I’ve got some posts on the backburner (including one about Gallegos and the dog torturers), but not a lot of time right now. But I have a few short thoughts for discussion.
…..
I was in court yesterday morning. There were three criminal trials in progress, almost capacity – not in terms of the available judges but in terms of the available jurors in any given week (or so this is what I’m told when we can’t get our cases out). We have one designated civil judge (J. Michael Brown). Every party in a lawsuit has the right to exclude one judge from handling the trial under Civil Code section 170.6. When a party exercises that right, the case competes with the criminal cases for those courtrooms, and criminal cases have priority. There is almost never an available courtroom for those cases. The point is, if Gallegos and his people are pleading all those cases out, why can’t I get my civil cases tried in a timely manner?
…..
A gentleman named Carl Johnson wrote a very brief letter to counter some of the accolades for Tim McKay, published in the ER yesterday. My first response was that it was unnecessary to criticize McKay now that he’s dead, but I thought about it. Mr. Johnson doesn’t attack McKay’s character, only what he perceives to be the impact of McKay’s deeds. It doesn’t attack his intent, nor his character. Secondly, he did wait awhile to submit the letter, so that he wouldn’t be aggravating fresh wounds, and the letter is more in response to the avalanche of praise than a comment on McKay himself.
Of course, Mr. Johnson is wrong in his conclusions, but I hope the responses to his letter aren’t reflective of my initial gut reaction. I don’t think Johnson means any disrespect.
…..
I heard on the KMUD’s news rebroadcast yesterday morning that the bill that would have prohibited local regulation of GMO’s was abandoned for the year, thanks in large part due to some parliamentary maneuvers by our own Wes Chesbro. I caught the story at the tail end, so I don’t know the details.
On the downside, the salmon relief bill was also blocked. Retaliation maybe?
…..
Oh, one of the reasons I don’t like Tuesday morning court appearances in Eureka is that Los Bagels is closed on that day. I don’t get my cup of Heart of Darkness! So I have to settle for breakfast at the Cafe Waterfront (great waffles!), now that Carl’s omelets is closed. It was empty when I got there and it looked close from the road due to construction right outside it’s door on F Street. But if you look more closely you’ll see that the corner door has been opened. The restaurant is in fact open for business, which they’re obviously losing at the moment.
…..
More later.
78 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 30, 2006 at 6:05 pm
Steve Lewis
eric, have you talked to firefighters?
August 30, 2006 at 6:36 pm
Eric V. Kirk
On numerous occasions. Even deposed them. About what in particular?
August 30, 2006 at 6:52 pm
Anonymous
Holy cow Eric, starting the spin for Gallegos already ! Face it he screwed the pooch with his comments to the media about the dog torturers, not to mention dropping the ball on the prosecution of the torturerer.
The plea bargains under gallegos (and his minions) is disgraceful, makes you wish Farmer was back.
Your way of gaging the plea bargains given by the DA’s office is ……… well let’s just say it’s a poor example (you not being able to get your civil case going). From what I hear the best way to gage these plea bargains would be to sit in on preliminary hearings and talk (or listen) to the cops and probation officers. Do you pay attention to the Sunday T/S section “on the record” lately ? It used to be a full page and now it’s just an 1/8th or at most a 1/4 of a page. I heard (yes this is second or third hand rumor) that the cops were all pissed off recently because the DA’s office let some illegal alien plea to a misdomeanor when he was caught with a pound of crystal meth ! A POUND ! that is like really big. You’re a lawyer and buddies with Paul, you could find out if the rumor is true. Also heard, from a legal secratary, that some guy arrested for hit and run, possession for sale of marijuana, ex con with a pistol and more was given a misdomeanor. Ex con means he has been convicted before, not some first timer.
If one had time to hang out in the court house I can only imagine the horror stories you could see or hear of.
Yet you are always johnny on the spot to defend Paul.
August 30, 2006 at 8:56 pm
Eric V. Kirk
Well, you’re ignoring my question however. If the cases are all being pled out, then why are the courtrooms jammed full of trials? It’s a simple question really.
