Home > Uncategorized > DA employee files suit claim against Gallegos, other employees

DA employee files suit claim against Gallegos, other employees

The Arcata Eye.
See what they see.

[UPDATE AND CORRECTION: According to a Thadeus Greenson story in the T-S, no suit has been filed — the claim is a step towards a lawsuit.  I mistakenly relied on the Eye’s incorrect headline. Incidentally, the T-S story casts additional light on the circumstances of the claimant’s lengthy administrative leave.  Hint: it might not be for the reason cleverly implied-but-not-stated in the second paragraph of the Mintz/Hoover hit job –HH]

More at Kevin Hoover’s Arcata Eye.  The Daniel Mintz story hit job has everything but a response (or even an indication that a response was solicited) from any of the people against whom the allegations have been filed.

http://www.arcataeye.com/2012/05/lawsuit-against-da-alleges-corruption-discrimination-harassment-may-8-2012/

  1. May 9, 2012 at 9:48 am

    Publishing public documents is a “hit job” in Heraldoland, always eager to defend the status quo/powers that be.

    Surely you know that the accused have been advised not to speak about the pending litigation. But if they do, great. There will be a more elaborate story next week.

    Were a different DA in office, you’d (prematurely) frame it a story about a whistleblower being harassed, as the DA’s opponents surely will prior to any actual fact-finding being done.

    We’ll continue to report the facts and let the screeching partisans try and shoehorn it into their respective, funhouse mirror-image narratives.

  2. Anonymous
    May 9, 2012 at 9:59 am

    What was her driving violation?

  3. Mitch
    May 9, 2012 at 10:06 am

    Right, Kevin. No need for a phrase like, “The Eye contacted so-and-so for a response. So-and-so replied that they were unable to comment on pending litigation.”

    Everyone knows that, and besides, it might point out that we’re only hearing one side’s story. No need for that. Hey, got a good limerick?

  4. Anonymous
    May 9, 2012 at 10:20 am

    We don’t got to give you no stinkin facts. We don’t need no stinkin facts!

  5. the Society of Professional Journalist's Code of Ethics
    May 9, 2012 at 10:56 am

    Kevin is not part of our organization.

  6. Anonymous
    May 9, 2012 at 11:09 am

    The house of cards is falling.

  7. jackdurham
    May 9, 2012 at 11:10 am

    District Attorney Paul Gallegos has been contacted and asked to respond. As soon as he responds, his response will be posted.

  8. Anonymous
    May 9, 2012 at 11:48 am

    Don’t hold your breath Jack!

  9. Eyes Wide Open
    May 9, 2012 at 11:52 am

    I know someone who used to blog, just a friendly local thing… which flowers were blooming, what is on calendar for next week. A few comments were political. My friend stopped blogging after a “kevpod” from the Arcata Eye started harrassing her daily for having what he called an anonymous blog. The stupid thing was her name was all over it, you just had to go to the “contact page.” But day after day she got piles of spew from “kevpod” accusing her of wanting to be the New Heraldo. How do I know this? I made the artwork for her headline and read it every day. I saw the nasty comments right there that caused her to quit blogging. I have had no respect for “kevpod” ever since.

  10. Anonymous
    May 9, 2012 at 1:15 pm

    The best defense is a good offense ?

    I doubt if there is much, or any, merit to this persons claim. She’s been off for what ……. six months ?!

    She’s in trouble and now she’s claiming she’s the victim!

  11. Anonymous
    May 9, 2012 at 1:54 pm

    “Were a different DA in office, you’d (prematurely) frame it a story about a whistleblower being harassed,”

    What kind of fictitious scenario is that, kevin? Which different DA? Are they doing good or are they doing bad in your opinion? You do have an opinion of this specific matter, after all. Not that we expect you would publish it in your paper, but you do have an opinion and you’d gladly collect a buck to print an opinion in the form of an advertisement. You are shameless about letting people know some of your other opinions around subjects like marijuana, and printing them regardless. But suddenly you’re some kind of bastion of fairness?

  12. May 9, 2012 at 2:02 pm

    The documents posted on the Eye are dated October 25, 2011, but according to the article the Board of Supes met about it in closed session yesterday.

    Whether or not the suit has merit is unclear from what little information is available.

  13. Not A Native
    May 9, 2012 at 4:50 pm

    Kevin is simply pure slime. And he’s really ugly too. His rag is full of his personal pet peeves and whispering campaigns against those who don’t conform to Kevin’s total support of gentrification for sole the benefit of Arcata landlords and shopkeepers financed by extorted money from captive HSU students . And for those who do, his cloying laudatory prose is sickening to read.

    I look forward to this year’s end and his folding his nasty tent, as he’s promised he will. But I’m not holding my breath, because where in God’s name could he go? And when his usefulness as a tool goes away, the people he flatters and bows down before will drop him faster than a used rubber.

  14. Tiger Woods
    May 9, 2012 at 5:01 pm

    You mean you are only supposed to use a rubber once?

  15. Anonymous
    May 9, 2012 at 5:22 pm

    holy shit, not a native, that’s a well written insult. I happen to like the eye and will miss it when it goes. It’s a VERY unique rag, especially that it’s lasting into today. My hometown’s paper has been around longer but dwindled in pages and no color (face it, people like pictures). I haven’t met anybody yet in the journalism biz who isn’t strongly opinionated. It’s (hopefully) part of their drive to be a journalist in the first place. That said, one’s profession by itself doesn’t equate sainthood, everybody’s word is to be taken with a grain of one’s prefered salt.

  16. Santa Claus says
    May 9, 2012 at 5:23 pm

    Tiger Woods is not like me because I stop after three hos.

  17. Anonymous
    May 9, 2012 at 5:24 pm

    The red flag concerning validity of this case vs. some kind of extended vendetta is the sexual harrasment charge, representing her and “others”. Riiiiiggghht.

  18. jr
    May 9, 2012 at 5:27 pm

    The Arcata Eye is one great read–cover to cover, and it will be a shame if Kevin makes good on his “threat”. It is always a treat to find the Eye in my mailbox every Wednesday.

  19. Eric Kirk
    May 9, 2012 at 5:45 pm

    The house of cards is falling.

