For those of you who missed it, Daniel Mintz’ interview with Allison Jackson in last week’s Independent can be found here on at the Arcata Eye.
….
Mintz’ interview of Paul Gallegos of last month is also available.
….
He also interviewed Kathleen Bryson. Her blog contains some corrections to the article.
….
And he interviewed Paul Hagen.
….
The Humboldt Sentinel covered Paul Hagen’s press conference of a couple of weeks ago. His supporters make some statements (including an amusing slip up early on), then the candidate spoke, and then answered questions from reporters. He addressed the Code Enforcement Unit at the end of the third clip.
….
Paul Gallegos recently issued a statement about his most recent sentencing.
….
And you can hear interviews (some of which have already happened) and candidate debates courtesy of CLMP. Here’s the schedule. The past shows should be available in the KMUD archives. Hagen’s was tonight. Gallegos’ was a week ago. Brysons’s was supposed to be last night, but it looks like that was moved.
44 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 1, 2010 at 12:32 am
Anonymous
I just listened to tonight’s show and I am very impressed with Mr. Hagen. He takes on popular government officials when Federal prosecutors won’t. He admits his mistakes readily. He is very patient with dumb questions. Obviously the Ira Granat matter was not as simple as some people like to think and that last caller was very helpful. Great show. I’ll be voting for one of the Pauls. I don’t know which one yet.
April 1, 2010 at 5:45 am
capdiamont
Gags has too many issues to be reelected. Too many mess ups.
April 1, 2010 at 5:52 am
capdiamont
“Why did Gallegos fire Deputy DA Allison Jackson, a 10-year veteran prosecutor with a sterling reputation among people who deal with sexual assault and child abuse cases, on June 9, 2004, shortly after the defeat of the recall attempt against him?”
April 1, 2010 at 5:53 am
capdiamont
Eureka Now has some videos of the candidates.
April 1, 2010 at 6:36 am
ED Denson
The Arcata Eye link goes to the Huffinton Post, or is that an April Fools Day joke?
April 1, 2010 at 7:11 am
Mitch
You know, I just read the February interview with Paul Hagen.
If I’m not misreading it, Hagen says he signed a promise not to discuss the circumstances of his departure from the office, and then explains the circumstances of his departure from the office. In a self-serving way. Where no one who honors the agreement has a chance to respond.
I know nothing else about Hagen but, unless he has a credible explanation for this masterpiece of bu, um, lawyerspeak, I wouldn’t ever vote for him.
April 1, 2010 at 7:41 am
Eric Kirk
The Arcata Eye link goes to the Huffinton Post, or is that an April Fools Day joke?
Heh. Not intended. I’ll fix it.
April 1, 2010 at 7:49 am
Eric Kirk
Mitch – that’s a pretty general explanation he gave. There are more details, of which I’ve heard nobody is allowed to discuss by mutual agreement. And the big mystery to voters, which I was asking about back in the day but got no answers, is which side asked for the gag order.
I got to listen to part of the CLMP interview last night. Didn’t get to the part about Ira Granat yet. But he does come across as someone honest, maybe even too honest for politics.
And it does seem like there are a lot of misinforming rumors about him being spread around, either deliberately or inadvertently. He did get to clear a couple of them up last night. A couple of the callers clearly had chips on their shoulders and he handled it mostly well, though he did give away a little bit of exasperation with one caller.
I still have to listen to Gallegos’ interview of last week.
April 1, 2010 at 8:04 am
Eric Kirk
“Why did Gallegos fire Deputy DA Allison Jackson, a 10-year veteran prosecutor with a sterling reputation among people who deal with sexual assault and child abuse cases, on June 9, 2004, shortly after the defeat of the recall attempt against him?”
Well, they obviously didn’t get along. Who was more at fault for that relationship most of us will never know, but her accusation against Ed was unfounded and what she did with the North Coast Journal article four years ago was, in my opinion, very unprofessional. There was no basis to support her stated suspicion that Ed falsified evidence, but simply having it in the press could have rendered Ed collateral damage.
That will always be a serious stumbling block for my vote, until she apologizes.
April 1, 2010 at 8:06 am
money95542
Yeah, Mitch, there might be more than one way to read it. First of all, none of us knows just what the agreement says that Hagen and the DA signed, and what limits it sets on what the parties can or can’t talk about. The Hagen interview says this:
There was some media attention and a lot of speculation about the reason why he left. Asked about it, he said he was fired by the California District Attorneys Association and signed a settlement agreement which stipulated that he not talk about it.
But he was asked to give more detail when he added, “There can be consequences to speaking truth to power.”