I personally pled out cases against Farmer’s office which involved major drops in the charges because they were worried about the evidence. Obviously a misdemeanor conviction is better than a full acquital. Farmer knew it. Even Dan Lungren knew it. A prosecutor has to evaluate a case based on the likelihood of conviction, not just on the principle of the matter. How strong were the witnesses? Was there a guarantee that they would show up? Were the officers caught in a lie in the preliminary hearing? How convincing is the forensic evidence? How certain are your experts?
Beyond a reasonable doubt is an enormous burden. I’m certain you can cherry-pick the cases any individual has had to handle, and find all sorts of questions to ask. But it’s not very helpful, and it says nothing about the remaining 499 cases per year.
I can’t judge any of the cases you listed without talking to the witnesses, evaluating all of the evidence, and consulting the forensic experts. That would be very irresponsible.
I do believe that Keats may have dropped the ball on the dog abuse case, but that’s based solely on the comments of the animal rights activists whom I’m presuming are intimately involved with the case.
Again, my question is simple. If they’re pleading everything out, then why is the trial schedule perpetually full?
August 30, 2006 at 9:17 pm
Anonymous
Eric, how do you know what a prosecutors job is ? You haven’t done it ! You couldn’t do it, at least do it adequately. But of course you’re the expert on everything, the Blog master !
The courts are stacked up because of asshole defense attorneys like you ! Going for continuance after continuance. That’s the style in Humboldt, drag the case out as long as you can and then it’s easier to get a sweet deal. Some of these cases get reset more than 20 times !
What was that quote ? you know the one !
August 30, 2006 at 9:58 pm
Anonymous
So, Eric, you assume that because you couldn’t get your civil case off the ground that everything is A Okay in the DA’s Office? That’s a big jump in logic! As you always say…”Give me facts!” And you say this the same week your buddy is caught in a web of his own incompetence! Paul, “Well…Ed Borg charged that case, no wait, it was Wes Keat. I’m just the figurehead, and bear no responsibility and am glad to throw my deputies down in the paper to cover myself. And, you have to specifically intend to neglect, so we couldn’t prove it, but I’ll read it and see if we can file it. Oh, and those are just regulartory offenses.”
It’s the old…I wasn’t there, but if I was there, I wasn’t involved, but if I was involved, I didn’t know what I was doing.
Gallegos doesn’t even understand a negligence standard! And it’s clear he never read a police report before shooting his mouth off.
And with your supposition above Eric, I’m glad you’re not my lawyer. Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker trying to defend the man behind the curtain.
August 30, 2006 at 10:04 pm
Eric V. Kirk
The courts are stacked up because of asshole defense attorneys like you ! Going for continuance after continuance. That’s the style in Humboldt, drag the case out as long as you can and then it’s easier to get a sweet deal. Some of these cases get reset more than 20 times !
Bzzzzzzt! Wrong answer. I’m talking trials in progress, every week. Pretrial conferences don’t clog up the courts. They’re held in the afternoon, while trials are held in mornings.
Want to try again?
Anon 258 – You’re dodging the question. Are you going to try to address it, or should I just expect more hyperbole?
August 30, 2006 at 10:40 pm
Anonymous
258 is quoting himself again.
August 30, 2006 at 11:03 pm
Anonymous
So Eric,
1. What were the charges in the cases you claim were in trial?
2. Who were the prosecutors?
3. Who were the defense attorneys?
4. How do you know the hearings were trials?
5. How do you know the trials were criminal?
6. Who were the judges?
7. How many jury trials were pled out Monday morning?
8. What were the defendants charged with and what did they plead to?
9. Are the cases going to trial because the charges are unproveable?
10. How many cases in the DA’s office have gone to trial this year?
11. How many cases have been dismissed?
12. How many cases have been plead out?
13. Of the cases pled out, were the charges reduced from felonies to misdemeanors?
Face it, you don’t know. You just talk out of your a** to defend Gallegos. You call for facts, facts from others, but you are quick to make assumptions without any facts, facts to back them up.
You are the one who dodges answering any difficult questions with your facts, facts. Put up or shut up.
August 30, 2006 at 11:31 pm
Anonymous
he can’t, a classic case of smoke and mirrors !
strike three your out ! try again next time Eric.
