Per the Times-Standard title, “death-with-dignity” died in committee in the state senate. Looks like it’ll take a ballot measure, but something like it already failed back in 1992, an election where liberals and other lib causes did fairly well. California has a higher percentage of ethnic minority voters than Oregon, and though they tend to vote for lib pols black and Hispanic voters aren’t necessarily socially liberal.
…..
Over at Humboldt Herald, Heraldo discusses Mike Thompson’s efforts on behalf of the salmon fishing communities with appropriate links. The Times-Standard also picked up the story.
…..
Chris Rall isn’t against cars. We just use them too much.
…..
Meanwhile, over at the Eureka Reporter, Dikeman supporter Pete Ciarabellini laments at the claims of a previous letter by Linda and Jim Sorter in which Dikeman supporters were accused of negativity during the campaign. Ciarabellini explains to the letter writers that not all Dikeman supporters employ negativism. Then he proceeds to insult them.
…..
Chuck Harvey’s letter about ER vs. TS – the gift that won’t stop giving.
…..
Haven’t quite digested the SCOTUS decision re soon-to-be-ex-representative Tom DeLay’s gerrymandering, but the gist seems to be that it’s perfectly legal to gerrymander for partisan purposes so long as it doesn’t disenfranchise a racial group. A Kos poster expresses it in more basic language.
If I find the time, I’ll review the decision on my own and post something about it.
…..
Speaking of DeLay, there is some serious question as to whether the Republicans will be able to replace him on the Fall ballot. This time around, DeLay may have overplayed his hand.
…..
Son of Proposition 73 (last year’s failed abortion snitch law proposal) is on the ballot. Angelides has taken a position. Schwarzenegger is on the spot. I’ll post my thoughts from last year re prop 73 another time.
…..
The Flag burning amendment failed.
…..
Save Ancient Forests reports that the Bear River old growth logging plan has been all-but-approved. Never hurts to write though!
…..
One of my depositions today was held at Humboldt Orthopedics, on Harris Street (yes folks, it was a personal injury case, for those of you who want to make more “ambulance chaser” comments). The last time I was there, a couple of years ago, there was a beautiful forest at the back of the parking lot. No more. A fence has been put up and the forest cleared for some sort of construction. There are now one fewer tree stands in Eureka.
Don’t get me wrong. The project may very well be worthwhile. The owner had probably purchased the land for just such an investment. The owner has the right to utilize the land as zoning and regulations allow. Jobs. Economic development. Probably not a major impact on the overall ecosystem.
None of that means I have to be happy with it. I’m not.
21 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 29, 2006 at 1:56 pm
Fred
Humboldt Orthopedics? You talking about somewhere near the Renner Petroleum cardlock station on Harris, kinda close to Redwood Acres?
If so, I agree. That was a nice stand of trees and it was a shame to see that one disappear. Nice, open, second growth forest that just seemed to invite you to come take a look around inside it.
June 29, 2006 at 2:44 pm
Eric V. Kirk
Yeah, that’s the area. Side away from the ocean.
June 29, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Heraldo
What was the topic when you had Andrew Stunich on your radio show?
June 29, 2006 at 10:59 pm
Eric V. Kirk
Middle East politics. He is unapologetically pro-Israel, and I often try to bring diverse views on for discussion. That one was lively. I’m hoping to bring him back for a constructive discussion about Islam in particular. We had a friendly argument about it a few weeks ago during a chance meeting in a restaurant in Eureka (both of us frequent Lieu’s for lunch and we run into each other periodically – I owe him a lunch).
Anyway, I can think of a few explanations here, but I’m obviously biased. We don’t see eye-to-eye politically, but he’s a very good person. We’ve been on the opposite sides of a number of lawsuits, and he has always been professional.
June 29, 2006 at 11:01 pm
Darth Versluys
You really need better headliners for your posts, Eric. You need to make ‘em way more snappy. “Wednesday Notes”? Come on, take something from the notes and expand on it. You have to catch eyes, this is a blog.
June 29, 2006 at 11:16 pm
Eric V. Kirk
I’ve been thinking about that. Any suggestions?
June 29, 2006 at 11:27 pm
Anonymous
Activists weren’t too impressed by Stunich’s “professionalism” during a recent case in which he represented Eric Schatz, the guy who takes down tree-sitters. Probably the clashing ideologies (Stunich doesn’t like enviros). Coincidently with your last post, he stated in court documents several times that the activists were akin to “homicide bombers.”