Hagen said, “If you’re doing your job right, you need to tell the boss what the boss needs to hear whether the boss wants to hear it or not … if your boss doesn’t want to hear bad news or doesn’t want to hear advice, people who haven’t got the guts and the strength to do it won’t do it and they will keep their jobs, and those who do their jobs correctly despite the consequences will often suffer the consequences.
“And that’s what speaking truth to power is all about,” he continued. “And that’s what I did, and that’s what happened.”
Seems kind of vague and general to me, and I’d bet that the incidents or events that led to Hagen’s ouster are pretty specific. He does sound like a politician, but I’d bet he’s covering his ass on keeping the confidentiality agreement intact.
I would like to hear more than “Gallegos was a bad administrator” if Hagen wants us to believe he’d be a better DA. I do think that Gallegos, perhaps through the actions of Tim Stoen, didn’t do a very good job at prosecuting the Maxxam case, political or not.
April 1, 2010 at 8:18 am
ruark
Eric
How do you know Jackson’s accusation against or about Denson was unfounded? Because Denson told you it was? Because that’s what you want to believe? How do you know? The answer is you don’t know.
Be fair, or at least reasonable, in your comments.
April 1, 2010 at 8:40 am
capdiamont
Eric, NCJ had full permission, signed paper even from her to find out the real reason why she was fired. Gags still wouldn’t answer. She had, emailed gags many times, the difference in the 215 card, per court records. Gags sat on his duff, and the evidence disappeared.
Do you think NCJ would wrote anything about the story, if it was all hearsay/no evidence at all?
April 1, 2010 at 8:52 am
Mitch
I don’t know, Eric (or money), I think if you sign an agreement to not discuss why you leave, it means you’re agreeing not to discuss why you leave, even in vague self-serving generalities. To say something like “there are consequences to speaking truth to power” is to imply you were dismissed or had to leave because you told the boss things s/he should have wanted to know. It turns you into the good guy and your boss into the bad guy.
For all I know, that may be the case. Or the opposite may be true.
But if all sides have agreed to not talk about the departure, I’d have a very hard time trusting someone who proceeded to talk about it.
I don’t know, maybe that’s supposed to be the way lawyers operate.
April 1, 2010 at 9:35 am
Mr. Nice
Hell yea, should totally elect one of these screwballs that got canned for their insubordination. That’s exactly what we need to head things up, some complete fuck ups.
Who else would be a qualified candidate? I would like to write in someone else who got fired/had to quit.
April 1, 2010 at 11:16 am
Anonymous
ruark: Can you even cite Jackson’s evidence against Denson?
April 1, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, let’s see.
Ruark, the only evidence cited in the old NCJ article is that he was looking at a copy of the alleged false evidence after the hearing. Sorry, but lame.
Cap, releasing personnel matters even after the employee waives privacy rights would set a bad precedent. I assume he fired her because he didn’t get along with her. That seems obvious.
Mitch, I believe that the agreement is usually that you can’t discuss the terms or circumstances of the agreement, and there are a million reasons to enter such an agreement, many of them legitimate, especially if they involve third parties. You’re probably right that he should have refrained from commenting at all about it just because nobody can discuss the details to evaluate them, but I doubt that what he said violates the agreement. But others have made the same claim, without or without legitimacy, namely that you criticize Paul G. and you may find yourself fired. Did their behavior go beyond mere criticism? We will probably never know. Each firing (Hagen’s dismissal wasn’t technically a Gallegos firing) has been accompanied by a slew of rumors.
There are many difficulties about races like these, and I’m questioning whether a D.A. should be an elected position, though I don’t know what the best alternative would be. Gallegos is going to be attacked for plea bargains in cases, and because he owes victims and others confidentiality and privacy he may not even be able to defend himself. Likewise, I don’t believe it’s fair to attack Hagan with regard to Ira Granat, nor blame him for Mr. Granat’s tragic death. I believe that he and the last caller addressed it well on the CLMP show last night. There are particulars which lead to any attorney’s decisions in any case which are not always easy to judge in public light. But there it is.
April 1, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Anonymous
Allison Jackson stole documents during the recall attempt. That’s why she was fired. She should have been brought up on charges. Since then, she tried to sabotage the case against Dave Gunderson. In her eyes, all cops are above the law, and for that reason alone, they will all support her.
Hagen has now told us that he has only ever tried one felony case to completion and it was for illegal dumping. How does this qualify him to run the DA’s office? Gallegos had tried dozens of felony cases before he became DA and has now run the office for seven years, convictions are up including the dozen or so murders he has personally sent to prison and crime in Humbloldt is down from eight years ago when he took office.