    How many times is the Gallegos eulogy going to be written? We’ve been hearing about how his reign as DA is over – since about a week after he first took office and his opposition started collecting signatures for a recall. Boy, did that go well for you?

  20. Anonymous
    May 9, 2012 at 6:02 pm

    According to the documents, she’s been on administrative leave for over a year, since 5/2/2011, due to an “off duty driving violation,” What was this violation? It must be for something more serious than a speeding ticket. I will be very surprised if there is any substance to her claims.

  21. back in the saddle
    May 9, 2012 at 6:05 pm

    Well smoke ’em if you like Gallegos and buy the Arcata Eye if you don’t like Kevin. For the right price, he will undoubtably sell it to you, Not A Native.

  22. Anonymous
    May 9, 2012 at 6:20 pm

    Are you sure Kevin and Rose aren’t one and the same?

  23. Anonymous
    May 9, 2012 at 7:18 pm

    I was under the impression half of the above comments are the same one or two usual characters with mental disorders or trust funds that fuel their fantasy worlds. It gnaws at them that the Eye continues to thrive, and even occasionally publishes their rants, even when the rants are against Kevin. That’s pretty funny when it happens… a nutjob ranting against Kevin in Kevin’s own publication and we’re supposed to stifle our giggles.

  24. Anonymous
    May 9, 2012 at 8:31 pm

    Considering that the article had a glaring error (time off work), didn’t say why she was on administrative leave and apparently there was no attempt to get the other side, the criticisms seem pretty fair. Are the documents available in the paper version? If not or if people don’t bother to read her documents they would erroneously get the impression that the reason she has been off work for “6 months” was punishment for trying to be a good public servant, not because of a probably serious traffic violation. This is a hit piece, the very definition of “yellow journalism.”

  25. Eric Kirk
    May 9, 2012 at 9:28 pm

    Well, it’s just reporting that there is in fact a claim which has been filed. I don’t see any conclusions about the merits. Claims are filed all the time, and many of them don’t end up as lawsuits. If I’m representing the DA, I would be telling him not to discuss it, certainly not this early in the process. So who are you going to talk to for the “other side?”

    Interesting that the firm is from Los Angeles. Local attorneys haven’t been afraid to take these cases in the past.

  26. Observer
    May 9, 2012 at 9:35 pm

    Mintz does like to dredge up dirt…even when there isn’t any. He wrote an entire article once about a Planning Commissioner’s low-blood-sugar-inducer comment that the McK airport sucks (big news).

  27. Anonymous
    May 9, 2012 at 9:39 pm

    You ask so at least you can report that the other side declined to comment.

  28. May 9, 2012 at 10:14 pm

    What no discussion of the allegations? Using his office for campaign purposes? You all saw it his infomercials, and know it appears that, at least is accurate. What’s this about abusive polygraphing? No speculation? No concern? Just dig in the trenches and prepare for the long spin.

    Quite a difference between this and when a similar claim was filed against Tyson the HH crowd took it as proof of fault. Funny. Would be interesting to juxtapose the two threads, wouldn’t it.

    In this case – there’s proof. Gallegos’ campaign materials are proof. The grants, and the money trail will be proof – good thing you can buy popcorn by the silo.

  29. pumpkin boy
    May 9, 2012 at 10:16 pm

    Hoover is a cop

  30. Eric Kirk
    May 9, 2012 at 10:28 pm

    Well, there isn’t a whole lot to work with Rose. It’s not even he said/she said right now. It’s just she said, and I wasn’t privy to the conversations she’s alleging.

    Infomercials?

    On another thought, I really hope there’s nothing to the rumor that the Arcata Eye is closing up. I don’t agree with everything I read, but it’s one of the best reads in the county.

  31. Jack Sherman
    May 10, 2012 at 12:26 am

    I tried to read the Eye a few times. It’s design appears haphazard and chaotic, distracting to read, difficult to follow, with words in colored boxes jumbled so tightly together it’s like deciphering a code, you have to be an idiot-savant or M.C. Escher for the layout to make sense.

    I’d hate to see it shut down, but newspapers have made themselves increasingly irrelevant. Journalists used to hunger and compete in search of the excesses and ironies of injustice and power, now they cower from them.

    Not much of a story here.

    There’s literally hundreds of employee suits on file downtown against HSU, county, state, and federal officials, and soon, one of the largest employee lawsuit-generators in the world will arrive in Eureka’s Bayshore Mall.

  32. Anonymous
    May 10, 2012 at 6:47 am

    Why did she not file her complaints before she was put on administrative leave for a traffic violation? The low amount she is asking for sounds like she just wants a settlement and there is no validity to her claims.

  33. Gil Yule
    May 10, 2012 at 7:09 am

    Another attack on Gallegos? How surprising (yawn). Perhaps this is our conservative community’s way of reminding us who the bad guys are just before an election. Probably, timing is everything. I look forward to the different candidate’s spins on the lawsuit. It should be telling and entertaining.

  34. Mitch
    May 10, 2012 at 8:08 am

    For anyone arriving directly at these comments without checking out the update above, please note that there is a Times-Standard story today that helps put the claim (not suit) in better context.

    Among other things, it sheds light on the claimant’s lengthy administrative leave, framed by the Hoover/Mintz hit job in such a way as to imply that it is due to a “hostile work environment.”

    The lengthy Google link below will get you past the T-S’ paywall.

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCQQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.times-standard.com%2Flocalnews%2Fci_20591105%2Fclaim-alleges-malfeasance-das-office-gallegos-allegations-will&ei=ctmrT4eMIYji2QXq1ImnAg&usg=AFQjCNHreLhwTKAkrBvpGLyx7vwJ2i1DQA&sig2=JWHBbls-YaW4P7Gr9-zpGQ

  35. Anonymous
    May 10, 2012 at 8:15 am

    OH Eric. Gallegos’ reign isn’t over, but for the good of the county it should have been over a long time ago.

    The DA’s office just keeps getting worse and worse, losing personnel (good and bad) all the time.

    The sad thing is by now Gallegos has put the DA’s office so deep in the hole there will be no legit opposition! Who would want to take over such a trainwreck?

  36. curious
    May 10, 2012 at 8:33 am

    What is inescapable is that this person was a Gallegos hire, no connection to the oft-maligned “good old boys”. If the claims are baseless, and the claimant (and her law firm) some personification of misfeasance, malfeasance and mendacity, who gets the credit for that? And what happened to the Ben McLaughlin affair?

