And then there were four

February 6, 2010 in Uncategorized | Tags: District Attorney | by Eric Kirk

Paul Hagen makes it formal.

February 2010
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28

31 comments

Comments feed for this article

February 6, 2010 at 10:02 pm

mresquan

4? Bryson,Hagen,Gallegos,…..?

February 6, 2010 at 10:53 pm

mresquan

Oh I forgot about Allison Jackson,although I believe she’s only taken out the necessary paperwork,and maybe hasn’t finalized anything yet.

February 7, 2010 at 10:32 am

Anonymous

I’m really curious to see where the environmentalists vote will go.

February 7, 2010 at 10:59 am

Eric Kirk

I don’t know. I’m already hearing from various progressives, and some are moving over to support Hagen, while others are staying loyal to Gallegos (can’t be using first names in this race). Some are torn.

Is it a runoff election? If not, the splitting of the progressive vote opens it up wide.

February 7, 2010 at 11:51 am

Anonymous

Leaving aside Bryson as a nutcase. Is there some reason that Jackson does not also get a third of the progressive vote. Certainly she doesn’t support Gallegos but neither does Hagen and a lot of other progressives. As a lifelong Democrat, liberal (when it was progressive and cool to be called a liberal) and child advocate why is she discounted?

February 7, 2010 at 1:21 pm

ED Denson

“Is there some reason that Jackson does not also get a third of the progressive vote.”

Is she progressive?

Now that it appears we are going to have an actual race for the DA’s office, when can we find out where everyone stands on medical marijuana and land use prosecutions. I recall that in the Mendocino election now current DA McLintot claimed she supported medical mj but it turned out she had her own definitions of “law,” “medical marijuana,” and “support.” We’ll want some close questioning on the issues in this race.

February 7, 2010 at 2:08 pm

Eric Kirk

I don’t know what Allison Jackson’s politics are either. I do know that she, like Worth Dikeman, is a Democrat. Both of them showed up to the Summer Democratic Party barbecue a few years back right after Dikeman had announced his candidacy. Paul G. showed up too, but spent much of the time playing with his kids, and mine, on the beach. And I seem to remember that Dikeman is pro-choice. In retrospect, I think that he should have played up any progressive positions he had.

The current impression is that of the four Jackson represents “the right.” But that may be, as it often is, an oversimplification. Certainly she takes a more “law and order” perspective than the other candidates when it comes to philosophies of criminal justice, and that is generally associated with conservative politics. But she has four months to shed that impression – if she wants to. Yet, while the Republican bloc of voters is in the minority, she seems like the most natural candidate to benefit from their vote.

In fact, I don’t expect any of the candidates to play up political positions which might pigeonhole them, and probably I won’t expect them to take positions on the Marina Center, the GPU, or corporate personhood. On the other hand, they all have to give us reasons to vote for them, and I think Dikeman’s stealth on so many issues is what did his campaign in. Everything was about Paul G. Maybe “the vision thing” really isn’t appropriate for the D.A.’s office. But people want it. They want to know who you are and what you stand for, and we know that the technocratic approach just isn’t going to work in Humboldt County.

February 7, 2010 at 2:09 pm

Anonymous

Yes, she is a progressive, despite having to go up against your dishonesty in court Ed.

February 7, 2010 at 2:27 pm

Eric Kirk

That accusation against Ed was ridiculous. It doesn’t even make sense. I don’t think Jackson will be showcasing that one this time around.

February 7, 2010 at 5:25 pm

Hank Sims

Didn’t make sense? Sure, it made sense. The accusation was that Ed knowingly submitted falsified documents as evidence at trial, in order to exonerate his client. Pretty simple.

Ed told me did it accidentally, and I have no reason to doubt him. But the documents were false.

