From the Gallegos campaign (and also published in the Times Standard and this week’s Redwood Times):
I want to send a heartfelt thank you to everyone who made our spring campaign a success. It would not have been possible without each and every one of you who volunteered, donated and endorsed. Thank you for all you have given and the many hours of hard work and dedication you selflessly gave over the last several months. It is the sum of your very efforts that made our campaign successful.
I am grateful for the votes and affirmation I received, and to those who did not vote for me, I want you to know that I have heard your voices and I intend to redouble my efforts to earn your votes in November.
Joanie and I moved here about 15 years ago, and fell in love with this remarkable community. Eight years ago I ran for district attorney on a platform of Justice For All — including those historically neglected by the justice system such as children, victims of domestic violence, people of color, and victims of corporate fraud — and for modernization. It’s hard to believe now, but when I inherited the office, criminal case information was kept on index cards– not computers.
Since then, my office has aggressively prosecuted the powerful — even when it’s been unpopular. My office prosecuted Maxxam/PL on evidence of fraud. We prosecuted Blue Lake’s police chief for multiple felonies including illegal weapons. We prosecuted an oil company and won a major settlement to protect our drinking water.
But universal justice is not universally popular, and some would rather go back to how things used to be. This would be a mistake.
When I came to office, the murder of Blue Lake teen Curtis Huntzinger was still unsolved after 18 years. It was presumed to be unsolvable. But my investigators cracked the case and obtained a full confession from his murderer, Steven Daniel Hash.
During the campaign, one of my opponents made the disturbing accusation that I had let a child abuser off with a slap on the wrist. It was odd because she, under the previous office, had handled the case back in 2000, and should have known the original sentence was overturned on appeal; my office had to re-prosecute it anew in 2004, and the perpetrator was sentenced to eight years in prison.
I’ll be the first to admit how much I’ve learned in the past eight years. Delivering justice to all is not easy. Behind the big publicity stories are thousands of small success stories and dozens of daily tragedies. We can’t bring back loved ones — but we can prosecute to the full extent of the law with the best evidence we have, which is what we do.
We cannot go back to how things were; the improvements and progress we’ve achieved over the last eight years are simply too precious to give up.
I ask for your support on my campaign as we move toward a November victory. For more information, go to votepaul.org.
Paul V. Gallegos is the Humboldt County district attorney.

49 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 29, 2010 at 8:40 pm
Anonymous
Paul’s going to win by a blowout in November.
June 29, 2010 at 8:47 pm
mresquan
well it will be about 53%-47%,so yes.get ready for 4 more years of watchpaul,which is fine,as I like Rose’s blog.
June 29, 2010 at 8:59 pm
ED Denson
I ran into Paul Hagen & in our conversation he guessed that more of his voters would for for Paul G. than Allison J. That confirmed my guess. No telling where the 6% for Ms. Bryson will go, but I’m thinking that Paul G. will win this fall.
My second guess is that the campaign will cost way more than it is worth – as will the Supervisor races. I’m a big fan of the First Amendment, but Im thinking that campaign spending limits are socially efficient and I’m in favor of them, after watching the local campaign costs this year.
June 29, 2010 at 9:31 pm
capdiamont
It would be a shame to have him reelected. Crime is up since he became DA. He lied about being a being a DDA in LA county.
Big Oil and Tire isn’t a oil company. He plagiarized many of his “my words.”
June 29, 2010 at 10:19 pm
Eric Kirk
He proved to be an excellent campaigner, and still won the plurality in an election heavily weighted conservative. I also think most of the Hagen voters will break towards Gallegos – certainly the Arcata bloc. I don’t think it’ll be a blow-out. But unless there’s some new revelation or scandal to sink him, I think he’ll win it.
June 30, 2010 at 8:45 am
ED Denson
It would be a shame to have him reelected. Crime is up since he became DA
I don’t think that the crime rate is a good index of DA performance. I’d feel better if you wanted to elect a different Sheriff or Chief of police somewhere because the crime rate was up. THe DA doesn’t police the streets, he gets reports about police investigations and determines which are going to lead to criminal charges. Murders are up- find me a murderer who says the actions of the DA were an important factor in his or her decision to take a life; or a drunk driver who says “i would never have driven my car when I was in this condition, in a county with a tough DA.”