  37. Anonymous
    May 10, 2012 at 8:41 am

    Come on! You know Gallegos forced her drive drunk so he’d have an excuse to get rid of her!

  38. Mitch
    May 10, 2012 at 8:47 am

    Hey Kevin,

    The screeching partisans here at Heraldoland are waiting for you to report the facts, buddy. Did you already know what’s in the T-S story when you printed the hit, or will you be using the Durham maneuver (“duh, nobody told me, it woudda been a scoop”)?

  39. Kevin Hoover
    May 10, 2012 at 9:16 am

  40. Mitch
    May 10, 2012 at 9:17 am

    So it’ll be a link to your lies. Fine.

  41. Anonymous
    May 10, 2012 at 9:29 am

    And Kevin continues his misleading the public without acknowledging the errors in his paper. Now there is no doubt it was deliberate.

  42. Anonymous
    May 10, 2012 at 9:30 am

    Personally, kevin, I see no problem with your brief at all. There’s a suit and its merit is up in the air. Could be a case of another frazzled ranking employee going through their own personal midlife crisis, creating all kinds of mountains out of molehills along with lots of sound and fury signifying nothing. I’ve seen it happen quite a few times, haven’t you?

    Your own followup comments, however, indicate the exact kind of vindictiveness you are being accused of.

    ” because it could reflect poorly on their political cronies.”

    There are “cronies” involved? You demonstrate disdain toward the accused.

    “it is couched in “progressive” rhetoric.”

    Is that what your opinion of progressive politics is? You see it as an affiliate issue? I thought your point was impartiality, as was your represent, but you demonstrate your position in what you see an affiliate issue.

    “Because protecting the status quo with anonymous hate-screeds slamming the free press is, of course, the essence of progress.”

    Hate? So what is it when YOU criticize? Status quo?

  43. Mitch
    May 10, 2012 at 9:38 am

    Anonymous 9:30,

    I’m not sure how anyone could read both The Eye version and the story in the T-S and have “no problem” with The Eye.

    Have you read the T-S story through? Did you read the second paragraph of The Eye’s item? That seems like a problem to me.

  44. Anonymous
    May 10, 2012 at 9:46 am

    The plaintiff’s documents, included at the bottom of the Eye article, state she was put on administrative leave for a “traffic violation” but the Eye doesn’t mention it in the body of their article. That’s a glaring omission and calls their agenda into question. Defending it by attacking those who called attention to it is pathetic.

  45. Mitch
    May 10, 2012 at 9:57 am

    The T-S article clarifies the nature of the traffic violation, and the timing between the traffic violation and the administrative leave.

    The Eye uses a standard propaganda technique to suggest that the administrative leave came as a result of a “hostile work environment,” managing to leave itself plausible deniability by not specifically stating the connection, but just putting both in a single sentence.

    I still admire Kevin’s courage in covering the grow house issue in Arcata, against his economic interest. But my overall opinion of the Police Log author has sunk lower.

  46. Anonymous
    May 10, 2012 at 10:47 am

    Yes, mitch, I’ve read and now re-read both articles. On second read I find the Times article more accusatory of the two. It alludes to the idea she was arrested in retaliation. To those of us, myself anyway, who aren’t savvy to the ongoing DA drama, the way the Eye phrases it, “administrative leave for the last six months”, combined with the fact of her sexual harrasment charge thrown into the mix of far more widespread (infinitely more important, IMO) issues of fraud, sounds like she’s a typical disgruntled employee entering her sixth year of work at the same place. A pretty long time to tolerate sexual harrassment and witness fraud in itself. Sexual harrassment? Just seems ridiculous, and something that could have been taken care of long ago were it true. At least been brought to wider attention. What was the breaking point? Also, the Eye doesn’t quote the accused, but at this point what would one expect them to say? Gallegos’ sloppy quote in the times isn’t top notch lawyer speak either. If somebody threw a false lawsuit at me, I wouldn’t say “I THINK there’s nothing to it”, I’d say “there is nothing to it, and she’s full of shit.” (maybe not the s-word part). But he’s being polite. Who knows? Not the ongoing issue to me that it is to most of you apparently, I pay attention to blurbs in the rags but that’s. In this case, I don’t see a ‘hit job’. A very simplified blurb is more like it. My criticism of kevin is the brashness with which he demonstrates such an obvious (and typical) double standard in matters of his own opinion.

  47. Mitch
    May 10, 2012 at 11:12 am

    Well, it’s interesting how differently 10:47 and I read the articles.

    Two criticisms of the Eye article come to my mind immediately:
    First, it lacks the normally obligatory quote from the accused, offering them at least the opportunity to say “I can’t comment.”

    Second, the very second paragraph puts together what I read as an implication that the paid administrative leave was related to an alleged hostile work environment, when it appears more likely it was related to the fallout from the driving violation, which is not mentioned in the Eye text.

    As for the T-S piece seeming accusatory, suggesting the complainant was arrested in retaliation, I just can’t for the life of me figure out how you get that from the article.

    First, the DAs office would not be in charge of the police, and it’s hard to imagine how they could have “set up” the complainant to be arrested at the time and manner in which she apparently was.

    More important, according to the T-S, the DAs office has recused itself from handling the charge, due to the complainants connection to the office.

    And, if I read it correctly, the arrest happened before any complaint from the complainant, and before she was placed on paid administrative leave.

  48. Anonymous
    May 10, 2012 at 11:22 am

    I phrased myself poorly (i ain’t no lawyerist)…she’s arrested for ‘supposedly’ driving under the influence (no follow up as to what has come of that) and has been on leave since. Seems like a convenient excuse to kick her out. Merely stating “administrative leave”, to me, leaves much more room for speculation either way. And it only makes sense that an honerable DA wouldn’t have his own accused office handle their own case. Is there some logic I’m overlooking?

  49. Mitch
    May 10, 2012 at 11:33 am

    Anon,

    I ain’t a lawyerist either. “Convenient excuse?” I guess I continue to have a different attitude towards drunk driving than most in this area. She works for law enforcement.

