Friday, May 26, 2006

Measure T Reports In

The two sides of the Measure T issue have filed their finance reports. No way to tell how much from the YES side came from out of county, but they waxed the NO side in contributions taking in $9,773 to the NO side's $2503. That's almost a four to one ratio.

Of course, the NO side was going by a self imposed $500 contribution limit whereas the YES side took whatever they could get.

Should make an easy choice for those of you concerned about money in politics and campaign finance reform; Vote against the big money. Vote NO on Measure T.


At 9:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Greens divided over election

Looks like the Measure T bots running for Green Party Steering Committee can't even file their forms properly. Leave it to Democracy Hypocrisy to preach reform and feign ignorance of the law.

At 9:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

At what point does convoluted logic morph into outright lying? Humboldt patriots know it's YES on T if you want to take our county back!

At 10:21 AM, Anonymous mresquan said...

Nancy Flemming took $500 from a couple of little kids.Now that's taking whatever you can get.How much money from the yes side came from anyone not old enough to vote?

At 10:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Allen called attention to the group’s use of funds for “a petty faction fight” in the form of the “misleading” mailing.

“I wish the public knew how much money has been wasted on this, but the Go Green committee has failed to file any record of their existence with County Elections or with the Fair Political Practices Committee, a clear violation of campaign law,” he said. “I don’t see how these people are going to help the credibility of the Green Party by ignoring basic standards of transparency and accountability.”

I love how Shaye Harty later says she doesn't need to file anything with the state. Anyone who's run for office knows how basic forms have to be filed even if you only spend 100 bucks.

How will Measure T limit contributions when fakers like these won't even report where they get their money from?

At 11:03 AM, Anonymous mresquan said...

10:29,you have to report how that money is spent.

At 11:09 AM, Anonymous mresquan said...

to add to my 11:03, I believe you have to report all monetary contributions up to the reporting deadline.Contributions given under$100 are exempt(I think).But you do have to report how that total amount of money is spent.

At 11:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sure they do. And they don't report what they spend, because they don't report a goddamn thing. Do they want the world to know who is trying to buy the Green Party?

At 11:27 AM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

I oppose Measure T and I don't support this particular group, but look, I doubt that their failure to comply is a question of a sinister plot to hide their sources of money. More likely, they're just a bunch of flakes.

At 11:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree that Measure T is bad and should be opposed. Unfortunatley Erik, you have little credibility with alot of folks lately.

At 11:55 AM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

Tell me more! Because of the Illuminati thing?

At 12:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Measure T nutjobs.

Measure T nutjobs!

Measure T Nutjobs!

Measure T NUTJOBS!

Measure T NUTJOBS!!!!!

Sharp analysis.

At 12:53 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

Hmmmm. Guess I won't be getting an answer for that one. Well, it's hard to know which "lot of folks" you're talking about, since I've managed to piss off more than a few groups lately, either in my political discourse, or in my work. Diehard Greens, conspiracy theorists, several KMUD Board members, and ANSWER all want a piece of me. And the Church of All Worlds is probably whipping up a "chaos majick" curse for me as we speak. Can't keep track.

Then there's Allison Jackson and her fans - probably your camp? Well, her cheap stunt with the NCJ last week is about the lowest I've seen - Ed Denson obviously only representing collateral damage in her mind, but when you see somebody you care about personally slandered like that, well, you react. Hence my letter.

Meanwhile, whatever "credibility" I've lost with whatever particular group in question, one thing about me - I'd never publish anything to which I wouldn't sign my name.

I signed my name to a gues editorial against Measure T, which will appear in next week's Arcata Eye - lest you think I'm hiding my light under a bushel.

At 2:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric - I guess only the openminded read that article. If you had done so too you would have noticed that Sims said "everyone agreed upon the facts as shown in documents anc court records." Thats good enough for most reasonable unbiased folks. Could it be that you are biased. Hence the credibility issue refered to by 11:40.

At 3:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think that the NCJ did any cheap stunt. Seems that they were reporting the facts.

The only cheap stunt was evidently done by Mr. Denson and Gallegos in their cover up.

Be that as it may - Measure T stinks and should go down in flames. It is blatantly unconstitutional.

At 4:01 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

"If you had done so too you would have noticed that Sims said "everyone agreed upon the facts as shown in documents anc court records.""

I am certainly biased, as I noted in the first sentence of my letter. Let me ask you first, what about my letter compromises my credibility? I don't take constructive criticism personally. But I have known Ed well for 10 years now, and no, I don't believe he would forge documents. In fact, I don't know any attorney, not even ethics challenged attorneys, who would take that kind of a risk over a two-bit marijuana case where there wasn't even a risk of jail.

