Home > Uncategorized > The Eureka Reporter: Selective News for Local Dupes

The Eureka Reporter: Selective News for Local Dupes

The Eureka Reporter is making bold headlines out of accusations that Humboldt County DA Paul Gallegos lifted portions of a 2000 academic paper for an editorial that appeared in last week’s Times-Standard. The Eureka Reporter cares about plagiarism, you see. They REALLY care. Unless, of course, the person alleged to have committed this embarrassing faux pas slurps from the same political trough.

The article in today’s ER compares sentences and partial sentences in the DA’s editorial with a paper by Robert Louis Felix. The longest identical section is 19 words long.

In sharp contrast, the Eureka Reporter looked the other way and whistled Dixie after local attorney Andrew Stunich was found to have plagiarized major sections of a previously published work in an editorial published in the Eureka Reporter last May, including one 109-word section that was nearly identical to the original copy-written material.

When leftist political strategist Richard Salzman submitted letters to the editor under fake names, ER editor Glen Franco Simmons called the police.

When right-wing lawyer Andrew Stunich plagiarized someone else’s work for an ER editorial, the Arkley-owned paper ran a teensy-weensy “clarification” that “it is possible” that Stunich put his name on another person’s writings.

Now that Paul Gallegos is accused to doing exactly what Stunich did (only on a smaller scale), the ER busts out with a giant headline.

Something reeks at the Eureka Reporter, and it’s not a pompous editor’s SUV.

If Gallegos intentionally copied someone else’s work and put his name on it, he should apologize. When contacted by the ER, Gallegos said “Obviously the question here is whether I intended to take direct quotes without attribution, and no, I didn’t intend that.”

If the ER contacted Stunich about his obvious use of someone else’s work, no comment was published, and certainly no headline blared from the top of A1 or anywhere else in the paper.

Is the Eureka Reporter a legitimate news source or a propaganda rag for the political right? The answer appears more and more obvious as time goes on.

  1. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 9:24 am

    Ask yourself: Which newspaper first broke the news of the Arkleys’ FPPC violations?

    The answer won’t mesh with your biases.

  2. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 9:42 am

    Which paper do you think found out first – the Arkley Reporter – because the Arklies told them.

    If I had broken the law and was going to get in trouble, I would definitely want my paper to break the story first. That way it can be framed as not that big a deal – which the Arkley Reporter dutifully came through on.

    His paper called him “a local business owner” (wow – how benign, that’s like the mom and pop down the street from me, right?) and failed to mention that he’s been in trouble for these violations before.

    Then the Arkley Reporter looks hard-hitting for covering the story and the T-S looks like it’s telling us yesterday’s news so who cares if there is more information in their story – we already read this yesterday.

    Can you say S…P…I…N?

  3. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 9:46 am

    Paul is the DA and he is a plagiarizer. He should get an F and be expelled. Nice try Ken, trying to point out that plagiarism has occurred before somewhere on the planet. The point of the story is that your butt buddy is dishonest and got caught. No matter how you try to say it has happened before it does not detract from the fact that Paul has been, is and will continue to be intellecturally and morally bankrupt.

  4. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 9:59 am

    “Can you say S…P…I…N?”

    So they can’t do anything right, can they?

    If the ER hadn’t broken the story, the haters would say cover-up.

    When they do – due to Bender’s singular diligence – you say S…P…I…N.

    That’s called bias. Unreasoning bias against honest journaism.

    Congrats to the ER for running a straight-up, straightforward newspaper that calls their boss out when he screws up.

  5. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 10:10 am

    Whatever – you’re probably one of the newspaper’s lackys yourself. We now know that you people post to these blogs. How like you to congratulate yourselves for a job well done. Pathetic.

  6. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 10:15 am

    Regardless of who says it, it was a reporting job well done by the ER. Even the T-S would acknowledge that.

    But the conspiracy freaks will go into the usual contortions to keep the unreasoning hatred alive, even when presented with plain evidence that contradicts the fantasy.

  7. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 10:47 am

    The article (the issue) isn’t about Stunich or anyone else. It’s about our District Attorney. The guy that talks about “justice”. The guy who is the most powerful law enforcement official in the county and his going to hold the cops accountable for whatever? The guy that also plagiarizes other peoples work product to make himself appear to be an intellectual.

    It’s straight up dishonesty. Is this what you expect from the district attorney? Most honest people would expect a little more. If he lowers himself to this level just to make him seem educated or an intelectual what is he capable of on more serious issues?

    Gallegos is the District Attorney, like it or not, and should be held to a higher standard.