August 31, 2006 at 12:03 am
Eric V. Kirk
1. What were the charges in the cases you claim were in trial?
Courtroom 2 (Reinholtzen) had some kind of murder case – a big tado with a big line of witnesses in the hallway. There was another trial in Courtroom 7 (Cisna) and one in 8 (Feeney). There was also some sort of closed session hearing in Courtroom 1, but I have no idea whether it was civil or criminal. I had my own matter to attend to in Courtroom 4.
2. Who were the prosecutors?
I have no idea, except that one of them might have been Dikeman.
3. Who were the defense attorneys?
No idea.
4. How do you know the hearings were trials?
Because they were marked “jury trial” on the charts on the bulletin board. The murder trial was a major topic of discussion for those of us waiting in the hall. I went into courtroom 7 briefly looking for another attorney and saw one of the attorneys addressing the jury. I believe Dikeman was actually in the prosecutor’s chair, though I didn’t get a good look at him.
5. How do you know the trials were criminal?
Because they were on the criminal calendar.
6. Who were the judges?
Reinholtzen, Cisna, and Feeney.
7. How many jury trials were pled out Monday morning?
I would assume at least 9 out of 10 of them, which is par for the course, also under Farmer, and pretty much every county. But I don’t know. I wasn’t there. Most of the trials are set so that defendants can roll the dice and see if the officer or other witnesses will show up to testify. If the officers show up, they accept the plea offer. I have never had a case where there were no plea offers, and I have represented defendants in Humboldt County under Farmer and Gallegos, as well as Mendocino and Sonoma. I have heard of cases in which there is no plea offer, but they are very rare. Usually they have some incentive to offer for a quick plea. The degree of incentive corresponds with the strength of the case.
8. What were the defendants charged with and what did they plead to?
They pled not guilty. If they had pled guilty, there wouldn’t be trials.
9. Are the cases going to trial because the charges are unproveable?
I would hope not. That would be a waste of tax money. I assume they’re in trial because they could not reach a plea agreement.
10. How many cases in the DA’s office have gone to trial this year?
No idea. I could try to do some math, but some trials take a day, and others weeks. Sometimes they fit more than one trial into a single week. Point is, they can’t try any more. Not without hiring more judges and building more courtrooms. The question you might want to ask is how many trials were set over for lack of an available courtroom.
11. How many cases have been dismissed?
No idea. Usually there are cases dismissed because the officer can’t make it to court to testify, but that’s usually only in lesser crimes. Defendants sometimes make statutory or non-statutory motions to dismiss, which are granted once in a blue moon. And occasionally cases are dismissed because the evidence disappears, a witness changes a story, or other reasons justice demands it.
I was ready to try a case back in Farmer’s day, but they couldn’t convince the witnesses to come over from Oroville. So they tried to bluff me by making a last minute offer to reduce the charges to an infraction. But my client didn’t recognize the witnesses in the hallway, so I told them I’d think about it. And when the case was called, they indicated that their witnesses weren’t present, so I asked for the dismissal and got it.
12. How many cases have been plead out?
Probably at least 99 out of 100. Maybe more. Probably a lower average than Shasta County, and a higher average than San Francisco where defendants are more likely to take their chances with juries. The tougher the juries, the more cases plead out.
13. Of the cases pled out, were the charges reduced from felonies to misdemeanors?
Quite a few I imagine. It’s common practice to charge higher than you intend to convict. Gives you negotiating room. Ever hear of a “wobbler?”
Anything else?
August 31, 2006 at 12:07 am
Anonymous
Eric Kirk, “I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know……”
So shut the hell up when that is your refrain!
August 31, 2006 at 12:11 am
Anonymous
It underminds your credibility as a self proclaimed trial lawyer when you can’t even spell the names of the judges!
August 31, 2006 at 12:40 am
Eric V. Kirk
Is that what you have?
August 31, 2006 at 12:56 am
Anonymous
5:07 (and others), you are asking a string of truly irrelevant questions. One need not know all of the details of every trial in progress simply to be able to read the court calendar and see that they are all full. That is the complete extent of what Eric put forth in his initial post.
