Just thought I’d make note of some thoughts Ed has on Dikeman’s good fortune in El Dorado County.
Recent Comments
 | That Other Anonymous on Priorities |
 | Forest Queen on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
 | Mitch on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
| Forest Queen on Priorities |
| Forest Queen on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| Forest Queen on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
 | Cookie on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
 | Not A Native on Darryl Cherney to Join Me on K… |
| Anonymous on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
| Forest Queen on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
 | bolithio on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
 | moviedad on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
 | Unk John on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
| Unk John on Darryl Cherney to Join Me on K… |
 | suzy blah blah on Darryl Cherney to Join Me on K… |
26 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 6, 2006 at 8:13 am
Anonymous
Rose is going to get you on this one!
December 6, 2006 at 1:14 pm
Anonymous
“To quote Benjamin Franklin “A house divided against itself can not stand.”
That’s Franklin quoting Jesus, btw.
Eric, you just can’t let a day go by without pushing the idiot Prog political agenda. I don’t give a rats-ass about Denson’s political opinion of Worth Dikeman but I do care about his and your continuing to smear Worth Dikeman’s name as a racist. You guys should be damn ashamed of yourselves for character assassination of a man who’s ethical standards far above either of yours.
What your totally biased report ignores is that it was the last 9th Circuit Court that found Dikeman’s statements racially prejudiced. 4 other courts exonerated him including a 9th Circuit Court decision. So what’s that tell us? It tells us what many of us already knew. The 9th Circuit Court is the place where Leftist activists hope to have their political attacks on people and corporations politically approved when all other courts fail them.
Worth Dikeman did what most trial lawyers do when selecting jury members. They choose jury members who they think will be most sympathetic to their client or to the State’s prosecution. Worth Dikeman, being the honest man he is told the truth about NA cultural bias re that particular case issue and for telling that truth to defend his actions he was exonerated by 4 courts and convicted by one.
Like I say, you should really stop slandering the man, especially when he’s not here to defend himself. That’s chickenshit as well as being unethical.
December 6, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Anonymous
Consider the fact that Paul didn’t fire Worth when he was told to because he knew it was bad for the office. It’s a pattern that runs throughout his tenure. He finally gave in when he had an apparent excuse, cover for his actions.
Now Humboldt County’s DA’s Office is critically short staffed, and he has no way to fix it.
December 6, 2006 at 4:11 pm
Anonymous
Mebbe Eric or Ed will be selected to fill the void!
What say you boys on that prospect?
Too busy with maryjane case loads?
If asked, will not serve,etc.?
Too far to travel, need a gas per diem?
Blogging is all consuming?
Shit YEAH! Though you’d never ask.
December 6, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Eric V. Kirk
What your totally biased report ignores is that it was the last 9th Circuit Court that found Dikeman’s statements racially prejudiced. 4 other courts exonerated him including a 9th Circuit Court decision. So what’s that tell us?
Well, as far as the law is concerned, it tells us that the previous four courts were wrong. Most cases that reach the appellate courts have already been through lower courts. It’s the last court that matters.
And nobody’s calling Dikeman a racist except you.
anon 8:11 – not my area of practice nor training. Sorry.
But everybody, why don’t you go to Ed’s blog and comment there? I just brought it to your attention.
December 6, 2006 at 6:30 pm
Anonymous
“Well, as far as the law is concerned, it tells us that the previous four courts were wrong. Most cases that reach the appellate courts have already been through lower courts. It’s the last court that matters.”
Then the 9th Circuit Court which found that Dikeman had committed no prosecution errors, no racial discrimation, is also wrong by your politically-biased reasoning. What it does show is that 4 out of 5 courts exonerated Dikeman. 4 out of 5. Do the math, eric, re probability that the last 9th Circuit Court decision is the anamolous decision not shared by fellow judges.
“And nobody’s calling Dikeman a racist except you.”
Oh, no?
Ed Denson:
“In fact, Paul only fired Dikeman after the 9th Circuit remanded one of Dikeman’s cases because it found that he had been racially discriminatory in his jury selection.”
