Home > Uncategorized > Don’t credit Gallegos with Humboldt violence

Don’t credit Gallegos with Humboldt violence

Today’s Times-Standard eviscerates District Attorney Paul Gallegos over the failed fraud suit against Maxxam-controlled Pacific Lumber. But the paper lays too much at the DA’s feet:

[W]e have to ask whether the suit was worth the cost, both monetarily and in the social repercussions that split this community so violently down the middle.

Such statements remind readers that T-S editor Rich Somerville was not in Humboldt County prior to the fraud suit. While wars of words punctuated Maxxam’s failed attempt to recall Gallegos, physical altercations between pro and anti-Maxxam factions existed long before. The situation climaxed with the 1990 bombing of activist Judi Bari, and there were aftershocks of pepper spray.

What the recall did do was demonstrate that Maxxam is unloved by a majority of Humboldt County residents. It showed most of us are not a bunch of mindless lemmings whose votes can be controlled by a corporate raider’s money clip. At least, not anymore.

And lest we go forth with wrong-headed notions that violence among Humboldt’s split community was begotten by Gallegos or Maxxam, don’t forget the incredible violence directed at back-to-the-landers in the early 1970’s. Pratt Mountain resident Dirk Dickenson was shot in the back and then set-up by crooked cops bent on demonizing the newcomers.

Unlike the T-S, the Humboldt Herald is disinclined to declare the fraud suit saga “over.” In response to the recent appellate ruling, other action prepares itself behind the starting gate.


  1. Anonymous
    January 25, 2008 at 11:01 am

    So how is violent crime faring under Gallegos?

  2. January 25, 2008 at 11:07 am

    He ISN’T going to appeal that POS? IS he, “heraldo”? Is he?!!!?

    You have got to be kidding!

    Why doesn’t he try to repair the CAST unit instead?

  3. January 25, 2008 at 11:09 am

    Like I already said, I doubt there will be an appeal.

  4. January 25, 2008 at 11:12 am

    “Unlike the T-S, the Humboldt Herald is disinclined to declare the fraud suit saga “over.”

    How much more time and energy and county resources will be wasted on this?

  5. brian
    January 25, 2008 at 11:18 am

    Not much Rose…..Like the T.S. said Gallegos is a dumbass.

  6. Anonymous
    January 25, 2008 at 11:38 am

    say Hmmmm, the Humboldt All Faith Partnership
    does some really good work, eh, heraldo?

    Nah, they’d never be connected with someone as nasty as you would they?

    We are all getting through with your divisiveness Heraldo.

  7. Kym
    January 25, 2008 at 11:38 am

    I enjoyed your post from 2006. This was the first time I had heard of the Rolling Stones’ article. I would love to see a post on the text.

    Your post wasn’t the first time I heard about Judge Thomas though. I grow up not far from him when he lived in Benbow. He was a thoughtful, kind man given to being open minded, clear sighted, and listening carefully even to children. I remember the recall campaign opened my eyes as a teenager to the reality that many people in authority are not as concerned about reason as he was.

    It seems to me I read in one of Ray Raphael’s great books a passage about Judge Thomas that also reiterates my remembrances of his fair and well thought out rulings. Unfortunately, I can’t find it. Maybe someone else knows where it is located.

  8. January 25, 2008 at 11:44 am

    Several people were interested in the text from the Rolling Stone article after my post about it, but I was never able to get a good copy to put on line. Maybe I’ll try again.

  9. January 25, 2008 at 11:59 am

    What the recall did do was demonstrate that Maxxam is unloved by a majority of Humboldt County residents.

    Maybe that’s what the recall did. What did the suit do?

  10. Not A Native
    January 25, 2008 at 12:26 pm

    I’d say the suit settled the contention of whether the right to misrepresent in lobbying the CDF is greater than the onus to not unfairly compete in logging practices.

    Now that it is clear, anyone who wants a different outcome knows they must change the laws by lobbying the legislature. Thats a good result, since it will reduce the conflicts in the forests.

  11. January 25, 2008 at 12:29 pm

    Now that it is clear, anyone who wants a different outcome knows they must change the laws by lobbying the legislature.

    I don’t know about that. Noerr-Pennington is Constitutional. The legislature can’t overturn the U.S. Constitution.

  12. Anonymous
    January 25, 2008 at 1:59 pm

    You are correct Hank. What NotANative fails to see is the reasoning in the opinion.

    The court first said that statements made during the CEQA process are protected by the litigation privilege.

    It next said that even though it didn’t have to reach the other arguments it would and that the first amendment protected statements made in lobbying.