The problem is that the facts don't point to any guilt of a crime committed by Ed Denson, only that he was reviewing both documents in court following her motion and somehow that triggered some flag in Jackson's mind that he had forged one of them. It makes absolutely no sense, and she knows very well that Denson can't respond in any way without selling out his client.

When I first started reading the article my heart sank because I thought "Did Ed do something stupid?" I was about 3/4 through the article, waiting for some evidence of his guilt, when I realized that it wasn't going to be coming. Then, at the very end, Sims tucked in his disclaimer because even he found it odd that she'd waited for 2 years to report these very serious allegations to anybody.

What I find interesting is that the NCJ tucked its disclaimer in at the end. Why not the beginning? Many people who pick the paper up in a coffeehouse won't make it all the way to the end of the article. My problem with the NCJ isn't that it published the story, but rather that it recites her factual allegations and odd conclusions without any critical examination until the end.

But I didn't accuse the NCJ of a stunt. I was referring to Jackson, and Dikeman had better get a leash on her fast. His campaign's unravelling as it is.

But let me ask you both (2:44 and 3:29 - I don't know if you're one or two people) - what precisely are the facts that suggest Denson is guilty of the crime of forgery. The article is available online. Please be specific.

As to Measure T, it may or may not be unconstitutional, I'm not sure. It could violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, but corporations are not a member of what is referred to as a "suspect class" of discrimination where the government requires a "compelling state interest" to discriminate as opposed to a mere "rational basis" which is a much lower standard.

Whether or not it is unconstitutional however, it is unfair.

At 7:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It isn't what Denson did, in my mind it is what Paul did - it looks like he called Denson and gave him a chance to fix the documents and then fired Jackson to cover it up... Denson doesn't matter, the 215 case doesn't matter, it's Paul's cover up - isn't that a criminal act? Instead of investigating, he "fixes" it? The article was confusing. I'll grant that.

At 8:39 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

See, you can't get to what Paul allegedly did, until you pass what Denson allegedly did. Horse - cart. If Denson didn't commit a crime, then Paul had nothing to "cover up." There was no "fixing the documents." Jackson allegedly suspected Denson of forging a 215 certificate, and wanted a warrant to search Denson's office for evidence of that crime.

Paul's "cover up" was to fire Jackson before she could obtain the warrant. But that's a silly argument, because if Paul didn't want her to seek the warrant, all he had to do was tell her not to try. If all she had was her suspicion based on Denson's reviewing the documents in court, the warrant wouldn't have been granted. Denson "fixed" the situation by having the physician provide an affidavit that his client still needed the pot, which is all he would have had to do to begin with. Any attorney would know that. A lay client in panic might not, but any attorney would. There was no practical reason to forge the document. The act required ignorance.

Sims is a proficient writer. He provided what was provided to him. If there's more to the story, maybe she'll provide it for next week's issue.

The rumor among attorneys has long been that Jackson had been undermining Gallegos from the beginning and that the final straw was the leaking of the confidential e-mails during the recall campaign. I have no idea whether it's true, but it is very pervasive in the legal community. If you talk to anybody in the local defense bar, they will tell you that Gallegos was undermined by much of the staff from the first moment he walked into the office - and Farmer left the office early and refused to provide any assistance with transition. Gallegos' biggest mistake was not to clean house in the beginning. He's learning. I suspect Dikeman will be gone before the end of the year.

At 9:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The way I hear it the attorneys knew paul as a defense attorney, knew his level of competence, and his character, knew he had been kicked out of Del Norte County for double and triple billing, had his tape recorder and tape confiscated at Pelican Bay for illegally taping conversations, then he came into office, brought Stoen and all the Earth Firsters who call him Paulie and innundated the office, had been willing to give him a chance and then he issued his first gag order, which is that any act of perceived disloyalty would result in termination, and any one who talked to the media would be terminated, he holed up with Stoen, treated the others like dirt, doesn't hold up his end of the workload - and let Stoen get off with only two cases (and now lets sit around with his feet on the desk while everyone else is doing the work of four people because he hasn't hired anyone to replace the positions he has "lost") HIs own work ethic leaves alot to be desired and he takes credit for winning cases that other people prepped, he just gets the fun of going to trial and only gives himself the winning cases.
You sound like a reasonable guy Eric, but the grand jury report and the story in the Eureka Reporter with the DAs own statistics on child abuse are pretty damning, combined with Jackson's story in the Journal doesn't support your position, and I am surprised you would make excuses for the guy. Well not surprised, really, since it seems so prevalent.
Cmon, tell the truth, would you hire the guy?

At 10:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey everybody, Might be good to learn the law yourselves before you go off spouting it. The law is that you have to file disclosures after you raise or spend $1000. Aren't you working on a campaign Fred, shouldn't you know that? Aren't you a lawyer Eric, shouldn't you know this?