    But nice try Ken, it’s Arkleys fault, it’s PL’s fault …… maybe you can use the line “I don’t know whose fault it is I just know it isn’t mine” ?

    You are just now addressing it because people, me included, have been on your blog and Eric Kirks blog commenting on your LACK OF COMMENT, challenging you to comment. So now the AEB, Loco Solutions spin is that it’s the ER’s fault, no it’s Andy Stunichs fault, maybe it’s my Aunt Connies fault. Cause it just can’t be Gallegos’ fault it just can’t because he’s Ken Miller and Richard Salzman’s boy.

    Face it Gallegos got BUSTED and you’re pissed. Try as you will you can’t clean this one up.

  8. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 12:05 pm

    Face it Ken, your guy stepped on his %^#@. He’s going get beat up in the blog’s and in the local news. Try as you will to hide or spin the facts, he got BUSTED and you can’t change that!

    Of course you’ll attempt to deflect the issue or blame others. But the bottom line is your boy did it. It was no sneak attack by the ER ! They contacted him, interviewed him, and printed his side of the story.

    Dishonesty is dishonesty.

  9. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 12:07 pm

    rebecca benders dilligence give me a break. she regularly runs hit pieces on favored targets on the left, concentrating on gallegos and the greens these days and kevin hoovers enemies back when she hacked for the eye.

  10. Heraldo
    September 7, 2006 at 12:24 pm

    [The ER] contacted [Gallegos], interviewed him, and printed his side of the story.

    That’s right. But they didn’t do that when their buddy Stunich got busted stealing entire paragraphs. That was the point of my post.

    I don’t fault the Distorter for reporting on Paul’s apparent mis-deed. I simply comment on their failure to be evenhanded.

  11. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 12:48 pm

    There you go again ken, trying to deflect Gallegos’ bad deeds. I don’t know what you’re ragging on Andy Stunich about but he IS NOT the District Attorney, Gallegos is.

    Gallegos has been exposed, embarassed,and humiliated in the ER article. It is what it is. Gallegos is going to have to dodge the bad press. And too bad for him, he brought it on himself.

    I hope would be internet detectives start work on other My Word editorials, election statements, interviews, and so on. I would bet my left ….. knee that this is not Gallegos’ first time at plagiarizm. The first time he got caught red handed but not the first time he did it.

    how’s the old saying go …. liar liar pants on fire …..

    have a nice day folks

  12. Heraldo
    September 7, 2006 at 1:30 pm

    12:48 – My best advice to you is a class on reading and comprehension.

  13. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 1:51 pm

    Ken, is that the best advice you can give me? I guess anyone that isn’t a Dr. or a lawyer just isn’t that bright ? gee whiz Ken can you tell me where I can sign up for some of them thar adult ed classes?

    From a Dr. I would expect some better advice. Don’t you advise people on how to get a 215 marijuana pass to grow dope ? Do you think smoking 3 pounds of weed would help my reading and comprehension?

  14. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 2:09 pm

    And just FYI; I think the Eureka Reporter is doing a great job. Head and shoulders above the Times/Slandard.

  15. Heraldo
    September 7, 2006 at 2:23 pm

    I don’t know what you’re ragging on Andy Stunich about

    I’m not ragging on Andy Stunich, I’m ragging on the Eureka Reporter. As stated previously, the ER made themselves a player in this story, not just a third-party reporter of events. By instigating a police investigation of Richard Salzman the ER became part of the story. They wrote a scathing and self-righteous editorial about dishonesty within 24 hours of the Journal’s “Web of Lies” article. The ER stated “As a result of Salzman’s deception, The Eureka Reporter will institute a new letter and guest opinion policy that will be much tougher to evade.” But tuff words were all talk because just a few months later, the ER published Stunich’s plagiarized editorial. Rather than splashing a headline saying EUREKA REPORTER FOILED AGAIN! they comforted Andy with a warm blanket and threw a rug over the stolen paragraphs.

    Fair and balanced my eye.

  16. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 2:41 pm

    “rebecca benders dilligence give me a break. she regularly runs hit pieces on favored targets on the left, concentrating on gallegos and the greens these days and kevin hoovers enemies back when she hacked for the eye.”

    Yeah that’s very revealing for where the Arkley Eye is at too. It’s not the “independent” paper Hoover pretends it is. Hoover and his Eye are a snake-in-the-grass servant of the Arkleys. Working as needed like an on-call prostitute.

    It was real easy for Rebecca Bender to go from the Eye to the Retarder. Like going from one room to another in the same house.

  17. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 2:55 pm

    “Is the Eureka Reporter a legitimate news source or a propaganda rag for the political right? The answer appears more and more obvious as time goes on.”