  50. Anonymous
    May 10, 2012 at 11:33 am

    Her case is coming to trial in the next few days 11:22. Additionally, the DA referred her case to the AG because of conflict of interest. That is who filed the charges against her, not Gallegos. If he had allowed someone arrested for drunk driving to remain at her job, his usual attackers would have made a federal case over his bias.

  51. Anonymous
    May 10, 2012 at 11:43 am

    She probably needs the $25,000 to pay for her DUI defense.

  52. Anonymous
    May 10, 2012 at 11:45 am

    ” She works for law enforcement.”

    Run by fellow human beings, hopefully. I’m not a big fan of ryan sundberg but same thing…guy gets a DUI after making the five minute drive home without incident, based on a phone tip? Replace the S in USA with a swastika for crap like that. Depending on how she handles herself regarding, she does this crime, she does the time then back on the job lesson learned and never again. DUI’s are a cash cow, you MUST know that much. In this case it was even a ‘suspected’ DUI, which must mean she wasn’t impaired beyond committing the common infraction that infinitely more sober people commit every day. I don’t play the DUI God game, I know WAY too many people given one without merit, and it’s really hurt them financially and employment wise.

  53. Mitch
    May 10, 2012 at 11:49 am

    Exactly 11:45. I don’t see DUIs the way you do, and I think law enforcement should obey the laws they are charged to enforce.

    The DUI you brought up, the one “without incident,” involved someone driving at approximately double the legal blood alcohol threshold. I don’t know who reported it, but if it was someone at the drinking establishment, they were doing a public service. It would have been more of a service to take his keys and call him a cab.

  54. Anonymous
    May 10, 2012 at 11:57 am

    “I don’t see DUIs the way you do,”

    Let’s be REALLY specific here, because I am in NO WAY in favor of driving while fucked up….you don’t see the “UI” the way I do. You’ve given up that tiny part of your humanity and replaced it with a number on a piece of paper. One that varies from state to state, even, and in some places doesn’t exist. Can you get a $10,000 fine for drive under the influence of stupid? There are already laws against driving like a moron, you know.

  55. Anonymous
    May 10, 2012 at 12:00 pm

    Forget I wrote that, it’s another argument altogether that always ends the same way. You go ahead and be another “that guy” about DUI’s, Captain Nanny.

  56. Mitch
    May 10, 2012 at 12:06 pm

    Captain Nanny’s gonna guess you’ve got a DUI on your record. If the argument “always ends the same way,” maybe that’s telling.

    But you’re right, it’s another topic entirely.

  57. Anonymous
    May 10, 2012 at 12:32 pm

    “Captain Nanny’s gonna guess you’ve got a DUI on your record. If the argument “always ends the same way,” maybe that’s telling.”

    Telling of you. I don’t drink, but you made a predictable assumption for somebody who can simply write off so much empathy.

  58. May 10, 2012 at 1:18 pm

    Sounds like a Nuisance Suit–with Venidiction

  59. Anonymous
    May 10, 2012 at 1:34 pm

    And at a level they expect will just be paid-out rather than all the hassle and expense of fighting it.

  60. 713
    May 10, 2012 at 9:26 pm

    Here’s your test Mitch:
    Would you have been so incensed with the story if it had been an Arkley employee?

  61. Mitch
    May 10, 2012 at 9:54 pm

    713,

    Obviously, I can only give my guess.

    My guess is “yes.”

    It’s not the “sides,” it’s the lack of fairness. A false implication in paragraph two, and not even the courtesy to offer the accused the standard opportunity to say they could not comment. I’d have identified the story as a hit job even if it included no names, or if the names were taken from children’s cartoons.

    Besides, I don’t know much one way or the other about the Arkleys, and have admired some of their philanthropy, though I found their takedown of Tom Daschle to be horrendous.

    Some here might be surprised to discover how little I know one way or the other about Gallegos — the biggest thing I know about him is that when Pacific Lumber tried to buy control of his office by funding a recall, he fought back and won. I like that. (If I remember correctly, so did the Arkleys.) I also like the memo his office did up regarding First Amendment rights of protesters. I don’t know how good or bad a manager or lawyer he is, but I don’t feel like I could reliably get that information from reading the local press.

  62. May 10, 2012 at 10:21 pm

    Mitch – maybe ya oughtta just sit back and let the reporting unfold as the facts come out. Just a thought.

  63. May 10, 2012 at 10:48 pm

    That’s a funny suggestion coming from Rose.

  64. Anonymous
    May 10, 2012 at 11:08 pm

    How so ?

  65. Jack Sherman
    May 11, 2012 at 12:48 am

    Rose @ 10:14 and 10:21……at least she restrained her hypocrisy for a day!

    Well done!

  66. Mitch
    May 11, 2012 at 5:58 am

    Rose,

    See, the problem with that is that The Eye story didn’t do that.

    Instead, it tried to frame things with a very limited subset of the available facts.

    What this post did is point that out (while linking to The Eye’s “coverage”) and provide a link to a story with more facts when it appeared.

  67. May 11, 2012 at 7:00 am

    I’ve come around, Mitch. I’m with ya, 100%. They should not have touched the story with a ten-foot pole.

    How DARE they.

    They should have put on their damn blinders and walked past it – whistling all the way. See no evil… keep the world safe for democracy and all. Who do they THINK they are anyways.

    Why, when they even saw a HINT of a scandal involving Paul, they should have immediately jettisoned that scrap of paper, trashed that email, whatever it was, it should be destroyed.

    And damn it, what is wrong with them, they’re not trying to destroy Ms. Duncan like good little soldiers . Bad Jack. Bad Kevin! And bad Thadeus, though he tried really hard.

  68. Mitch
    May 11, 2012 at 7:21 am

    Rose,

    They should have asked for the obligatory no-comment, allowing the accused to respond that they can’t respond, thereby clarifying the one-sidedness of the available material.

    They should have noted the driving incident in the text of the story. They should have noted that it preceded the start of administrative leave by two days, and that the DA’s office had recused itself from that case. They should not have written a sentence implying a different reason for the administrative leave. They should have noted that the claim was rejected by the County’s risk officer. If no lawsuit has begun, they should not have called it a lawsuit.

    In sum, they should have written a story like the one in the Times-Standard. If you don’t believe me, send the two stories off to any practicing journalist from outside Humboldt County and ask their opinion.