Only Gallegos will work to protect our civil rights. If you cherish freedom and liberty you have to support Gallegos. If you want someone who will stand up to corporations and the cops, when they break the law, you have to support Gallegos.
April 1, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Mr. Nice
The minute the D.A. is an appointed position, welcome to corruption.
Who would appoint the D.A.? How do we know they are not subject to influence by their “bosses?” Whenever you lose an elected position, you gain one more politician who answers to some other politician. The D.A. should only answer to the people.
Considering how fucked the situation is in Humboldt, this is the last place where an appointed D.A. would make sense.
April 1, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Eric Kirk
The Public Defender is appointed. Is there corruption there?
April 1, 2010 at 4:13 pm
moviedad
I’m not a resident of Humboldt, but I was listening to the interviews on KMUD. Thank God for KMUD radio. Seriously, there isn’t many communities that have this kind of local access. Sure, many have the access, in theory. But I wouldn’t equate those forums with the access to a “Popular” forum, such as KMUD. Most public access forums are lame as grandma’s mule. anyway….the one guy, sorry, Was hinting hard that he was fired from the State prosecutors group, Again, sorry I don’t remember the names, But he was intimating that he had “..Talked truth to power.” He wasn’t very convincing. And it came across as self-serving. “I can’t talk about the details, but remember a guy named…Ghandi? Sort of like that.” I just bring it up to see if anyone really knows what the heck he was talking about. It’s been a few weeks since it was on. I don’t think he was fired from the local office, but from the state office.
April 1, 2010 at 4:13 pm
capdiamont
If she stole documents, then why would she sign a release for NCJ to find out why she was fired? The logic isn’t there.
Why is Mr Nice also going as Anonymous, and ruark? Unless my eyes deceive me, or WP has a glitch, the gravatar looks the same.
Sorry, Eric, but firing a good worker, because they couldn’t get along? We, the public is the employer, gags needs to remember that. We need her to stay there, to help the children. Hearsay, how she is 100% cop, etc, is just that. I want prof.
April 1, 2010 at 4:14 pm
moviedad
Yeah, I think it was Hagen.
April 1, 2010 at 6:55 pm
capdiamont
Ok, WP has to be broke, moviedad is showing the same gravatar.
April 1, 2010 at 7:16 pm
Eric Kirk
Sorry, Eric, but firing a good worker, because they couldn’t get along? We, the public is the employer, gags needs to remember that. We need her to stay there, to help the children.
Well, that’s what elections are about. But I doubt he was the first employer, even a public figure, who has fired someone because they couldn’t get along. It’s a basic principle – you have to get along with your employer. You state your thoughts and opinions, but ultimately he or she makes the decision and you abide by it if you can in good conscience, or you leave. I had one position years ago where I left before I could be fired. No hard feelings. Okay, that’s not true. There were hard feelings. But in principle anyway.
As to proof, it’s his call. And if you don’t like it and you want “proof” he’s not providing, then don’t vote for him. If you trust his judgment, then do vote for him. It’s that simple.
Gallegos represented a change in philosophy of justice. That’s why he was elected to replace his predecessor. The change in philosophy wasn’t going to sit well with everybody. We know that.
Now, if his firing wasn’t even about that, but was completely arbitrary or retaliatory for a political position taken, that’s a legitimate concern.
For my part, my main problem is that I have heard complaints about his management from sources who used to support him. I don’t do all that much criminal law these days, so I don’t have much direct information about it. All of the deputies I’ve dealt with seem competent based on my experience with them. But I’ve heard progressive attorneys who supported him through the recall and two elections describe the situation as “chaos.” I can’t ignore those voices. But I’m not going to base my vote on those voices alone either, because ultimately the issue is results. Is the county a safer place, or more dangerous since he came into office?
Actually, my biggest problem is also divided loyalties. I really like Paul G. and I understand what he has faced with numerous people trying to undermine him from the get go. But I also really like Paul H., whose humanistic philosophy of justice also truly appeals to me. He’s brilliant in all the right ways. I notice that there are a few other posters here and elsewhere in the same boat. Hopefully I’ll have it figured out by June.
Life is so much easier when you can divide it into good guys and bad guys.
April 1, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Anonymous
Kathleen Bryson was the only candidate who bothered to come down to the legalization economy meeting last week. That is worth something.
April 1, 2010 at 8:33 pm
ruark
Eric, I guess that is your way of admitting you don’t know (the Denson issue)
The Public Defender doesn’t have the power/authority to charge people with crimes! BIG difference.