    It’s been clear as day from the begining. The Arkley Retarder was created for the purpose of spreading that alcoholic nutcase Arkley’s lies and propaganda, and for running the Times-Standard out of business.

    If the Arkleys succeed in silencing the T-S, the Retarder will quickly slide even farther Right editorially, and Arkley will start cutting wages and benefits for all his venal little journalist-prostitutes. And it will serve them right.

  18. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 3:00 pm

    People are so determined to cling to their fantasies.

    The ER exposes Arkley wrongdoing, and that’s evidence of pro-Arkley propaganda?

    The deranged reaction is evidence of brain atrophication by the loney conspiracists.

  19. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 3:04 pm

    The ER exposes Arkley wrongdoing, and that’s evidence of pro-Arkley propaganda?

    No, you twit, that is evidence of “damage control”.

    Are you one of those morons who tries to deny that the publisher of a newspaper has no influence over the editorial policy and strategy of his own newspaper?

  20. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 3:04 pm

    Oh kenny, or should I say anon 3:00. You are such an asshole. This is similar to your buddy. Using phrases and words to give the appearance that you are some kind of elitist intellectual.

    You’re just pissed cause your butt boy screwed up and got zinged BIG TIME and it’s not going away. Since I’m not an intellectual elitist I can say fuck you kenny.

  21. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 3:12 pm

    “…asshole…butt boy…I’m not an intellectual elitist…fuck you..”

    Boy you sure proved that!

    But you’re evading the question. Here, I post it again for your convenience:

    Are you one of those morons who tries to deny that the publisher of a newspaper has no influence over the editorial policy and strategy of his own newspaper?

  22. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 3:16 pm

    Let me see, Local Solutions was created to help stop the recall of Paul. Then they helped him get re-elected and now are high profile in their new endorsements. So their you have it. Vote no on Bonnie Neely, Peter LeVallee, Larry Glass, Ron Kuhnel and Nancy Abrams. We have seen enough haven’t we. Or are we going to be held hostage to a few Liberals anti growth policies? Maybe the moderates and conservatives are too busy working!

  23. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 3:18 pm

    So what would you have the ER do? Report the news or not? Either way you condemn them, right? Whate the hell is that, anyway?

    What no one can take away from them is that they did the right thing – reported news in a timely fashion.

    The tortured acrobatics that the conspiracists have to perform to depict that as bad reveals their true intentions – to hate, ceaselessly and senselessly, under any circumstances.

  24. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 3:21 pm

    So do you think it’s a “conspiracy” to say that the publisher of a newspaper has total control over the editorial policy and strategy of his own newspaper?

  25. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 3:31 pm

    Depends on the paper. No two are the same. Do you have any newspaper experience?

    But you’re not facing up to the simple fact that the ER did what it was supposed to do, and did it very well. That’s the breaks, conspiracists.

  26. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 3:37 pm

    Depends on the paper.

    Nonsense. A slightly more clever evasion, but an evasion nevertheless.

    Can you give me one single example of a newspaper where the publisher does not have total control over the editorial policy and political strategy of his own newspaper?

  27. Heraldo
    September 7, 2006 at 3:39 pm

    you’re not facing up to the simple fact that the ER did what it was supposed to do

    It’s been faced, and also noticed that the ER didn’t do “what it was supposed to do” with the Stunich situation.

    Good thing Paul’s editorial wasn’t published in the ER, or Glen Franco Simmons would be forced to call the cops. I mean that is a normal reaction to such a controversy, isn’t it? Winkler’s probably got Chief Douglas on speed-dial for just such an emergency.

  28. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 3:43 pm

    Touché! :-)

  29. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 3:45 pm

    “Can you give me one single example of a newspaper where the publisher does not have total control over the editorial policy and political strategy of his own newspaper?”

    Good point. But all that matters is whether the publisher attempts to exercise any control. One extreme would be the Santa Barbara News-Press. Another would be the Times-Standard and Eureka Reporter, where the publishers give their editors and reporters free rein.

    If you doubt that’s the case, talk to the respective papers’ editorial staffmembers. Or wallow in ignorance-fueled conspiracy mongering. It’s your choice; one that frankly it appears you and others have already made.

  30. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 4:01 pm

    “…the Times-Standard and Eureka Reporter, where the publishers give their editors and reporters free rein.”

    You’re very naive. No publisher gives their editors and reporters “free rein”. That is classic journalistic propaganda, to serve the illusion of “freedom of the press”. This propaganda is necessary to give readers the illusion that news reporting is “fair and balanced” and “truthful”. It isn’t.