    Do you really think that, other than perhaps at the Mirror, your sarcasm influences people to think positively of what you have to say? Maybe you should try limericks.

  69. Mitch
    May 11, 2012 at 7:39 am

    I got a “No on Prop 29” mailer yesterday that, remarkably, doesn’t mention tobacco anywhere, despite Prop 29 being a tobacco tax. That mailer strikes me as about the same as the Hoover/Mintz story. Of course, the mailer doesn’t pretend to be a newspaper.

    (Smaller print at the bottom of the back page says: “Paid for by No on 29 — Californians Against Out-of-Control Taxes and Spending. Major funding by Philip Morris USA and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, with a coalition of taxpayers, small businesses, law enforcement and labor. I guess there’s a law.)

  70. 713
    May 11, 2012 at 7:40 am

    Mitch,
    Both Hoover and Durham deal it out pretty evenly. I don’t think they are framing things one way or another. I’ve heard people accuse them of that from both sides, so it seems to me they are fair in that regard.

  71. Mitch
    May 11, 2012 at 7:43 am

    713,

    Read the stories side-by-side — theirs and the one in the T-S — and say that again. I dare you.

  72. jackdurham
    May 11, 2012 at 7:49 am

    Mitch wrote:I don’t know how good or bad a manager or lawyer he is, but I don’t feel like I could reliably get that information from reading the local press.

    Jack responds: You missed the articles about grant mismanagement, the DA recanting his response to the Grand Jury, and how they’re now spending a lot of money on an outside consultant to untangle and manage a large chunk of the department’s finances

  73. Mitch
    May 11, 2012 at 7:58 am

    You mean the ones written by the author of the current hit job? I don’t think so.

    I don’t doubt any office could be found to have bungled some things, if someone was dedicated to searching out every flaw.

    The reasonable questions are:

    1) is the top person worse than their predecessor?
    2) would it be better if the head were replaced by the offered alternatives?
    3) how does it compare with similar offices elsewhere?
    4) how does it compare with other local offices doing different things?
    5) what do outsiders doing similar jobs think of the job the office is doing?

    The easiest form of prejudice is to point out some flaw of humanity in general, but ONLY when it is found in the racial or ethnic group you don’t like. It’s easy, because the flaw will definitely be there. Just make sure you don’t notice it or point it out EXCEPT in the group you’ve decided to hate.

    I’m content with Gallegos because I feel the DA’s office, under Gallegos, has more respect for the law than it had under his predecessor. I think that’s the reason it is under fire. When cops decide they don’t like a DA, they can ALWAYS make the DA look bad. When people in the press decide they don’t like someone, they can ALWAYS make that person look bad. (For the Republicans here, let me mention that I learned that from my mother, when we would argue about Nixon, who I loathed. It took me a decade, but I eventually realized she was right when she said he’s no worse than the rest.)

    I note that the DA office’s memo on dealing with First Amendment rights seems on target to me, and yet was accused by the Sheriff of granting “immunity” to protesters. Since I can actually read the memo, and see that the Sheriff’s point of view is not just wrong but ridiculous, I have more respect for the DA than the Sheriff.

  74. jackdurham
    May 11, 2012 at 8:01 am

    Mitch writes: You mean the ones written by the author of the current hit job? I don’t think so.

    Jack responds: I didn’t think so either.

  75. Mitch
    May 11, 2012 at 8:05 am

    It’s also useful, when trying to calibrate one’s reading of propaganda, to see whether things you consider ones and twos (on a scale of ten) are blown up when done by person X, while things you consider eights and nines (on a scale of ten) are ignored or played down when done by person-not-X.

    That’s been, for me, a useful way of deciding when a “news source” can be safely treated as full of shit. Seen any stickers posted on parking meters lately? The horror! Seize them!

  76. Mitch
    May 11, 2012 at 8:08 am

    OK, I see you’ll take me literally. Yes, jackdurham, I’ve read the prior hit pieces. I simply don’t pay attention to them.

    (Now you respond: “I didn’t think so.” Try it in a limerick, and you’ll have a more readable, fun, paper.)

  77. jackdurham
    May 11, 2012 at 8:21 am

    Mitch, did you read these stories in the T-S? Were they different?

  78. Anonymous
    May 11, 2012 at 8:25 am

    You must read and accept every bit of garbage dumped by the likes of Mintz and Rose or you can’t possibly have a full account of the issue. It’s funny that Rose, of all people, thinks we should wait to hear all the facts before we comment on Gallegos’ accuser – like she ever cared about facts when accusing Gallegos (or Obama) of evil deeds.

  79. Mitch
    May 11, 2012 at 8:25 am

    A newspaper just didn’t know
    Because its resources were awfully low
    But let’s run this story
    it’s awfully gory
    And it properly goes with the flow.

    A newspaper needs some good luck
    along with reporters with pluck
    Unless its agenda
    we all must remembah
    is just to get paid its next buck.

  80. Mitch
    May 11, 2012 at 8:32 am

    Police Log

    12:32 A person was transported to the Pink Palace for illegal signage. It was an easy trip, just round the corner.

    12:34 Signage.

    12:36 Oh, sir, you should shower.

    12:40 Freedom of speech should not be exercised by the ugly, or should that be the handsomeness-challenged.

    12:44 A layabout was found babbling and cursing. Don’t they know that’s no way to win friends and influence people?

    12:45 Signage.

    9:31 Dude, you can’t stand there.

    9:32 Or there.

    9:34 Some people just don’t get a clue. Pink Palace.

  81. May 11, 2012 at 8:45 am

    Mitch – you ought to sit down and shut up – you’re going to have egg on your face on this one the likes of which you will never be able to wash off. Save yourself, man. Don’t get caught in this web of lies, it ain’t healthy.

  82. Mitch
    May 11, 2012 at 8:49 am

    Thanks, Rose, I appreciate your concern.

    Could you be a bit more specific about what I’ve said here that is untrue?

    A list would be helpful.

  83. Anonymous
    May 11, 2012 at 8:59 am

    Rose, if being wrong about the outcome local political battles puts egg on one’s face, then you have must be wearing a thick mask of quiche by now – i.e., your obsession with the DA and your failed attempts to discredit his performance.

