Gallegos Writes...Again
District Attorney, Paul Gallegos, writes yet another My Word column for the Times- Standard. Is this his second, or third My Word column?
This one seems a little more intelligible than the last one I read. Last time I didn't have a clue what he was trying to say. This time I think I might have an idea.
I think he's trying to deflect criticism of his office, possibly in regards that Whitethorn rape case, and suggest the system needs to work a certain way in the interest of justice. Then again, he's hard to read, so I'm not sure. If I have the right idea of what he's writing about, I might well agree with him.
He really needs some work with his writing. Either that, or I need some work with my reading.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 8:46 AM
48 comments
48 Comments:
I got the same message from it - he's trying to change the subject, deflect criticism of his office. I guess the vigilantes are the people who point out his failings on the blogs. It's almost as incoherent as his last one, and filled with the same platitudes.
Did you know we had such a problem with vigilantism in Humboldt County? Must be the people who took the video of the dogs suffering. How dare they! Making Paul look bad. My, my, my.
...and filled with the same platitudes.
Hey! Only "Humboldt Progressive LIberals" get to use that word!
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11337556&postID=115703873057726584&isPopup
What I liked about it was it was so vague you can attach it to half a dozen cases this year where, for whatever reason, Paul either screwed up or failed to follow through. I've rarely read a more weasly statement from a politician. It is the first cop out of an incompetant D.A. to say the evidence is weak, or insufficient. It's well known in this county that unless they find you with the smoking gun over the dead body AND you confess, your chances of being charged, must less convicted are minimal.
Paul, if he chooses, does have a way out of this mess. Will he do it? Who knows? It seems that Local Solutions and Democracy Unlimited always get his attention. Screw the rest of us.
The animal groups mostly comprise of women. Are they vigilanties? And will he lock them up when they save an animal in harms way?
Justice for him only seems to go in one direction.
Robert KiKi Bugening will get out free as a bird and start collecting animals again!!!!
looks like paul gallegos considers police review a form of vigilantism, despite its success in dozens of communities across california. i cant wait for 2010 so we can run a real populist candidate and bounce his loco solutions-kissing ass out of office.
Thanks Rose.
So, anyone who goes after Paul is "Rose"? His support is not that deep as the last election showed. Paul did not win it as much as Dikeman lost it. Paul's campaign was pathetic. The ass you know versis the one you don't.
rose isn't in favor of police review so your lie doesnt pass the smell test.
Gallegos' piece sure had an exciting headline! I was expecting to read about local vigilantes, but instead was treated to a soporific, mealy-mouthed exercize in pointless finger-wagging.
Maybe I should make myself BLOGMAN® and wear a costume and fight evil crime on the INTERNET!
Huh?
While reading the "My Word" piece, I took it to be a response to the dog case that has been in the news recently. And I agree with you, Fred, that Gallegos really needs some work with his writing. It's so murky and obtuse!
That article is about as exciting to read as a Chamber of Commerce director writing about why we should join the Chamber. Why did the DA feel the need to explain in vague terms how our justice system works? As Fred said, what's his point? And what's the newspaper's point in publishing it? Is it a fact of life that people holding office get free space in the newspaper when they want to write something even if the writer really isn't saying anything? Or was the newspaper's point to demonstrate that there is nothing to this guy?
From the Eureka Reporter -
When law enforcement fails, 'vigilantism' sometimes needed
by Shannon Miranda, 9/4/2006
I’ve been in the public hot seat myself from time to time, so I can understand that Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos is feeling a little defensive.
But that in no way explains the ridiculous article about vigilantism he wrote in Saturday’s Times-Standard that was titled “Vigilantism a force of anarchy.”
In it he argues that no one but lawyers could possibly understand the complicated pursuit of justice, and that those outside his profession who work hard to see that right occasionally prevails over wrong should mind their own business and stop subverting the goals of our legal system.
I couldn’t disagree more. And, Paul, let’s be honest. There is no rise in vigilantism. There’s a rise in people demanding that you do the job you’re paid to do, and picking up the pieces when you don’t.