In addition, you have not provided any information to suggest that your opinion (since that is all that you have presented) is credible. Why should anyone believe you to be a better authority as to what goes on in the courts on a given day than someone that we at least know is a trial attorney?
Based solely on your argumentative ‘style’, and lacking any evidence to the contrary, I have to assume that you have little knowledge of legal proceedings. You come off as loud, boisterous, bullying, misleading, and lacking in cleverness or skill.
Then again, you could be Frank Bacik.
August 31, 2006 at 1:44 am
Anonymous
nice try eric
August 31, 2006 at 1:51 am
Eric V. Kirk
It was a nice try. One of you posted about a dozen questions, mostly irreleven as anon 556 points out, and the best response you can come up with is that I mispelled a judge’s name.
Telling.
August 31, 2006 at 3:54 am
Anonymous
I’m 5:56, but I’m not Eric. Of course, you have no way of knowing that. That’s the propblem with anonymity.
August 31, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Anonymous
Newflash Eric. As of Thursday, there was only one trial in one courtroom. The cases in Cissna’s court and Feeney’s court were dropped. hahahahahhahaha
August 31, 2006 at 3:07 pm
Anonymous
Let’s address the animal abuse case!
It certainly does appear that if the Humboldt DA’s office had not dropped the ball several dozen dogs would not have had to suffer extreme conditions and many might still be alive. Even if you’re not a dog lover what kind of person can condone or ignore this type of animal abuse ?
The whole thing is tragic and disgraceful. From the paper I see that several aninmal rights groups are jumping in the fray. And good for them. Never thought I would support PETA.
It will be interesting to see how lawyer Kirk will defend or justify the actions of DA Gallegos!?
August 31, 2006 at 3:53 pm
Anonymous
Maybe someone should refer PETA to Eric so they could weigh in on Eric’s justification of this for his buddy Paul.
August 31, 2006 at 4:40 pm
Anonymous
I just had to scan Eric’s initial post and his posts in this thread to see what he has said here to support Gallegos’ action (or inaction) in the dog abuse case. Here it is:
“I’ve got some posts on the backburner (including one about Gallegos and the dog torturers), but not a lot of time right now.”
I don’t see how this is ‘defending’ Gallegos, nor how this is the subject of this thread. Certainly I am interested in a discussion of this issue, but perhaps, since it is Eric’s blog, you should wait until he has weighed in on the issue before you attack him for his position.
BTW, I am not Eric, nor am I Kevin Hoover, Richard Salzman, Rob Arkley, Shawn Warford, Captain Buhne, Heraldo, or Hank Sims.
August 31, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Anonymous
9:40 – I think you need to look at all the posts and NOT just the intial post. You might look at other posts in other areas too.
August 31, 2006 at 5:16 pm
Anonymous
9:49, you just caused me to waste more time re-reading this entire thread. Again, the total of Eric’s discussion of the dog abuse case is the single sentence in my 9:40 post. Why, then, are suppositions being made as to his stance on the matter? If he has discussed it in other threads, (which I do not recall seeing,) then wouldn’t that be the appropriate place to hash out the issue?
August 31, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Anonymous
I think it’s because Eric always defends PG no matter what the issue, but I could be wrong,
August 31, 2006 at 7:08 pm
Eric V. Kirk
Yeah, see, because to say that Gallegos’ statement re the prosecution’s burden in the dog case was “dumb” was actually a defense of Gallegos, because you see, the criticism isn’t strong enough. Either you equate him with a child molesting, Nazi loving, kitten drowning psycho, or you’re “defending him.”
Do some of you get the feeling that some of the Gallegos haters here are so obsessed that they’ve gone off their rockers?
August 31, 2006 at 7:14 pm
Anonymous
No actually, I think most have made really good points and you have gone off your rocker.
August 31, 2006 at 8:15 pm
Anonymous
On this one I’d have to side with 12:14PM, sorry Eric.
August 31, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Eric V. Kirk
Well, sorry to both of you but I have reviewed the facts and arguments and I have come to the conclusion that I am right and you are wrong.
That should be that.
