Unfortunately conflicting with my radio show. Oh well.
From Redwood ACLU:
Attention: For Immediate Release
Redwood ACLU to Hold DA Candidates’ Debate on Civil Liberties
The Redwood Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union announces the Candidates’ Debate on Civil Liberties for all four ballot-qualified candidates for District Attorney of Humboldt County, to be held on Thursday, April 15th from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the Senior Room of the Arcata Community Center, 321 Community Park Way.
This debate will be held before a live audience (the capacity of the Senior Room is over 100 people) and in cooperation with independent producers working with Access Humboldt it will also be aired live on public access Channel 12 and will likewise be available for later viewing on-line.
The debate will be moderated by Redwood ACLU chair Greg Allen, and shall be staffed by other members of the Board of Directors of the Redwood ACLU, although any persons who have made any sort of campaign contribution or endorsement of any of the candidates in this year’s election are excluded from involvement.
“We’re anticipating a lively debate where we really dig deep into the justice system here in Humboldt County,” Allen said. “We’ve strived to strike a balance where the debate will get some answers on vital civil rights issues from each candidate, but also leave plenty of room to address other concerns raised by community members.”
The Redwood ACLU held the only televised debate for candidates for the Northern Humboldt High School District in 2005 at the Senior Room of the Arcata Community Center, and has also presented civil liberties-oriented forums for local city council races over the last six years. The Redwood ACLU, based in Eureka with over 850 members across the North Coast, is a non-partisan organization that never endorses or opposes candidates for public office. Our state affiliate, the ACLU of Northern California, is also providing support for this event.
The format of the debate will start with opening statements and an airing of the candidate’s views on five questions posed by the moderator concerning civil liberties issues in Humboldt County. All other questions will be posed by the live audience via notecards, followed by closing statements. Each candidate will have the opportunity to issue rebuttals to the statements of others.
Members of the press or public with questions may contact the Redwood ACLU at (707) 442-4419 or redwoodaclu@hotmail.com, or drop by our office at 917 Third Street in Old Town Eureka.
15 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 13, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Anonymous
Since there’s no Suddenlink cable service south of Scotia, your SoHum and NorthMendo audience should be intact, Eric.
But mad props to the ACLU nonetheless, about time these DA critters have to address how “equality under the law” works here in Humboldt where the rich dance away scot-free while the poor get imprisoned.
April 13, 2010 at 7:40 pm
Matt
Here’s my question: as a regular citizen of Eureka, on what basis do I judge who would be the best DA? I need some cold hard facts as to why or why not the current DA should be replaced, and then if so, who would be better. Simply because Gallegos’ opponents say he’s doing a bad job doesn’t necessarily make it true, and I have no concrete evidence either in support or against him. Some solid #’s would help a lot. Before I consider the other three candidates, it must first be established that Gallegos is a bad DA and that he should be replaced. I really know nothing about the other candidates other than that Jackson seems like she’s a sniveling, sour grapes type of person, since she got fired from the DA’s office and she wants to get back at her former boss. Right or wrong, that’s the only impression I currently have of any of them, other than some vague complaining that Gallegos is somehow incompetent. He might be, but I need proof, not just opinions.
April 13, 2010 at 8:12 pm
ED Denson
Matt, your problem is almost unsolvable. The DA gets a large number of police reports each year suggesting prosecutions. The competence of the DA consists in selecting and prosecuting those which 1) can be won, and 2) which it would be just to win, and 3) when triage is required, those which are most important to the welfare of the community. Then the deputy DAs must, with the least expenditure of resources, including their time, get the best outcomes consistent with justice from the cases selected for prosecution. As voters we have no way of knowing which cases are not selected, or why, or if the outcomes could be better or worse. The papers and the public may clamor about this and that case but in fact they do not, and can not, have any idea of the truth of the facts of the cases or the other factors that go into the nitty gritty work of prosecution (or defense). I work in the Eureka courts as a defense lawyer quite often. I have opinions about the competence of some of the deputy district attorneys, but even from my vantage it is not possible to tell if Paul could do his work better, or if anyone else could improve on what he does. He seems to be doing ok, and I think he is doing better than Terry Farmer did in his last years in office, but I know of no objective way to “know” how well he is performing. If you do find an objective measure let me know, but till then we’ll just have to go on instinct in deciding whether to retain or replace Paul Gallegos.