    Then it said that there was no way you could call the CEQA process void of legitimacy because this was a three year process that involved 80 thousand pages of record and 16,000 people submitting comments. That the report in question was not asked for by CDF, but was asked for by the Water Board. That it was submitted to the Water Board and copied to CDF AFTER the period for public comment had closed and that over a month BEFORE the CDF rendered a decision on the SYP, a corrected copy was submitted to the Water Board and copied to CDF. Then the lower SYP was decided and only after lobbying was a higher SYP decided upon. The court also said that at the time the incorrect document was submitted to the Water Board and copied to the CDF, there were numerous reports contradicting the alleged fraudulent report.

    Then the court went on to say that even if it credited everything the DA had to say, there was no way that he could prevail and kicked the case.

    They are not sanctioning fraud…they are saying that in this context no fraud existed.

  13. Not A Native
    January 25, 2008 at 2:07 pm

    If you look at the decision closely, Noerr-Pennington specifically wasn’t challenged by the DA or reviewed in the opinion. Rather, the specifics of what might consititute a “sham” or fraud based exception to Noerr-Pennington was analysed. Cases cited were Federal decisions that may have created the exception.

    From the opinion: “suggesting an open question remains whether there is a fraud-based exception to
    the Noerr-Pennington doctrine”

  14. anon
    January 25, 2008 at 2:26 pm

    So, back to the subject, how’s the DA’s office doing on violent crime. Say, for instance, sex crimes? Any recent news suggesting that the office is about as crackerjack on that issue as, say, sidewalk crime in Ferndale? Or is it a good idea to have wet-behind-the ears neophytes who don’t interview witnesses trying major felonies?

  15. January 25, 2008 at 2:31 pm

    If you look at the decision closely, Noerr-Pennington specifically wasn’t challenged by the DA or reviewed in the opinion

    Not A Native – you might find that that is because the DA was writing his brief a few days before it was due and had no idea what he was doing. He had nothing to go on, and the people who helped him craft his arguments out of hole cloth had abandoned him. Even I ALMOST feel sorry for him. Almost.

  16. Not A Native
    January 25, 2008 at 2:49 pm

    Sorry Rose, the decision by the DA to not challenge an established point of law is a very good one, not a result of haste. He took a more considered approach. A legal doctrine is settled until a clear reason to overturn it arises. Thats a very high legal standard, which is seldom met.

    The DA argued appropriately on the basis that an exception to the doctrine, identified in previously decided case, was similar to the facts of the PALCO situation.

  17. Anonymous
    January 25, 2008 at 3:25 pm

    Horseshit Not a Native –
    The Da argued dicta from a case (Rubin) that was limited and some of which had been rejected by the Supreme Court. Read the footnotes.

  18. Not A Native
    January 25, 2008 at 4:03 pm

    3:25, The argument made by the DA didn’t prevail, but it wasn’t rejected as inappropriate.

    In discussing the Rubin precedent, the decision concludes:

    “In so holding, we acknowledge the State’s and amicus’s argument that UCL
    actions brought by governmental entities on the People’s behalf serve important law
    enforcement purposes.”

    Finally, the legal precedent cited in the decision whether “fair” competition overcomes the protection to mislead was:

    “ ‘[it] is desirable to create an absolute privilege . . . not because we desire to protect the
    shady practitioner, but because we do not want the honest one to have to be concerned
    with [subsequent derivative] actions . . . ’ ”
    [The practitioner reference is to the law profession.]

    I’d say the court decision realized that PALCO is a “shady practitioner” within its industry but found that didn’t outweigh a principle considered more important. That’s where new legislative action can have effect.

  19. January 25, 2008 at 4:44 pm

    So you are proposing legislation that prevents people from stating their side of the case in any decision to be made by a governmental body?

    Rather the opposite of the “right to lie” – you are proposing to kill off any speech you deem objectionable. Or that gets in the way of your goals for another person’s property. That’s what your next step is?

    That’s right up there with you guys trying to set up a Trust Fund so that Gallegos could run (expensive) full page ads in the LATimes and SF Chronicle to solicit, accept and use special interest money to privately fund public prosecution – that is FAR MORE CORRUPTION OF THE SYSTEM THAN HOME DEPOT HELPING PAY FOR A PLAYGROUND. Don’t hear a PEEP from “heraldo” condemning that, do ya.

  20. January 25, 2008 at 5:37 pm

    Rose, is it more corrupting than hiding the source of a charitable donation because the donor wants help with a commercial project?

  21. Anonymous
    January 25, 2008 at 5:56 pm

    Let’s see, now who is hiding what? I didn’t get that. Is this another conspiracy theory?

  22. Rose
    January 25, 2008 at 5:59 pm

    Yes, turtle. It is.

    Tell me this – If Stoen and Gallegos were prosecuting Kobe Bryant, and Gallegos’ backers and handlers were the Aryan Brotherhood, who were contributing money to fund the prosecution of Kobe Bryant – to “get that black man” – would that be ok?

  23. January 25, 2008 at 6:06 pm

    still thinking.