August 31, 2006 at 10:30 pm
Anonymous
Nope – its not…but keep trying to convince yourself it is amusing.
I have a six year old that digs in in much the same way
August 31, 2006 at 10:56 pm
Eric V. Kirk
Oh, I don’t have to convince myself this is amusing. It’s very amusing.
August 31, 2006 at 11:33 pm
Anonymous
And you so sound six!
August 31, 2006 at 11:38 pm
Eric V. Kirk
Well, it wouldn’t surprise me actually. I just spent the past two nights camping out with about forty 5 to 10 year olds.
Ever read “The Hairy Toe?”
September 1, 2006 at 12:03 am
Anonymous
are you ever wront Eric ?
September 1, 2006 at 12:08 am
Eric V. Kirk
I’m always wront.
September 1, 2006 at 1:17 am
Heraldo
Funny.
September 1, 2006 at 1:31 am
Anonymous
you certainly always think you’re right. Let me adjust that, you know you’re full of shit half the time but act like you’re right. Your smug sense of liberal supriority shining throught !
September 1, 2006 at 3:46 am
Anonymous
6:31, any time anyone posts their opinion, it’s safe to assume that they think they’re right. Apparently you think you are right, and Eric is wrong, or you would not be posting your comments.
A person’s opinion is rarely changed by another person’s opinion, unless the first believes the second to be an authority on whatever matter. Like me, you are posting anonymously, so you have no special status which might give your opinion weight. You have offered no facts, evidence, or data to back up your opinions, so we have nothing to go by. Basically, you are asking Eric to admit that he is wrong about God knows what just because you say he is.
In all honesty, do you really believe that this is an effective way to change minds?
September 1, 2006 at 4:44 am
Steve Lewis
would that be sorta like changing diapers?
Sorry, just adding a little humor in the uninformed..
September 1, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Anonymous
It’s a lot easier to change diapers than to change minds, and not as messy.
September 1, 2006 at 3:11 pm
Anonymous
wow this is heavy stuff
September 1, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Eric V. Kirk
you certainly always think you’re right. Let me adjust that, you know you’re full of shit half the time but act like you’re right. Your smug sense of liberal supriority shining throught !
Do you mind if I frame this? I’m thinking of putting some choice fan quotes onto the template somewhere. This is almost as good as:
“Eric Kirk is just another pot smoking Gallegos clone.”
September 1, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Anonymous
sure you can frame it ! right on point isn’t it ?
but you’re not a Gallegos clone, you’re a bit brighter than he is. I remember someone commenting that PG was an “intellectual lightweight”. I think that’s pretty acurate.
September 1, 2006 at 7:03 pm
Anonymous
“It was a nice try. One of you posted about a dozen questions, mostly irreleven as anon 556 points out, and the best response you can come up with is that I mispelled a judge’s name.”
Not irrelevent–you stated that because courtrooms have people in them, the DA’s office is handling cases properly. Then you couldn’t intelligently answer any specifics about the cases that were in court. You have no idea if those cases were handled properly or if one was the recent first degree murder cases with an allegation of lying in wait pled down to manslaughter!
And even after answering, “I have no idea” to virtually every questions about the cases that your premise is based on, you still can’t see the problem with your “logic?”
I give up on you Eric. You demand “facts” of others but are really quick to dismiss the flaws in your “analysis,” which is not factually based. It proves even more that you will say or do anything to defend Paul Gallegos. You are in essence his defense attorney. I hope that you can stomach a lot because you’ll have to in order to keep defending him.
September 1, 2006 at 8:45 pm
Eric V. Kirk
Not irrelevent–you stated that because courtrooms have people in them, the DA’s office is handling cases properly.
No, what I said was that the accusation that Gallegos and his office is settling cases out rather than trying them at an unusual rate is patently false, because he appears to be trying more cases than Farmer tried. I have no way of determining how well he’s handling cases, and neither do you. The defense attorneys are in the best position to make that judgment. You can’t judge it by newspaper articles on cherry-picked high profile cases. You can’t judge it by rumor and innuendo. You can only look at the overall results.