  84. May 11, 2012 at 9:00 am

    Wait, I thought Rose wanted everyone to wait until the facts are out. Now just a few hours later she’s raving about eggs.

  85. Mitch
    May 11, 2012 at 9:08 am

    Rose,

    Don’t worry, there’s no need to betray any confidences.

    I haven’t said a thing about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the accusations. As you suggest, I’ve withheld judgement about the allegations until all the facts are available to a court.

    My comments (as is often the case) are about the “news” coverage. What have I said that is untrue?

    I appreciate your concern and would like to know which things I’ve said are untrue, because you are right — it would indeed be serious egg on my face if I were discovered to be lying here.

    List, please?

  86. Percy
    May 11, 2012 at 9:44 am

    Mitch, don’t you know that newspapers and “real journalists” are the only media you can trust. Blogs are only here to spew misinformation and slander behind the curtain of anonymity. Except for Rose’s Blog of course. You cam always trust someone in the PR business to give you the straight scoop. Kinda like an oil lobbyist talking about Global Warming.

  87. Anonymous
    May 11, 2012 at 9:48 am

    haha, 8:25, gooduns.

  88. May 11, 2012 at 9:51 am

    As I said, Mitch, the facts will come out. It’s out of your hands, all Salzman’s spin can’t change the fact that this stuff is now in the hands of investigators. Extricate your head from Salzman’s ass and wait for the facts to come out – that is, if you will allow any paper to print the story. Oh, I mean, the “hit piece.” Because any facts about Gallegos, no matter how well documented, are sheer fantasy. Right. God forbid a newspaper reporter should report on what is in existing documents. The horror!

  89. Mitch
    May 11, 2012 at 10:00 am

    So, Rose, would you do me the courtesy of saying you could not find one thing I’ve said here to be untrue?

    If not, would you please provide me a list of the things I’ve said here that are untrue?

    By the way, two points:

    (1) I like Richard, but my head is not up his ass.

    (2) I can’t “allow” or “disallow” any newspaper to print or not print any story or hit piece.

    If people think I’m a liar, they won’t listen to a word I say, so please get me that list so I can correct any inadvertent misstatements I may have made.

    Thanks.

  90. May 11, 2012 at 10:57 am

    No, Mitch. I am not going to help you out any further than the advice I have given you. You’ve chosen your path.

    Poor dumb thing.

    Have you always been involved with the Herald? Behind the scenes? What’s the story, Mitch?

  91. Mitch
    May 11, 2012 at 11:13 am

    Rose,

    Even though you are not going to “help me out” any further, I’m happy to answer your questions from 10:57.

    No, I hadn’t played any role at the Herald until approximately two months ago, aside from that of “too-frequent commenter.” Heraldo emailed me in mid-March to invite me to become a “contributor.” I still don’t know who Heraldo is or are, but he/she/they have destroyed my productivity. Thanks a lot.

    You don’t ask about Salzman and Gallegos. Although I recognize Paul Gallegos, and worked on the anti-recall campaign a decade ago, I feel pretty confident Gallegos would not be able to pick me out of a lineup. The last conversation I had with Richard about Gallegos would have been during that anti-recall campaign.

    You, and some others, seem to think Richard is behind every bit of common sense that appears anywhere in the county. While that’s flattering to Richard, it’s insulting and tedious to many of the rest of us, who have our own opinions.

    Someone at the North Coast Journal blog promoted me to “would be kingmaker” a while back. It’s amusing to read these various paranoid fantasies, because when it comes to local campaigns I’m just an overly-opinionated observer without the necessary self-discipline to avoid the blogs. I’m stuck requiring constant internet access to do my real work, and I too-frequently click on the other tabs. Anyone who knows me would tell you that.

    The last campaign I even contributed a small amount of money to was Estelle’s. Who knew?

  92. Guest
    May 11, 2012 at 11:27 am

    Is there anyone more paranoid that Rose Welsh?

  93. Anonymous
    May 11, 2012 at 11:54 am

    Insanely paranoid and hypocritical.

  94. May 11, 2012 at 12:02 pm

    LOL – Well, Gallegos’ problems with grant mismanagement aren’t going away. Richard’s well calculated spin won’t save him this time.

    So, I am waiting to see it all come out.

    This polygraph thing is a new wrinkle. yet it doesn’t seem to disturb you, Mitch. Is the spin already prepared for that one?

  95. Anonymous
    May 11, 2012 at 12:05 pm

    Poor Rose is dying for something to run with, even if its a ridiculous claim from a drunk driver with an ax to grind.

  96. Mitch
    May 11, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    Rose,

    Does the “unlawful polygraph practices” charge disturb me?

    I guess I’ll need to learn more before I can have an opinion. I can’t even guess what it might mean. Giving polygraphs without telling people they don’t have to take them? Using uncertified machines? Letting parallel lines touch? I haven’t a clue.

    If you want to share any specifics, maybe that would help. Otherwise, I guess I’ll wait until the case goes to court.

  97. What Now
    May 11, 2012 at 12:24 pm

    Rose Welsh is a perfect example of the tragic legacy that haunts this state since then Governor Ronald Reagan closed state mental health facilities and dumped the patients on the street without developing community alternatives.

    Without the internet and her blog, shed be standning on a street corner screaming about Richard Salzman’s connections to Al-Qaeda and the Kremlin.

    She really IS a poor tragic and pathetic creature.

  98. May 11, 2012 at 1:08 pm

    “I guess I’ll need to learn more before I can have an opinion. I can’t even guess what it might mean…. I guess I’ll wait until the case goes to court.”

    There ya go, Mitch. Took a while to get you over the water hazard, but there you are. We’re on the same page after all. And we even agree that the papers have an OBLIGATION to investigate and report on the facts of the case. I will also be interested in hearing WHAT it could possibly mean.

    Who woulda thunk, we agree.

  99. Mitch
    May 11, 2012 at 1:22 pm

    Rose,

    Oh, puhleez. Is that the sort of thing they learn ya in lawyer school?

  100. Guest
  101. Guest
    May 11, 2012 at 1:59 pm

    How many of these web sites is Rose responsible for?

    http://web.humboldtgop.org/

    http://www.hrwf-ca.org/2008/09/humboldt-county-republican-party.html

    http://www.facebook.com/HumboldtRepublicanWomen?sk=wall&filter=2

    Talk about somebody with WAY TOO much time on their hands

  102. Anonymous
    May 12, 2012 at 7:11 pm

    how much stupid posts is Mitch responsible for ?