Big surprise.
Ruark
April 1, 2010 at 8:39 pm
ruark
Eric
What ever happened to Gallegos’ campaign promise to get civil service status for the deputy DA’s ?
You know so the deputy DA’s wouldn’t have to suck up all the time and /or publicly endorse him to ensure they have a job or a decent assignment?
What would the county be like if other employees could be fired at will without any reason, and no recourse? What kind of sheriff’s deputies, building department employees, code enforcment officers, or police officers would you have?
what about that Eric?
April 1, 2010 at 9:02 pm
Eric Kirk
what about that Eric?
Good points about civil service status for deputies. Not so much about the endorsements. There are plenty of deputies who have not endorsed him who still have their jobs. But he did pledge to convert the job to civil service status, and he should make good on that promise.
April 1, 2010 at 9:26 pm
Eric Kirk
I want to say something on Hagen’s talk last night. I just listened to it again, and the Ira Granat portion comes up at the very end and gets cut off. You have to go to the next show (Voices) to hear the end of the talk where Larry Bruckinstein (don’t know if that’s right) called in. It’s a very difficult subject obviously, and I don’t want to debate the particulars, but assuming what Hagen said was true then I believe the charges were probably justified – whether or not the Water Board had truly “signed off” on the clean-up. Certain acts cannot be left unaccounted for, and if Mr. Granat did indeed mislead the initial investigators which led to an under-response by the government and inadequate clean-up, the remediation is not “punishment enough.”
It was a horrible and tragic situation, but it sounds like Paul made the best choices with the knowledge he had.
And like Paul, I don’t want to put the blame with Mr. Farmer, but I do believe that once the DA gives one of his deputies a case the deputy should be trusted to make the decisions re plea bargains and restraints should not be put on him ahead of time, before the case has even had the chance to evolve. I hope Paul learned a lesson there about micromanagement, but then again had he known about Mr. Granat’s personal situation he might also have taken it back to Farmer to handle the matter differently.
Wardin Bruckinstein obviously also feels very strongly about it, and obviously the subject is way to complicated to deal with at the end of a show. But I reject the proposition that remediation should always negate the filing of charges for a crime. It should always be considered in mitigation, but if there was misleading which actually resulted in aggravation of the damage to the environment, then, well, I’ve already said it.
Obviously the case was extremely complicated. I’m giving Paul the benefit of the doubt.
It wasn’t necessary to slight Herb Schwarz however. I think that was a mistake.
Listen in yourself. The whole hour. It does reveal Paul as a remarkable person who may actually be too open about himself for his own good in a race like this. There were some good questions, and some not so good. He handled them all with grace.
Next up, Paul Gallegos’ interview of last week.
April 1, 2010 at 10:58 pm
Eric Kirk
Eric, I guess that is your way of admitting you don’t know (the Denson issue)
Well, what I do know is that a reckless accusation was made without evidence. And I know Ed.
April 2, 2010 at 5:13 am
capdiamont
Eric, the effort was made to reserve the evidence, but due to incompetence, deliberate inaction, or both, evidence was lost.
I have to wonder if your defending Ed, for the same reason the old joke about sharks not eating lawyers.
April 2, 2010 at 5:19 am
capdiamont
DA office has been gutted, along with the DA ran child program in a nearby building. Good people, gone is ok with you?
April 2, 2010 at 5:34 am
ruark
Yes, and I know Ed too.
April 2, 2010 at 8:43 am
Eric Kirk
Cap – I’m “defending” Ed because he’s a good friend who was unfairly accused in a newspaper article. The “evidence” should be in the court case file since it had been submitted.
Let’s look at the article again.
http://www.northcoastjournal.com/051806/news0518.html
Studying the case file before appearing at the hearing, Jackson noticed something about the physician’s statement. Near the bottom of the document there is a section in which the doctor is supposed to indicate how long the “prescription” was in effect. The doctor had checked a box next to “six months.” Yet there was nothing in the document that indicated the start date. Six months from when?
She found the answer while searching through the defendant’s probation report, which documented details of his previous arrest. There, she discovered what appeared to be an identical copy of the physician’s statement, with every loop and curlicue of the doctor’s handwriting the same in both documents. There was one exception, however: The copy from the probation file contained a date stamp — “Issued July 10, 2001.” The physician’s statement that the wife had presented only had white space where the date stamp once was. Someone, she concluded, had altered an old, expired medical marijuana document to make it seem current.