If Allen is so sure the law was broken he should file a complaint with the FPPC. Meanwhile, the rest of you should read up on the legal rules before whining. Talk about flakes.

And by the way, $9,000 is not a lot of money for a county-wide campaign. Look at the DA race. Trying to make the Measure T campaign look like big bucks a joke. Go yell at Dikeman who raised $79,000. You people are so inconsistant it is absurd to even listen to you.

At 10:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Any candidate-controlled committee must file a Form 410 with the FPPC if they raise or spend one dime on behalf of their election. You're thinking of a Form 460, which must be filed if you pass $1,000. Just because you don't have to file a 460 doesn't mean you get out of filing a 410.

And by the way, how the hell do you send a mass mailing to over 4,200 Greens (by their own admission) and not spend at least $1,000 on it? Those stamps and copies had to come from somewhere.

Even with bulk mailing, you're talking 30 cents a sheet for postage plus printing plus mailing labels. That's $1,260 bucks, and don't forget, just because they got their paper donated doens't make it free, its an in-kind donation and also applies to their total spending.

Of course the FPPC doesn't even know that Go Green exists, so how are they supposed to keep track of their spending?

At 10:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's the problem. Measure T is not going to fix anything.

At 11:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:19 gallegos raised $300,000+ last time, you can't blame dikeman for raising money to go against the blockbuster, it sure as shit costs alot of money to keep little boy paul in office. paul raised $81,000 and spent it all on out of area "consultants"


At 8:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

bulk mail postage is 17 cents per piece.

At 9:31 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

all the Earth Firsters who call him Paulie

Are you high? Paul pursued felony charges against an activist who was the VICTIM of an assault. That didn't win him any points with activists.

Several activists have been assaulted by loggers and cops since Paul took office, and the only people who ever face charges are the activists.

Most recently, activists who were involved in the May Day scuffle on the side of 101 accused Paul of being "The Man" as the Arcata Eye put it, and were so distrustful of him that they wouldn't come forward with any information so that an investigation could be conducted into any wrong-doing by the cops (a stupid move on their part). They apparently don't understand that their fears of a DA firmly in bed with the cops will occur if Dikeman wins the race.

When talking trash, make sure you have your facts straight, otherwise you undermine your whole argument.

At 10:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

it's interesting this painting of Dikeman as some draconian power. He is a very kind and considerate man.

At 10:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know many who would disagree. Worth may be kind and considerate to those he agrees with, like cops, but for those who have a different take on things, there is no kind consideration.

At 11:46 AM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

Let's see,

Anonymous 923 p.m. - I've heard those rumors as well, in all different forms, with the exception of the Pelican Bay - taperecorder incident, for which I'd need a lot more information to make any kind of judgment. As to whether Gallegos is lazy, well, there are many head D.A.s around the state and country who don't try cases at all. Now, I don't make a fuss over the difference between their trial result records because there are so many factors that go into trial results. Dikeman may have had tougher cases. I have also heard from defense attorneys who claim that he pushes cases to trial that shouldn't go - the theory being that he wants to punish the defendant by forcing him to pay large attorney fees and go through the stress of trial even if he doesn't have the evidence to convict. I don't do much criminal practice and I've never been on the opposite side of a case with him, so I can't say. (And I will say that despite my comments about her NCJ article and what I have heard about her, my only experience with her on the opposite side case was a very reasonable settlement). But the fact that he is 2-12 in the past 3 years while Gallegos is 9-0 doesn't mean that much to me without more specifics about the trials in question.

As to whether I would hire Paul, let me start by saying that I have heard mixed opinions about his skills in court (I haven't seen him in action other than pretrial motions) and those opinions mostly fall along partisan lines, with a few exceptions on both sides. But in my personal dealings with him, I find him quite brilliant. I did take over a civil case from him when he came to office and it was more than adequately prepared. Perhaps the attorneys who took over his other cases would have different opinions. I don't know. But let me disclose to you that you don't have to be a rocket scientist to be a good attorney. You have to be bright, but you don't have to be brilliant. And if you talk to him personally for any length of time you'll recognize that he's quite brilliant. Granted, you can be brilliant and be a bad attorney if you're sloppy, lazy, psychotic, or otherwise untogether in some respect. But everything else being equal, I'd certainly hire him if I needed an attorney. I should also point out that my wife has hired Paul Gallegos' wife Joan, who primarily works family law (no, my wife was not filing for a divorce), and I refer cases to her all the time.

As to whether he is qualified to run the office, well, I'd like to give him a chance to run the office with the entire staff supportive of him. If you talk to defense attorneys around the county there are many stories of DA staff "f---ing with him" to quote one attorney, and for a term where he didn't face a massively financed recall attempt within a month of his coming to office. And by the way, that grand jury report was at minimum irresponsible, and more likely a gross act of political partisanship. The GJ has no business second guessing personnel decisions where it doesn't have the facts.