2nd time in Ed’s piece:
“So, it is true that Worth was “dismissed by his political adversary” but it is also true that he was fired after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found his jury selection to have been racially discriminatory. Why is this fact missing from the T-S story?”
Character assassination, eric. Pretty damn low-life politically based unethical and cowardly attacking of someone not here to defend themselves.
December 6, 2006 at 7:27 pm
Eric V. Kirk
Then the 9th Circuit Court which found that Dikeman had committed no prosecution errors, no racial discrimation, is also wrong by your politically-biased reasoning. What it does show is that 4 out of 5 courts exonerated Dikeman. 4 out of 5. Do the math, eric, re probability that the last 9th Circuit Court decision is the anamolous decision not shared by fellow judges
Every decision that reaches the 9th Circuit has been through 2 to 5 lower courts, including the 3 judge panel of its own. So you can say the same thing about every decision which it has overturned those courts. Hell, every decision that reaches the Supreme Court has been through even one more. What you’re arguing is that the upper courts have no right to overturn the lower courts, as if it’s some sort of majority rule. But any high school civics class student will tell you that the function of the higher courts is to review the decisions of the lower courts.
The earlier 9th circuit decision was based on a 3 judge panel. When that is appealed it goes to the panel of 11. I assume the two who had previously denied the appeal were in the minority of that 11, unless they changed their minds.
The court found that he had discriminated according to race. It was an act of Dikeman’s that was determined to be racially discriminatory, not his subjective views of race.
December 7, 2006 at 1:59 am
Anonymous
“What you’re arguing is that the upper courts have no right to overturn the lower courts, as if it’s some sort of majority rule. But any high school civics class student will tell you that the function of the higher courts is to review the decisions of the lower courts.”
That may your argument, eric, but it isn’t mine. The first 9th Circuit Court exonerated Dikeman as did four other courts. The second 9th Circuit did not. No one can now determine with any assurance that the second 9th Circuit Court decision is any more valid than the first one or the other four courts.
And as for Dikeman being racist, why is it not a single person who knows him confirms this accusation? If Worth Dikeman was a racist, why on earth would he not raise a fuss last year when his wife Geri became our Heartlands lawyer that is an exclusively Native American economic development project aimed at helping local tribal people?
Eric, look at what you are doing. You post your Prog buddy’s two-faced slander of Worth Dikeman that is only one step removed from the same character assassination of Worth carried on by Eli Bowman, Leonard Bowman’s wife, and mother of Jeff Bowman who had his sentences very suspiciously reduced a few weeks after father Bowman gets the Bear River tribe to pony up $10,000 into Paul Gallegos election campaign. Now Leonard is under tribal recall petitioning on suspected embezzlement charges and you are reinforcing the sleazeball slander of these people against a good man by all accounts of people who know him?
Ethics, eric. Where are yours?
December 7, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Eric V. Kirk
The first 9th Circuit Court exonerated Dikeman as did four other courts. The second 9th Circuit did not.
You say you get it Steve, but you don’t. It’s the same court. The “second one” is more “valid” because it has a higher jurisdiction than the preliminary panel. As a matter of law it is “more valid” because the whole panel may overturn the preliminary decision made by the panel of three. That’s 11 judges against 3.
And as for Dikeman being racist, why is it not a single person who knows him confirms this accusation?
Because the accusation isn’t being made, by me or Ed. It’s your strawman. Nothing more. All Ed or I have done is to cite the 9th Circuit decision. The 9th Circuit based its decision on the comments he made on the record.
The Bowmans accused him of racism because he acted like one, and if you’re the target group of a racially biased act you’re less likely to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Dikeman made his nest when he decided to exclude jurors because they were Native American and gave as an explanation that as a group they don’t respect the law. I didn’t make him say that, but that’s what’s on record.
And incidently, as the Eureka Reporter article by Heather Muller points out, the lower courts did NOT “exonerate” him of racism. They found that he had acted with bias, but that the ruling could hold because he had cited other more legitimate basis for his exclusion. What the full 9th circuit panel decided was that you could not effectively separate them.