In the preliminary hearing, she pointed this out to the judge. The judge then barred the defense attorney — Southern Humboldt’s Ed Denson, who specializes in marijuana cases — from entering the physician’s prescription into evidence. The court went into recess. Jackson was packing up her paperwork when she happened to glance over at Denson’s table. According to her recounting of events, she saw Denson with both the original and the tampered version of his patient’s physician’s statement, one in each hand. Jackson later said that Denson came over to her table and complimented her on her catch — “Pretty slick” — before stuffing both documents in his briefcase and leaving the courtroom.
Before that moment, Jackson says now, she had assumed that the defendant or his wife had altered the physician’s statement. Now she wasn’t so sure. In any case, it now seemed clear to her that Denson, who had also represented the same defendant in the previous case, had in all likelihood knowingly attempted to submit a fraudulent document into the record. This is not only an ethical offense punishable by the California State Bar Association — it’s also a felony.
That’s the evidence. Ed compared the documents and walked over to her and said “pretty slick.” That’s it. That’s the basis for her assumption. I mean, does that make any sense to you? A certain philosophy of law enforcement pretty much deems everything you do as pointing towards guilt (if you get off the airplane first you’re in too much of a hurry. If you get off last you’re hoping they’ll be engaged with others on your way out. If you get off in the middle you’re just trying to blend in with the crowd). I mean, if you falsified the document, you already know it’s been altered. Why study it? The point is that to any normal person, his response, including his compliment to her, suggests he had no knowledge of the alteration until that hearing.
I read the article three times to make sure I wasn’t missing anything. Then I wrote a letter to the NCJ about it. Can’t seem to find it on my computer. But I was appalled really. It reminded me of Meursault in The Stranger who was convicted of murder because, as the prosecution argued, he didn’t cry at his mother’s funeral. The key difference is that Meursault’s social transgression didn’t actually point to innocence. Jackson’s “evidence” against Ed actually points in the opposite direction she wanted to take.
I only had a couple of interactions with her in court that I can remember, and I will say that I remember her as courteous, even friendly, and professional. But going to a newspaper with this evidence had me questioning her judgment, and that her interpretation and willingness to try to obtain a search warrant (which I think most judges would have denied) to bust into a defense attorney’s office is perhaps an example of what the Gallegos win in 2002 was all about. We have very different views of justice.
I mean Cap, seriously. Tell me why you agree that checking over Jackson’s claims about the documents and complimenting her for the find in any way points to guilt on Ed’s part. I would love to hear a rational argument.
As it stands, Ms. Jackson probably has many nice qualities as a person. She is obviously very passionate. And she’s been viciously attacked on the blogs and elsewhere in ways that a male candidate would not be attacked. But in this election she is my fourth choice, based solely on this issue.
April 2, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Anonymous
woooooshhh. That’s the sound of gentle wind passing through the trees made audible by the relative silence.
April 2, 2010 at 5:14 pm
capdiamont
Those looking for meaning in silence, need to consider jobs, and general life.
Completely wrong take, Ed isn’t on trial here. It is Gags, deliberate, or incompetence in pursuing the matter.
April 2, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Bystander
There are plenty of things to criticize Gallegos about, but Capdiamont stupidly listens to Rose, so he attacks Gallegos for the wrong things.
April 2, 2010 at 7:41 pm
ruark
4th ?
Wow. So much for logic and rational thought
April 2, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Eric Kirk
Cap – the whole point is that there was no matter to pursue. No basis for anything. And I realize that Ed isn’t on trial. He was merely collateral damage.
What makes it particularly eggregious is that there was no way Ed could defend himself.
April 2, 2010 at 9:15 pm
exasperamus
Erik, are you seriously suggesting that an attorney who has, to all appearances, attempted a fraud upon the court, should get the benefit of the doubt, whilst the attorney who exposed same should be pilloried? And wait, before you answer, remember that the next question is what would you say about a prosecutor who did something similar after an
“altered” criminal record was offered, then pocketed with the comment
“pretty slick”.
April 2, 2010 at 9:30 pm
Anonymous
I’m going to vote for Bryson. The other three are egomaniacs.
April 2, 2010 at 9:41 pm
Eric Kirk
Erik, are you seriously suggesting that an attorney who has, to all appearances, attempted a fraud upon the court, should get the benefit of the doubt
I will ask one more time. What evidence do you see that Ed committed any fraud? What are the “all appearances?” Because if you don’t have any evidence, then stop it!
April 3, 2010 at 8:22 am
Probably Caused
My neighbor looked at me today and said “hi.” Something about the way he looked at me makes me suspicious that he’s guilty of something. I want his house searched!
April 3, 2010 at 10:34 am
Pablo Escogageggista
What’s his address?
*that’s a joke*