Home > Allison Jackson, elections, Paul Gallegos > DA candidate forum on Domestic Violence Monday

DA candidate forum on Domestic Violence Monday

September 27: DA candidate forum on domestic violence and child abuse, 6-8 pm, at the Eureka Inn.

The questions have been crafted by members of the Humboldt County Domestic Violence Coordinating Council and the Child Abuse Prevention Coordinating Council, and have been designed to elicit attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge about, as well as demonstrated commitment to, the issues of domestic violence and child abuse prevention.  Members of the audience will have the opportunity to ask questions of challenger Allison Jackson and incumbent Paul Gallegos. This is a non-partisan event.  The event is free.

KHUM will air it live.

  1. Anonymous
    September 25, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    Allison is going to wipe the floor with Gallegos on this issue. I wonder if he opposes domestic violence, but doesn’t necessarily endorse prosecuting these terrible crimes.

    If Gallegos thought he got his ass handed to him at the animal abuse forum, he’ll be in for a long day at this event. Poor Paul.

    Let’s hope they don’t throw as many softball questions as Dronkers did to Pete Nichols.

  2. Anonymous
    September 25, 2010 at 4:38 pm

    Specifics, please.

  3. Goldie
    September 25, 2010 at 5:09 pm

    From The Eye http://www.arcataeye.com/2010/04/partly-barky-chance-of-snarls-at-beastly-da-forum-%E2%80%93%C2%A0april-21-2010/
    “A woman asked Gallegos whether he was the defense attorney for a man who had poisoned five cats with tuna laced with anti-freeze in 2002. She said he had fought to get the five felony counts of animal cruelty reduced to misdemeanors. “It was a slap on the hand,” she said.

    Gallegos confirmed that he did represent the man, but that details were lost to memory after several years. “I see my job to do the best that I can for the people that I represent,” Gallegos said.

    Jackson was quick to reply. “I was the prosecutor in that case,” she said, in something of a Perry Mason moment. “Yes, Mr. Gallegos did argue in closing arguments that it was OK to lace tuna with anti-freeze to stop cats from coming in his yard.”

  4. Plain Jane
    September 25, 2010 at 5:31 pm

    That’s pretty despicable of Jackson since she knows full well it is the legal and ethical responsibility of a defense attorney to represent their client to the best of their ability. If he had done less he wouldn’t be qualified to be a lawyer, either defense or prosecution.

  5. Plain Jane
    September 25, 2010 at 5:38 pm

    ““We’ve got bugs flying in this room but I won’t squash it,” Bryson said to laughter from the audience.”

    Am I the only one who was creepily reminded of Anthony Perkins in Psycho?

  6. KenMcKinleyville
    September 25, 2010 at 5:39 pm

    It’s pretty much apparent that Jackson often simply makes stuff up without a trace of guilt or conscience. Everyone has seen numerous examples of that since the very first day she announced her run. In fact, she actually started with bizarre statements from about the first day that Paul Gallegos won election in 2002 and the end of the good old boy/girl days in the office began to close in on them. And yes, Jackson was a big part of that (I feel entitled) network.
    If the actual details were lost to memory after several years for Paul Gallegos, that goes double true for Jackson. Fortunately, Paul Gallegos doesn’t really have to resort to personal attacks against his opponent. She seems to be very good at wacking herself.
    There was an animal abuse case that gained attention in Humboldt where critics tried to put blame on the Gallegos’ office. It actually went to trial in Trinity County, and the prosecution failed. The defendant{s} was acquitted.
    Believe me, if there is a animal abuse or neglect case where there is valid evidence, you can be sure that Paul Gallegos will go after the culprit.
    Having had numerous dogs and cats in my half century, I can tell you that I cannot stand or stomach anyone who mistreats animals {or children for that matter}. I believe that Paul Gallegos absolutely feels the same way. That is one of the reasons, of many, that I support his re-election.
    We cannot go back to the old days.

  7. Anonymous
    September 25, 2010 at 5:55 pm

    I’m glad KHUM will be covering this event, but I wonder why no television station is covering it. I think a lot can be learned from watching the faces of the candidates when they speak.

  8. Clyde
    September 25, 2010 at 7:00 pm

    My wife aint goin Ill make certian of that.

  9. September 25, 2010 at 7:22 pm

    Actually, jane and kenmckinleyville: …according to public records, charges against Bugenig requested by the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office — including 122 alleged misdemeanor county code violations for failure to vaccinate and license her dogs, and one alleged felony violation for abuse of the horse — were never filed by the Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office.