Jackson doesn't have a story. So far nobody has posted has been able to point to one fact in that article that would justify a warrant to search Ed Denson's office. You won't find any. I read the article three times before writing my letter. And nobody has come up with a reasonable explanation as to why she sat on that story for two years.

anonymous 1019 p.m. - You're right, I'm an attorney. But other than having once helped a candidate for 1st district supervisor fill out the paperwork, I've no special experience or knowledge in the area. I hereby retract my "flake" comment until further notice. I do however give much credence to Greg Allen. I may not always agree with him, but he does seem to be a man of integrity.

anonymous 1138 p.m. - where do you get your information re "out of town consultants?" Incidently, Gallegos rasied 300 thousand last time to fight a half million bid by PALCO to "take him out" (quoting the kid who became the recall campaign manager in the last weeks - Did Daddy land him that job? Hopefully he went bad to grad school.).

Anonymous 9:31 a.m. - You're right, Gallegos has lost points with activists around that incident, as well as his refusal to prosecute in the David Chain killing.

Anonymous 10:33 - Many people are nice on an individual level, but possess ideologies and biases that distort their exercise of power. I'm sure Mr. Dikeman is a nice guy. But his actions have been fundamentally irresponsible - particularly with regard to the investigation of the Cheri Moore incident. He has no business involving himself in that investigation and trying to force a quick conclusion, particularly when the coroner's report hasn't even been completed. But we do owe him. He has shown that he does not believe in DA independence from police organizations. Hell, he even said it.

At 12:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you for your comments, Eric. Well said.

At 1:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

i tend to agree that gallegos should hand the whole thing over to the AG. let the AG investigate, and decide, unbiased

At 9:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

gallegos has let everything fall to pieces. the clerical staff is trining the new hires, far from the utopian dream of the brilliant young disciples flocking here to train at the feet of the icon, the brave and courageous paul. they get here and realize they have stepped in somethign really bad and they leave. seriously eric, if you are an attorney, you're either blind or kidding yourself.

At 9:42 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

far from the utopian dream of the brilliant young disciples flocking here to train at the feet of the icon, the brave and courageous paul

Sounds like Science Fiction. Or were you trying to make a factual argument?

At 2:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

you hadn't heard that fairy tale? That, fresh from having fended off the evil corporation, the gallant young DA would attract disciples to come and serve in the humboldt county courthouse, content to gaze at the goot of the legend, perhaps to dream of carrying on his activist dreams?

pure fantasy, right up there with the talented visionary crime-fighter

At 10:38 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

Wow. This is addicting. I mean, I can definitely see how people get sucked up into net forums. Now I wonder though, are all these people named "anonymous" really different people? Or are you one person messing with my head? Or maybe some sort of complex software program. Hmmmm.

And assuming you are all distinct and real people - have I met you? Have we passed on the street? Sat at nearby tables at Liu's or Carl's when it was open? That's what makes this forum more interesting than anything non-local - like Free Republic for instance, which the last time I signed up I was kicked off after 12 minutes.

anonymous 12:58 - thanx!

anonymous 1:36 - What makes the Gallegos office biased? Should he now forward every investigation of police conduct to the AG simply because the police union endorsed his opponent? Lockyer endorsed Gallegos of course. Should he wait for Jerry Brown?

anonymous 9:57 - well, if you work in the office, you obviously have superior insight. If you don't, then like me you depend on second hand views. I don't work there. I have spoken to some of the people who have and they seem to be divided on the question, but then we knew that. Are those staff members who think like me more reliable than the Dikeman supporters? Well, not necessarily in terms of veracity. But in my view, definitely in terms of perception of reality. But then, as you know, I have my own biases.

Anonymous 2:54 - I can only go by my limited experience, but the deputy DA's he has hired that I've worked with seem more than adequately competetent. But I have yet to try a criminal case in Humboldt County. As I've said, I don't do much criminal law.

At 11:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous blogs are the ultimate masquerade - you try to guess who is who, but the masks are impenetrable. Even names are masks, and yes, it is addicting.

At 12:08 AM, Blogger Rose said...

"On January 11, 1997 at approximately 1220 pm, I responded to the Security Housing Unit (SHU) Visiting area at the request of Officer _________. She had concerns regarding hand written material given to her by Inmate ___________. ______ requested Officer ______ pass the hand written material to his attorney Paul Gallegos. _______, upon scanning the written material given to her by ______, per California Code of regulations Title 15, sections 3175(J) (K), observed the beginning words to a specific inmate and then something to the effect of "Hey there how is it going? this is dead eye". I talked with Attorney ______ in the presence of his Investigator, ______ _____, explaining institutional concerns regarding legal mail and that personal letters could not be passed. Mr. Gallegos said the letters were for himself and were legal material. Mr. Gallegos also indicated he was aware he could not legally pass the materials to other inmates. Unknown to me, Mr. Gallegos placed a state issued tape recorder on the counter during this discussion." ..........