  103. Anonymous
    May 12, 2012 at 7:21 pm

    How many stupid posts are you responsible for, besides the one at 7:11?

  104. High Finance
    May 12, 2012 at 7:37 pm

    Mitch posts under the name “Mitch”, under the name “anonymous” and under various other “cute” names he comes up with.

    Heraldo once said that Mitch was responsible for 30% of the posts or something like that. No. The number is much higher.

  105. Anonymous
    May 12, 2012 at 8:21 pm

    Rose is having a fit with Kevin Hoover, very interesting read

    http://watchpaul.blogspot.com/2012/04/check-your-full-email-headers-people.html

  106. May 12, 2012 at 10:19 pm

    HiFi you lowly hypocrite! You post as “anonymous” and deny it, and then accuse others of doing it. And you camp on this blog all day long. Complaining that others comment too much is hilarious coming from you who just Can’t. Get. Enough. of the Humboldt Herald.

  107. Mitch
    May 13, 2012 at 8:15 am

    HiFi,

    You’re wrong about my multiple identities, but since most people realize that, it doesn’t particularly matter. But just look back on this thread. Can you ignore quantity of posts and just, for a moment, read them for content?

    I’m pointing out one simple thing, responding over and over to several different commenters. That simple thing is that the Mintz/Hoover piece is an unethical hit job, for reasons I explain repeatedly.

    Note how the question of the ethics of the Eye piece is completely independent from the question of whether the charges made against people in the DA’s office are legitimate. I have no knowledge or opinion regarding the latter.

    The only reason I have commented over and over again is that none of the other comments responds to my point with anything their authors are able and willing to back up. Rose is the best example. She couldn’t find a single untruthful thing I said, so she resorted to quoting my statement that I had no opinion or facts about an allegation as if it meant I had no opinion or facts about the Eye hit job.

    The last couple of months have been revealing to me, which is one of the reasons I keep bothering. The most fascinating thing I’ve discovered is that some frequent commenters here are not simply engaging in sophistry — they are really, objectively, dumb. You can tell after a while from their utter literalness and lack of understanding of dry humor. They’re probably responsible for the sort of humor at the Mirror, and must think Kevin’s Police Log is consistently a laugh riot.

    Live and learn.

  108. Mitch
    May 13, 2012 at 10:07 am

    Thanks 8:21.

    Kevin appears to have decided not to engage with the Herald’s “screeching partisans,” but his public comments are still interesting:

    Rose says:

    You’re taking the heat now, Kevin, for daring print facts about the DA’s office… documented facts. I guess you’re supposed to avert your eyes, and whistle as you walk quickly past any evidence that comes to light.

    I, for one am dying to hear the rest of the story.

    ‘Unlawful polygraph’ – doesn’t upset Mitch or “Heraldo” – were they fans of the Patriot Act? I can’t remember.

    Kevin replies:

    That’s not “heat,” nor is the berserk keyboard flailing on Heraldo. That’s all baboons thumping the ground in threat displays. Something one might observe on a nature documentary about mammalian clan behavior.

  109. Anonymous
    May 13, 2012 at 10:16 am

    “keyboard flailing….That’s all baboons thumping the ground in displays. Something one might observe on a nature documentary about mammalian clan behavior.”

    Edited. As we all know, Kevin wrote this as any other baboon thumping the ground in a display. Something one might observe on a documentary about predictable human behaviors and how they come to be.

  110. May 13, 2012 at 10:25 am

    She couldn’t find a single untruthful thing I said, so she resorted to quoting my statement that I had no opinion or facts about an allegation as if it meant I had no opinion or facts about the Eye hit job.

    You can quit the whirling dervish act, Mitch – it doesn’t do any good. this thing is out of your hands – and Salzman’s. You can continue to attack the messengers, and try to bully the employee, and make up all kinds of nasty allegations about her, but it won’t change a thing.

    You’re so far out there that there is no point in trying to educate you. You don’t want to hear it, and go into your strange barking when someone tries to give you a reasonable answer.

    If you REALLY cared about the facts, you would already know about the grants. And that trying to continue to spin it is useless. Time and time again it has been pointed out, not on the threads of blogs, but in official documents and proceedings, Board of Supes, Grand Jury, and now, court.

    It is quite apparent that you do not, and that you are in damage control mode.

    I guess the intimidation tactics aren’t working – on Daniel Mintz, Jack, or Kevin – or Thadeus, for that matter.

    Maybe there’s just no more room under the rug for the facts.

  111. Mitch
    May 13, 2012 at 10:37 am

    Rose,

    You’re right. My intimidation tactics have failed completely, especially when it comes to Greenson.

    Whirling Dervish act? It took me a while.

    OK, Richard, I’m lighting the Bat-Signal! HELLP!

  112. Anonymous
    May 13, 2012 at 10:55 am

    Rose rants for 7 paragraphs, projecting her own deceit and ignorance onto Mitch without providing a single fact to support her claims.

  113. Mitch
    May 13, 2012 at 10:56 am

    Oh, come on, 10:55. Everyone knows you’re Mitch.

  114. Anonymous
    May 13, 2012 at 11:12 am

    I don’t claim to be half as smart or reasonable as Mitch and certainly lack his patience to deal with bagger trolls whose lies and craziness are wrecking this country.

  115. Mitch
    May 13, 2012 at 11:16 am

    Me again, Hi Fi. (But thank you, “Mitch”.)

  116. What Now
    May 13, 2012 at 12:34 pm

    In all truthfulness, this has become one of the most entertaining threads Team Heraldo has ever established.

    I’m astounded that anyone other than Kevin Hoover and Rose Welsh lend any credibility to the sophomoric musings of the “Weekly Wipe” (Arcata Eye). Twenty years ago Kevin’s police logs and “bong tally” were mildly amusing but the repetitive and predictable contents of his weekly effluvia have long since grown stale and lifeless.
    If it weren’t for fresh classes of undergraduates arriving every year and first ‘discovering” his cranky rants and exhausted fugues he’d need to resort to a lot more than a yearly fundraiser to keep that waste of paper afloat.

