◼ Fundraiser set for Allison Jackson
The Times-Standard
Posted: 05/07/2010 01:15:14 AM PDT
An event at the Samoa Mansion is being held in support of Allison Jackson, candidate for district attorney. Enjoy appetizers, dinner and a blackjack tournament with prizes.
The event is Saturday, May 15th, at 6:30 p.m. For ticket information, please contact Debbie Quigley at 840-9525.
Showing posts with label Allison jackson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Allison jackson. Show all posts
8.18.2010
Election Roundup: Humboldt DA candidate Allison Jackson to host meet and greet
◼ Election Roundup: Humboldt DA candidate Allison Jackson to host meet and greet
Humboldt County District Attorney candidate Allison Jackson will host a meet-and-greet event from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. tonight at Avalon Restaurant and Bar, 239 G St. in Eureka.
The evening will feature hors d'oeuvres and coffee, as well as a no-host bar. Jackson will be on hand to meet voters and answer their questions.
Jackson, who is currently a partner in the Eureka-based Harland Law Firm, worked in Humboldt, Santa Cruz and Santa Clara county district attorney offices.
Election Roundup runs on a regular basis during the election season. Submissions are subject to editing. To submit information for the Election Roundup, send an e-mail to editor@times-standard.com with the word “politics” in the subject line.
Humboldt County District Attorney candidate Allison Jackson will host a meet-and-greet event from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. tonight at Avalon Restaurant and Bar, 239 G St. in Eureka.
The evening will feature hors d'oeuvres and coffee, as well as a no-host bar. Jackson will be on hand to meet voters and answer their questions.
Jackson, who is currently a partner in the Eureka-based Harland Law Firm, worked in Humboldt, Santa Cruz and Santa Clara county district attorney offices.
Election Roundup runs on a regular basis during the election season. Submissions are subject to editing. To submit information for the Election Roundup, send an e-mail to editor@times-standard.com with the word “politics” in the subject line.
5.29.2010
JN - Nightmare on Erie Street
◼ Nightmare on Erie Street
by ANDREW EDWARDS
TWENTY-ONE THOUSAND POUNDS OF RAT-INFESTED TRASH have been removed from the driveway of 2504 Erie St., Eureka, the building that used to be known as the Band of Mercy Animal Rescue. The animals are gone but the yard and the inside of the house are still filled to the brim with refuse (earlier this week, junk could be seen literally spilling out of one window).
The owner, John Martin, is considering tearing down a wall of the house so that he can go in with heavy equipment to clear the house out or possibly just demolish the building altogether. His ex-wife, Linda Sue Martin, and Larry Lawson Decker, who together ran the Band of Mercy, are out on bail, living in Eureka. But only now is the story behind the degradation coming out: how an animal shelter went bad and managed to slip through the cracks in county law enforcement for years.
Eight years ago Myra Mintey and her husband moved into the house across the street from Band of Mercy. According to her it was bad back then and steadily got worse until she felt she had to report it to the authorities.
"I would call animal control every single day for months at a time," Mintey said. "It was like pounding your head against a brick wall."
At times, the county responded -- most notably when a videotape made by a neighbor of rats exiting the house through an upstairs window led to the first of several trash cleanups on the property. But the county did nothing to address the real problem: the deplorable living conditions inside the shelter itself.
The most obvious issue was the stench.
"The smell on a warm night got so bad that it was just overpowering," Mintey said. "You couldn't even walk down the street."
According to Richard Hutchison, whose accounting office shares an alley with the Band of Mercy, one tenant refused to move into the apartment above his office because she couldn't handle the smell.
Then there were the animals.
"I never saw animals abused, but I saw sick animals," Mintey said. "The cats always had diarrhea. They always had sores all over them."
The Band of Mercy also had dogs and other animals, including a pig, chained in the front yard. The dogs, which Mintey described as pitbull mixes, would bark at passers-by, causing neighbors to worry they would get out.
"I used to carry a little pipe in my purse, but what would that do against a dog?" Mintey said. "I ended up carrying a can of Mace."
In addition to everything else, automobiles were abandoned in front of the house on numerous occasions.