  24. January 25, 2008 at 6:07 pm

    No, no it would not be okay. It takes a minute to read, that’s all.

  25. January 25, 2008 at 6:14 pm

    A good DA helps the crime rate go down, right?

    Do you have any statistics on Gallegos v. Farmer or say, for Humboldt under Gallegos v. other counties during the same time frame?

  26. Rose
    January 25, 2008 at 6:15 pm

    Thank you, humboldtturtle. The public judicial system belongs to the people. It was not intended to be funded by special interests. I mean it. Thank You.

  27. January 25, 2008 at 6:22 pm

    The court of public opinion,……and facts, will play this out all over. You know, with an election coming up, it seems there is other topics of interest, no?

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  28. January 25, 2008 at 6:22 pm

    Shucks, Rose, I know where you are coming from. A number of us felt the same way about Maxxam Corp. funding that recall attempt against the DA.

  29. January 25, 2008 at 6:44 pm
  30. Rose
    January 25, 2008 at 6:59 pm

    And I agree with you turtle – they should never have funded the Recall. They should never have even contributed to it.

  31. Yo...
    January 25, 2008 at 7:35 pm

    Well, Turtle, it hardly seems that the “source of a charitable donation” was hidden, particularly when one can google Kaboom with ease.

    Furthermore, Home Depot is one of many sponsors. The list is long…


    ACC Capital Holdings Allergan Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity and United Jewish Communities Alticor AmeriCares Amgen Foundation Arena Football League and Arena Football League Players’ AssociationThe Baltimore Ravens Bank of America -Houston Bexar County 4-H Youth Development CommitteeCalifornia Governor and First Lady’s Conference on WomenComcast Corporation DJR Foundation GeoGlobal Partners Habitat for Humanity International Hatfield Family FundThe Home Depot Foundation The Illinois Department of Human Services ING DIRECT Jamba Juice Inc. Jet Blue Airwarys The Junior League of BirminghamJunior League of Macon The Junior League of Pittsburgh Kansas City Orthopedic InstituteLIVE with Regis and Kelly / Disney – ABC Domestic Television LUNCHABLES Lunch Combinations / Kraft Foods Global Inc. Madieu Williams FoundationMark Clayton Foundation MedImmuneMinnesota Orthopaedic Society Minnesota Vikings National 4-H Headquarters at USDA National Association of School Psychologists Children’s Fund, Inc.National Basketball Association National Business Aviation Association National Heritage Academies NBA Cares/Quicken Loans/Cleveland Cavaliers Omnicom Captial Inc. Orlando Magic PECO An Exelon Company Playworld Systems, Inc. Post HOPE FoundationProject Rebuild PlaqueminesQuicken Reedy Industries Rock Bottom Restaurants, Inc SAP America, Inc.Six Flags Theme ParksThe State Farm Bayou Classic The Chrysler Foundation The Glenwood School for Boys and Girls The Kline Family The Marriott & Ritz-Carlton Relief FundThe Stop & Shop Family Foundation The Toro Company The Walt Disney Company Thrivent Financial for Lutherans – Kansas CityThrivent Financial for Lutherans – St. Louis The Toro Company Unilever United Jewish Communities

    Hall of Fame: Major Past Supporters
    American Eagle Outfitters FoundationArmstrong World Industries, Inc. Ben & Jerry’s Homemade, Inc.CA, Inc.Chicago Housing AuthorityCumulus MediaJetBlue Airways The David and Lucile Packard FoundationKimberley-Clark CorporationMotorola The Madison Square Garden Cheering for Children FoundationNike / Reuse-A-Shoe ProgramThe Outback SteakhouseOpus Northwest PepsiCoRedwood City School District Smart Start Georgia Sprint Foundation
    The Stanley WorksTarget CorporationWisk Sport/UnileverWalgreens

    Does your corporation or association want to support kids and play with KaBOOM!? Contact Bridget Hankin at 202-464-6084

  32. January 25, 2008 at 7:40 pm

    Absolutely right, Yo.

    I should have said “is it more corrupting than omitting the source” rather than “more corrupting than hiding the source”.

    Do the guilty flee where none pursue?

  33. Yo...
    January 25, 2008 at 8:07 pm

    So you indeed think there was some kind of nefarious omission? I mean, and it just looks from the list that HD is one of many, many partners.

    Kaboom is a nonprofit org, that from the looks of things have a ton of corporate sponsors. Not quite the conspiracy that some would like it to be…

  34. January 26, 2008 at 7:25 am

    ‘cept JLeonard solicited the donation from a project applicant then failed to tell the public about it.