December 7, 2006 at 6:42 pm
Eric V. Kirk
Anon 9:22 – I’m with you for the most part up until the last paragraph. I agree that Gallegos never stated a reason, and in fact if Dikeman is accurately quoting him his “you knew this was coming” probably suggests that the decision had been made for some time. In fact, I heard from an inside source during the election campaign that Gallegos had pretty much decided to fire Dikeman sometime before the year’s end.
However, it’s not bad journalism to point out a nexus in time between two significant events. The timing is not conclusive, but it’s certainly a rational inference that the 9th Circuit decision was a factor. At minimum it provided Gallegos with ammunition. It may also have hastened the firing.
As to whether Dikeman was a disruption, I’ve heard conflicting accounts, all of which I’ve typed on the early months of this blog ad nauseum. I don’t see any point in rehashing that discussion now, especially as I wasn’t there and everything is second hand.
I linked to Ed’s blog because I actually see it as a classy send-away for a formal court battle rival.
December 7, 2006 at 7:30 pm
Anonymous
You would see it that way, eric, because, politics is above ethics to you. You will “explain” away forever with immoral rationalizations why you and Ed find it “classy” to repeat the slander of a good man that was started by someone who under suspicion of embezzlement of funds from his tribe.
In fact, at this point, we don’t know if the Bowmans were put up to their obvious political attack on Dikeman for putting their son away and for padding the coffers of Paul’s campaign that latter resulted in a highly suspicious lessening of the Bowman’s son’s sentence.
The timing suggests someone who plays the political game, someone who has already gone out of his way to establish p.r. Native Americans to get their support for his candidate, Paul Gallegos–now who could that be?
What I’m seeing here are sleazeball Progs without ethics continuing the slander campaign of a much better man than themselves.
December 7, 2006 at 7:32 pm
Eric V. Kirk
But Ed made no mention of Bowman. He referred to the 9th Circuit. So you can blame them for the “slander,” as well as the earlier court decision that said he was racially biased but that it didn’t matter.
You keep dodging that point Steve.
December 8, 2006 at 3:21 am
Anonymous
The political use by Bowman and now Ed and you of a 14 year old case in Worth Dikeman’s long distinguished career in order to smear a good man’s reputation is what you won’t face up to, eric, the point I keep making that you keep dodging because in this matter you have shown no ethics.
Well, actually not true, you have shown the ethics of a typical sleazebag lawyer using his verbal skills as best he can to win the argument any way possible. What’s next in your ever-present retort attempting to wiggle out of moral responsibility?
December 8, 2006 at 5:35 am
ED Denson
“If Gallegos wanted to explain Dikeman’s firing as a result of the 9th Circuit decision, then the media should and undoubtedly would report it. But he isn’t offering an explanation, and it’s crappy journalism to provide one for him.”
Hey anon, 9:22 a.m., you’ve put my point well. If we don’t know why Paul fired Dikeman, and there are two reasonable explanations (politics and the 9th Circuit decision) then the T-S should either put them both into its article, or neither. I suppose there is a 3rd possible reason, too, which is that they just did not get along.
And, Steve, you probably are aware if you read my whole post, that I’m not trying to smear Dikeman. The case is 14 years old, but Dikeman reaffirmed and defended what he did when he taliked about it this year – he gave the problem currency instead of putting it behind him which he could have plausabily done. You might call it sticking to his guns, but if he stays the course, then he
needs to face the music. Anyway my point was not Worth Dikeman’s character, but the T-S’s biased article.
PS Paul Gallegos wished me a Merry Christmas today. What conclusions can we draw from that?
December 8, 2006 at 6:42 am
Eric V. Kirk
Hey, Bill O’Reilly would be proud of him!
December 8, 2006 at 3:21 pm
Anonymous
“And, Steve, you probably are aware if you read my whole post, that I’m not trying to smear Dikeman. The case is 14 years old, but Dikeman reaffirmed and defended what he did when he taliked about it this year – he gave the problem currency instead of putting it behind him which he could have plausabily done. You might call it sticking to his guns, but if he stays the course, then he
needs to face the music. Anyway my point was not Worth Dikeman’s character, but the T-S’s biased article.”