    There is “freedom of the press” only for those who own the press.

    “If you doubt that’s the case, talk to the respective papers’ editorial staffmembers.”

    Hilarious. As if staffmembers would risk their jobs by speaking freely about their bosses.

  31. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 4:05 pm

    “Hilarious. As if staffmembers would risk their jobs by speaking freely about their bosses.”

    Uh, you don’t really know any reporters, or have any newspaper experience, do you?

    If you did, you’d know that dissing the editor/publisher is a favorite pastime.

    But one thing the T-S and ER folks never complain about is anyone trying to prevent them from telling it.

    Don’t let mundane factual information dilute the conspiracy weaving. That wouldn’t be right.

  32. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 4:17 pm

    “Uh, you don’t really know any reporters, or have any newspaper experience, do you? If you did, you’d know that dissing the editor/publisher is a favorite pastime.”

    Again, you’re evading the issue. We’re not talking about “dissing” the editor or publisher in some childish way behind their backs, or even in some friendly, harmless way to their faces.

    By “speaking freely about their bosses”, what we’re obviously talking about in this context is whether reporters and editors would admit that the publisher has the first and last word regarding the paper’s basic editorial policy and political strategy.

    And of course if that publisher wants to maintain the illusion that there is “freedom of the press”, then those journalists and editors are definitely going to help him maintain that illusion — if they want to keep their jobs.

  33. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 4:25 pm

    OK, well, obviously mere facts aren’t going to dislodge anyone comfortably nestled into their elaborate web of presuppositions.

    The ER did a good, straightforward job of reporting a story that embarrassed their owner. Good on them!

  34. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 4:29 pm

    “OK, well, obviously mere facts aren’t going to dislodge anyone comfortably nestled into their elaborate web of presuppositions.”

    Yes, you’ve described yourself perfectly. Very good.

    What you’re arguing against is simple logic. I can see why you’re giving up. It’s a losing battle.

  35. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 4:33 pm

    Spend a day at a real newspaper sometime instead of expounding based on movies you’ve seen. Or talk to an actual reporter. Might be enlightening.

  36. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 4:34 pm

    You’re still evading the issue.

  37. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 4:42 pm

    What issue is that?

    Whether local newspapers are inappropriately controlled by their publishers?

    When the ER is first with a thorough story in the boss’s screw-up, only hardcore conspiracists can – and do – spin that as proof of inappropriate control.

    When this is pointed out, they evade the simple truth and cry about evasions. There MUST be a conspiracy; nothing shall dent this precious belief that keeps them warm. “Cause that’s all they got.

    It’s OK. Lots of actual journalists – people who work for a living – read this, and know what’s what.

  38. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 4:49 pm

    What issue is that?
    Whether local newspapers are inappropriately controlled by their publishers?

    There you go! Very good! Now, whether or not it is “inappropriate” for a publisher to control their own newspaper, we can leave for later discussion if you like. But the only thing we’ve been discussing so far is the fact of that control itself.

    This is what you dispute. So let’s help you out and consider a few simple facts for starters:

    Rob Arkley Jr. is an arch-conservative Republican with very strong opinions, a very strong will, close ties to the Bush Administration and a definite political agenda.

    Can you at least face these well-known facts?

  39. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 4:55 pm

    By and large, that’s correct.

    And can you acknowledge that his newspaper did the right thing in first reporting his errant behavior?

  40. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 5:05 pm

    Speaking of controling media: After looking at the Barbara Shults doorkicking party I noticed this little gem of friendliness from our pal David Cobb, he seems to have a different interpretation of what a public meeting is. I sure hope nobody with a speech impediment or hearing problem shows up or David is liable to call the cops.

    YouTube

  41. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 5:08 pm

    It’s a fair question, though – was Chucky there playing reporter again, or as a Green?

    He alternates back and forth from moment to moment, and doesn’t do either very well.

  42. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 5:09 pm

    “By and large, that’s correct.
    And can you acknowledge that his newspaper did the right thing in first reporting his errant behavior?”

    Yes, definitely.

    Okay, now that we agree that the owner of the Eureka Reporter is a strong-willed conservative Republican with strong political beliefs and opinions, we’re ready for the next step.

    He’s pouring millions of dollars into that paper, I’m sure we can agree on that too. He’s even doing it at a loss. No economic profit at all. Isn’t that extraordinary?

    I’m sure we can agree that he’s not doing such an extraordinary thing for no reason. What we will likely disagree on is what exactly that reason is.

    It’s quite reasonable to assume that a person like Rob Arkley Jr. is not pouring so much money into a profitless newspaper merely to give a few editors and journalists “free rein” to express their own opinions.