There’s a rise in people like me and Barbara Shults and the Animal Legal Defense Fund and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the Humane Society of the United States and The Eureka Reporter and a lot of other people and organizations daring to ask questions about a colossal failure on the part of the Humboldt County legal system that resulted in the cruel deaths of more animals than anyone can count. And that little article was your way of telling us to shut up and stop questioning your judgment.
Let’s stop talking in circles and call it what it is. You’re mad because we’re asking questions about how well you do your job. If your failure to file charges against Kiki Bugenig in 2004 for her obvious neglect and abuse of her animals is any indication, I’d have to say you’re not doing it very well. You left those animals there to suffer and die, because you didn’t think reports, photographs, witness statements and an actual videotape of the animals’ pathetic conditions constituted enough evidence to get a conviction.
You saw in Mad River how well that situation turned out. But instead of learning from mistakes and trying to make improvements, you’ve resorted to calling us names. “Vigilantes” is the term you used, which might not have been a very good choice, because you clearly don’t know what it means.
According to your article, “Vigilantism is when all or most of the functions of the administration are performed by one person or persons.” I don’t have a law degree or anything like that, but I do have a dictionary, and what it says is that vigilantism is actually “the summary action resorted to by vigilantes when the law fails.”
Pay close attention to that last part. The law failed these animals. You failed these animals. And you have not stepped up to the plate and tried to make things right. Now you’re trying to accuse me and others of plunging the county into anarchy simply because we’ve had to clean up the mess you left behind.
The dictionary also defines a vigilante as “a watchman or guard.” That applies here too, because we have had to watch and guard the precious lives of animals ourselves because you won’t do it. We’ve had to be vigilant precisely because you are not.
And one other thing. Nobody cares if you think you can get a conviction in the case against Kiki. It would be nice if you did, but that’s not the point. You yourself wrote in the article that “What is often misunderstood is that our legal processes have greater importance than getting the right results.”
Now that’s something I agree with. Part of that “greater importance” is standing up and saying that right is right and wrong is wrong. Even if you can’t get a conviction in a particular case, sometimes you have to stand up for what’s right.
Animal welfare is my job. Prosecuting people who break the law is your job. Instead of telling me to mind my own business, maybe you should start minding yours.
(Shannon Miranda is the owner/operator of Miranda’s Animal Rescue in Fortuna.)
AMEN!
IMHO
What a good article from Shannon!
-A (general) Paul G supporter and I definate Local Solutions supporter (that's right kids, the world is NOT black and white the way that those in blogland like to pretend). We can think the guy is the best one for the job, campaign for him, and still not agree with everything he does.
ditto.
Fred I think your reading is fine.
Get down S.Miranda !
Gallegos is the guy that takes credit for any drop, or preceived drop, in the crime rate but won't step up to the plate when he or someone in his office drops the ball. Drops the ball in the animal abuse case. And can anyone be foolish enough to think that this is the first "goof" or ball dropped by Gallegos and the DA's Office ? This one's getting all the press, and had some really graphic photos.
All in all it's pretty pathetic. What happened to the "buck stops here" ?
The buck has never stopped with PG. He has a history of blaming his staff, the board of supervisors, even the victims of crimes that he botches up on the prosecution of their cases.
Actually, you can't call the thing an article or a story. It really is not anything but a pathetic cut and paste job from what probably was his criminal procedure book in the unaccredited law school that he went to. That is the reason why it is so rambling and nonsensical.
I doubt that. Gallegos' first My Word column seemed even more non- sensical to me. Some people are just poor writers.
I have friend who ran for state assembly some years ago. He's a fairly articulate guy. I suggested he try writing a letter to the editor to the local papers to try and garner some name recognition.
He gave it a try and send me a draft of his proposed letter. It was so disjointed with shifting topics and all, I couldn't even tell what he was trying to say, and I know the guy. It was as bad or worse than Gallegos'. I gave up on that idea.
Some folks just don't have a good command of the written word- or no command at all.
Fred,
Have you heard Gallegos talk? Have yous seen quotes by him in the papers? He speaks just as incoherently. What does that say about his thought processes?