    …“As I understand it, we had one case where (Bugenig) was cited for numerous counts for no rabies vaccination and licensing of the animals,” he (Knight) said. “That was back in January 2004. In June of 2004 deputies went out again to investigate a report of animal neglect and cruelty, and a case was referred to the DA’s Office for charges.”

    Knight added, “I don’t know what the DA did with it.”

    District Attorney Paul Gallegos said Monday that the first case, involving the 122 alleged misdemeanor violations, was received by his office June 15, 2004, and was rejected Oct. 26 of the same year.

    “These were regulatory offenses, not neglect offenses,” Gallegos said, adding that the reason given in the file for rejection of the charges was “interests of justice.”

    “There could have been issues of proof,” he said.

    The alleged felony offense of abuse of the horse was received by the DA’s office July 9, 2004, and rejected Aug. 23, 2004, for lack of evidence, according to Gallegos.

    “We can do nothing unless we have sufficient evidence of an offense,” he said. “That’s it in a nutshell.”

    Sheriff’s Office Public Information Officer Brenda Godsey said Tuesday that she could not speak to the evidentiary value of information provided to the DA’s Office, but could officially confirm that a videotape had been booked into evidence.

    That was BEFORE the animals were moved to Trinity County.

  10. Plain Jane
    September 25, 2010 at 7:56 pm

    So WHAT, Rose? 122 misdemeanors don’t add up to ONE felony. Do you think Jackson is going to create evidence where none exists to get a conviction? Seriously, I would HATE to be the accused with someone like you on the jury. Second guessing the DA’s decisions as to whether he feels he has the necessary evidence to take a case to trial doesn’t mean your guesses are right. Just more smear attempts like the one about the child molester. You and your candidate are just slimy.

  11. Goldie
    September 25, 2010 at 8:02 pm

    When I see the number of health professionals and those invested in the care and concern of children who support Jackson I seriously consider voting for her.
    I have not made up my mind yet. Paul’s work appears sloppy and lazy. I am not sure how to make up my mind on this one.

  12. September 25, 2010 at 8:15 pm

    jane, I give you facts, you respond with more smears. It’s not my “guesses” – just telling you what is on the record. What he says. And what the facts were. Period.

    He could have gone to the scene of the crime sometime between June and October, however, like he did with the toddler wanderer case – but then Curley’s wasn’t just down the street.

  13. Plain Jane
    September 25, 2010 at 8:22 pm

    You didn’t actually provide any evidence that there was evidence, Rose. Using bold type about there being video evidence and promised bombshells is the sort of tactic people like you and KateAScott use, half truths and bold lies. This doesn’t work with people who have critical thinking skills. DA’s have to decide the merits of a case, especially with potential jurors like you who would convict everyone charged.

  14. Susan McGee
    September 25, 2010 at 10:47 pm

    Folks, this is Susan McGee. I’m a member of the Domestic Violence Coordinating Council one of the two co-sponsors of the event. (You can check out the Humboldt County Domestic Violence Coordinating Council on Facebook). The other sponsor is the Child Abuse Prevention Coordinating Council of Humboldt County. http://capcchumboldt.org.
    It’s at the Eureka Inn Ballroom from 6 – 8 p.m. Monday.
    Access Humboldt will be recording so that the forum can be rebroadcast.
    I must tell you that we will be relentlessly civil – but I will also say that the questions have been drafted to find out what the candidates really think about the issues.

    Hope to see you there…

  15. Susan McGee
    September 25, 2010 at 10:47 pm

    Oh, and we’ve called the other television stations, but I hope you might consider calling as well.

  16. Anonymous
    September 26, 2010 at 8:20 am

    Plain Jane,

    Nobody suggested Gallegos should take a case and then fail to do his best for his client. But he didn’t have to take the case.

    His willingness to represent such a man says something about him.

  17. September 26, 2010 at 8:25 am

    The fact that Jackson failed to get a stronger conviction says something about her.

  18. Harold h. Greene
    September 26, 2010 at 8:32 am

    lawyers are the worst.

  19. Plain Jane
    September 26, 2010 at 8:56 am

    “Nobody suggested Gallegos should take a case and then fail to do his best for his client. But he didn’t have to take the case.

    His willingness to represent such a man says something about him.”