January 11. 1997

"Lieutenant ______ and Captain _________ responded to the area and spoke with Mr. Gallegos and Mr. _____. The tape recorder with the tape inside was placed into an evidence bag by Officer ______ per institutional procedures, observed by Mr. Gallegos and Mr. _____."

January 11. 1997

At 12:12 AM, Blogger Rose said...

"I," in this case was a Pelican Bay Correctional Sergeant, and a Correctional Officer, resepectively.

There's more, Eric V. Kirk.

At 8:47 AM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

Well, rose, assuming everything in the statement is true, it would certainly seem a stretch that a note apparently addressed to another inmate would constitute legal materials intended for him. Nor do I think it is proper to record a conversations without the other party's knowledge and consent.

However, I'd want to hear his side of the story before I made any kind of judgment, especially given what I've read about Pelican Bay's treatment of its inmates (and admittedly, I have no firsthand experience regarding those allegations either). Was a complaint filed with the Bar?

At 8:13 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Erik - no kidding you don't practice alot of criminal law. No one in the office can remember dealing with you on a case so how in the hell do you know what is going on in the office?

At 9:36 AM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

You polled them over the weekend did you?

Again with the k - somebody who was obviously familiar with me before I started posting here, based on his/her reaction to my first post.


At 10:56 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You don't have to do a poll - the court house is small enough and as court staff we see it all.

At 11:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok Allison Jackson.

At 11:16 AM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

I'm confused now. Are we talking court staff or DA staff who don't remember me on a case?

At 11:51 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Try the whole courthouse. You seem like a decent enough guy, but please don't mislead - it doesn't suit you.

If you spent more time in the place you would know that the office you are talking about is a mess. That is why staff spoke with the NCJ - that is why the cops don't endorse Gallegos - You speak like if ignoring reality will make it so. Too bad.

At 12:30 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

Well, the "whole courthouse" is a lot of people. Now, again, I'm confused about what we're talking about. In my 10 years of practice, I've had maybe 20 criminal cases, all misdemeanor. But I didn't say I don't spend much time in the courthouse. I've tried about 15 cases there, and at any given moment I've got between 5 and 15 cases pending there. So I'd be very surprised if nobody in the courthouse remembers me on a case. Especially considering that one of them is a former employee.

As to whether the DA's office is a mess, again, it depends on whom you talk to. I mean, everybody agrees that there is turmoil, but some would blame that on the old guard refusing to accept new leadership even three years later. I'm not in the office, so I can't say firsthand. I do think it's extremely inappropriate for a prosecutor from the DA's office to be holding press conferences about an investigation he admits he knows nothing about. And it is also inappropriate for him to comment publicly on cases that are pending in appeal.

As to the police, given that Dikeman was willing to announce the investigation of Cheri Moore "closed" even before the autopsy, I can very well understand why those unions support Dikeman, and why Dikeman rejects the ABA guidelines with regard to prosecutor independence.

Anyway, I think we're full circle in this debate. The arguments have been made over and over again, and there's nothing really new. This election will mercifully end a week from tonight. I'd rather argue about something else for awhile. Meanwhile, I need some lunch.

At 1:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I disagree I do NOT think it's extremely inappropriate for a prosecutor from the DA's office who is running against the incumbent to be holding press conferences about an investigation when the the incumbent has made a political issue about it. And it is also NOT inappropriate for him to comment publicly on a civil case that has been dismissed and the reasons for the dismissal. I would note that what you call "pending in appeal" has been the filing of a notice of appeal and no briefs have been submitted or anything else.

As for the ABA guidelines - they do not apply in California and are superceded by state bar rules. And I hardly think Dikeman wants the Moore issue "closed" I just think he wants it decided by someone without a political interest in it. Unfortunately, you don't see the problems that Paul created by making this a political issue. Lots o' folks do see it and don't like it.

At 2:38 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

Whether the briefs have been submitted is irrelevent. The only issue is that the case is pending in appeal. If a case of my partner's was dismissed and he appealed it, for me to make public comments to undermine it would be a breach of duty to that client - since I share the practice with my partner. If the appeal is dropped or resolved without a cert application, it would become fair game. Dikeman has breached his duty as a deputy prosecutor.

The ABA guidelines do apply everywhere. This is like Gores "no controlling authority" statement. They aren't binding anywhere because the ABA is not a government organization. The ABA guidelines are much more broad than our state bar rules, and they represent the standards by which the entire profession should live by.