June 29, 2006 at 11:56 pm
Eric V. Kirk
“Akin to homicide bombers?” Well, that’s definitely over-the-top invective, especially for a court case. I can’t defend or criticize his conduct in the Schatz case other than that, because I wasn’t there and don’t have any facts to work with.
But he is politically conservative as far as I can tell, though we haven’t discussed many issues outside of the mideast. I would just be very surprised to find that he plagiarized an article. I mean, you’ve noted his zeal which may or may not have crossed a line, but was there anything in that case that would suggest he was fundamentally dishonest?
Perhaps he provided the content for the website. Who knows?
June 30, 2006 at 12:16 am
Anonymous
Stunich wrote an extremely inflammatory motion that nearly got activists sanctioned a few thousand dollars until the judge found that Stunich “embellished” his arguments. Stunich’s motion was denied once the judge made that determination.
June 30, 2006 at 12:49 am
Eric V. Kirk
Okay, well, like I said I’m biased by personal feelings, so I won’t try to justify or defend anything I don’t know about. And I realize it’s difficult to see the humanity in an attorney when you’re on the receiving end of his or her blows.
I’ve had my share of intense interactions with opposing attorneys, and I’ve been accused of embellishing as well, though so far not by a judge. Being and attorney is an odd job, and sometimes a very awkward one if you can’t dehumanize your opponents. We attorneys have to work with each other on a daily basis, and it means we have to keep the fight in the courtroom and not personalize it. It’s necessary, not only to make it easier to effectively represent our clients, but also to keep us out of the loony bin.
So when we’re acting friendly towards the other attorney, while the clients are both off to the sides fuming, the friendliness isn’t a front. It’s based on a mutual respect and mental health necessity. I can imagine it’s not always easy for the client to understand.
Andy Stunich is a human being, complete with feelings, dreams, compassion, and idealism, mixed with all those lower human traits we all struggle with. But I think there are certain lines few of us cross. I just don’t believe he would have published an article with the intent to plagiarize. Not even with the big bucks involved.
June 30, 2006 at 2:42 am
Heraldo
Eric, regarding your headlines, your issue is that you pack a lot of content into each post. You could make several smaller posts, or you could choose a snazzy headline that reflects the hottest topics.
June 30, 2006 at 3:12 am
Anonymous
You have a point about attorney vs. attorney. But when it’s attorney vs. someone w/o an attorney, things get ugly and some attorneys don’t act with lawyerly mutual respect. If a lawyer is up against a pro per that they won’t have to deal with again, all professional pretenses are dropped and the lawyer can be a bully for their client. Stunich opposed the activists ideologically, and so likened them to terrorists or “homicide bombers.”
The court saw through such zealotry.
June 30, 2006 at 3:13 am
Anonymous
Stunich’s law firm represents defendants accused of violent crimes – A. E. Ammons (who fell the tree on David “Gypsy” Chain), the cops who swabbed pepper spray in the eyes of non-violent protestors, and Schatz and his crew who forced activists out of trees to make way for the cutting of old-growth trees.
Professional courtesy to a colleague, although appearing to be an example of civilized behavior reflects your denial of Stunich’s responsibility to society. Johnnie Cochran may be an imminently qualified legal presence, and OJ may deserve to be professionally represented, but don’t expect me to believe everything a lawyer(Stunich) says as gospel.
June 30, 2006 at 4:44 am
Eric V. Kirk
“But when it’s attorney vs. someone w/o an attorney, things get ugly and some attorneys don’t act with lawyerly mutual respect. If a lawyer is up against a pro per that they won’t have to deal with again, all professional pretenses are dropped and the lawyer can be a bully for their client.”
I’m sure that’s true. It’s a feeling among attorneys that judges give pro bono too many breaks because they don’t understand the law – breaks that they don’t give attorneys. Don’t know if it’s true, but it’s certainly a prevalent perception.
“Stunich’s law firm represents defendants accused of violent crimes – A. E. Ammons (who fell the tree on David “Gypsy” Chain), the cops who swabbed pepper spray in the eyes of non-violent protestors, and Schatz and his crew who forced activists out of trees to make way for the cutting of old-growth trees.”
I thought it was the Mitchel firm who defended in the Pepper Spray case. In any case, I wouldn’t take some of the cases that firm has taken. I’m certain there are many cases I take that they would avoid. I’ve also defendent individuals accused of violence by the way, although criminal law is a small part of our practice. As you point out yourself, everyone is entitled to representation.