February 7, 2010 at 6:23 pm

Anonymous

I don’t know much about the others but I do know that Gallegos allowed the Code Enforcement Unit to run amok on his watch and under his authority. Then he was willing, if the Supes gave him enough dough, to reissue the code cops their guns and badges and send them back into the hills. Right is right and wrong is wrong no matter how much money you are offered. The only correct answer for him to give on Code Enforcement was: HELL NO, I won’t authorize that unit, send it to the Building Department where it belongs! Gallegos lost my vote right then. Who gets it remains to be seen

February 7, 2010 at 7:03 pm

Eric Kirk

The basis for her suspicion that Ed had done the deed was that he was studying the document closely after the hearing. What doesn’t make sense is what makes the act suspicious. If he knew it was false, there would be no reason to study it.

It reminded me of the old point made about law enforcement and probable cause – if you’re too loud you’re guilty, if you’re too quiet you’re guilty, if you’re too friendly you’re guilty, if you’re too hostile you’re guilty, if you look me in the eye you’re guilty, if you avoid eye contact you’re guilty.

In this case, a complete lack of curiosity about the document might have pointed to guilt. That he was looking the document over, suggests he was not.

Of course, anyone who knows Ed knows he would not have falsified evidence. But that’s beside the point.

February 7, 2010 at 8:31 pm

Anonymous

Eric, Ed and others,
What does the legal community think of Hagen?
Those in criminal law?
Those in Environmental law?
What’s the story behind Ira Granat?

February 7, 2010 at 8:36 pm

Anonymous

RE: February 7, 2010 at 6:23 pm

Are you crazy 6:23? He took away their guns. No other DA would have done that.

Just like he prosecuted a police chief, which no other DA ever has or ever would do.

Do you have NO memory of what law enforcement was like in Humboldt just nine short years ago? The Sheriff Deputy’s were PL’s private goon squad and the EPD was executing unarmed people with their SWAT team!

Gallegos has turned things 180 degrees.

Give me a break, if you think we’ll ever have it this good with any other DA. If you vote against PG because you want law enforcement to have a lighter footprint, then you should try cutting off your nose while you are at it.

February 7, 2010 at 8:38 pm

Anonymous

Not Hank Eric. He knows what ever he cares to believe and he’s not afraid to print it!

February 8, 2010 at 8:23 am

longwind

Paul G was very forthright at the Vets Hall code hearing that he exercised no effective control over the code guys badged-up by his office, and administered by County Counsel, which effectively meant no one was in charge of them.

When the County tried to avoid disarming them, Paul said he would only take actual responsibility if he got a whole administrative apparatus over them, which would cost twice what they already did. So the Supes gave up, and made our code cops unarmed administrators of a program that still doesn’t want to focus on cleaning up messes. It’s so much more soul-satisfying to profile perps. “IS THAT A TORTILLA BAG IN YOUR GARBAGE, HIPPIE?”

February 8, 2010 at 8:34 am

Eric Kirk

Yeah, it’s easy to Monday morning quarterback this one. Obviously putting the DA’s office “in charge” simply to meet requirements for gun licensing while disallowing oversight was a bad set-up, but it had been that way for years and I don’t think anybody expected to see the abuses of the Elk Ridge and Yee-Haw. Certainly nobody from the civil liberties side predicted it, or they would have protested the structure before it happened.

And to his credit, Paul resolved the issue decisively from his end.

February 8, 2010 at 9:04 am

Anonymous

“And to his credit, Paul resolved the issue decisively from his end.”

Just so I have this straight, “resolv(ing) the issue decisively” means being okay with arming code cops if you sufficiently pad Pauls bureaucracy with additional armed law enforcement personel? Or is it temporarily shutting down the unit when he got caught not knowing what was going on under hid athority? That excuse might have worked during his first year or two in office but at some point you have to take responsibility for issues occuring under your athority. Exactly how many years is okay to let abuses happen in your name before you should be held to account? Perhaps he was too busy chasing losing causes? Surfing? Locking up child molesters? Oops, not that, he negotiates minimal pleas for them.

Time for a change.

February 8, 2010 at 9:41 am

Eric Kirk

He did take responsibility. He shut it down.

Again, his “involvement” was just some paperwork and I think some sort of ritual oath to allow officers to carry guns. I know some around here like to draw lines between dots to draw out some sort of sinister conspiracy theory, but this was about power of officers without accountability and the deficiencies of human nature. It’s why we have checks and balances, and the structure just wasn’t set up right. Paul should have asked questions, but then you didn’t ask them either until after the fact. None of us did.