June 30, 2010 at 8:46 am
ED Denson
italics I’ll master HTML yet.
June 30, 2010 at 9:03 am
Eric Kirk
Well, there’s also a debate about whether crime rates are up or down. It depends on whether you’re talking from before Gallegos came in, or at some point during his tenure.
June 30, 2010 at 9:03 am
Eric Kirk
Okay, I don’t know why everything’s italicized.
June 30, 2010 at 9:05 am
Eric Kirk
Okay Ed, the i goes AFTER the / in the second sideways v thing.
June 30, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Not A Native
But who is Hagen going to endorse? Since he campaigned saying he really cares about administration of justice in Humboldt, he should have a strong opinion concerning the candidates. Surely he can find a distinction between Gallegos and Jackson.
Or was Hagen’s campaign rhetoric just political air and the only person he supports being the DA is Paul Hagen? Oh well. But its OK because he’s a “good person” and a “hard worker’.
June 30, 2010 at 4:34 pm
ED Denson
got it Right?
June 30, 2010 at 5:42 pm
excuses excuses
you pundits may have it all wrong. read the headline story in the TS today and read yet again ANOTHER case that gallegos botched. a guy murders his wife and gallegos once again lets the murdering sob Plea Bargain down to VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER with an 8 year sentence by a judge not a jury! Why, oh because gallegos said he wasn’t confidant to bring the case to a jury with no body so he let the murderer plea down to vol. manslaughter. wow what justice for the murder victim and her family.
there was tons of evidence against this murderer…….including the murderer calling up the insurance company and trying to impersonate his wife to try and get $$.
gallegos didn’t even inform the victims family that he was not going to bring the murderer to trial OR that the guy was Not going to be charged with murder but Vol. Manslaughter.
and what about the recent sex predetor that gallegos refused to prosecute (even tho the guy had 3 prior arrests for sexual violence) only to have the guy go on to commit another sexual crime……gallegos said that yes this time he would try and prosecute the guy AFTER his 4th episode of sexually attacking someone??……
there are plenty of examples of gallegos not prosecuting violent criminals.
People/victims/families are sick and tired of gallegos’ excuses and will work to replace him in November with someone who will NOT let these violent criminals get a pass.
June 30, 2010 at 6:21 pm
the reasonable anonymous
FYI, The “sideways v things” are usually called “greater than” and “less than” signs.
June 30, 2010 at 7:05 pm
Largo
Gallegos has the advantage of having habitually wrong people like Rose and Capdiamont oppose him. That would be enough to convince me to support him if I didn’t know better. We need a competent prosecutor, and Alison Jackson is our only option.
June 30, 2010 at 9:02 pm
Eric Kirk
Why, oh because gallegos said he wasn’t confidant to bring the case to a jury
It’s very easy to judge the merits of the case when it’s not your responsibility to prosecute it. It’s a bit tougher when you’re the one interviewing the witnesses to see how they’d hold up.
July 1, 2010 at 3:59 pm
capdiamont
Largo is so full of it.
July 1, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Eric Kirk
An ex-girlfriend maybe Cap?
July 1, 2010 at 4:34 pm
capdiamont
Just a troll. It is one of those game, where if you say it often enough, it becomes “true”.
July 1, 2010 at 7:32 pm
Anonymous
Please point out where Rose has been habitually wrong, Largo.
PVG will likely win in November, despite rulings like the one just listed, but Rose does a pretty good of sourcing her claims where PVG is wrong.
July 1, 2010 at 9:18 pm
the reasonable anonymous
“Rose does a pretty good of sourcing her claims where PVG is wrong.”
Rose list sources for her claims, but whether those sources really show that Gallegos was “wrong” in any particular case is generally very much a matter of opinion, as opposed to straightforward fact.