    Rose is a perfect compliment to Hoover. A quick scan of her blog shows quite clearly that the KKK and and successors of George Lincoln Rockwell may be too timid to risk full blown public exposure at the moment, but they’re still out there lurking in the sewers and gutters waiting to pounce on ANY sign of collective sanity or positive social change that threaten their grossly astigmatic world view.
    They’ll strike just as soon as they believe they can do so without risk of personal loss or injury.

  117. High Finance
    May 13, 2012 at 6:59 pm

    I don’t blame you for disavowing the hate filled poster at 11.12am Mitch. He makes the rest of you look good by comparison.

    You’re right 11.12am. You are not “half as smart or reasonable as Mitch” and that ain’t no compliment to Mitch either.

  118. Jack Sherman
    May 13, 2012 at 10:57 pm

    Having just been outed (again) by Heraldo, a freshly humiliated High-Hypocrite is hungry for more!

    It’s the injured dog that barks the loudest, easing its pain by desperately trying to inflict it on others.

    Or, like the big, frightened Hippopotamus rapidly twirling its tail to send its own feces flying towards opponents.

  119. High Finance
    May 14, 2012 at 7:25 am

    The way you follow me around makes me wonder, do you have a crush on me Jack old boy ?

  120. May 14, 2012 at 8:56 am

    Jack Sherman aka roseisacunt@gmail.com aka sunny@gmail.com, aka gert@gmail.com, guest@gmail.com, noname@gmail.com, jm@gmail.com, squirlnutfisherman@gmail.com (Jack Sherman), hoofarted@gmail.com, sandraokelley@gmail.com (where he pretends to be a crazy evangelical), mcv@gmail.com, getreal@gmail.edu, rosecantblockme@gmail.com.

    That’s how he gets different avatars to make it appear that he is a different person each time (your email triggers your avatar in wordpress, readers).

    You oughtta get the idea, “Jack” – that your insults aren’t doing you any good. The fact is, Gallegos started right out of the blocks filing a lawsuit on his backers behalf. He ultimately lost the weak and ridiculous case. But not before he allowed you to cook up a “trust fund” scheme to privately fund that public prosecution. He even took it as far as submitting the idea to the AG for approval. They said no. The DA’s office is not your private lawsuit factory. You still have to PAY to sue.

    The grants have been a problem from the beginning because of his incompetence, as you know since you have had to help him cook up the spin to cover his ass (Ie: ‘weaning’ the office off grants to cover for LOSING grants.

    It’s now gone on so long they have to unravel the mess. And you are guilty. Maybe Mitch too, now that he claims to have been on the ground floor of this baby.

    You can keep on with the insults and slurs. It won’t change reality.

    Sucks to be you.

    And you can’t pretend to be on the side of truth and justice, Mitch, when you support someone who would even consider using the public’s law office for their own private means.

  121. May 14, 2012 at 9:00 am

    Earth to Mitch – get my comment out of moderation.

  122. RefFan
    May 14, 2012 at 12:37 pm

    I think Heraldo beens hittin the bong a little too hard. I read this left wing crap to humor myself on the f**ked up part of the human race and clearly Mitch posts a heck of a lot more than Hi Fi!!

  123. Fact Checker
    May 14, 2012 at 12:41 pm

    Hi Fi. RefFan is defending you man, he’s vouching for you. ROTFLMAO!!!

  124. Mitch
    May 14, 2012 at 12:51 pm

    Rose,

    I see no comment in moderation.

  125. RefFan
    May 14, 2012 at 7:26 pm

    Fact Checker,’she’ is defending him cuz SHE is on the right side of politics, NOT A LEFT WING NUTSO!!

  126. May 14, 2012 at 7:47 pm

    Well, well, well, Mitch. I am impressed.

  127. Anonymous
    May 14, 2012 at 7:59 pm

    “Earth to Mitch – get my comment out of moderation.”

    Meanwhile on Rose’s blog, every comment is automatically placed in moderation.

  128. Anonymous
    May 14, 2012 at 8:11 pm

    Can anybody please tell me what the hell Rose is ranting about this time?

  129. Guest
    May 15, 2012 at 7:35 am

    Rose, you live in a bizarre little blogger world

  130. Mitch
    May 15, 2012 at 7:52 am

    My guess is Rose is impressed that the Herald has not suppressed the list of email addresses she asserts are used by someone who claims the name “Jack Sherman” on this blog.

    If it’s something else, I’m sure she’ll let us know.

    Rose, all kidding aside, the echo-chambers created on both the left and the right can be hazardous to your health.

  131. Guest
    May 15, 2012 at 7:53 am

    It sounds like she lives in a constant state of fear

    So sad

  132. Jack Sherman
    May 16, 2012 at 1:13 pm

    You make me blush “Rose”…I am none of those identities you posted. None! Nevertheless, your monumental work would have been greatly appreciated by Stalin, or Hitler….

    At least “Highly Mistaken” stopped using “leg humpers” in response to those who poke at his/her open wounds.

    If you feel so strongly about our DA, start a recall!!!

  133. Mitch
    May 16, 2012 at 1:29 pm

    Should anyone care (and I don’t really see why anyone would), the first part of the IP address associated with the 1:13 post is 70.36.

  134. May 22, 2012 at 10:39 am

    Yep, he has a new IP address, Mitch. Would you like to know what your buddy SAYS in his comments? The REASON why I’ve had to put in moderation? I wonder whether you approve of what he says. Or maybe you already know what it is.

  135. Mitch
    May 22, 2012 at 10:57 am

    Rose,

    1) Not my buddy.

    2) No, I don’t want to know what he/she says.

    3) No, don’t know who or what.

    4) Don’t care. Really. Really don’t care.

    Be well.

  136. May 22, 2012 at 11:53 am

    Didn’t think you would. But you cared enough to try to defend him. With a lame “hey, look, this time he has a different IP” excuse. A tech savvy guy like you. Funny.But we’re clear. You. don’t. care.

  137. Mitch/Jack/Heraldo/tra/GDCHQ
    May 22, 2012 at 12:04 pm

    As I’d think you’d know, the first two parts of a dotted quad address generally identify the network, so when that part changes, the implication is that an entirely different network is in use.

    But I’m done trying to be helpful, Rose. Enjoy your paranoia.

  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