You resorted to a classic debate tactic on the internet – namely to demand information that you know is unavailable so that you can trumpet your debate “win” by pointing out that I didn’t answer your questions. What I did was to provide information that’s more useful than anything you asked for. I’m sorry you’re not happy with it. I’m sure other readers without a chip on their shoulder were quite happy with it, since I put considerably more energy into the discussion than you.
I generally don’t respond to questions about individual cases because the media coverage upon which you’re basing your very strong opinions is usually just the tip of the iceberg. I tend to think Gallegos’ office dropped the ball with the dog case, but I don’t know that because I have only what’s reported by the ER, and the ER did not report on what evidence was available to Keats at the time. I assume the animal rights groups, which normally you wouldn’t give the time of day, have intimate knowledge of the cases before making public comments, so I give some deference to them. And Gallegos’ comment regarding the prosecution’s burden was a silly off-the-cuff statement to make as he obviously had not checked into the law personally.
What I do know is that the courtrooms are filled to capacity with trials. And I know that the crime rate is down since Farmer. To attempt to criticize the DA’s office based on public perceptions of individual cases is pointless and irresponsible. Even Dikeman avoided that tack, until he got desperate.
September 1, 2006 at 9:36 pm
Anonymous
Either you are intentionally lying eric, or are horrible misinformed. You said that the courtrooms are filled with trials. NO SORRY. On Mondays and Tuesdays as they plead them out the mornings are booked. This week was an example. By Wednesday there was only 1 trial underway in Court 2 Courts 1, 3, 7 and 8 were all open. These are the facts. The courtroom ARE NOT filled to capacity and everyone in the courthouse knows it. You should have stuck around after Monday to see what occured. It happens the same everyweek. And when you say it looks like they are trying more cases now then with Farmer – what are you basing this on other than this misinformation. You say that the plea bargaining accusations are patently false. I am sooo sorry you are such a closeminded ignoramus. Even the Judges are disgusted about this. But keep on making it up in order to somehow justify your blind following.
And for the crime rate going down, try the AG’s web site. It continued with a 10 year downward trend until 2003. The stats went up in 2004 and the new 2005 has it increasing even more. But beware, this will require you go to the site and actually read the stats and not simply pull this crap out of your ass.
September 1, 2006 at 9:55 pm
Eric V. Kirk
Nope. I was there Tuesday, and the cases were in full swing. If there was no case in Courtroom seven by Wednesday, the Dikeman must have pled his case out.
And no, in 2005 the crime stats went down, or the Indenpendent reported erroneously. The AG has not yet posted its 2005 stats online.
http://stats.doj.ca.gov/cjsc_stats/prof04/12/1.htm
Do you have another source?
September 1, 2006 at 10:00 pm
Anonymous
GET DOWN 2:36 ! Take that Eric !
One judge recently (6 weeks ago) made the comment, “the people haven’t won a case in my court this year”, and just to keep you on track the “people” is the DA’s office and “this year” is 2006 ! And it’s obvious by some comments made, the judges know what’s going on and how bad things really are.
If nothing else PG is over his head. No leadership skills, no integrity, and limited legal skills. If you say something like well he got elected, sore losers, and so on …….. GW got elected twice so does that make him perfect like paulie ?
By the by, did you read the article a couple days ago about Curtis Price being assaulted in prison ? That horrible Worth Dikeman tried that one ….. armed robbery of the tri plex theater, a murder of the gal on Grant st and the murder of an Aryan Brotherhood guy in LA How dare that Dikeman getting a murder conviction for a gang related murder in LA. Who the fuck does he think he is ? Showing off like that ! Getting convictions on complex conspiracy and murder cases involving assasinations. He’s got a lot of nerve.
September 1, 2006 at 10:12 pm
Anonymous
Eric – you lose, the courtrooms are empty and no matter how hard you blog to the contrary, the locked doors and empty rooms are seen by the folks that work there and not out of Redwood Realty in Garberville. As I posted by the end of the morning on Tuesday, all cases had been plea bargained and the rooms empty by Wednesday. God, I hope you stick to selling houses because if you practice law as bad as you blog, you shouldn’t enter a courtroom or counsel the public. And for the stats…
http://caag.state.ca.us/cjsc/publications/advrelease/ad/ad04/tabs/0412.pdf
I will post the 2005 for you very soon. Please tell me what crow tastes like Eric. You seem to be consuming a lot of it lately.