That Dikeman doesn't believe in this independence from law enforcement is frightening. That alone would be excellent reason to vote for his opponent. I guess this will have to be the topic of my letter to the ER on the topic. I mean, for crying out loud, he announced that the investigation was over simply because the EPD had completed its own investigation. Do you honestly think that it's appropriate to reach formal conclusions without the autopsy report? Whom was Dikeman speaking for?

And I've asked this about 5 times now - how has Gallegos politicized the investigation? All he has said repeatedly is that he can't comment on it. I'm waiting.

That's probably all I'm going to say on the matter, unless I'm sufficiently annoyed.

At 3:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The california supreme court disagrees with you on the ABA guidelines.

This is a government agency - not private practice so your analogy doesn't apply regarding the appeal.

The case has been dismissed so this is not like an appeal on an open case. Sorry to disagree with you. Because the case is in a dismissed status it is fair game.

I don't know what you are talking about saying Dikeman said the Moore investigation is over because EPD said so. This is misinformation and as an educated man you should know better. What I read was that the critical incident report was in from all of the agencies that said that the officers acted appropriately. If Gallegos wants to go after the chief or whomever made the call to go in, then what other investigation is necessar? To be clear here - what does the autopsy results have to do with whether the brass made a hasty decision?

For crying out loud - she died of gunshot wounds - an additional autopsy to verify the cause of death has nothing to do with whether or not he brass made the call to go in too soon. Get real! You have been sucked into this and don't even realize it.

He can't go after the men who went in because it was clearly justified.

Gallegos announced a day before to Daniel Minz that his focus was on those that made the call to go in. He can't go after the chief or whomever made the call because there was no gross negligence. All he can do is keep this alive for the political value he can milk from it. That is what I truly believe is disgusting about this. Using anothers tragedy for his own political advantage.

This man is a manipulative jerk and when you jump on his bandwagon without seriously questioning the basis for his lame excuses - you do the community a disservice.

At 3:26 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

Well, I'm sufficiently annoyed.

So by merely investigating the matter independently, he is "politicizing" it. Gotcha.

I'm not aware that the Supreme Court has ruled on the ABA guidelines. Isn't that a bit out of their jurisdiction? What did they rule exactly? Can they rule on my bowling team's guidelines?

A case in appeal is still pending. If the dismissal is overturned Dikeman will have prejudiced the peoples' case.

As to your questioning as to what an autopsy report can reveal about a killing, well, I just don't know how to respond to that. It's a basic principle. First you gather the facts, then you draw your conclusions, then you make them known. It's not rocket science.

Assuming that you're right about Gallegos "milking it," though I'm not quite sure how he can do that without commenting on it, nobody would be thinking about it if Dikeman didn't keep bringing it up.

It's par for the course and why I wouldn't vote for Dikeman even if I disliked Gallegos. He's been acting this way from moment one, when he introduced private telephone messages in a lame attempt to embarrass his boss.

At 3:29 PM, Blogger Heraldo said...

He can't go after the men who went in because it was clearly justified.

It does not appear to be "clearly justified," which is why there needs to be an investigation.

If there were never a need for a coroner’s inquest, there would be no need for the statute that allows it. Apparently there is a need for an inquest in the Cheri Moore case because the coroner has requested one.

At 3:32 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

heraldo - I guess the coroner is another Gallegos dupe! Anonymous 3:00 should have his job and show us how it should be done.

At 4:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh bite me - the coroner did not request the inquest. Gallegos asked the Coroner to do one after Dikeman said Gallegos' politicizing it made it essential to go to the AG's office. My opinion is that it still needs to go there no matter who wins the election.

Why didn't Gallegos say who he is looking at for criminal liability - the officers or the chief etc.

The reason why he won't say who he is focused on is that he is milking it and this is what makes it a political mess for this community.

And Mr. Kirk, you are very wrong about your misguided attempt to sling mud on Dikeman for commenting on a dismissed case. We will just have to agree to disagree on this one. Try calling the state bar and asking them (but only if you are forthright and give them all of the information.)

At 5:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric Kirk is just another weed-smoking Gallegos drone.

At 6:02 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

"Eric Kirk is just another weed-smoking Gallegos drone."

Can I please, please, please use that when I set up my blog?!!!! It's priceless.

At 6:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

no one knows if this really is eric kirk, or someone using his name

At 9:20 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

That one's good too!

Of course, if Eric ever found out, he'd be pretty pissed off. He deserves it. He's a real jerk anyway.

At 3:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kirk, you just don't know what you're talking about.

The prosecutors who you said Gallegos should have "clean house" with (those who were there before Gallegos) are the people who Gallegos praised before he was elected and who's accomplishments he trumpets as his own.

Take a hard look at who handled and continues to handle all of the serious cases in the DA's office. It's not Gallegos's hires. It is the prosecutors who were there before Gallegos was there. There's no mystery to that, they are the best, and he cannot find replacements that even come close.