  35. Yo...
    January 26, 2008 at 8:49 am

    ‘cept, Kaboom does NOT equal Home Depot, much as you’d like it to…

  36. gmf
    January 26, 2008 at 9:30 am

    Humbldt turtle

    Crime is not down under Gallegos. Crime is routinely ignored (by the DA), but it is not down. A DA can only assist in keeping crime down (b vigorously prosecuting criminals). The DA doesn’t go out in cars or on foot looking for, confronting/catching criminals, collecting evidence, then submitting reports and so on. For a DA to take credit for lowering the crime rate or preventing crime is like the channel 3 weather girl taking credit for a sunny day in June.

    And H your posting about the Rolling Stone article is so lame. Were you a resident of Humboldt in 1972 ? I don’t think think you were. You (and your recollection of the R/S article) make it sound like Dirk was just a funluvving back to the earth hippie who loved the trees and cared for small animals.

    As I recall the operation or law enforcment effort on little Dirk was because they suspected he had an amphetamine pill press, NOT a meth lab as you say. And I seriously doubt if Dirk and his sweetie just waved with a smile on their faces when a military style heleicopter landed on their property. Dirk was fleeing the cops running toward a building. If my memory serves me correctly that is where little Dirk had his weapons (guns). IT’s easy to make your claims now when all of the police reports have been purged (the cops have to purge or destroy reoports after ten years). One unanswered question by you, and the R/S in 1973, is what had Dirk done before he came to Humboldt to go “back to the earth”???????

    “Back to the earth” is the kinder and gentler way of saying MARIJUANA GROWER. With the influx of marijuana growers in the early to mid 70’s came the crime and social problems that go along with an outlaw community. Back then the fantasy of Medical marijuana hadn’t been dreamed up yet.

    As to Gallegos’ legacy !? The best he can hope for is to be thought of as a mediocre lawyer (and totally incompetant leader) thrust into a position he was not qualified for or capable of that was misguided by his buddies. In reality it is much worse than that. And H. I’m sure you agree, but won’t admit it.

    Oh well, it is what it is. the damage has been done.

  37. January 26, 2008 at 9:34 am

    Nope, they accused him of having a meth lab, and when they didn’t find one (after they shot him in the back) they planted one. The author of the RS article was there and witnessed the whole thing.

  38. January 26, 2008 at 9:40 am

    gmf, I am confused. The link to the Attorney General’s office (posted above) show crime rates have gone down during Gallegos’ term in office. Maybe he just got lucky. At least he didn’t make the crime rates go up. But the stats are very clear for both violent crimes and crimes against property.

  39. Noel Adamson
    January 26, 2008 at 10:05 am

    Hank Sims Says:
    January 25, 2008 at 11:59 am

    What the recall did do was demonstrate that Maxxam is unloved by a majority of Humboldt County residents.

    Maybe that’s what the recall did. What did the suit do?

    It was a very expensive way to learn that those involved in direct action, tree sitting and the like, were correct and those of us who advocated due process in the legal system were wrong.

  40. gmf
    January 26, 2008 at 5:25 pm


    Are you seriously suggesting the cops “planted” a meth lab on this dude? Come on, who are you trying to fool. I know you’re bright enough not to beleive that bullshit.

    And the author of the RS article actually witnessed the cops (sheriffs and BNDD, now DEA) plant a meth lab ? ? ? ? REALLY ? Too much. H. you’re starting to sound like Noel !

    This first (1st) Amphetamine (not methamphetamine, there is a difference) lab siezed in California was in 1967. In 1972 a meth lab was about as common an occurance as a confirmed sighting of Bigfoot would be in 1972.

  41. gmf
    January 26, 2008 at 5:27 pm

    Can’t believe you deleted my remarks H. !

  42. January 26, 2008 at 5:29 pm

    Your remarks are still there, gmf.

  43. January 26, 2008 at 5:30 pm

    The meth lab was planted days after the shooting when the crooked agents realized they shot an innocent man.

  44. robash141
    January 26, 2008 at 6:13 pm

    You know I actually saw Worth Dikeman in court several prosecuting a murder trial when I had jury duty.
    My brother was also a witness in an assault trial that Dikeman prosecuted a few years ago. He had good things to say about Dikeman.
    because I thought that some of the criticism of Gallegos for neglecting day to day business of the DA’s office because he was off searching for dragons to slay was valid.
    I also thought Dikeman comported himself well during the recall campaign

    Originally I was actually seriously considering voting for the guy.

    The utter sleaziness of fear mongering campaign that was waged on Dikemans behalf and against Gallegos left me so disgusted that now I can’t stand the man. Dikeman I mean.


    He tried to promote himself as “Mr integrity” but he came off as “Mr. Gigantic Hypocrite”

    I’m very uncomfortable with the having the police so politicized.
    Why was it so Important to get their guy elected that they had to resort to such scare tactics?

    The Police are public employee they are obligated to do their job one way or another regardless

    It became pretty clear during this campaign that a lot of those folks who bailed from the DA’s office were just deadbeats who got the job because they were someones couisin or something so they were under the mistaken impression that entitles them fuck off their jobs and still lifetime ride at taxpayer expense. Good riddance I say.

    I think there should be some rules governing civil servants behavior in political campaigns.

    Why will right wingers who hate very other kind of union accept the word of the police union unquestioningly?

    If anything Gallegos was too nice to that guy.

    He should he should have told Dikeman to clean out his desk on election night.

  45. Yo...
    January 26, 2008 at 6:21 pm

    I actually agree with you on several accounts Rob, the exception being that I dont know that the political/election rights of civil servants should be any different than those of any other person…

    notice that the groups supporting a certain candidate are being endorsed by the union, not the the Police Dept,Fire Dept etc…it’s the employee group that has organized…

    I have always thought the recall was the biggest mistake that those who supported it could make (those being Law Enforcement employee groups, cities who went on record supporting it, and PALCO)…

    Had they let the first four years run its course, PVG would have had a much tougher time winning reelection, had he not been seen as being vicitmized by a recall effort…

    By and large NOBODY likes recalls.

    I still think Dikeman is a good man, a great prosecutor, but very much a poor politician who probably wouldve been better off sitting the recall out.

  46. Anonymous
    January 26, 2008 at 6:32 pm

    Name three. Name three of the formers who fit this description, wise guy. Those people worked themselves to death, and even PVG admitted that. Or was he lying then too?
    It became pretty clear during this campaign that a lot of those folks who bailed from the DA’s office were just deadbeats who got the job because they were someones couisin or something so they were under the mistaken impression that entitles them fuck off their jobs and still lifetime ride at taxpayer expense. Good riddance I say.

  47. January 26, 2008 at 6:37 pm

    folks who bailed from the DA’s office were just deadbeats who got the job because they were someones couisin or something

    What the heck are you talking about, Robash? You lost Rob Wade, Andrew Isaac, Allison Jackson – actually a very long list of very experienced prosecutors, the kind who were qualified to take on the tough cases, the kind we had invested alot of money and time in training (as a County). The kind who worked long hours with no extra pay (did you know they lose an hours pay if they take an hour off but they do not get any extra pay when they put in a 60 hour week, and many of them do) – the kind who helped set up the CAST program, the Victim Witness Program, and others, who secured special training in those areas, and who then trained others here to specialize in those areas – who created programs that were a model for the state.
    DDA Ed Borg
    DDA Worth Dikeman
    DDA Frank Dunnick
    DDA Eamon Fitzgerald
    DDA Heather Gimle
    DDA Paul Hagen
    DDA Nicole Hansen
    DDA Shane Hauschild
    DDA Andrew Isaac
    DDA Allison Jackson
    DDA Harry Kassakian
    DDA Elizabeth Norton
    DDA Murat Ozgur
    Patrick Pekin
    DDA Amanda Penny
    DDA Gloria Albin-Sheets
    DDA Tim Stoen
    Jennifer Strona
    DDA Andy Truitt
    DDA Nandor Vadas
    DDA Rob Wade
    Bill Rodstrom
    Investigator Chris Andrews
    Investigator Chris Cook
    Investigator Jim Dawson (retired)
    Paul’s secretary Gail Dias
    Office Manager Linda Modell
    Investigator Eric Olson
    Investigator Kathy Philp (retired)
    Investigator Dave Dave Rybarczyk
    Investigator Dave Walker
    PLUS from CAST:
    Child Interview Specialist Laura Todd
    Senior Legal Secretary Melissa Arnold
    Alternate Child Interviewer Jennifer Maguire
    and more.
    Don’t forget the Victim Witness positions that we were “weaned” from.

    What do you have now?

    While everyone here is focusing on evil old Home Depot helping build a playground, there is a girl who was brave enough to get on the stand, prepared to testify against the man who molested her, who has been told her whole life that bad guys go to jail, and who trusted that the right thing would be done – a girl who was let down by this DA.

    The CAST program that could have helped her is gone.

    But hey, go back to the Palco and Home Depot pinatas.

    At this point, you could have voted for the mangy dog on the waterfront to be DA and you would have a better person in office. And that, robash, is a fact,

  48. Anonymous
    January 26, 2008 at 6:45 pm

    It’s called being shameless. The extreme left is capable of the same blind pursuit of narrow goals while everything else goes to hell. So here we are in a hell of our own design. Nationally and locally. Both left and right wingnuts have screwed us over.

  49. robash141
    January 27, 2008 at 11:32 am

    I knew that post would make Rose’s head spin 360 on it;s axis LOL..

    I’m sure there are lots of good people who left the DA’s office through natural attrition and better paying jobs

    .the “dead beats” are the ones who ditched any pretense ofprofessional decorum and chose to to publicly stab their boss in the back.
    perhaps some those folks were “dedicated”

    “dedicated” to Old-timey Humco bidness as usual where Indians ,Mexicans and Poor People get sent off to straight to prison while wealthy and well connected are allowed to crap on whomever they please with impunity.

    A lot of those folks were determined it seemed to undermine Gallegos from the get -go. Just because their guy , candidate, representing the forces of wealthy good-ol’-boyness lost the last election

    Don’t feel bad for Alison I’m sure the Harland Law firm pays A LOT more than the county. Lots of them got jobs that pay better

    Gallegos has his problems, but the people who militantly oppose him represent something that is far more corrupt IMHO .

  50. January 27, 2008 at 12:19 pm

    Yeah, robash, screw the kids, child molesters are just misunderstood guys who often “molest out of love”, screw the victims, we have to “wean ourselves” from that grant money, and they just need to toughen up, prosecute the innocent guy walking with his kid. let the rapists go if they take a polygraph, it’s all cool with you. Nice to know where you stand.

  51. January 27, 2008 at 12:22 pm

    If you’re not with rose you’re with the child molesters.

  52. Jane Doe
    January 27, 2008 at 12:58 pm

    It seems the only time she can win an argument is when she argues with her strawman. Does she really believe everything she posts?

  53. Yo...
    January 27, 2008 at 1:09 pm

    It’s hardly a strawman argument JaneDoe in light of the plea bargain agreements and very light sentencing we have seen since the CAST team has been torn apart.

    I dont think Rose’s head is spinning “360” rob; you made a pretty outlandish statement, and she countered it with names of folks who have left…good people. I still agree with you pretty much with regards to the crappy politics that went on in that office during the recall, but it’s not as if PVG didnt do the same thing, especially with the lawsuit against PALCO…

  54. Anonymous
    January 28, 2008 at 7:18 am

    Saying that crime is down under PVG is one thing; proving it is another. Citing statistics without showing a causal connection is worthless. Here, the stats cited show only the number of arrests, which is not by any means the same thing as the number of crimes committed.

    I agree that one should not feel sorry for Ms. Jackson because she is now making more money in private practice. One should feel sorry for Humboldt for losing the services of a dedicated professional with no comparable replacement. It is a despicable lie to say that the DDAs who left were deadwood.

  55. robash141
    January 28, 2008 at 9:19 am

    I’m not saying they were all the DDA’s. I’m sure a lot of the good and dedicated ones left for better paying job The deadwood, just the staff members who chose to indulge in a divisive public back stabbing campaign against their boss.

  56. Anonymous
    January 28, 2008 at 9:28 am

    Hey, can’t we lighten it up a bit? Maybe talk about Reggae on the River for a while?

  57. Anonymous
    January 28, 2008 at 10:22 am

    Robash, pray explain what you mean by “a divisive public back stabbing campaign against their boss.”

  58. robash141
    January 28, 2008 at 8:19 pm

    It’s not such an outlandish Idea since a solid majority of the voters did not believe the sorry schemers.

  59. Anonymous
    January 28, 2008 at 8:38 pm

    Robash, that is not a response to my question. That is an evasion. I believe that I am now permitted to believe that you cannot support the allegation of “a divisive public back stabbing campaign.” You kinda just made that up.

  60. Anonymous
    January 29, 2008 at 2:41 pm

    Robash, with all due respect, are you high or do you really believe this crap?


  61. robash141
    January 29, 2008 at 3:07 pm

    Yes anonymous nobody you represent the schemer/ backstabber community very well.

    You should feel pleased that i even condecended to reply

    I usally don’t directly address “nobodies” .

    I just wanted to tell you how happy I am that I don’t have to support sneaks of your ilk with my tax dollars.

    So long losers, don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

  62. January 29, 2008 at 4:12 pm

    Or maybe, robash, just maybe – people were desperately trying to get the word out about what was suddenly happening in the DA’s office. When you are talking about someone who is using that office to file lawsuits for his supporters, and plotting to set up a private funding “Trust Fund” to use his office to solicit, accept and use special interest money to fund a public lawsuit, that’s a problem. And it is only ONE of the problems.

    You just MIGHT want to CONSIDER that possibility.

    See – it is not like a political office like Patty Berg’s Office where she gets to go in and completely replace the staff.

    The DA’s Office does not belong to Gallegos. He is entrusted with it. He does not have the right to go in and fire everyone just because he wants to, nor is loyalty required for someone to work there.

    If he came in as principal of a school, he would not be allowed to fire all of the teachers there just because he wanted to, and you should not be surprised, if he did come in as a principal, that the teachers would be letting you know if it turned out he was a complete charlatan..

    Call if backstabbing if you will. But consider the possibility – especially since time has proven them right.

  63. Anonymous
    January 29, 2008 at 4:17 pm

    If not a single officer supports the DA, does it mean no dissent is allowed in local police departments and unions?

    If no dissent is allowed in politics, does it mean no independence is allowed in other local police activities?

  64. January 29, 2008 at 4:18 pm

    rose, were you fired by paul gags? or was one of your family members or friends fired by him? that would sure explain alot….

  65. susanb
    January 29, 2008 at 4:19 pm

    “The DA’s Office does not belong to Gallegos. He is entrusted with it. He does not have the right to go in and fire everyone just because he wants to, nor is loyalty required for someone to work there.”

    This is how George Bush treated the US JUSTICE DEPT. Why aren’t you whacko republicans good with it?

  66. January 29, 2008 at 4:37 pm

    Nope, otherme – I’ve explained it all before. It was Salzman telling me that he couldn’t “call these people off,” but he would “try.” amd that this was “bigger than you could possibly imagine.”

    And susanb, just for yuks, you might want to research how may Bill Clinton fired. Then explain why you whacko leftwingers are fine with it. Could be entertaining.

  67. Anonymous
    January 29, 2008 at 4:58 pm

    Robash – you obviously are carrying so much resentment that it clouds your judgment. I feel sorry for you about that.

    Susanb. What Bush did was wrong, but it is NOT the same. Bush fired the US Attorneys and not the assistants who incidently are covered by civil service protections. The assistants are not policy makers, the policy makers are the head guys which he politically fired. When Gallegos cleaned house it was akin to if Bush had gone after the assistant u.s. attorneys NOT the u.s. attorneys.

    What is so very sad is that so many of you scream that what Bush did was wrong even though what he did was aimed at the policy making heads of the office, but you have no problem with what Gallegos did to the deputies. It is not rocket science to see the difference folks.

    Unfortunately for us, the most vulnerable in our community are now paying a great price for that loss. Abusers of kids are getting a free walk. Rapists are not being prosecuted. Wife beaters ignored. Murder convictions pled down to involuntary manslaughter. In the long run, if we can’t protect the most vulnerable in our community, our community dies. We, in a sense, are defined by our choices in this matter. What counts and what doesn’t count.

    Please consider it.

    And all the while Nero (Gallegos) fiddled while Rome burned. The PL suit was rejected on its face by the court as being just flat out wrong on the law and facts. Five years later and at the cost of many innocent victims.

  68. Anonymous
    January 29, 2008 at 4:59 pm

    The miracle of the blogs is that intelligent and well-educated people like me even bother to wade through all the blather posted here by you whacko lefties and righties.

    Why don’t you guys “get a room?”

  69. Anonymous
    January 29, 2008 at 5:03 pm

    Anonymous 4:58, thanks for reminding us of the real importance of the (alleged) incompetence in the District Attorney’s office. Many in law enforcement see things from your perspective and seem very credible to me.

  70. Jane Doe
    January 29, 2008 at 5:25 pm

    It shouldn’t surprise me that the frightwing representatives here still don’t know the difference between what most presidents do at the DOJ (including Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton) when they take office and what Dubya did. Maybe they will get it when the indictments come down? Nah, they still think Plame outed herself. LOL

  71. tad
    January 29, 2008 at 5:29 pm

    Peace be with you

    “intelligent and well-educated people like me”

    I read in yesterdays NY Times that men with average and below average intelligence believe they are smarter then they are. Maybe that’s why all these anonymous “feel sorry” for people who disagree with them.

    love eternal

  72. Anonymous
    January 29, 2008 at 5:33 pm

    yes tad, you should really think about that.

  73. January 29, 2008 at 5:46 pm

    4:58, you owe your boss two minutes.

  74. stempf
    January 29, 2008 at 5:53 pm

    ‘In the long run, if we can’t protect the most vulnerable in our community, our community dies. We, in a sense, are defined by our choices in this matter. ‘

    You mean like the homeless and the mentally ill?

  75. tad
    January 29, 2008 at 5:58 pm

    Peace be with you

    I have and that’s why you have never heard me say “intelligent people like me.”

    love eternal

  76. January 29, 2008 at 6:32 pm

    Tad that is really funny – Good one!

  77. robash141
    January 29, 2008 at 10:29 pm

    I’m not impling that everyonewho worked at the DA’s office prior to Gallegos election in 2002 and subsequently left for other employment were vindictive sneaks. perhaps only a small percentage of them were that way. A small band of dertermined idiots can cause a lot of trouble .
    I would imagine that not all of them would wholeheartedly approve of Rose dropping their names when she’s grinding the militant anti-Gallegos axe

    My beef is Just with the ones who were sour grapes because thier guy Farmer lost the election And used it as an excuse not to do thier jobs and allowed themselves to be used in a sleazy political context.
    Not everyone just the old entrenched heads who were bitter and patologically threatened by change. And given to disemmenating purloined emails and whatnot.

    Rose’s unhinged “you’re either with us, or your with the child molestors rhetoric tells us everything we need to know about these folks and how they operate.

    IMHO Rose’s prolem with Gallegos is not that he showed insuffecient zeal in trundlling the usual cast of incompetants and ne’r -do-wells off to prison , Its that he also showed some interest in prosecuting white collar criminals as well.

    Truth is the 2006 Dikeman campaign was the dirt slingin’est, fear mongering-est negative and nasty enough to come straight from the Dick Cheny /Karl Rove playbook. Just fom a voters perpective It was soooooo bad that Everyone associated with that campaign is tainted by the experiance.

    Dikeman, I used to have repect for that guy, but now after that 2006 campaign , he just makes me sick It’s because he willingly allowed his name to be attached to such sleazery.
    Dikeman utimately ended up sliming himself.

    Sure Galllegos has some problems. He’s too much of a schmoozer who promises everyhing to everyone.

    However on this case the alternative was much worse.

  78. January 29, 2008 at 10:36 pm

    I would imagine that not all of them would wholeheartedly approve of Rose dropping their names when she’s grinding the militant anti-Gallegos axe

    Using Harry Kassakian as an example of what wonderful prosecutors were lost undermines the point.

  79. Anonymous
    January 30, 2008 at 10:48 am

    I don’t think so Robash. So now we have an incompetent DA who is dishonest to the public.

  80. robash141
    January 30, 2008 at 12:33 pm

    Who gives a crap what some anonymous blog sneaky snark thinks?

    Not me, thats for sure.

  81. Anonymous
    January 30, 2008 at 1:09 pm

    Robash, you should have a bit more self-esteem. Referring to yourself as “some anonymous blog sneaky snark” denotes that you have a poor self image. Perhaps some self-help books would get you over this hurdle.

  82. Anonymous
    January 30, 2008 at 2:44 pm

    How is Robash141 less anonymous then Anonymous?

  83. Jane Doe
    January 30, 2008 at 3:10 pm

    Well, his name could be Rob Ash and / or using an ID consistently when you post makes you less anonymous than just using anonymous because we can tell you apart from all the other anonymouses. That CAN’T be right. anonymi? anonymae?

    My name really IS Jane Doe. :)

  84. Anonymous
    January 30, 2008 at 5:24 pm

    robash141 Says: January 30, 2008 at 12:33 pm
    Who gives a crap what some anonymous blog sneaky snark thinks?

    Not me, thats for sure.

    Hmmm, robash – Double standard? The anonymous “heraldo” is ok with you though.

  85. January 30, 2008 at 8:11 pm

    Hmmm, robash – Double standard? The anonymous “heraldo” is ok with you though.

    My dear anonymous, it’s easier to google rob ash than to leave a stupid comment. But to each their own.

  86. Anonymous
    January 31, 2008 at 9:02 am

    Yeah and Jane Doe isn’t a registered voter in Humboldt. Or Jane, were you spreading disinformaton saying that that your name really is Jane Doe. How funny, what other stuff have you written that is an absolute falsity? Perhaps everything?

  87. Jane Doe
    January 31, 2008 at 9:19 am

    Too bad you can’t buy a sense of humor, 9:02.

    Make a note 9:12, the smiley after the statement was meant to convey that it was a joke. Did you REALLY check to see if Jane Doe was registered to vote? LMSAO!!

  88. Jane Doe
    January 31, 2008 at 9:22 am

    oops, typo, that should all be 9:02, of course. Don’t want 9:02 to catch me in another “lie” about who posted at 9:12. LOL!

  89. Jane Doe
    January 31, 2008 at 9:27 am

    And for the record, it is illegal to access voter registration lists for other than official business, 9:02. What official business were you doing when searching for Jane Doe?

  90. pez
    January 31, 2008 at 9:32 am

    “Make a note 9:12, the smiley after the statement was meant to convey that it was a joke. Did you REALLY check to see if Jane Doe was registered to vote? LMSAO!!”

    Yeah Jane he seems a little shaky this a.m.

    Maybe hasn’t had his Scotch yet.

  91. January 31, 2008 at 9:32 am

    it is illegal to access voter registration lists for other than official business

    Are you sure? Hank Sims once checked the rolls for one Heraldo Riviera — to no avail apparently.

  92. Jane Doe
    January 31, 2008 at 9:39 am

    That is my understanding of the law, Heraldo. When working on campaigns with access to registration lists, we are told that it is illegal to use them for anything but the purpose for which they were given.

  93. Jane Doe
    January 31, 2008 at 10:14 am

    According to Calvote, journalists are permitted access to registration lists in California for research.

  94. January 31, 2008 at 10:17 am

    Thanks for the clarification, Jane.

  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