September 1, 2006 at 10:48 pm
Eric V. Kirk
I’m informed that your information is faulty. Apparently, there is a murder trial in process as we speak, although my source couldn’t speak to the others.
I don’t sell houses incidently. Realtors sell houses. Just so you know.
So which cases were pled out? What were the final dispositions? Who were the attorneys involved? Etc.
Incidently, the AG stats don’t show any appreciable difference between Humboldt County and other rural counties in terms of dispositions, when you pro-rate for population. It actually appears to be above-average. I should have figured that, or Dikeman’s people would have thrown these stats all over the place. I fault Gallegos’ team for failing to do so.
I’ll be waiting for those 2005 stats.
September 1, 2006 at 10:52 pm
Eric V. Kirk
Okay, here’s the statewide California crime report. The link for the individual county stats isn’t working for me. Perhaps it’ll work for someone else.
http://ag.ca.gov/cjsc/publications/advrelease/ad/ad05/ad05.pdf#search=%22crime%20rate%202005%20California%22
September 1, 2006 at 11:09 pm
Steve Lewis
The link works just fine, eric, and what it shows is that violent crimes haven’t gone down but up in Humboldt County. Your link shows California’s overall crime stats while the other shows Humboldt County stats.
September 1, 2006 at 11:12 pm
Eric V. Kirk
Can you C&P the 2005 Hum County chart?
September 1, 2006 at 11:30 pm
Eric V. Kirk
See, this is all I get.
Not Found
The requested URL /cjsc/publications/advrelease/ad05/05list.htm was not found on this server.
Apache/1.3.37 Ben-SSL/1.57 Server at ag.ca.gov Port 80
September 1, 2006 at 11:40 pm
Steve Lewis
Yes, eric, the link only shows the A.G’s Humboldt stats for 2003, 2004 and says their California Crime Index stats are now temporarily suspended “as efforts continue to redefine this measurement.”
But the 2003, 2004 stats say what they say, eric, and what they say is crime went up in Humboldt County in 2004 which is what Dikeman said in his campaign and what you, defending your friend Paul, say is untrue.
Lawyers…you’re lucky I didn’t go into law, eric.
September 1, 2006 at 11:58 pm
Eric V. Kirk
I know about 2004. We were discussing 2005. I linked to the statewide 2005 stats. The pdf report provides a link for a breakdwon by counties, but it’s not working for me. I’ll try it at home later in case it’s a problem with my server here at work.
September 2, 2006 at 12:03 am
Steve Lewis
Eric, stop weaseling. The link anon posted gives the 2003, 2004 statistics and he/she said they would post 2005 statistics soon. So only you are “discussing 2005″ because you lost your case on 2003, 2004.
September 2, 2006 at 12:11 am
Eric V. Kirk
We all know the crime stats went up in 2004. Dikeman only repeated that 5 million times.
Several weeks ago, the Sohum Independent reported that countywide violent crime had gone down in 2005. The anonymous poster claims that’s wrong, but hasn’t indicated a source. I went to the AG, found the statewide report, but the link to the county tables doesn’t work.
I suppose I could contact Mintz to see where he got the info.
September 2, 2006 at 12:12 am
Anonymous
weaseling ….. a good no accurate term Steve.
yeah Eric quip weaseling ! It is what it is. The crime rate has gone up under Paul. How can that be ? Paul prevents crime by preventing crime ?
September 2, 2006 at 1:00 am
Eric V. Kirk
I located the Independent article. As usual, I an right and you are wrong.
Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble
When you’re perfect in every way…
September 2, 2006 at 4:17 am
Anonymous
You are such an incredible asshole Eric !
Because something is in the Independent that makes it true ! Give me, no give us a break.
You are so predictable. Hey tell us what Paul’s latest spin on the animal abuse case is ? How many dogs died ?
How’s Pauls attempted recruitment of Deputy DA’s ?
Does Paul hang out with you and your SoHUM buddies ?