If the house cleaning that you called for had occurred, there would not have been a competent prosecutor, based on the hires so far, to have handled any serious felony. That would have seriously compromised public safety.

It's only because of the people that were there before Gallegos that the office is has any semblance of dignity at this point.

If those few who were there before Gallegos leave, that office will be shown for what it really is...a complete disorganized mess of chaos.

Stick to what you know best Kirk because you really have no clue on this issue.

At 4:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ditto -

By the way - what do you know best Kirk? Blogging or blowing hot air about things you know absolutely nothing about.

Perhaps if you spent a little actual time in the courthouse talking with court staff, bailiffs and prosecutors, you would be able to competently comment on this. Instead your hanging out with the brain trust of Southern Humboldt - Sinnoway and Denson. Wow, how impressive.

At 4:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What about Denson and the Dillon case that he just lost a couple of months ago.

Seems like there was another document of questionable validity submitted by Mr. Denson and soundly rejected by the jury. Seems like Denson believes he has a get out of jail free card with altered documents with the DA.

At 10:39 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

Well, I don't know about the Dillon case, but I do know that Denson rang Dikeman's clock in a case last year.

Also, my secretary was a juror on a case that should never have been taken to trial. My secretary is actually on the conservative side and she was appalled at the lack of solid evidence. Half the jury concluded that what was actually found on the person was planted there by the police because their dog had just searched the room in question. What was interesting was that the dog search had not been mentioned in the report. The defense attorney didn't know about it until well into the case when his client mentioned it. The jury was not impressed with their explanation as to why it had been left out - pretty much referring it as a minor detail. Apparently, after the dog had left, one of the officers went in for "one more check." He came out with a shirt and asked the defendant if the shirt was his, then pulled the cocaine out of the shirt pocket.

Dikeman had a unanimous verdict against him, which is rare.

Why did Dikeman leave our secretary on the jury? That's a mystery. But she wasn't as angry as some of the other jurors. Dikeman stuck around to answer some questions for the jury, but left immediately when one woman on the jury asked, "why did you waste the tax payers' money on this case?" Incidently, that's why I think he's 2-12 over the past 4 years, not because he's a poor trial attorney. He's actually very good. But he is in denial about the changes in the jury pool, and he's used to getting his way. Plus, I think he views part of his job as punishing anybody who is charged with a crime by forcing them through the expense and ordeal of a trial even if he can't get the conviction.

I have plenty more stories like this, but the point I'm making is with regard to my not talking to "staff, bailiffs, and prosecutors" (incidently, it was a defense attorney not a prosecutor who said he should have "cleaned house."), and my not being aware at what is going on in the courthouse - you don't want to go there. I am in the courthouse regularly. That's part of my job.

Sinoway doesn't practice anymore by the way, though I do enjoy socializing with him. I don't know him as well as I know Ed, and Ed is about as decent a human being as you'll meet. And anybody who goes to law school in his late 50s and gets his license at age 59 deserves praise for that effort alone. He does a lot of pro bono for the community, and every Saturday morning he gets up and drives from his home in Alderpoint to KMUD to treat us all with one of the most informative shows on blues and folk music. I realize that Jackson wasn't gunning for Ed. Ed was just collateral damage. She did him a disservice.

And no, the load isn't being carried solely by the old guard. Ask any local defense attorney. The newbies are mostly doing an excellent job on what is admittedly a very fast learning curve.

Look, I'm not going to convince you to vote for Gallegos. I believe I've been mostly respectful with a little bit of passive aggressive sarcasm that I apologise for. I respect that you come from a different set of ideas and perhaps values, and you've been presented with a different scenario of the facts. We're going to disagree. I can respect that. I realize that the stakes are high, but we do have to function as a community when this is over, and we may actually meet. For all we know, we do business with each other on some level. I hope to God your candidate doesn't win, but if he does I'm not going to hold it against the people who voted for him because I will assume that you arrive at your decision honestly and with some thought. Please afford me the same courtesy.

At 11:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dikeman is like the heart surgeon who gets the tough cases. Some patients can't make it. Some trials can't be won. Gallegos cherry picks, sails into court and jurors I have talke to say they found the guy guilty in spite of him, not because of him.

Defense attprneys love the loss of experienced prosecutors, makes their job all that much easier. Certain defense attorneys get especially good deals. Used ot be if you were charged with something bad you would call McKittrick (before he crashed and burned) because he was good. Now it is Denson and Clanton because they are _____________.

You seem earnest eric, are you as blind to Gallegos' faults as most others? Put a different name on him and would you really respect and tolerate someone who is generally viewed as AWOL, runs his staff into the ground, loses grants for important programs, and the list goes on... really? You really support that kind of management?

It's not new. It's been going on for four years. It's finally unravelled enough to show, and people are noticing. How much more damage can the man do?

He has a perfectly good practice, he and his wife, he can still be an attorney, still get to try cases, and theoretically make a whole bunch more money in the private sector.

Come on eric, if Paul's name was Roger Rodoni, you'd be calling for his head.

At 8:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You nailed it 11:02. Eric - sorry buddy but you are not at the court house regularly in criminal court. Period.

The newbies are failing miserably. Bailiffs and court staff are appalled. The DA has a catch and release program of "just get anything!" Clerical staff spoke to the North Coast Journal and pointed all of this out. I will take their inside view over your very biased and uninformeed outside view.

As for Dikeman - the California District Attorney's Association awarded him top prosecutor of the year.

Gallegos just barely passed in an unaccredited law school and cannot practice law in any other state because of it.

At 9:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Which of the Gallegos hires has handled a homicide case?

Yeah, that would be none.

Most of the Gallegos hires aren't even there anymore-


Jeff, Nicole and Mary are the only three that remain, and two of those people have been there less than a year. One is leaving in a few months.

Sorry, whether you like it or not, it's the folks who were there before Gallegos that handle the serious cases. Without them, that place would sink like a piece of concrete.

Gallegos knows that now, and that's why he won't "clean house," like you daydream about.

I'd like to hear if your reaction to that plan would be so cavalier if it was your job, or a family member's or friend's job that was toyed with in such a blase manner.

What if it were Ed Denson's livlihood? You seem more than happy to jump to his defense.

Face it, the defense attorneys you talk with like the fact that they get defense attorney deals from Paul and Jeff. Those people are happy that the office has lost people who wouldn't give bargain basment deals. It makes the defense attorney's job much easier to deal with former defense attorneys and prosecutors straight out of law school who don't know what they are doing.

Go sell your story in SoHum. People who work in the courthouse know the actual story, and it bears no resemblance what you write.

At 10:03 AM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

Like I said, we have different accounts. I've had about 3 or 4 cases since Paul came to office, and haven't gotten a "sweet deal" on any of them.

Paul's cases have not been easy. Admittedly, Dikeman's are harder because he specializes in drug cases which are more difficult in Humboldt County than most places. That's why I don't criticize his win-loss record. There are many factors that go into a trial verdict, and yes it's more often the evidence rather than the skill of the attorney that determines the outcome.

However, Paul has not "cherry-picked" easy cases. And unlike his predecessor in the latter years, he tries cases.

Dikeman's award was given to him in 1993. Although I wonder if he's slipped due to his obsession with taking cases to trial, I don't question his trial court capabilities. I see no evidence that he has any administrative qualifications. Gallegos had at least run a successful private business.

In any case, I don't know which court staff you're referring to. Certainly not our ex-employee, but as you point out, our interpretations of our observations are often colored by our personal biases.

We'll find out what the voters think on Tuesday.

At 2:10 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

One more thing I should clear up - whether you are right that I have double standards for pols that I like, Rodoni is a bad example. I like him, and voted for him every election except for the last - simply because I really liked one of his opponents. Being weighed down by the Fortuna-Rio Dell-Scotia vote, I don't have many expectations for the second district.

Rodoni is a libertarian rather than a conservative, which means he has some redeeming positions on social issues and civil liberties. He's the best of what is possible right now until the equity refugees from the Bay Area discover Fortuna.

And by the way, Rodoni is good friens with Ed Denson.

At 4:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your take on the Denson matter is odd Kirk. I took it more that Gallegos is corrupt and covered up for his friend and his friend's client.

As for cherry picking cases - how would you know? Oh yeah that is just a guess.

As for the 3 -4 cases that you had in the last 3-4 years. What were they - pot, driving under the influence - what? Would explain a lot to know this.

Your 3-4 cases in the last 3-4 years hardly qualifies you to comment. Frankly, I am tired of reading rhetoric like yours that is not supported by anything more than your own little pipe dream.

The Newbies are doing terribly. There is no direction. The office is held in contempt by the judges, the bailiffs, court staff and the probation officers who write the presentence report and who are sick and tired of the incmpetence.

But you don't care Eric, because it doesn't really effect your life now does it?

At 4:39 PM, Blogger Bitxxx said...

How do you know?

At 4:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Because I do Bit - First Hand knowledge not speculation. This is what the probation officers say. This is what the cops say. This is what the judges say. OK. point made!

At 5:05 PM, Blogger Bitxxx said...

Point made.

Lots of hearsay

At 7:33 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

For the record, Denson is a fine man and an excellent attorney, and he has now been very well slandered - without a shred of evidence offered. Unfortunately, he doesn't believe in libel cases.

At 2:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Truth is a defense to libel. Maybe that's why he doesn't believe.


Post a Comment

<< Home