February 8, 2010 at 10:56 am

ED Denson

According to the TS this morning there are 2 candidates in the ring, and neither Paul Gallegos nor Allison Jackson are among them. The paper did not say either had filed, just “announced.”

When’s the deadline for filing?

February 8, 2010 at 11:22 am

Anonymous

When’s the deadline for filing?

I think March sometime.

February 8, 2010 at 11:43 am

Anonymous

“Paul should have asked questions, but then you didn’t ask them either until after the fact. None of us did.”

Did I miss where I was getting paid $150,000 to ask those questions and pay attention to little things like the civil rights of citizens. Paul is.

I don’t think Gallegos was involved in any conspiracy, though others might have been, but that doesn’t absolve him of ineptitude or incompetence. Further, since when is ignorance an excuse? If it is maybe we should try it as a tactic in court, your the lawyer but I don’t believe that the ignorance defence is generally succesful.

February 8, 2010 at 12:01 pm

Rose

Are you crazy 6:23? He took away their guns. No other DA would have done that.

WTF? Are you unaware that he was setting up and acquiring his own assault force? AR-15’s and all. What does he the DA’s office need with weaponry? They were to be purchased with ASSET FORFEITURE FUNDS

That was Gallegos and Hislop.

Both the Times Standard and The Eureka reporter covered it.

Gallegos requested money from asset forfeiture funds to buy DA investigators “rifles,” “clothing,” “safety equipment” and other miscellaneous items, but several county officials expressed surprise when they learned that the money was intended for eight AR-15 (semiautomatic) assault rifles, body armor, tactical vests, 5,000 rounds of hollow-point ammunition and matching parkas, polo shirts and pants.

Every DA needs his own personal ASSAULT FORCE
Paul Gallegos’ Asset Forfeiture Team will be armed with AR-15s and hollow point bullets

February 8, 2010 at 12:08 pm

Eric Kirk

If it is maybe we should try it as a tactic in court, your the lawyer but I don’t believe that the ignorance defence is generally succesful.

Actually it is. Ignorance of law is not a defense. Ignorance of fact which pertains to law may be.

Again, his role in the matter was simply to meet ceremonial requirements for the guns. He wasn’t given any power of oversight. And no, it’s not his job to baby-sit other agencies. When he learned that individuals in other agencies were abusing power, he removed his minimal involvement. You really can’t ask much more than that.

February 8, 2010 at 2:31 pm

Anonymous

Terry Farmer had been signing off on their guns for 20 years as far as we know, so again (11:43 am), if think you are going to get a lighter footprint from LEOs with one of these other candidates, it is your right to roll the dice, but cops and deputies wouldn’t all be against Gallegos if it was not for his willingness to police the police. He said he would do it when he first ran and that scared them into supporting the recall, and then did do it, and that scared them even more. They’ll all love Allison (Jangels) Jackson!

BTW, is there any other blogger that spends all of their time commenting on other people’s blogs, or is it just that since no one reads Rose’s blog, this is the only way for her to get her rants across?

February 8, 2010 at 2:31 pm

Anonymous

Is anyone going to answer 8:31?

Eric, Ed and others,
What does the legal community think of Hagen?
Those in criminal law?
Those in Environmental law?
What’s the story behind Ira Granat?

February 8, 2010 at 2:53 pm

Eric Kirk

Is anyone going to answer 8:31?

Eric, Ed and others,
What does the legal community think of Hagen?
Those in criminal law?
Those in Environmental law?
What’s the story behind Ira Granat?

Sorry, I meant to respond to this before.

As to what the legal community thinks about anything, we’re about as diverse and polarized as the rest of the county. Generally speaking, I think he has the respect of the legal community. But I haven’t really discussed him in great detail with everybody. Our areas of practice don’t intersect much and I haven’t dealt with him as an adversary. I did consult with him in one recent environmental case and he was very helpful.