April 13, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Quant
So, Matt, you voted for Farmer because there was no “concrete evidence” that the untested inexperienced Mr. Gallegos would be better? Or do you claim you had proof that Farmer was “a bad D.A”. If so, please share, because it would be amusing to measure what you consider evidence that
Farmer was a bad d.a. And remember, just because people might have said it, you say that’s not enough for you.
April 13, 2010 at 8:56 pm
Anonymous
Or we could go to the debate and ask some tough questions. I think that’s the point, reacting based on who gives straight answers, and not some vague “instinct” on who we’d rather have a beer with.
April 13, 2010 at 9:58 pm
the reasonable anonymous
Quant, you missed an obvious possibility: that Matt may not have been of voting age, or may not have been living here, during the original Gallegos-Farmer match-up.
Anyway, for my part, I voted against Terry Farmer because he approved the pepper-spray-swabbed-directly-onto-the-eyeballs-of-protestors fiasco, which was a revolting display of police brutality and law enforcement arrogance that was, fortunately, caught on video and therefore undeniable.
The resulting lawsuit cost the county zillions to defend, and in the end the court ruled that it WAS excessive force and could NOT be repeated. The former DA, the former Sherriff, and others in local law enforcement and county government together share the blame for this needless and unjustified abuse of non-violent protesters, as well as the pointless and costly attempt to justify the abuse in court and maintain the ability to use this type of torture on non-violent protesters in the future.
I know there were other issues, but this is the one that stands out the most. I agree that it may be difficult to get a good sense of whether the incumbent DA is making good decisions on a day to day basis.
But in the case of Farmer and the Pepper Spray incidents, his poor judgement was so extreme, that it called into question his whole orientation to his job, and his attitude to the public (or at least segments of the public that were not part of the good-old-boy / law enforcement / timber company clique).
April 14, 2010 at 9:43 am
Anonymous
Gallegos beat Farmer 8 years ago. This is 2010. He can’t run against a ghost. He has three flesh-and-blood opponents he’ll be facing in Arcata tomorrow in what promises to be a fascinating evening. No other DA race in the state this year is as contested as ours!
April 14, 2010 at 11:30 am
Brothers Grimm
It’s a fairy tale. Farmer had no authority to tell EPD what force to use or not use. And the only mistake EPD made was video taping it. Without the video the finely honed acting skills of the cleverly selected female trespassers(I guess they were fresh out of 40 year old fat ugly ones that day) would have been for nothing.
April 14, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Anonymous
Did Farmer try to prosecute Arnie Milsap and the cops on scene? I think not. Yet Gallegos did go after Douglas and Zanotti. So there is some daylight there. Question is whether Jackson, Bryson or Hagen would do any differently if they were faced with a Cheri Moore-EPD type situation.
April 14, 2010 at 7:07 pm
Fred Mangels
Did Farmer try to prosecute Arnie Milsap and the cops on scene?
If I’m reading this right, you’re wrong. It was the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office that was directly involved in the pepper spray incident. Eureka P.D. simply stood watch outside.
April 14, 2010 at 7:26 pm
Anonymous
Good point Fred. That should read “prosecute Sheriff Dennis Lewis and the deputies on scene?”
April 15, 2010 at 5:46 am
CC
What in the hell was the sheriff doing at the congressmans office in the City of Eureka? WTF Will someone please explain
April 15, 2010 at 8:53 am
Fred Mangels
What in the hell was the sheriff doing at the congressman’s office in the City of Eureka?
It has something to do with jurisdiction. I think the Sheriff’s Office is responsible for congressional offices here and elsewhere. Don’t ask me for a legal reference because I only know what I read in the papers.
The issue was addressed in news coverage back then. You might find reference to it by checking the archives on the Times- Standard or North Coast Journal web sites.
April 16, 2010 at 2:28 am
Matt
How was the debate? Who “won”? Any better idea on who to vote for now?
April 19, 2010 at 9:38 pm
Anonymous
Hagen was the clear winner. Confident, articulate and able to parse the language of the office for those of us non lawyers. Bryson comes across as street smart and a bit rough around the edges and clearly has balls. Whether she can run the DA’s office is another question entirely. Gallegos came across as he always does and it is wearing a little thin. Bryson’s challenges went unanswered. If they have legs, Gallegos is dead meat. Jackson was a surprising disappointment. Seemed nervous, didn’t appear to understand the big picture and had no clear message that made you want to vote for her.