    What his willingness said is that he believes in the American justice system where people are assumed innocent until convicted and are entitled to a vigorous defense. Shame on you for attempting to tar the lawyer for the crimes of his clients. You may be too ignorant to understand, but Jackson knows how deceitful this is and doesn’t care. She just wants to win.

  20. Eric Kirk
    September 26, 2010 at 11:06 am

    Plain Jane,

    Nobody suggested Gallegos should take a case and then fail to do his best for his client. But he didn’t have to take the case.

    His willingness to represent such a man says something about him.

    For a criminal defense attorney to pick and choose his/her clients that way actually violates the Code of Ethics. Perry Mason used to say that he would not represent a defendant until he was convinced of his/her innocence. That is actually unethical. Attorneys are not supposed to act as judge and juries. Our job is to accept clients who come to us. There are many valid reasons to reject a client, but our subjective belief of their guilt is not one of them.

  21. Plain Jane
    September 26, 2010 at 11:21 am

    What does it say about Jackson that she criticized Gallegos for defending his client to the best of his abilities, Eric?

  22. Eric Kirk
    September 26, 2010 at 11:39 am

    Nothing in the code about criticism.

  23. Plain Jane
    September 26, 2010 at 12:33 pm

    Let me rephrase it then. Is it a smear for Jackson to try to make people think Gallegos was a bad attorney for defending the cat killer?

  24. Anon
    September 26, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    Nope, the smear is that anyone would be stupid enough to use an argument that it’s okay to use antifreeze to poisen cats as a defense for their client. Thats borderline malpractice.

  25. Plain Jane
    September 26, 2010 at 1:21 pm

    What’s really stupid is believing Jackson’s characterization of anything.

  26. Eric Kirk
    September 26, 2010 at 3:19 pm

    To answer, there are attorneys who cannot be criminal defense attorneys because they cannot stomach the idea of defending “scumbags” or whatever. Some of those attorneys may have a hard time relating to those attorneys who put it into a different perspective.

    The Code of Ethics is based upon the premise that the adversarial court system provides the best opportunity to arrive at the truth, and that system calls for unwavering advocacy for each side, with the idea that the truth will float to the top for a jury. It therefor demands objectivity from the defense attorney, and not everyone is up for it. It makes criminal attorneys seem indifferent to the crimes, but in most cases the perception is inaccurate. Like a politician, an attorney must sometimes set part of themselves aside – including conscience – in order for the justice system to have a prayer of working.

    Personally, I could not be a prosecutor, because it is just not in me to go after someone on behalf of the state. I am therefor grateful for those who can do it, because they are essential to the system of justice. I hope Allison can generate a similar respect for defense attorneys who focus on the large picture, the integrity of the Bill of Rights, and the notion that there are two or more sides to every story and appearances can be deceiving on all sorts of levels, particularly when you have the coercive apparatus of the state going after one vulnerable person.

    Until we come up with a better system, we need people to take up both roles.

    I would hope Allison would agree with me, and I think she probably does. Therefor, the argument as represented here, seems irresponsible to me. But I didn’t hear the actual debate.

  27. Ragtime
    September 26, 2010 at 4:55 pm

    I like what you said, Eric. And you are in luck. The actual debate will not happen until tomorrow, so you are free to hear it then.

    As Susan McGee said, “It’s at the Eureka Inn Ballroom from 6 – 8 p.m. Monday.”

  28. Humboldt Politico
    September 26, 2010 at 8:56 pm

    Cat killers, child abusers, wife beaters, pederasts…

    Let’s return Paul to the private sector – there are so many scumbags needing a “C-” defense attorney.

  29. tired of asshats
    September 27, 2010 at 1:04 am

    Allison is a great barstool attorney.

  30. no lynch mobs
    September 27, 2010 at 7:25 am

    these adamant jackson supporters are a little scary…so is she…sounds like guilty before the trial’s even started…bad news.

  31. Ragtime
    September 27, 2010 at 5:54 pm

    Why condemn either candidate before hearing the debate?

  32. Susan McGee
    September 28, 2010 at 12:31 am

    Thanks for listening folks, the debate was totally illuminating, KHUM says that it was the largest candidate debate ever (with 200 – 300 people) packed into the Eureka Inn ballroom.
    I respectfully suggest that everyone document the source of their statements before posting. I liked Eric’s description of why we have an “adversarial” justice system. When it works, it works well (that’s just my opinion).

  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