I imagine I will hear much more about him from other attorneys in the coming months. I don’t as yet feel qualified to judge his abilities, except that my impression is that he is very competent. I do remember reading something within the past few months about him missing some sort of deadline, but that can happen to anybody and for attorneys, statutes of limitations and deadlines are what hide under our beds at night and keep us awake.

I’ve only heard stories about Ira Granat. I don’t know much about it, but I’m sure there are plenty of readers here who do.

He seems like a reasonable man, a competent attorney, and probably a good candidate. I hope to learn more and have a more definitive opinion.

February 8, 2010 at 11:17 pm

Jane

Lovely little chat and pseudo defamations folks but let’s face the fact. We all know that whatever candidate appeals most to the brown bag cash stuffing folk, riddled through the county now and not just in sohum anymore, will be the price. Who cares about the law, the community, and integrity when there is an underground economy to be taken of… that is what got Ga le lego the seat and that is what will get the next DA elected. If want to couch it in terms of the building code inspections so be it.

February 10, 2010 at 10:49 am

Anonymous

Better talk to a few more of your colleagues Eric, and see if you can find some that have been in court with Hagen (not easy considering he is not a trial attorney, and in fact has never done a felony prosecution in his life).

I see in his interview in the Indy today he wants to spin NOT being a trial lawyer as a strength when he is quoted as saying: As DA “Your forte absolutely should not be being a trial lawyer”.

As to dope money, Gallegos raised over $250K in 2006 and almost as much in 2004, all reported on his 450 (or whatever the number is) forms at the elections office, so I’m not sure what he would have also done with this alleged dope money, when he can raise that much from folks willing to write checks with their name on them, and he certainly not going to be getting donations from all of the commercial growers he’s been sending to jail, but nice spin there also.

February 10, 2010 at 11:10 am

Eric Kirk

Well, I haven’t made up my mind yet about whom to support. The deadline for registering as a candidate is still weeks away. I certainly will talk to people, attorneys and otherwise, about him, because it will be a difficult choice for me. I did have a conversation with one attorney yesterday about the race, but he’s in an “anybody but Gallegos” category and thinks that if Allison Jackson decides to run (I heard that she had decided, but apparently she hasn’t filed the paperwork yet) both Hagen and Bryson should pull out. But he’s assuming that everyone’s agenda is simply to remove Gallegos’ and anyway I believe it is a run-off election so vote splitting shouldn’t be an issue.

I like Paul G. and I consider him a friend. But I really have to look at this race and all the issues before I decide whom I’m backing.

February 10, 2010 at 9:22 pm

Anonymous

Hagen said in the Indy today that:
As DA “Your forte absolutely should not be being a trail lawyer”

I guess that makes sense if you have never once tried a felony case in your entire career, yet you’re asking voters to make you the head prosecutor; but even if you don’t think the DA should personally be trying cases, wouldn’t you want him or her to be skilled at doing so, that is, for it to be their “forte”?

Maybe we don’t even need for the DA to be a lawyer?

	Eric Kirk on “He wasn’t thinking about Mela…
	Anonymous on “He wasn’t thinking about Mela…
	Anonymous on “He wasn’t thinking about Mela…
	Just Trollin on “He wasn’t thinking about Mela…
	Just Trollin on Med students avoiding red…
	Just Trollin on Med students avoiding red…
	Anonymous on Has Netanyahu gone insane…
	Jon Yalcinkaya on Med students avoiding red…
	Henchman Of Justice on “He wasn’t thinking about Mela…
	Henchman Of Justice on “He wasn’t thinking about Mela…
	Data on Med students avoiding red…
	Just Trollin on Med students avoiding red…
	Henchman Of Justice on Med students avoiding red…
	Mitch on Med students avoiding red…
	Henchman Of Justice on Med students avoiding red…

And then there were four

Recent Comments

Local Media

North Coast Blogs

Progressive Media

Sohum Blogs

Archives

Meta

Recent Posts

31 comments

Leave a comment

And then there were four

Share this:

Related

Recent Comments

Local Media

North Coast Blogs

Progressive Media

Sohum Blogs

Archives

Meta

Recent Posts

31 comments

Leave a comment