    Rob Arkley Jr. has many strong opinions and purposes of his own. The Eureka Reporter is clearly serving his purposes, or he would not put so much money into it.

    Do you agree with that?

  43. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 5:18 pm

    Well, that’s the big mystery, isn’t it? The long-range plan.

    I’d note that as repugnant as you and I might find RA’s politics, they aren’t illegal (well, except for the parts the ER ad then the T-S reported on).

    “Rob Arkley Jr. has many strong opinions and purposes of his own. The Eureka Reporter is clearly serving his purposes, or he would not put so much money into it.”

    I can’t pretend to know what he wants insofar as the newspaper, nor can you. But as long as the ER does honest work, it deserves basic respect.

    When that changes, everyone will notice and the objections will be well-founded.

  44. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 5:24 pm

    “I can’t pretend to know what he wants insofar as the newspaper, nor can you.”

    There’s no need to pretend anything. It’s perfectly obvious that what the owner of the Eureka Reporter wants the paper to do will have everything to do with the owner himself. With his personal opinions and purposes.

    You see that, right?

  45. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 5:27 pm

    What’s the evidence of that?

  46. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 5:38 pm

    “What’s the evidence of that?”

    Are you kidding? Do you see anything in the basic editorial tone and political position of the Eureka Reporter that is fundamentally at odds with its owner?

    And even with no evidence at all, the logical point remains. The owner of a newspaper, of any newspaper, is going to have control of that newspaper. And that owner is going to want the newspaper to do what he wants it to do.

    Can it be any simpler? Do you think he pours millions of dollars into his newspaper and then doesn’t care what it says?

  47. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 5:46 pm

    “Are you kidding? Do you see anything in the basic editorial tone and political position of the Eureka Reporter that is fundamentally at odds with its owner?”

    And what’s wrong with conservative editorials? Do we all have to have the same views? There’s nothing illegal or even morally wrong with having a concervative editorial stance.

    “And even with no evidence at all, the logical point remains. The owner of a newspaper, of any newspaper, is going to have control of that newspaper. And that owner is going to want the newspaper to do what he wants it to do.”

    Well, judging from the content of the Eureka Reporter, what Arkley wants is a fair, competitive newspaper unafraid even to embarrass him. Because that’s what it is.

    Look, until he does something sinister with the ER, I say he ought to get affirmation for taking the high road.

  48. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 5:56 pm

    “Well, judging from the content of the Eureka Reporter, what Arkley wants is a fair, competitive newspaper”

    Competitive, absolutely. But fair? That’s a matter of opinion. If you agree with the political bias of a newspaper then you might see it as fair. And if you disagree with the political bias of a newspaper then you might see it as unfair.

    But in any case, every newspaper does have a political bias, and in the case of the Eureka Reporter, you have identified it as conservative. Just like its owner.

    Now since Rob Arkley Jr. is conservative, and the basic political bias of his newspaper is conservative, do you think that’s an accident? Mere coincidence?

  49. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 8:28 pm

    Of course you know it’s no coincidence at all. Rob Arkley Jr. has control of his own newspaper. The Eureka Reporter is doing precisely what its owner wants it to do.

    If Rob Arkley wants to support a political candidate, the Eureka Reporter will support that candidate. If Rob Arkley wants to destroy someone politically, the Eureka Reporter will help him to do that. If Rob Arkley wants favorable propaganda for one of his money-making projects such as the Balloon Tract, the Eureka Reporter will persistently trumpet that propaganda to the people of Humboldt County.

  50. Heraldo
    September 7, 2006 at 8:39 pm

    Good point, 8:28. We’ve already seen it happen.

  51. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 8:51 pm

    It’s a fair question, though – was Chucky there playing reporter again, or as a Green?

    If its a public meeting, as the ad in the paper said it was, then it doesn’t matter if Charles is a three-toed deaf mute from Mars, its a public meeting. To try to invent out of thin air some identification requirements is just one more way David Cobb likes to act as a “gatekeeper” to keep the public light away from his dirty dealings.

  52. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 9:23 pm

    Hearaldo, get over it you loser. Your golden boy figure head stepped on his dick in public. Admit it, deal with it, and get on with it. Trying to blame everybody else just doesn’t get it. It’s Gallegos’ fault, he did it, let him stand up for himself and quit sniveling !

    Are all you progrssive types punk sissy bithces ?

  53. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 9:28 pm

    “Hearaldo, get over it you loser. Your golden boy figure head stepped on his dick in public.”
    “Are all you progrssive types punk sissy bithces ?”