“Professional courtesy to a colleague, although appearing to be an example of civilized behavior reflects your denial of Stunich’s responsibility to society. Johnnie Cochran may be an imminently qualified legal presence, and OJ may deserve to be professionally represented, but don’t expect me to believe everything a lawyer(Stunich) says as gospel.”
My feelings about Stunich go beyond professional courtesy. However, I’m not blind to his responsibility to society. If indeed he used the term “homicide bomber” to describe forest activists, then he and I have a profound difference of opinion about the propriety of such a statement. But even if everything you say is true, and then some, it does not follow that he would plagiarize. It’s a different quality of act.
And I certainly don’t expect you to take everything he says as gospel. You’re supposed to reserve that deference for me!
I have spoken.
June 30, 2006 at 4:45 am
Eric V. Kirk
heraldo – thanx, I’ll probably start breaking them down into categories. Maybe dedicate posts to ER letters for instance. They’ve got something interesting going every day.
June 30, 2006 at 8:19 am
saf
Eric-
I know its confusing but its the Bear River plan thats almost approved, not Bear Creek. Sorry to knitpick, I don’t know if it makes a difference to anyone but me.
I’m aware that a lot of what I write is bad news for the forest. I’m sorry to say it’s not looking to good out there these days. But I’m glad someone appreciates the info.
The more I blog the more I feel the need to be concise. Funny thing is sometimes it takes more effort to whittle it down than to ramble.
Anyway, you’re doing a great job, live and learn.
June 30, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Anonymous
The Palco/tree-sit case was before Judge Quentin Kopp. If you know who he is, and have ever been in his courtroom, you know that he wasn’t giving any leeway to activists just because they didn’t have lawyers.
The Mitchell firm did handle the pepper spray case as did Bill Bragg, whose firm employs Andy Stunich.
June 30, 2006 at 10:57 pm
Eric V. Kirk
Anon 9:32 – No, Kopp wouldn’t give leeway to anybody. He was the last conservative to be elected to a San Francisco office. I remember him well.
saf – Sorry about the mistake. I’ll make the change.
July 1, 2006 at 7:35 pm
Fred
“Johnnie Cochran may be an imminently qualified legal presence…”.
I believe he died a year or two ago.
July 17, 2006 at 8:41 pm
Andy Stunich
I did not liken the activists to terrorists or homicide bombers. I merely pointed out that justifying illegal conduct by claiming one’s politics justifies doing so is improper and pointed out that homicide bombers make the same claim. Whoever is commenting regarding the tree sitter litigation has a very partisan recollection of events. The fact is that Judge Kopp thanked me for my work in the case from the bench on June 19, 2006, and never accused me of embellishing anything. Most of my motions were well recieved by the Court and most of the tree sitter motions were not well received. The reason was simple, my positions were reasonable and my clients’ case was just. My client had videotape that I believed patently proved that the tree sitters had made patently false allegations of having been removed from the trees with unreasonable force. That they dismissed their cases with no monetary payment evidences that fact. I also believe that no one should be allowed to impose their politcal views on others by force no matter how passive in nature. We have a democracy and we all have a chance to advance our views if we can convince others as to the merit of those views. If we cannot, we must nonetheless accept the result of the political process. Trying to impose our views by illegal and unsafe tree sits is not the answer. When we abandon the political process and revert to such tactics we all lose and if large numbers of people engage in such tactics our society will become as disfunctional as the places in the World where power goes to the strongest rather than to those who must be elected.
July 19, 2006 at 4:00 am
Andy Stunich
It should also be noted that I (Andy Stunich) am not “anti-enviros” as someone has suggested in the other comments. To the contrary, I consider myself an environmentalist. I just do not support the tactics of some people and organizations. However, with respect to the Freshwater/Greenwood Heights tree sits, I would have liked to see the trees saved. I just do not support the expropriation of private property. Had the tree siters devoted their energy toward raising money to buy the trees or some of them, they may have accomplished something and I would have contributed. As it was, they accomplished nothing long-term except, perhaps, to turn off many people as to the cause of saving trees. What especially turned me off is that Earth First and its organizers know that tree sitters have fallen to their deaths in other locations (Oregon and Santa Cruz) yet they are still willing to sacrifice others for the “cause.” That is a level of zealotry that I will never condone.