Rose is, of course, entitled to her opinions. Meanwhile, I am entitled to my opinion that she has a weird obsession with Gallegos, one that borders on pathologically dysfunctional, and that this causes her to interpret pretty much everything he does as “wrong.”
Meanwhile, when Allison Jackson cut a cynically misleading ad in which she gave the impression that Gallegos let a child abuser walk free, whereas the guy actually got 8 years, well, Rose has no problem with that. Her hatred for Gallegos warps her view of these things and leaves her with no credibility in the eyes of any objective observer. But in her own eyes, and to her little clique of Gallegos-haters, she’s some kind of hero. Truly pathetic.
July 1, 2010 at 10:11 pm
capdiamont
Any case? Paul claimed many times he was DDA in LA county. Except anyone calling there, never heard of him. The TS knows about this. I curious how you will spin it when the article comes out?
Paul took credit for bringing down the crime rate. Now that it is above the level when he started as DA, it is everybody else’s fault.
Your problem is Paul is your hero, and nothing he has ever done, is wrong in your eyes.
Did you catch that he called Big Oil and Tire an oil company? Except it really isn’t an oil company, and the AG handed it to them on a silver platter.
The PL case was a waste of money, yet still pursued it, after being told it wouldn’t work.
Did you catch all the grand jury complaints against him/his office? I know, in your eyes, they must be Paul haters too?
Was justice really served in the Blue Lake case?
July 1, 2010 at 11:29 pm
the reasonable anonymous
“Paul claimed many times he was DDA in LA county. Except anyone calling there, never heard of him. The TS knows about this. I curious how you will spin it when the article comes out?”
Someone calls someone at the LA DA’s office and the person answering the phone doesn’t remember Gallegos…not exactly a rock solid story. At this point I consider it an unconfirmed rumor. I’ll wait until that article you keep mentioning comes out, if it ever does. If it turns out that the facts show Gallegos lied or exaggerated, my reaction will be that Gallegos lied or exaggerated. Why? Because I’m not in the tank for Gallegos or anyone else. I calls ‘em as I sees ‘em.
“Paul took credit for bringing down the crime rate. Now that it is above the level when he started as DA, it is everybody else’s fault.”
Last I checked (I think it was in the NCJ a couple of months ago), violent crime was still lower now than when Gallegos took office. But the most dramatic drop came during his first year, and then it has gone up a bit since. So in my opinion Gallegos would have been skating on thin ice in taking any credit for crime being lower now than when he took office, unless one believes that his election instantly caused the sizeable drop in his first year, and I don’t think that’s likely. At the same time, I do think its fair to say that the imaginary crime wave that the Gallegos-haters perceive is, well, imaginary. So I don’t credit him with lowering crime, nor would I necessarily blame him if it rose. (If there are more recent stats that I’m unaware of that show crime in Humboldt is now actually higher than when Gallegos took office, feel free to direct me to a well-sourced story or link stating that, and I’ll be happy to concede the point. But if you’re just starting with the low point, which came in the year after he took office, and saying it’s up since then, that’s a bit misleading too).
“Your problem is Paul is your hero, and nothing he has ever done, is wrong in your eyes.”
That’s a totally incorrect assumption, Cap. I just think Gallegos, despite some missteps and attempts to become a slick politician, is still a far better choice than Jackson, who in her campaigning has shown a serious lack of integrity, cavalier attitude toward the truth, and willingness to mislead the voters with her exploiting of a child abuse case and misrepresenting the outcome of it for her own political gain. That’s a deal-breaker for me. If she’d be so deceitful as that in the campaign, it makes me wonder: Is there anything she wouldn’t lie about, anything she wouldn’t do, to win this race? She seems to be driven largely by a desire for revenge for her lost job, but her performance in that ad was enough to convince me that firing her was a wise decision.
“Did you catch that he called Big Oil and Tire an oil company? Except it really isn’t an oil company, and the AG handed it to them on a silver platter.”