    Don’t retards just say the cutest things?

  54. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 9:44 pm

    “Good point, 8:28. We’ve already seen it happen.”

    Yeah the Arkley machine’s hatchet-job hype against Salzman was unbelievable. I mean, over letters-to-the-editor, fer gosh sakes! “Web of Lies” indeed — from a deceitful bourgeois rag that does Arkley’s dirty work and is printed on Arkley’s press while steadfastly insisting it is “independent” of Arkley.

    Desperate for dirt, Arkley even got the Trinidad police chief to confiscate Salzman’s computers and drive them down to the San Francisco for some lab to examine the hard disks for evidence of — brace yourself — letters to the editor!

    Horrifying.

  55. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 11:09 pm

    The Arkley-FPPC fines conspiracy is much, much deeper than people can imagine.

    What all of you fools are overlooking is that Arkley’s FPPC violations date back to 2004, which is when the ER was launched — in a Web form only. Clearly, Arkley Jr. would easily anticipate back then that his up-and-coming wrap would struggle with credibility.

    The violations were obviosly planned well in advance so that one day an arbitrarily selected reporter would be leaked the information about the fines to break the story to make it appear as if the ER was a credible newspaper.

    That Bender happened across the FPPC violations and launched a story as part of her job is absolutely unbelievable.

    On a similar note, that Muller could read Gallegos’ “My Word” column and discern that it could not be his writing is absolutely impossible. Only a politically inspired subversive could bring that info into the public light. Purely politics.

  56. Anonymous
    September 7, 2006 at 11:37 pm

    “…to make it appear as if the ER was a credible newspaper.”

    They do need all the help they can get.

    “That Bender happened across the FPPC violations and launched a story as part of her job is absolutely unbelievable.”

    Definitely. Figures that she was spawned by the Arkley Eye. They’re unbelievable. Freaky too.

    “Purely politics.”

    Yep, and the source of the ER’s dirty politics is of course its owner.

  57. Anonymous
    September 8, 2006 at 1:10 am

    Good lord, put your delusions to rest. Oh wait, you did. Nice pic of Trinidad.

  58. Anonymous
    September 8, 2006 at 1:18 am

    Looks like Ken is hard at work after his stint on KHSU bashing EPD cops.

    Good job Ken coming up with all the anon evening stuff, almost seems like it could be more than one person! I was pretty sure Ken and his butt buddies would get down to blaming Arkley. It almost always seems to come down to everything is Arkleys fault.

    District Attorney Paul Gallegos sends in a “My Word” column, lets call it an essay, on “Vigilantism a force of anarchy” to the Times Standard. Which is published this past Saturday. The blogs and most T/S readers commented on how stupid the whole thing sounded. Paul Gallegos’ defenders said … well some people just don’t write very well. Then it turns out that ole PG plagairized some East Coast proffessor’s article from 2000. It had sounded sooo stupid because PG was cutting and pasting using those big words to make him sound smarter than he is. Well he’s not too bright as someone figures out what he has done and notifies the Eureka Reporter. A reporter (mueller) contacts the East Coast proffessor for comment and then contacts PG for his comment.

    Bottom line Gallegos cruises thru the internet, finds some prose he likes (or thinks will make him sound intelectually superior), he has it printed as his own in MY WORD column for the Times Standard and when he gets exposed for a fraud and a plagiarizer it’s someone elses fault. And it finally gets down to Arkleys fault. My my my.

    Is this the best you can do Ken ? Your boy Paul fucked up and got caught. It’s that simple. He is exposed as a fraud and a plagiarizer. He is obviously embarassed, as well he should be, and his followers are embarrased. After some meetings of the faithful they come up with the spin. Well spin as you will Gallegos still got busted, he is still exposed as a fraud. Someone lacking integrity and what we used to call MORAL FIBER.

    If it’s Arkley’s fault tonight whose will it be tomorrow ?

    Remember Salzman’s TIMBER YES / FRAUD NO bumper stickers ? How about DA Yes / Plagiarizer NO ?

    Enough of this. Gallegos really screwed up, he’s going to get beat up in the press for awhile (as he should) and all Millers spin can’t change that. Our DA lacks personal integrity.

    I didn’t vote for him.

  59. Anonymous
    September 8, 2006 at 8:35 am

    When are you going to get a life, 1:18? Oh wait, posting endless drivel on blogs IS your life.

  60. Anonymous
    September 8, 2006 at 8:43 am

    “Good lord, put your delusions to rest. Oh wait, you did. Nice pic of Trinidad.”
    # posted by Anonymous 01:10 AM

    That was one of Anon.R.mous’s many double-anonymous comments.