September 2, 2006 at 4:44 am
Eric V. Kirk
Eventually, the AG will post the final report, or will fix the advance release link at its site. Anon 9:17, would you like to place a bet on what it’s going to say?
A hundred dollars? I’ll give you 2 to 1 odds. You put up 100 and I put up 200, and if the AG reports an increase in crime in Humboldt county you collect 200 dollars.
Are you that sure Mintz is lying? Because I’m that sure he isn’t.
And this is a prime example of why your side is losing all the elections lately. It’s why you’re probably going to be swept in the Eureka City Council elections this fall.
September 2, 2006 at 6:07 am
Anonymous
My side ? I don’t really have a side, other than I will support Virginia Jackson because I think she doesn’t have any hidden agenda. But I guess I’d go for anyone not affiliated with Local Solutions. Or maybe anyone that you and heraldo are opposed to.
But that is a different issue. You switch to some BS spin to get off the issue.
This has been mentioned before but it is worth mentioning again …. FACTS Eric FACTS, how come your demand for FACTS doesn’t apply to you.
September 2, 2006 at 7:47 am
Eric V. Kirk
We’ve finished with the issue. You were wrong. I was right. End of story. The facts are, crime rates declined from 2004 to 2005.
September 2, 2006 at 3:07 pm
Anonymous
It’s a FACT because you say it is ?
You Eric are just a little man with a BIG ego, and the desire to make people think you’re some kind of intelectual guru. End of Story, or maybe it’s just a continuing story,
All this for your defense of PG.
September 2, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Anonymous
And when are you going to comment on the animal abuse case ? Didn’t you say you were going to do a piece on it ? Maybe you could talk about it on your next KMUD radio show ? That would be great.
September 3, 2006 at 5:56 am
Eric V. Kirk
No, it’s a fact because the AG says it is – the fact being that the AG study indicates that crime dropped 9 percent between 04 and 05.
anon – I started a piece earlier in the week, and it’s in my “draft” list. I just haven’t gotten back to it. But fyi, I do think Gallegos probably dropped the ball. I would like to know more about the allegations of abuse that took place in Humboldt County, and what was available to Keats at the time. But that ER article was very persuasive.
September 5, 2006 at 2:32 am
Anonymous
Why are mentioning Keats ? Are you setting him up to be the fall guy for paul ? Again ?
September 5, 2006 at 6:27 am
Eric V. Kirk
When was Keats set up to be the fall guy? Rose says that on her blog, but I don’t read that in any of Gallegos’ statements. In fact, he supports Keats’ decisions.
I mentioned Keats because he was the deputy on the case when it was presented.
September 5, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Anonymous
Such a selective memeory Eric. How convenient for you !
Just in case you need a reminder !
The most notable time was the child molester, hernandez I think was his name. PG gave the guy a sweatheart plea bargin, then got jammed in the press and the public for what he did. Since is not so good a thinking on his feet he threw down Keats. This case was before the recall. PG was very unpolular with his employees as they knew what he did.
And Eric, if Rose says it you can just assume that it’s correct. Check her blog out ! No one disputes her, cause she knows what a FACT is.
September 5, 2006 at 7:06 pm
Eric V. Kirk
Quotes Mr. Anonymous. And don’t change the subject when you’re losing an argument. Hook should have made that rule number 11.
September 5, 2006 at 8:01 pm
Anonymous
And rule number 12, Eric shouldn’t be such a sniveling, whining, side stepping pussy.
September 5, 2006 at 8:17 pm
Eric V. Kirk
Translation of anon 101′s comment: “I can’t support my assertion, and it pisses me off.”
September 5, 2006 at 9:28 pm
Anonymous
Oh Eric, once again you’re assuming facts not in evidence.
YB
And by the way, have you heard how the Humboldt animal abuse is going?
September 5, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Eric V. Kirk
I didn’t even know you had pets.
Budda boom.
September 5, 2006 at 11:39 pm
Anonymous
There’s alot you don’t know Eric !
September 5, 2006 at 11:40 pm
Eric V. Kirk
Uh, that one went over the head I guess.
September 6, 2006 at 1:38 am
Anonymous
Oh I guess it did Eric