Well, given that they deal in petroleum products, I think its fair to call them an oil company. But I’ll add this point, which I think is a more legitimate criticism: On several occasions, I’ve heard him shorten the name to “Big Oil,” as in “I won a $x settlement from Big Oil,” which to me sounds like a too-clever-by-half way of trying to make it sound like he dealt a blow to BP or Exxon or some shadowy oil cartel or something. A little too slick for my taste, but nowhere near as misleading as Jackson’s Paul-let-a-child-abuser-off-scot-free crap.
“The PL case was a waste of money, yet still pursued it, after being told it wouldn’t work.”
I think that’s a legitimate argument, given that the case got nowhere. Whether its a “waste of money” to try out a novel legal approach that has a low probability of success is a matter of opinion, and that opinion seems to depend largely on what one thinks of the litigants. For example, Rose makes a big deal out of the fact that the PL case “didn’t even pass demurrer,” but isn’t that exactly what just happened to Arkley’s suit against the Coastal Commission, which was immediately tossed out? Yet many of the same people who seem to think Gallegos was crazy and reckless to try his fraud suit, seem to have no problem with the Arkley lawsuit against the CC, which also got swatted down immediately. I guess the “waste of money” thing is in the eye of the beholder, but my own opinion is that the PL lawsuit was not a good use of time or money, and the choice of Tim Stoen as Gallegos’ right-hand man on that was a huge mistake.
“Did you catch all the grand jury complaints against him/his office? I know, in your eyes, they must be Paul haters too?”
I did “catch” those, and some of them seemed well-founded, but others just seemed a bit picayune. I don’t think the whole Grand Jury was all a bunch of Gallegos-haters, but I do think some of them were perhaps a bit biased and looking for the least-favorable interpretation of things. By the way, that Grand Jury report was done when there were still a whole lot of Terry Farmer-era holdovers in the DA’s office, some, like Jackson, who seemed bound and determined to undermine his authority from within the office. I’d be curious to see what a new Grand Jury report, based on more recent interviews with current staff would show. I’m guessing it would show significant improvement from both the Farmer era and the early Gallegos era.
Was justice really served in the Blue Lake case?
If you’re referring to Gunderson, the answer, in my opinion, is a resounding YES. Clearly this guy was a menace to the public as well as his wife. Had he been convicted on more counts I would have felt even better about it, but the wife changing her story several times prevented that outcome. So I’m happy that Gundie got convicted and sentenced to prison time and lost his job and saw his reputation (deservedly) destroyed, and certainly Blue Lake is much better off without him. How about you? Do you think Gundie should have walked away scot-free?
July 2, 2010 at 8:36 am
capdiamont
Just a quick reply, NCJ did come out with the 2009 results on crime, that was released this year. That is where I get that crime is higher than when he came in to office.
Also this week, was a new grand jury report, also faulting the DA in various areas.
It wasn’t just someone who called the la county da’s office and hr, it was a few people who did so. I’m one of them. Mirror gave the number to call to find out for yourself. The problem with it, is other than lying that he was one for many years with many articles in the TS, that his EPIC campaign mgr said Paul never said that, and it was her fault. Umm, it was on his campaign site, and a few TS articles.
The BL case, I’m not sure all the guilty parties were pursued. How did the case come to light? Why was the spouse treated so badly? Was that really the best he could do?
July 2, 2010 at 9:05 am
Eric Kirk
Also this week, was a new grand jury report, also faulting the DA in various areas.
Well, I don’t know if it’s the same Grand Jury which issued an earlier report on various county agencies. That GJ was/is stacked by individuals with definite political agendas and I really don’t take very seriously anything it has to say where there are any political issues at stake.
July 2, 2010 at 9:16 am
Anonymous
It would probably be defeating your purpose but you might consider checking he facts and findings of the Grand Jury, EPIC, HumCPR, NEC or anyone else before condemning or supporting their statements. A suposed agenda doesn’t change the facts on any side of an issue though I suppose it could provide a reason for revealing them or their choice as topics.
With respect to the Grand Jury’s reports in particular: Facts is facts all of which are vetted and verified by County Counsel and a Judge.
Just sayn….
July 2, 2010 at 9:55 am
Eric Kirk
Sure, but the GJ chooses which facts to focus on. If the whole investigation is skewed, then so are the results.
Sorry, but when you have like 4 or 5 people from a particular agenda who apparently acted in concert to get themselves onto the Grand Jury, you bring into question the whole process. It’s not illegal or anything, but it renders the final product suspect. I imagine it’s not the first time it’s happened, and it won’t be the last as other groups are probably going to try to get themselves represented on the next GJ.
July 2, 2010 at 10:38 am
Anonymous
“Sorry, but when you have like 4 or 5 people from a particular agenda who apparently acted in concert to get themselves onto the Grand Jury, you bring into question the whole process.”
I agree, it does bring the process under scrutiny, further, it may even “render(s) the final product suspect” or skew the reports conclusions. What it does not do is change the underlying facts nor for that matter does it make the conclusions wrong, just suspect. None of the facts have been disputed by you or anyone else.
Did Gallegos fail to submit funding paperwork as required?
Does he have relatives working under the supervision of each other?
Has he done required evaluations?
Seems like this is all public information. It’s only reasonable to be suspicious of the messenger and check it out for yourself. But find out the facts before you dispute the underlying issue.
July 2, 2010 at 11:21 am
Eric Kirk
Well, I haven’t disputed it yet. I’m just not taking it seriously at this point. Sure, I’ll look at the findings of fact. And then I’ll wonder what was left out.
July 2, 2010 at 8:27 pm
the reasonable anonymous
Cap,
I took the time to look up the NCJ articles on crime stats. As you know, you were correct that the latest (2009) crime statistics show the crime rate in Humboldt has now exceeded the crime rate when Gallegos took office:
http://www.northcoastjournal.com/blogthing/2010/06/29/crime-politics/
I hadn’t noticed that article before, and was still relying on this one:
http://www.northcoastjournal.com/blogthing/2010/05/07/crime-rates-humboldt-county/
I stand corrected.
Personally I don’t think it makes sense for the DA to claim credit for falling crime rates, nor to take blame when they edge up. But since Gallegos chose to highlight the “falling” crime rate before the new numbers came out, he’s certainly got egg on his face now that the crime stats have edged up past the rate when he came into office (though not by much). As I pointed out above, even the earlier claim was pretty dubious, as the largest drop was in his first year in office, and it would be pretty hard to see how he would have made much difference at that point.
Of course this issue cuts both ways, as Jackson has the endorsement and financial support of local law enforcement organizations and individuals, who arguably have much more influence on crime rates than the DA (who can only work with what he’s given by police agencies). So if you’re looking to blame individuals or agencies for increasing crime, I guess you’d have to assign some significant amount of blame to the local sheriffs and city police, and Jackson is their candidate.
But again, I really don’t think either the cops or the DA should really bear the blame or take the credit for these kinds of changes in the crime statistics, which fluctuate quite a bit from year to year. But again, Gallegos (foolishly) decided to make an issue of it when those statistics showed a drop in crime during his tenure, so he’s got to take his lumps now that they’ve bumped back up. Live by the sword, die by the sword, and all that.
Still and all, I think he’s doing a good job and I was really quite offended by Jackson’s deceitful ad about the child abuse case. If she’s willing to exploit abused children for her own political gain by cutting a very misleading ad that gives the impression that a serious child abuser walked away scot-free, whereas he actually got 8 years in prison, I just don’t think she’s got the integrity to be our DA.
She comes across as just way to desperate for revenge, to the point where she’ll apparently do just about anything, say just about anything in order to win, and in the process “the whole truth” is left on the cutting room floor. Fortunately, I think the majority of Humboldt voters are going to reject her in November, and she can stay in private practice, where lawyers who will say anything or do anything to win are not exactly unheard of (present company excluded of course, Eric).
July 2, 2010 at 8:35 pm
the reasonable anonymous
Here’s what the FBI has to say about their crime stats:
“Individuals using these tabulations are cautioned against drawing conclusions by making direct comparisons between cities. Comparisons lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting communities and their residents. Valid assessments are possible only with careful study and analysis of the range of unique conditions affecting each local law enforcement jurisdiction. It is important to remember that crime is a social problem and, therefore, a concern of the entire community. The efforts of law enforcement are limited to factors within its control. The data user is, therefore, cautioned against comparing statistical data of individual agencies.”
July 2, 2010 at 9:03 pm
the reasonable anonymous
For what it’s worth, here are the actual numbers of violent crimes in 2008 and 2009, as reported to the CA Dept. of Justice:
2008 2009
Murder 3 8
Rape 37 33
Robbery 102 117
Aggravated Assault 317 383
Population also increased (but not by much) during that time, which is why their repot also lists crime “rates” (# of crimes per 100,000 people) in addition to the raw figures.
Anyway, here are my comments on these figures:
Murder: Numbers are too small to be very meaningful statistically. Only 3 murders in 2008 means the 8 in 2009 is “more than double, almost triple,” but it’s hard to imagine that someone decides to commit a murder because they think the DA isn’t up to snuff. Most murders are “crimes of passion” and will bear no relationship to the perceived deterrence of prosecution.
Rape: Down somewhat. Can’t conclude much from that.
Robbery: Up a little, but not very much.
Aggravated Assault: This is where almost all of the increase in ‘violent crime’ comes from over the past year. It would be interesting to see what parts of the county have experienced this increase, the cities or the unincorporated part of the county. There is some possibility that the increase is partially due to greater reporting or decisions by police agencies about initial charges.
In summary, I don’t think the change in the murder #s is meaningful, the rape #s aren’t up, robbery is only up very slightly, but aggravated assault is the big one. So if you’re going to try to pin something on Gallegos, I guess you’d have to argue that the perception that he’s “soft” on crime somehow figured into the thinking of people when they “decided” to commit an aggravated assault. I think that’s highly dubious. And then there’s the fact that this “perception” is just that: a “perception,” and that this perception has been perpetuated by Gallegos’ critics, who were claiming a crime wave long before this May, when the crime rate finally actually did exceed the rate when he took office. Of course what the 2008-2009 increase doesn’t show is that violent crime rates are still substantially lower than they were during a good part of the Terry Farmer / Allison Jackson era (although in fairness, they were already falling toward the end of that era)
Still and all, not good numbers for Gallegos. Not because they necessarily have anything to his performance, or even the public perception of it, but because he foolishly touted the crime stats when they seemed favorable, and now its quite awkward for him to walk away from the same statistics when they seem unfavorable.
July 3, 2010 at 11:12 pm
capdiamont
I’d have to mostly agree with you. Except, Paul has a long list of mistakes. Many victim advocate groups are not supporting his reelection.
The DA doesn’t have much effect on crime rates, except if the criminal is let off lightly so they are out on the streets to offend quickly.
I’m not so sure on the numbers part, as to when the increase was noticed. Sure, these numbers were not out yet, but shouldn’t the DA has at least a feel how the numbers of crimes, are doing? Who gives the FBI it’s numbers? Wouldn’t the DA keep it’s own numbers?
How many mistakes does Paul need to commit, before his supporters say enough is enough?
July 4, 2010 at 10:01 am
the reasonable anonymous
“How many mistakes does Paul need to commit, before his supporters say enough is enough?”
When the alternative is someone as desperate for revenge and willing to cynically mislead the public as Allison Jackson, well then Paul would have to make quite a few more serious mistakes before a lot of us would jump ship.
July 4, 2010 at 10:41 am
Anonymous
A reasonable alternative was available in June. The voters passed him up.
July 4, 2010 at 3:16 pm
the reasonable anonymous
Oh, hagen — the guy with virtually no experience with felony cases, the guy who only drinks water because he “reasons” that since the body is mostly water drinking anything else is “polluting” it? Yeah, well, thanks but no thanks.
July 4, 2010 at 6:13 pm
anon
we SHOULD just drink water TRA!
(then again i just had my two glasses of wine with dinnner so blogging while drinking again)
July 4, 2010 at 6:17 pm
anon
yeah, throw the bums out! spoken like a typical clueless american…even you eric, thinking that you should throw out any bums related to the power structure of anyone working in the accessors office…and you have no idea if johanna will be better…or worse…
“trow da bums out,” the rabble cries, eric leading the charge…
(anyone but rodoni–sohum has spoken)
July 4, 2010 at 9:31 pm
Anonymous
Oh, hagen — the guy with virtually no experience with felony cases
But of the three candidates was the only one with a proven record of effectively taking on corporate slime. Gallegos loses his cases and Jackson has no interest.
We are not left with any real choices now.
July 6, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Anonymous
Gallegos just got 1.4 million dollar settlement from Big Oil and Tire and he’s about to wrap the Skilled Nursing home case.
Yes, the judge threw out the PL suit (but a very similar case was won a year later), and the judge threw out the wrongful death charge against Police Chief Douglas, but I’m still glad he filed both of those cases. The fact that he did put both corporate criminals and cops on notice that if they violate the law, with Gallegos as DA, they may face charges.
By the way Capdiamont, am I right that you are supporting Meg Whitman?
July 6, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Bob
People have very short memories. Before Gallegos was DA, the Sheriff’s and the EPD ran rough shot over this county. They also worked as PL’s goons. Things have changed a lot.
10,000 cases a year pass through the DA’s office. Yes, you can cherry pick a few to criticize, but what you want most in a DA is someone with good (human) values.
I like Gallegos values. Rose and Capdiamont and the rest of the right wing do NOT like his values. It has very little to do with plea bargains or which case was won or loss, it has to do with have a humanitarian in the DA office, and someone who believes in everyone’s rights, even the guilty. What Allison Jackson offers is someone out for revenge, and yes that does play well with some victims and their families.
July 6, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Jason
What we need in the DA race and in the 5th district, is unity. Everyone who voted for Hagen and everyone who voted for Higgins, need to step up and speak out (that means go to their website and endorse) for the person who won the (primary) and defeat the opposition.
Jackson and Sunberg (nice enough guy that he is), are the opposition.
http://www.patrickcleary.com/join.html
http://www.votepaul.org/endorse
(and it does not matter if you live in the 5th, or even if you live in Humboldt. If you are part of the Redwood Coast community, you should endorse)
July 6, 2010 at 6:26 pm
the reasonable anonymous
Bob & Jason:
Well said. I agree wholeheartedly with both.
July 7, 2010 at 5:04 am
capdiamont
Oh please, I oppose Paul, because he doesn’t represent justice for all. He is too incompetent to get justice. AJ isn’t the one who had to scrub their website when caught in a lie. AJ does well in CAST and many other cases. Paul on the other hand, got rid of many competent prosecutors. The result is a dramatic drop in the number of CAST prosecutions. Where is the justice for the children?? People want AJ, precisely because of good human values, and better prosecution. Revenge isn’t a motive, nor the idea, just plain better prosecution. Care to explain away Shannon Miranda of Miranda’s rescue, and the majority of the Miranda’s Rescue board of directors having endorsed AJ? Is that “revenge” also?
The Big Oil & Tire and the Nursing home cases aren’t cases where the DA had much hand in.
July 7, 2010 at 5:17 am
capdiamont
BTW, some would say EPD ran rough shot, until the chief was replaced, so the DA had nothing to do with cleaning up the EPD. Which, if your not savy enough, means Paul did nothing to clean things up. EPD did have to clean up at least one of Paul’s mistakes.
I’m still waiting to hear, how Paul couldn’t know that crime was up, without the FBI releasing it’s stats.
July 7, 2010 at 8:02 am
Anonymous
You’re saying it’s the job of the DA to keep crime stats?
July 7, 2010 at 1:12 pm
capdiamont
Not necessarily stats, but at least have some sort of feel how crime is doing. Besides most government agencies keep some sort of stats.
July 7, 2010 at 1:13 pm
capdiamont
After all, his competition called it correctly. Why were they able to do so?
July 7, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Eric Kirk
Probably because they have allocated funding for that purpose.
In any case, I’m sure it’ll be discussed in great detail over the next few months.