    Isn’t it anonymous enough to be Anon.R.mous? You have to be anonymous too?

  61. Andy Stunich
    September 8, 2006 at 9:20 am

    Your assertion that I (Andy Stunich) plagiarized is reckless and unfair. As you are aware, the original author endoresed and supported my use of portions his history of Muhammad and gave consent. Plagiarism has a specific meaning. It is defined as “the unauthorized use . . . .” Hence, it is impossibkle for me to have plagiarized when I used brief portion of the history of Muhammad to support my letter to the editor. Please make a retraction.

  62. Anonymous
    September 8, 2006 at 9:52 am

    The Times Standard’s silence is most revealing.

  63. Anonymous
    September 8, 2006 at 10:10 am

    For sure 9:52

    What do you think would have happened to this story if the T/S had gotten it ? It never would have seen print. The T/S is and has been bias in favor of PG.

    Why ? I don’t really know, but it has been obvious.

    The Eureka Reporter has done a good job on this story, stories, and so has Mueller. The ER will take lots of abuse from the Ken Miller and Richard Salzman crowd but hell those kind always have to blame someone else.

    I am pleased that Paul Gallegos is exposed for the person/politician he is ! And I do believe that this is the “tip of the iceberg”.

    anon 8:35 (KM) ….. when am I “going to get a life”, don’t know but I’m working on it. For now messing with retards like you is pretty fufilling, and sometimes fun.

  64. Anonymous
    September 8, 2006 at 10:32 am

    poor thing. well, I hope you get better someday!

  65. Anonymous
    September 8, 2006 at 10:32 am

    poor thing. well, I hope you get better someday!

  66. Anonymous
    September 8, 2006 at 10:34 am

    I second… er, third the motion!

  67. Heraldo
    September 8, 2006 at 11:11 am

    Andy, you used far more than a “brief portion” of another persons work, the longest passage being 109 words long, with several other identical passages. Instead of crediting the original author, you put your name on it as if it were your own. Tsk tsk.

  68. Anonymous
    September 8, 2006 at 11:31 am

    Well Ken thanks for the kind thoughts and good wishes.

    How about your take on the Plagiarizmgate issue ? Enlighten us with you wisdom ?

    Don’t want to touch that today ? Can’t balme you there, how can you wash the stink away.

    What are your thoughts on calling for Gallegos to resign ? You guys are being a little quiet, and this is the BIG story of the day !

    I’ll get back to you later I have some things to do. Can’t wait to hear the spin.

  69. Anonymous
    September 8, 2006 at 3:58 pm

    Well well well. I’m back and Kenny and company had nothing to say ! Not even som cutsy little slam ?

    Since Gallegos is out of court they’re probably having a spin doctors meeting. Have to figure out how to shut people like me up and how the clean up this mess that the surfing DA got himself into.

    still waiting ………

  70. Anonymous
    September 9, 2006 at 6:36 am

    What did you do between 11:31 and 3:58, watch your favorite soap operas?

    You sign your comments “YB” on Eric’s blog. Why not here too?

    You really are obsessed aren’t you? Just a steady stream of the same acidic verbal drivel, comment after comment, day after day. What’s the matter, can’t you get out of your house for a little exercise?

    Why don’t you try it? You need some fresh air.

  71. Anonymous
    September 9, 2006 at 12:16 pm

    I only sign YB on Eric’s blog because I kind of like him. I don’t like you.

    Good advice on the fresh air, thanks. Never would have thought of that on my own.

    Now I’ll give you some advice, relax, take a deep breath, hold it for ten seconds and let it out.

    I’m going to take your advice and get some exercise in just a few minutes. I feel soooo good knowing I got you all fired up and wigged out! Be careful you may have a stroke or a heart attack!

    Why don’t you go sit in outside and enjoy today’s ER with a nice warm glass of carrot juice?

  72. Carson Park Ranger
    September 9, 2006 at 12:19 pm

    “As you are aware, the original author endoresed and supported my use of portions his history of Muhammad and gave consent.”

    Mr. Stunich would be wise to sit this one out. If Gallegos now went to the author, after the fact (as Mr. Stunich did) and got permission to plagiarize, would that make Gallegos less culpable? Using Mr. Stunich’s logic, it would, but for the rest of us it would be, as it was in Mr. Stunich’s case, a day late and a dollar short.

  73. Anonymous
    September 9, 2006 at 3:37 pm

    Very good points. All this Arkley Reporter hype about plagiarism is much ado about nothing. Just more political harassment of Gallegos because he won’t drop the PL fraud suit, and a petty effort to discredit a Progressive D.A. during the campaign season.