Bullshit, Ed. You, just like eric, don’t get it because you are both typical sleazeball lawyers I’m sorry to say who will and are right now smearing a good man’s name in order to carry forth the political attack on opponents of Paul Gallegos and the Progressive Political Machine.
What a load of crap, that Dikeman brought this on himself. None of this would have happened to Dikeman except for politics of lawyers digging up anything they could to smear Dikeman and let criminals go free instead.
You don’t need to keep the smear going, Ed or eric. That you are doing this only shows where your ethics are–in the lawyer toilet with the rest of them.
“PS Paul Gallegos wished me a Merry Christmas today. What conclusions can we draw from that?”
That you are a good soldier for your boss.
December 8, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Anonymous
In light of my own recommendation, this is the last post defending Worth Dikeman. His wife did our Heartlands project a good turn last year way before the Bowman’s and the Gallegos campaign did their little dance to smear Dikeman’s name right before the election.
What Sparky and I saw was dirty pool by unethical Progs in cahoots with the like-minded Bowmans. And everything since has borne out our concerns–e.g. Bowman himself now under scrutiny for suspected embezzlement of casino funds.
So, when I read eric and Ed reviving the smear campaign on Dikeman I reacted in Dikeman’s defense because he isn’t here to defend himself against this slander being continued on by these two lawyers, eric and Ed.
It’s a waste of time to continue to argue for ethics from eric, and knowing he will continue the smear until this thread runs out of room at the bottom, I am withdrawing any further comment.
Have at it, boys. Throw some more dirt on a guy who stands far above you.
December 8, 2006 at 4:30 pm
Eric V. Kirk
Of course the “slander” is simply to cite the 9th circuit decision. Same then with the papers that covered the story, including the ER.
I guess everybody was supposed to keep quiet about the decision, as well as the previous decisions which stated that he had acted with bias even as they were upholding the conviction.
December 8, 2006 at 8:41 pm
Anonymous
Slander campaign started well before any news of the 9th Circuit Court decision. Why aren’t you talking about Worth Dikeman’s award as Prosecutor of the Year, eric? That too was news right about the same time..but that news doesn’t fit into your little continuing slander campaigning going on above..
December 9, 2006 at 1:05 am
Anonymous
Under some of the logic used above, Gallegos will also have to fire himself; a Wheeler objection was granted against him in People v. Mika Myers. (A Wheeler objection is an objection made by opposing counsel accusing the other attorney of dismissing jurors based on race.)
December 9, 2006 at 1:26 am
Eric V. Kirk
Actually Steve, that was about 1993.
December 9, 2006 at 1:23 pm
Anonymous
This year, eric. In the news the day Gallegos, your Progressive incompetent pol in office, fired Worth.
Worth Dikeman won “Prosecutor of the Year Award” for the California Narcotic Officer’s Association.
December 10, 2006 at 1:54 am
ED Denson
Worth Dikeman won “Prosecutor of the Year Award” for the California Narcotic Officer’s Association.
Assuming it was not a political award – ie one made as part of the ill-advised electionering that law enforcement organizations were doing on Worth Dikeman’s behalf, that award is certainly recognition by those people whose work he supports that they feel he is doing a good job. I don’t know that it has much meaning beyond that. It is not the same as an award by the California Bar Association, for instance. It would be interesting to know on what they base these awards (convictions? prosecutions? vigor?) I recall that Heather Gimle received this award in another past year when she was the DDA assigned the drug cases. By the way, do they make multiple awards each year – like one per county – or is it one for the entire state. Heather’s award was from the Northern California CNOA as I recall. Worth’s is from the statewide group, or the regional?
I’d like to get an award for Defender of the Year from the Medical Marijuana Patient’s Union, but so far no luck. If I do, Steve, will you take it as a sign that I am good at what I do, and an upstanding citizen?
December 10, 2006 at 5:04 am
Anonymous
Our MMPU will never vote for you, Ed. You got into the lawyer game too late and we want somebody who knows what they’re doing. Stick with your day job at KMUD.
December 11, 2006 at 6:14 pm
ed Denson
“Our MMPU”?
December 11, 2006 at 7:40 pm
Anonymous
Well, spit it out, ed. Say what you mean.