now, then, waht does any of this have to do with Frank Bacik?

  10. Eric V. Kirk
    August 31, 2006 at 1:59 pm

    I have great respect for Sims, notwithstanding my disagreement with him over his article on Alison Jackson and Ed Denson. I don’t really know Hodgeson. I think I met her in the courthouse once. I have enjoyed what I’ve read of hers.

  11. Anonymous
    September 1, 2006 at 4:05 am

    First off, Mr 5:30 (and others), you are making the most ridiculous of allegations with no support whatsoever. Does the phrase “burden of proof” mean anything to you, or do you just believe that those kinds of rules only apply to folks whose opinions differ from your own? If you have facts or evidence, then present them. Otherwise, your word counts for nothing.

    First off, Mr. 9:55 (idiot lawyer), this blog is not a court of law. Give your head a shake and try to remember that. Maybe you were posting that comment from your laptop in the courthouse, but that doesn’t mean this blog is part of the courthouse. Are you clear on that?

    Now, understand that all statements (not just your blowhard bombast) made in the comments section of any blog are understood to be the commenters’ opinions. They are not testimony in a crooked courtroom. They are conversations between people in the real world.

    I don’t know what other comments you take issue with, but go back and re-read the 5:30 comment you singled out (assuming you actually read it in the first place, which seems doubtful). “Ridiculous allegations”? Show me where they are.

    Regarding the first statement — Arkley Sr. started and financed the recall campaign. Senior is Kevin’s hero. A “philanthropist”, no less.” — this is a matter of public record, printed in the Eye itself, not “allegations”. If you really did have “familiarity with all of the players” you would know that.

    As for the other things in the comment, they consist of questions (which are not allegations), a joke (not an allegation), and finally a comment agreeing with Eric V. Kirk’s statement that intellectual honesty is a rare quality among journalists.

    If you want to argue with that, talk to Eric. If you are Eric, however, no doubt you regret committing that candid comment to print! Now journalists know what you really think of them!

    Of course, being a lawyer, you would never admit it to their faces.

  12. Anonymous
    September 1, 2006 at 8:12 am

    Mr 5:30 (and others),

    I have no way of knowing which of the anonymous posts above are by the same person (other than my own, of course), so while the 5;30 post contains only one specific allegation (and plenty of innuendo) there are plenty of others which the words “and others” were refering to.

    > Buhne is Hoover
    > Hoover is an ally of the Arkleys
    > The Eye is funded, directly or indirectly, by the Arkleys
    > Hoover is somehow in cahoots with Sims and Hodgson
    > Hoover was paid by Arkley to get votes for Dikeman
    > Hoover-the-editor’s personal opinion of Gallegos, Dikeman, or various Arcata City Council members or candidates is part of some secret strategy or hidden agenda
    > Hoover’s ‘intellectual honesty’ is laughable

    Yes, there are quite a few completely unsupported allegations here. If you wish to provide some evidence to back up any of them, then please do. Otherwise these allegations are as baseless as someone asserting that Hoover is actually the bastard son of Arkley Sr and Anna Sparks. Care to add that one to your list?

    BTW, I am not a lawyer, but thanks for the compliment.

  13. Anonymous
    September 1, 2006 at 12:43 pm

    You MUST be a lawyer, otherwise you wouldn’t take it as a compliment!

    BTW, who is Anna Sparks? Does she look like Kevin?

  14. December 6, 2011 at 8:19 am

    Is the Bacik law group the office that
    wrote the infamous SLAPP suits?

  15. Mitch
    December 6, 2011 at 8:47 am

    For what it’s worth, Anonymous, Kevin Hoover is one of the few people in Humboldt who I can’t really picture writing something he doesn’t fully believe.

    He may get occasional financial support from people who like his reporting or agree with his opinions, but that’s hardly a crime. It would be nice if he were open about it, if such support exists. Such support, if public, is no different than a pro-pot, pro-casino newspaper being kept afloat by hydroponics and casino full page ads.

  16. Mitch
    December 6, 2011 at 8:48 am

    Ummmm, never mind. I just noticed the discussion is five years old.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

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