  74. Anonymous
    September 9, 2006 at 3:44 pm

    “I only sign YB on Eric’s blog because I kind of like him. I don’t like you.”

    For this blog, why don’t you sign your comments “YB-normal?”

  75. Anonymous
    September 9, 2006 at 6:45 pm

    I only sign YB on Eric’s blog because I kind of like him.

    Sorry, Rose. I really doubt Eric goes for Republican women trolls who are obsessed with smearing Gallegos.

  76. Anonymous
    September 10, 2006 at 8:52 am

    Richard

    You seem to be fixated on Rose like Ken is fixated on the police? You guys are really something, something bad.

    Rose provides me with interesting factual reading on her blog. You boys provide me with entertainment, cause you’re such pleasant fellows with such … let’s just say UNUSUAL ideas. But I think that one of you two is a crazy man, since you’re anonymous I can’t say for sure.

    As far as Gags goes he brought all this on himself. The man seems to be run by three progressateers (you know who I am talking about, maybe there’s a fourth. He is and has been doing a really really poor job as a DA, beyond the unethical stuff. His actions, poor performance, bad judgement, and association with fringe lunatics affects everyone in the county and beyond. Face it dude, he keeps screwing up and people will keep zinging him in letters to the editor and the blogs.

    And I’m not even going to get into Gags hiring of the Peoples Temple Jonestown Massacre personal attorney to Jim Jones the pervert and murderer. That one act of poor/questional judgement is more than enough to set off the warning bells to any rational person. Do you guys hang with any rational people ? Of course you don’t, sorry for asking.

    I going to be rather busy this week and may not be able to cheer you up as much as normal. But the Moore inquest will be going so I’m sure you’ll have all the excitment you can handle.

    peace and love

  77. Anonymous
    September 10, 2006 at 12:21 pm

    Rose is evil.

  78. Anonymous
    September 10, 2006 at 2:38 pm

    “I going to be rather busy this week…”

    What, did Brian give you another Barbie doll?

  79. Anonymous
    September 10, 2006 at 5:00 pm

    “Richard
    You seem to be fixated on Rose like Ken is fixated on the police? You guys are really something, something bad.”

    YB-butt-boy-troll, you seem to be fixated on Richard. You are really something, something bad.

    “[Gallegos] is and has been doing a really really poor job as a DA… His actions, poor performance… Face it dude, he keeps screwing up and people will keep zinging him in letters to the editor and the blogs.”

    Face it dudette, Arkley is harassing him with his propaganda rag. If you think Gallegos is doing a “really really poor job” then Arkley’s harassment is only making his job harder. That is very irresponsible of Arkley. He doesn’t care about the people of Humboldt County and their elected D.A. Arkley cares only for his own megalomaniac political-economic agenda.

    “I going to be rather busy this week and may not be able to cheer you up as much as normal. … peace and love”

    Signing your spite-soaked comment with “peace and love” is not just sarcasm, but an expression of your inherently dishonest nature.

    You want to cheer us up? Go wave a flare gun in front of the EPD.

  80. Anonymous
    September 10, 2006 at 8:30 pm

    Heh.

  81. Andy Stunich
    September 13, 2006 at 4:02 pm

    Pursuant to Civil Code section 48a, I am asking you to please withdraw your accusation that I plagiarized and issue a retraction. I have previously sent to you proof of the auhtorization I received to use the supporting facts I used about Muhammad in my letter to the editor. The authorization precludes the matter from constituting plagiarism given the definition of plagiarism requiring the use to be without authorization. I had authorization and I am requesting a retraction pursuant to Civil Code section 48a. I am also asking that you please remove any articles or achived articles that state that I plagiarized. If you will not do so, please give me your name so that we may have this issue resolved by the Courts. If you will not do so, I will have to simply name your blog site in the complaint and use the discovery process to find out who you are and then amend the complaint. I do not want to litgate over this matter, but I refuse to be defamed by you.

  82. Anonymous
    September 13, 2006 at 8:08 pm

    Is it true, as “Carson Park Ranger” stated above (at 9/09/2006 12:19:00 PM), that you got authorization AFTER you wrote the letter?

    If that is so, then it may be legitimately stated that you plagiarized material when writing the letter in question.

  83. Anonymous
    September 17, 2006 at 7:21 pm

    Change the subject cause i gotta tell ya , LaValle and Jackson , Rodini , Smith are all part of the RCAA and they get paid to bring criminals into Eureka . Go to your search bar : rcaa of humboldt county………………they really are screwing up this Town !

  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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: