Home > Humboldt > Jackson to enter DA fray

Jackson to enter DA fray

The race for Humboldt County District Attorney is about to go richter.  Sources say former deputy DA Allison Jackson has thrown her hat in what is sure to be a fiery ring.

Jackson was a bitter rival of Gallegos when she supported Worth Dikeman’s fruitless campaign in 2006, even accusing Gallegos of covering up forged evidence.

Gallegos fired Jackson in 2004.

Followers of the county General Plan Update may remember that Jackson supports cracking down on unpermitted building.  As she told the Planning Commission in 2007:

I absolutely applaud Commissioners Gearhardt and Smith’s comments with respect to increasing the penalties for people building unpermitted because that is a problem that is not just on [Timber Production Zones] it’s on every single parcel in this county and really needs to be addressed.

The other candidate in the race so far, Kathleen Bryson, reportedly asked Jackson not to run.

  1. Chris
    January 27, 2010 at 5:57 am

    I think Allison would make a terrific DA. I worked with Allison in the DA’S office from 1995 to 2004. Allison is a very caring person. She spent much of her personal time on weekends meeting with child victims of sexual assault just to make the trauma of testifying easier on the kids. She is also one of the sharpest attorneys I have ever met. Her knowledge of the law and sentencing guidelines is excellent. There were many cases that I worked with Allison on in which the defendants accused of aggravated sexual assault against children were given 100+ year sentences rather than plea-bargaining down to probation or a 10-year sentence. Yes, Allison was a “bitter rival” against Mr. Gallegos but so what? In my opinion Mr. Gallegos is a good politician but not a very good attorney. If the people of Humboldt County want a DA who is going to prosecute criminals and represent the victims with compassion then they should vote for Allison Jackson.

  2. Gopher
    January 27, 2010 at 7:22 am

    As I recall part of the friction between Jackson and Gallegos was because she would not deviate from her standard offer even when the pervert was a client of Clanton or Sanders or some other buddy of Gallegos. Her standard offer in serious cases btw was “Fuck you, rot in prison, die, and then burn in hell forever, and oh yeah, fuck you.

  3. Anonymous
    January 27, 2010 at 7:35 am

    “Fuck you, rot in prison, die, and then burn in hell forever, and oh yeah, fuck you.” Exactly the offer that child molesters deserve.

    Thank you Allison.

    If true, shame on you Paul.

  4. Humboldt Politico
    January 27, 2010 at 7:56 am

    If Allison is throwing her hat in the ring, as was expected, she immediately becomes the main challenger to PG, Bryson and Hagen (if he runs) become second tier.

    While Allison will be the recipient of the majority of the ABP campaign contributions, the pot industry has been very happy with and in the past has contributed heavily to PG. Allison’s stance on this issue is what, IMHO, will decide the race. If she goes with the status quo and states so, she should win. If she comes out against pot, while she will still do well it will be one hell of a fight and not a sure thing. Also, there is the question – Can she raise the $125,000+ she will need for the primary? I think so, but in these economic times, who can tell.

    I can easily see, in a four candidate race, no one getting 50% which means this will go to November when the legalize pot initiative(s) are on the ballot. More than the Supervisor races, this one will be the hot one.

  5. blackcoffee
    January 27, 2010 at 7:57 am

    Just give me someone good to vote for, I want Gallegos gone!

  6. High Finance
    January 27, 2010 at 8:01 am

    I have never met Alison Jackson.

    But everybody I know that has, says nothing but great things about her.

    Politico is right. A four candidate race means a November run off is certain. It will be Jackson/Gallegos.

    Normally a three candidate race might mean Gallegos could sneak in with a bare 50% as the incumbent. But this time, Gallegos is so unpopular that might not be true.

  7. Anonymous
    January 27, 2010 at 9:28 am

    Jackson is not well-regarded in the legal community from what I hear. And I don;t know about you all, but who better to evaluate an attorney than other attorneys?

  8. stoked
    January 27, 2010 at 9:58 am

    Hum Pol nailed it on the head! It’s up to her. Pro pot or not!?

  9. Anonymous
    January 27, 2010 at 10:22 am

    9:28, you is wrong and Paul is gone

  10. January 27, 2010 at 10:23 am

    And what do the attorneys say about Paul (Gallegos), 9:28? I can tell you. They say it is great for them and their clients, but that it is too easy. The expect to have a worthy opponent sitting in the DAs chair.

    If Allison runs, Salzman will try to butcher her.

  11. Eurekite
    January 27, 2010 at 10:25 am

    Hey look, a bunch of astro-turfing.

    Jackson sounds like yet another person who decided to try and undermine the new boss instead of getting on board and trying to do her job. A prosecutor should not waste time going after local Defense attorneys. That creates all kinds of problems. The “offense” that was theorized and described sounds relatively petty. Falsified evidence? In a criminal trial? Never! Let’s see all the times Jackson went after the PD for lying and false statements, lol.

    The point is that a good prosecutor needs to spend her time doing her job not investigating her competition in local court cases. More importantly if a working business culture is full of people who refuse to work with the leadership you’ll never get anywhere. The DA’s office sounds EXACTLY like the EPD after someone not part of the club got put in charge. Good riddance.

    Restoring the old boys to the DA’s office won’t improve anything. If you want to defeat Gallegos you need somebody who represents the real constituency of the county. The reason that Gallegos keeps winning elections is clear, his opposition doesn’t represent the voting public.

  12. Anonymous
    January 27, 2010 at 10:43 am

    Jackson is a a loose canon. This actually improves Gallegos’ chances.

  13. January 27, 2010 at 10:45 am

    That “undermining the boss” meme is ludicrous, and has been a hallmark of Salzman’s defense of Gallegos since day one. “There’s a mole in the office leaking stories to the Times Standard.” What, pray tell, did Gallegos have to hide on month into his taking office? Why would he be worried about a “mole”? Leaking information about WHAT?

    I’ve said it before, a hundred times – the Deputy DA’s did come out in support of Farmer, epecially because they all knew who and what Paul Gallegos was. they knew his record, and they knew his abilities, and they did not respect him.

    But they also knew the nature of the office, that at any time, a new DA could and would be elected. They were all big kids – and they tried to help him learn the ropes. They tried to teach him how to apply the law and think, not like a defense attorney, but like a prosecutor. Bu Salzman’s spin, you can see he did not buckle down and learn the lessons, but instead viewed it as undermining.

    It’s sad really. He had great support, and all the promise in the world, and he’s been given three chances to up his game. Instead you’ve got unprepared, seat of the pants operations.

    He hasn’t improved. He won’t. Because he can’t.

  14. just sayin'
    January 27, 2010 at 10:45 am

    What Allison Jackson said about Ed Denson was very unfortunate

  15. January 27, 2010 at 10:48 am

    It was a desperate attempt on her part to boost Dikeman.

  16. exrepublican
    January 27, 2010 at 10:53 am

    talk about desperation……rose, get a grip!!!

  17. Eurekite
    January 27, 2010 at 11:21 am

    Gallegos has been fine as DA. The only drama has been from the kicking and screaming of the old buys who don’t like the new regime. Here’s the thing: the way you and your friends do their job as “Prosecutors” is not necessarily the only way to do it. The DA sets the tone, then you execute it. Paul Gallegos did not get elected to walk in the door and let Worth Dikeman and Allison Jackson determine how the office would be run.

    Humboldt County does not want moralistic or vindictive prosecutions. It does not want to “lock people up and throw away the key.” We know that is no way to run a criminal justice system. Killers and crooks aren’t running around scott-free in this county and mature, thoughtful decisions have been made in the controversial cases. Meanwhile people going about their business trying to survive aren’t living in fear of life in prison for growing plants.

  18. January 27, 2010 at 11:37 am

    “mature, thoughtful decisions have been made in the controversial cases” – really?

    Eurekaite: recommended reading
    Sean Marsh NOT GUILTY – A cartoon, an editorial, an article and letters to the editor.

  19. alfred a newman
    January 27, 2010 at 11:38 am

    Heraldo’s comment looks to me like Heraldo’s desperate attempt to defend a crooked politician who got caught.

  20. Humboldt Politico
    January 27, 2010 at 11:47 am

    PG has never been seen by the local legal community as more than a “C+” attorney. Actually, his wife is more highly regarded than him by both prosecutors and defense lawyers. It is a shame Joan didn’t run instead as most of the crap that has come down never would have occurred.

  21. Anonymous
    January 27, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    I would like a DA who does not invite whole groups of law-breakers into his office to talk about their mutual interests.

  22. Eurekite
    January 27, 2010 at 1:05 pm

    Rose – Nice campaign site, it makes very little sense.

    From what I can put together a guy’s kid was playing in the street and Ferndale’s police chief saw this and took offense. They had a dispute and the Police Chief decided to throw him in jail. Cops do this shit all the time and people often go to jail for it. Big whoop.

    This is small-time, small-town nothing. Humboldt County’s DA has bigger things to deal with. Murderers, drug addiction, theft, fraud, corruption.

    Finally, the case was prosecuted probably because the CHIEF OF FUCKING POLICE wanted it to be. The DA dutifully took the case to trial and didn’t win. What’s the problem here? Due process. Don’t fuck with cops. Welcome to what everybody else already knows.

  23. Eurekite
    January 27, 2010 at 1:07 pm

    Real controversy is when you have to decide whether or not to prosecute the police of Eureka, the largest city in the area, over an officer-involved shooting that resulted in the death of a mentally-ill person.

  24. storm the bastille
    January 27, 2010 at 1:10 pm

    the strongest impression allison has left on most co-workers is her insatiable appetite for alcohol.
    it’s legend amongst professional associates former co-workers.

  25. High Finance
    January 27, 2010 at 1:21 pm

    I see Rose is right. Salzman is already trying to “butcher her”.

    Right bastille ?

  26. Eurekite
    January 27, 2010 at 1:47 pm

    Salzman is no shining light but Humboldt County has far worse to offer, Rose. As for drunk lawyers, show me one who isn’t! I see that is irrelevant.

  27. obvious
    January 27, 2010 at 1:57 pm

    Ken Miller (pot doc) Pete Nichols (just sue them) Richard Salzman (lie so they will believe it) do not want a DA that will prosecute the business base or campaign finance stream that they so enjoy. Paul seems to fit that bill. All of the former deputy district attorneys that have left, try to count them all just could not measure up to Paul’s standards ?

  28. A-nony-mouse
    January 27, 2010 at 2:19 pm

    Rose, I am amazed that you could endorse Steven Glazer and condemn Rich Salzman in the same breath. Do you know Rich? Have you actually talked with him?I suspect you would find a mirror image of yourself if you did. He works hard for what he believes in. He is vilified by those that oppose him. And people like you who know little or nothing about him happily attack and belittle him just ’cause it’s ‘fun’. Sounds like poor old Rose, doesn’t it?

    I know Rich casually and find him to be a decent enough sort of guy. He makes some of his living running campaigns for people. So does Chris Crawford, another paragon of truth. So take it all with a grain of salt and look at the candidates themselves first. They’re the ones that matter.

  29. January 27, 2010 at 2:54 pm

    heraldo – you know my IP address. You will see two of the comments above are not from me, thought they purport to be me. 10:51 and 1:45

    Pretty good mimic, though.

    As for you, anonymouse, I’ve neither met nor endorsed Steven Glazer. I have no idea what he is like.

    But I have met Salzman. And I learned first hand what he is about. I like(d) him. Until I found out how duplicitous he was.

    Regardless, he (Salzman) volunteered to help two people back in the campaign of 2002 – Paul Gallegos and Jill Geist. One went on to do her job, work with various county departments and agencies and get things done (like the Klamath deal), someone he could have been proud of, instead of having to defend every time he turned around.

    He chose the babysitting project. And he chose to do what he could to destroy Jill. Maybe he has a thing with women. It sure seems that way based on the trollery here.

    Or maybe when you accept Richard Salzman’s help, you owe a debt. And if that debt isn’t paid, you will bercome the target.

    I don’t think that is the case with Steven Glazer.

  30. January 27, 2010 at 2:55 pm

    Chris Crawford does NOT make his living running campaigns for people. As he pointed out during the No On Measure T campaign, being involved in campaigns for him is an avocation, not a vocation. His job is that Justice Served company where he acts as a consultant to different courts, or some such.

  31. January 27, 2010 at 3:06 pm

    As for Eurekite – you ought not make statements where you have no clue what the facts are.

    …Marsh was then taken to the Humboldt County Jail, where he spent the night on $50,000 bail. He was released in the morning. More than six weeks later the case was reopened and Marsh was arraigned.

    Originally the DA’s office told The Enterprise the case was “rejected” due to further investigation needed. However, Gallegos on Tuesday said, according to the file, a complaint request was received June 1 and filed on June 5.

    “It was not originally rejected,” he stated.

    However further clarification with the criminal desk at the DA’s office shows that a “statement of probable cause” from the FPD was filed on June 5 and not a complaint. “The case was declined on June 1 “due to further investigation needed.” And it was not until July 18 that the case was reopened – after Main Street merchant Polly Stemwedel filed a complaint against the chief.

    An investigation done by the Fortuna Police Department cleared the chief of any wrong doing.

    Meanwhile the detention slip from the jail provided to The Enterprise states that Marsh was released from jail because “there was insufficient grounds for making a criminal complaint.”

    Paul Gallegos made the decision to prosecute that man. Your assertion that he did it FOR the Police Chief is LAUGHABLE.

    Gallegos did it because he wanted to send a message – in his own words: “”We have an obligation as parents to try and take reasonable steps to protect out children,” he said. “When a parent fails to do that, the state has to step in and do that.” and “Meanwhile in his earlier interview, the district attorney conceded that the Marsh case was “not the crime of the century.”

    “I’ll concede that entirely,” he said. “if the case should have been dismissed, we would have dismissed it. We always try to evaluate cases fairly…sometimes we’re wrong.”

    Wanna try again?

  32. January 27, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    And for the record, since we are quoting Gallegos’ opinions on what to do when a parent fails to protect their child – how about what he has done to protect those who are outright abused?

    If juxtaposing Gallegos schizophrenic pattern of prosecutions isn’t clear to you – compare the Sean Marsh case above with this. I posted this in the thread below, but as these threads may replace newspapers as the new record of our time – this is important to include here:

    In 1997, CAST, the Child Abuse Services Team, opened its doors.

    In 1997
    There were 137 CAST Child Interviews
    There were 56 cases of alleged child abuse RECEIVED by the DAs office
    There were 37 child abuse cases FILED by the DAs office

    In 1998
    There were 142 CAST Interviews
    There were 52 cases received by the DAs office
    There were 37 cases FILED by the DAs office

    In 1999
    There were 194 CAST Interviews
    There were 81 cases received by the DAs office
    There were 49 cases FILED by the DAs office

    In 2000
    There were 194 CAST Interviews
    There were 66 cases received by the DAs office
    There were 48 cases FILED by the DAs office

    In 2001
    There were 196 CAST Interviews
    There were 65 cases received by the DAs office
    There were 46 cases FILED by the DAs office

    In 2002
    There were 215 CAST Interviews
    There were 66 cases received by the DAs office
    There were 47 cases FILED by the DAs office

    In January of 2003, Paul Gallegos took office

    In 2003
    There were 205 CAST Interviews
    There were 67 cases received by the DAs office
    There were 40 cases FILED by the DAs office

    In June of 2004 Paul Gallegos fired his top child abuse prosecutor. (That would be Allison Jackson, for those who haven’t followed this debacle)

    In 2004
    There were 146 CAST Interviews
    There were 50 cases received by the DAs office
    There were 23 cases FILED by the DAs office

    In 2005
    There were 155 CAST Interviews
    There were 35 cases received by the DAs office
    There were 17 cases FILED by the DAs office

    In the first four months of 2006
    There were 40 CAST Interviews (on track for 120 interviews)
    There were 4 cases received by the DAs office (on track for 12 cases received)
    There was 1 case FILED by the DAs office.


    ONE child abuse case filed. January to April of that year.
    From my post on the Eureka Reporter article on the precipitous decline in child abuse prosecutions under Gallegos.

    How many cases have you seen since then?

    He has switched around his child abuse prosecutors – he had assigned jeffrey “yougofree.com” Schwartz to that position, even gave him a big ol’ bump up in salary and step due to his ‘increased responsibilities.’ He continues to take Grant Money that is for the purpose of having a sole ‘vertical prosecutor” working those cases, one who knows what they are doing.

    You think POT is the most important thing in the world?

    What a messed up County this is if that is true.

  33. Anonymous
    January 27, 2010 at 3:28 pm

    “Or maybe when you accept Richard Salzman’s help, you owe a debt. And if that debt isn’t paid, you will bercome the target.”

    What debt? The target of what? Expressed disappointment? Anyone who volunteers for a campaign and then the elected doesn’t support their issues will be disappointed and may work to have someone else elected. What is so strange about that? So what.

  34. Mike Buettner
    January 27, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    Is this Watchpaul?

  35. Not Rose
    January 27, 2010 at 4:04 pm

    The real question here is what our favorite obsessive/compulsive blogger will do with all of her free time if Gallegos loses.

    Take heart Rose: There is life after politics.

  36. Eurekite
    January 27, 2010 at 4:29 pm

    Anyway, Rose is obviously in need of a better hobby.

    One thing I’d like to counter is the assertions about how many people left the DA’s office in the years after Gallegos took over: That’s great!

    I know personally people who worked in the DA’s office at that time. I’m certain they were not America’s finest lawyers. Now, with the legal industry all a mess, they can hire much better people than would normally be available.

    The parallels between the new DA in town and the new EPD chief are hilarious and obvious to watch. New blood comes in, starts doing things differently, old guard absolutely flips out and loses their shit and whines and whines forever. Move on, people, it’s for your own good.

    There is simply no larger desire in the County to switch DA’s. Farmer lasted what, 25 years?

  37. Anonymous
    January 27, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    Garr’s situation at EPD is a great example of the exact same thing that happen at the DA’s office. Thanks for pointing that out. Both Garr and Gallegos were unwelcome by the old guard, the one difference being that in Gallegos case it was the will of the voters that these folks were not respecting.
    He’s won 3 times already and he deserves the respect of the office.

    Of course the tea bagger types don’t even pay respect to the office of the President of the United States, so I won’t hold my breath for them to ever be civil or to be patriotic Americans.

  38. January 27, 2010 at 4:47 pm

    Partial List:
    DDA Ed Borg
    DDA Zach Bird
    DDA Kathleen Bryson
    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 Zach Bird
    DDA Kelly Neel
    DDA Elizabeth Norton
    DDA Murat Ozgur
    Patrick Pekin
    DDA Amanda Penny
    DDA Jeffrey “yougofree.com” Schwartz
    DDA Gloria Albin-Sheets
    DDA Davina Smith
    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

    Question, really, is “Who’s left?”

    Maggie Fleming, Max Cardoza, Wes Keat, Stacey Eads(?) Allan Dollison, Arnie Klein, Mary McCarthy, and Randy Mailman…

    You can add to this list I am sure.

  39. January 27, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    Don’t worry. I am looking forward to closing down watchpaul.

  40. Anonymous
    January 27, 2010 at 5:46 pm

    Please keep it up, but just go doing your posting there and let the rest of us have a conversation with out your rambling bullshit.

    If we want to hear from you, we’ll visit your blog.

  41. Anonymous
    January 27, 2010 at 6:13 pm

    I object to the Anonymous poster who left his or her uncivil attack against Rose at 5:46 pm.

    Rose backs up her opinions with facts, something her detractors generally fail to do.

    I feel censoring Rose would be a travesty.

    How dare anyone who expects to be treated with respect in this forum refer to another person’s posts as “rambling bullshit?”

  42. Anonymous
    January 27, 2010 at 6:42 pm

    Rose still feels personally responsible for Dikeman’s failed campaign.

    Rose, it’s been 3 1/2 years. It’s time to move on hunny-

  43. Anonymous
    January 27, 2010 at 7:51 pm

    If you value honesty, you will be gratified to listen to our President’s State of the Union Address. In 40 years of listening to these speeches, I’ve never heard a more honest appraisal of what brought us here or of what can bring us out.

  44. January 27, 2010 at 7:53 pm

    Heraldo, I thank you again.

  45. Mr. Nice
    January 27, 2010 at 7:55 pm

    Yea. Y’all ain’t even tryna come up with some kinna argument why not to vote against Gallegos. Shootin off some ad hominems thinking you showed Rose her what for like this was some kinna who is the loudest dumbass at the bar contest.

    Gallegos has positive attributes.

    1) Gallegos has good taste in clothes, especially candy color ties. I mean, look at the man. He is a straight up GQ mack. Don’t be a hater.

    2) Gallegos will take a case on principle even if he knows he might lose. That’s what justice is all about.

    3) Gallegos will go ahead wrap up a case with a plea if it is about to drag on forever tryna prove intent.

    4) Gallegos is realistic on weed. He realizes the only problem with legalization is cops won’t get all that surveillance equipment and seizure profits and he gets quoted on that in our sorry ass newspapers.

    5) Gallegos will fire some weak ass employees even if that means they try and come back and stalk him in the glory of his perpetual winning steak.

    6) Gallegos does things where you know some people are going to give him hell for it.

  46. Time to get real
    January 27, 2010 at 8:44 pm

    Mr. Nice, What you have outlined is the price of holding office. The trick is to do the job above board, with the public good being your highest priority. The trick is “don’t be tricky”. Then it is full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes.

  47. January 27, 2010 at 10:58 pm

    cops won’t get all that surveillance equipment and seizure profits

    God, I can’t resist that one, Mr. Nice – are you kidding me?

    Who was it that was pushing to use his ASSET FORFEITURE money (which comes from who? Pot growers?) to BUY AR-15s and SET UP HIS OWN WELL-OUTFITTED ASSAULT TEAM? Matching carhartt vests? Nice little matching polo shirts?

    Ummmm – that was Paul Gallegos and Mike Hislop.

  48. January 27, 2010 at 11:04 pm

    Asset forfeiture operations, investigations and gang and probation sweeps are among the explanations provided by Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos for his proposed purchase of eight AR-15 semiautomatic rifles, currently waylaid by county administrators over liability and conflict-of-interest concerns.

    But some of these explanations have raised more questions than they’ve answered, including why DA investigators would need heavier firepower than other law enforcement officers participating in the same operations
    Gallegos’ answers don’t add up

    Gallegos requested money from asset forfeiture funds to buy DA investigators “rifles,” “clothing,” “safety equipment” and other miscellaneous items, but several county officials expressed surprise when they learned that the money was intended for eight AR-15 assault rifles, body armor, tactical vests, 5,000 rounds of hollow-point ammunition and matching parkas, polo shirts and pants.
    Every DA needs his own personal ASSAULT FORCE

  49. Mike Buettner
    January 27, 2010 at 11:26 pm

    Rose spoofing Rose.

  50. Mr. Nice
    January 28, 2010 at 2:33 pm

    cops won’t get all that surveillance equipment and seizure profits

    God, I can’t resist that one, Mr. Nice – are you kidding me?

    Who was it that was pushing to use his ASSET FORFEITURE money (which comes from who? Pot growers?) to BUY AR-15s and SET UP HIS OWN WELL-OUTFITTED ASSAULT TEAM? Matching carhartt vests? Nice little matching polo shirts?

    Ummmm – that was Paul Gallegos and Mike Hislop.

    Yea, literally Gallegos said it would be bad if investigators lost the asset forfeiture money for that equipment and surely he was talking about exactly what you mentioned.

    I am not saying that’s not as corrupt as you can possibly get, just that he says it straight and gets quoted on it. Legalization would make it so he couldn’t get hollow tip slugs and so forth.

    I don’t know if I have a problem with this or not. On the one hand, I think it is messed up that the cops or DA investigators seize cars, boats, property etc. from weed growers and go out and get assault rifles with the money. One the other hand, at least Gallegos admits it.

    I was talking about exactly what you were talking about. Problem was, if I had elaborated it would have made my point about Gallegos dressing well look like it didn’t matter compared to the whole kevlar vest thing.

  51. Mort
    January 28, 2010 at 9:54 pm

    “Anybody but Gallegos” is for losers. He’s an ineffectual, sloppy, derelict excuse for a DA, but we need to rally around one opponent in order to beat him.

    I would appreciate any genuine information about the other candidates.

    If you, or anyone you know, has been a victim of a serious crime in Humboldt County, you know how important this is.

    Heraldo, please keep us updated!

  52. Mortified
    January 29, 2010 at 12:43 pm

    Whoa, Mort, nailed it in one line. Well done sir.
    But let’s be fair, he’s EQUALLY ineffectual, sloppy,
    and derelict. Equal sloppiness for all, that’s Paul.

  53. Anonymous
    January 31, 2010 at 8:47 pm

    Jackson was a very good prosecutor and is a very good civil attorney.

  54. Anonymous
    February 16, 2010 at 8:27 pm

    While Jackson may be a very good attorney with all the requisite attributes that endear her to law enforcement, she is in fact, a “loose cannon”. Her dismissal from the DA’s office was due to “credibility issues”. This implies that she will cross the line either way if she needs to. If her opponents do a little digging, I believe they may find enough to cast more than a shadow of a doubt on her candidacy and a clearer light on where her priorities really lie.

  55. Anon.r.Mys
    March 3, 2010 at 8:46 pm

    She is not running. She is chicken.

  56. Anony.Miss
    March 3, 2010 at 8:49 pm

    Your name is too close to mine…

  57. Bill Iskra
    March 7, 2010 at 6:58 am

    My son and his wife were attacked in their home on New Years Eve 2008 . The fight escalted and ended up outside . My son’s wife was arrested and chargted with a knife attack althoug no knife was used. The EPD arrived and found incriminating evidence due to the 2 assailants intentionally cutting themselves and someone planting a knife under a plant near the door . What the 2 assailants did not know was that their attack in the residence was witnessed and an Alternate Conflict Counsel Investigator took a credible statment from the witness . Unfortunately , The District Attorney’s Office did not care to know the truth and the Eureka Police Officer that took the report of the attack did not even send the report to the DA Office until the day of the Arraignment . How convenient . At the Pre Trial , the 2 so called victims told mostly lies and some of the lies were such an insult to intelligence that without being present at the scene of the crime , it was obvious that there was not much truth to anything . On a positive note , the knife charge was dropped and 2 felony charges of assult were reduced to misdemeanors . My son’s wife plead guilty to the 2 charges rather than go to trial where she cold have in all probability proven that she fought in self defense . The DA is not interested in the fact that 2 criminals commited perjury , unlawfully entereda residence , commited an assult , a false 911 call was made to report a crime that was not in progress . I only know the caller as the live in girlfriend of the male assailant . In court the man stated that he called 911 .

    It is indeed time for change . It is pretty sad when a man can commit a crime and go brag that the EPD will not help my son and his wife . He can make a false complaint to the property manager where he resides , and the DA does nothing . What I have said can be supported by Court Records and Information furnished to the Alternate Conflict Counsel’s Office . However an investigation into the matter would reveal the truth becauses liars cannot keep their stories straight . My son, his wife , and the witness to the reall crime can give a consistent account of the events .

    Best wishes to you Allison .

  58. mresquan
    March 7, 2010 at 9:18 am

    “The District Attorney’s Office did not care to know the truth and the Eureka Police Officer that took the report of the attack did not even send the report to the DA Office until the day of the Arraignment.”

    So how do you manage to blame the D.A.’s office for a mistake made by a Eureka police officer?Were Cherie Moore and Chris Burgess’s murders the D.A.’s fault as well?And does one have to remind you that Paul did indeed,take on the EPD for their incompetence following?

  59. Bill Iskra
    March 7, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    I do not blame the DA for mistakes by the EPD but for refusing to deal with the mistakes when it was brought to his attention . Had the DA done a review of the EPD report after it was received and taken a look at the suspicious statements of the crime victims , there would have either been an investigation or the chrages would have been dropped . I am not a trained investigator but I spent alot of time gathering evidence that would hold up in court . If Paul Gallegos runs his office appropriately than let him order an inviestigation and prove it . If not , I rest my case .

  60. Bill Iskra
    March 8, 2010 at 11:27 pm

    After reading through all of the posts , I sense that people want change . I do not understand eveything about the system of justice and all of its perplexities . I do not claim that the candidates running against Gallegos have all of the solutions for the perfect change . I do however see a need for change I see the need for better accountabilty by police officers . In the near future , the Attorney General’s Office will be investigating at least 2 EPD Officers for the possibility of obstruction of Justice . A complaint was sent to the Humboldt Coutny Grand Jury and it was reccommended that the matter either be turned over to the Humboldt County Criminal Grand Jury or a private attorney .

    One thing that many people may not realize is that most of the DA Investigators are former EPD Officers .From what I have seen , that has some benefits for EPD when it comes to submitting an arrest report . It may also be of interest to note that the inexperience of some EPD Officers is evident . One of the Prosecutors I observed in court showed such an ignorance for the Evidence Code that I could not believe that Gallegos could have someone so incompetent in the DAs Office . She kept interrupting the defense attorney who had the person on the stand caught in an obvious lie. Why ? Because the attorney was destroying the evidence against the defendant .

  61. Plain Jane
    March 8, 2010 at 11:59 pm

    Bill, attorneys “interrupt” each other all the time. There is nothing incompetent or inappropriate about raising objections to opposing attorneys’ questions or statements. The judge decides whether the objection is valid.

  62. March 9, 2010 at 3:04 am

    Question: “why would a ‘settlement hearing’ be heard in the hallway outside of the courtroom by the judge in street clothes without a court reporter and other personnel present during which information is passed along not under the careful eyes from within “any courtroom” nor documented legally as mandated by judicial system requirements?

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  63. Bill Iskra
    March 10, 2010 at 7:36 pm

    Mort ,

    I sincerely hope that you meant what you said about wanting to know about victims of serious crimes . I have already submitted some information which I am prepared to back up if anyone is interested in the truth . When someone who is supposed to be a vicitm of a crime can cammit assult and battery that has photographic evidence to support the claim and can lie about it to a police officer and in court , giving accounts that do not fit , I fear for the safety of our citizens . To give you a classic example . The man who assulted my son stated in court that he did not go to the residence of my son and his wife and yet he wrote in his own handwriting and signed a complaint to the property manager which revealed not only that he did go to the residence but a motive for striking my son when he opened the door . His response under questioning by the attorney was that he did go next door and knocked but did not go on the porch . The porch is about 3 feet long whcih means that he he hadd to have lay accross the porch in order to knock . The rerason for such a lie was that he stated that he idid not know my son and yet my son opened the door to him because he had been a visitor before in the residence . Ther is a peep hole in the door . It is p;retty bad that the Cheif Investigator of the DA Office is running for Sherrif .He is going to be in for a rude awakening when he finds out that people who trust me are supporting Mike Downey for Sherrif . I cannot believe that Gallegos could have someone so incomp;etent as his Cheif Investigator . I see the handwriting on the wall now . Lets get a conviction . We don’t care who we hurt . It is going to keep happening as long as people are afraid to say something . . If anyone has enough courage to take a stand I am open to phone calls . My number is listed in the phone book . I am also available by e-mail at bill2594@sbcglobal.net . I am not loking for trouble makers or radicals but people who want to take a look at facts . Even if it only results in Gallegos taking a look at how he has run his office in the event he is re-elected , I will consider it time well spent .

  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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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