Gallegos should have taken his own advice when he was trying his high profile cases that were both dismissed (no convictions Paul) in the paper. It didn't seem that he applied the same principals to himself or his special interests groups. When it is criticism, he says shut up, it's my decision, and it shouldn't be challenged.
Sound familiar? Remember his staff during the election saying that he said that "any perceived act of disloyalty results in termination?" He has the same attitude toward the public questioning his decisions too.
He can't blame Farmer's "outdated" office now. He's had a whole term. He can't blame the Famer "holdovers," as they are virtually gone, so he tells the public to mind it's own business.
You really have to examine and question government when they tell you it's not your business because that is the telltale sign that something is very, very wrong.
This is the tip of the iceberg.
Interesting 10:37 and 11:32.
Actually, I have nothing against police review under normal circumstances.
What is happening right now in Humboldt County, however is not normal. I am against police review when it is being pushed by a group of people with an agenda to discredit the police at any cost, and by any means possible. The agenda of the Salzman/AEB/Local Solutions crowd is clearly spelled out in their own communications. The police are in their way, and they have set out to destroy honest hard working public servants by smearing them with "crooked" labels.
They have seized the Cheri Moore tragedy and used it to foment public distrust, and they are will be attempting to infiltrate any police review board so as to affect the end result.
So, under those circumstances, I am against a police review board unless it is carefully vetted to guard against biased operatives with an agenda. I am against allowing our public offices to be used by shadow groups who do not have the best interests of the community in mind.
amen Rose
Fred, you are being too kind.
It reminds me of his "wandering in the desert" statement in the Eureka Reporter last year. Did anybody save that one? I can't seem to locate it any longer?
Did you google the prose 9:15?
Wandering in the desert ? I missed that one.
That would undoubtedly be this one:
“One is that I do everything to make people happy which means I don’t stand for anything except for just something,” he said. “The other is I stand for something and I try to be a leader and take some people, a group of people, a community someplace and I say guess what folks, this is who I am. I stand for your beliefs. We share these beliefs or we don’t. You get the option to judge that. This is who I am and I am committed to leading us this place, wherever it is...."
Eureka Reporter Gallegos defends record, looks ahead 7/3/2005
Maybe someone should keep a book of some of these "unusual" statements or quotes from Mr. G. ?
You could call it " Paul's Gem's" ?
What a clown. How'd this guy pass the bar.
Howed this guy get elected ? Must be voter apathy!
if you have a Paul Gallegos sticker on your VW and now are begging for a re-call-You might be a Humboldt Progressive Liberal.
Where's Buhne when you need him.
Vigilantism a force of anarchy ...
Got a ring to it, doesn't it?
God help Barbara Schulz, She has committed the cardinal sin, she criticized Gallegos. Now she will be destroyed. Watch and learn, oh ye followers of the Cult of Paul.
Shouldn't it be "Vigilantism IS a force of anarchy"?
Geeeeez, Charles, get it right.
I'm a borderline Gallegos supporter, but I will readily admit that the guy's writing isn't nearly as deep and philosophical as he seems to think it is. Reading the quote that Rose posted, I'd say he's more of a George Bush than a Thomas Jefferson.
Maybe more like Joseph Biden.
waiting for the pin to drop!
it's going to be sweet.
I feel like going hunting.
hunting ? Hunting what ? hunting the thorn in ken's side ?
At 9:27 AM, Fred said...
I doubt that. Gallegos' first My Word column seemed even more non- sensical to me. Some people are just poor writers.
Fred, you should start googling the first My Word. There is a reason it is so non-sensical!
Fred I expected you to adequately address todays article in the ER? What's up with that? I thought you were an "independent" blogger?
Hearaldo and Eric aren't touching it, and they make comments on everything.
I assume you're referring to the story on Gallegos' My Word column having numerous quotes from another publication?
If so, I just read it myself, although I see Anon.R already posted on it.
What's your take on it Fred?
Actually Heraldo did pick it up and is trying to spin it by referring back to Mr. Stunich's piece and the criticism he got earlier this year.
It seems a pathetic response though...it would have been better for him to not respond at all then to have responded the way he did.
anon 9:49 am .... I think that's what they call concious knowledge of guilt !
Post a Comment
<< Home