Neighbors repeatedly asked the county to do something about the shelter, but the answer always came back the same: "Our hands are tied." That answer was reiterated by officials interviewed for this article.
"To go into a private residence we need warrants, court orders," said John Falkenstrom, Humboldt County's agricultural commissioner and head of Animal Control. "My staff are not peace officers, they're public officers. We have to follow a procedure called due process. It's slow, it's cumbersome, and to the public it can be incomprehensible, but it has to be followed."
Head of County Environmental Health Brian Cox echoed that thought.
"There were definite concerns, the rat population for instance, but it's like I said, we weren't invited into the house," Cox said.
Cox and Falkenstrom's claims do not completely jibe with the law. A section of the state penal code titled "Animals in specified places without proper care or attention" empowers animal control officers -- not just police officers -- to go onto private property to seize animals they believe are being abused or neglected. It reads: "When the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that very prompt action is required to protect the health or safety of the animal, the officer shall immediately seize the animal." The statute says nothing about warrants or court orders.
The county's arguments are similar to those made by Eureka animal control after a young female dog was found near death last spring after being forced to spend all of its life in an outdoor cage. Complaints about that property were also made, but to no avail. The dog, named "Phoenix" by those who tried to save its life, later died.
According to Falkenstrom the reason the situation on Erie Street couldn't be dealt with was that Humboldt County doesn't have a "humane officer" -- a specialized animal abuse investigator who would be empowered, much like sheriff's deputies, to enter a building based on probable cause and fully investigate any suspected violations.
The county hasn't had a humane officer for over 10 years. To make matters worse, it couldn't hire one if it wanted to since only humane societies and nonprofit organizations are allowed to employ them.
"To me it's ridiculous," said County Supervisor John Woolley. "We have to examine why that law was written and try to find some group that can combine law enforcement and animal control."
Joan Biordy, an attorney who participated in the Band of Mercy rescue, was critical of the county. "It's a sad commentary that this county's leadership has such disregard for the pain and suffering of innocent animals. My pleas and others went unheeded. Many of those animals had to suffer more than if [the county] had done its job."
Falkenstrom said that nuisance complaints are the lowest priority at animal control.
"Our priorities are bite complaints, dogs on school grounds, dogs harassing individuals. Way down, further down and probably last are noise problems, odor problems," Falkenstrom said, adding there are 640 dog bite complaints in the county each year and only three animal control officers.
One thing appears indisputable: The violations at the Band of Mercy shelter were "egregious," as Falkenstrom put it.
Inside the house and the fenced back yard, human and animal feces were piled up with layers of newspaper reaching as high as six feet in some places, totally covering the floor, burying the sink. The one piece of furniture in the house, a bed, was surrounded by piles almost up to the level of the sleeping surface.
In the back yard, hemmed by massive blackberry hedges, dogs were kept in ramshackle kennels overflowing with filth.
Twenty-five dogs, 45 cats, three turkeys, a rabbit and eight chickens were rescued from the residence, and so far the clean up crews have trapped more than 84 rats.
Of the 25 dogs, only five survive. The rest, beyond hope, were killed by euthanasia.
"The dogs weren't euthanized just because of mange," Miranda said. "They had medical problems, open sores and aggression. As they (Martin and Decker) brought them out they bit at them. I don't know what they were doing to them in there, but it wasn't just neglect."
He said that some of the dogs were so mangy that they had almost no hair at all, and that they were so covered with fleas that it looked like their skins were crawling.
Of the cats, 14 had to be put down, mostly because of the presence of feline AIDS and other illnesses, as well as general bad health.
How could it have gotten like that?
Over the years Band of Mercy Animal Rescue deteriorated into the stuff that an animal lover's nightmares are made of, but it wasn't always like that.
"Linda and those guys (at the Band of Mercy) worked their fingers to the bone and nobody was helping them," said Patricia Shear, formally of For Pets' Sake, a Eureka charity that promoted spaying and neutering pets and worked with Band of Mercy.
Harriet Willard, who was also involved with animal charities in Eureka, said that she knew of times where Martin and Decker had gone without food in order to provide for their animals.
There is a general consensus that Martin always had a soft spot for animals and was compelled to take them in.
"Up until the day she was arrested she probably thought she was doing good," Falkenstrom said.
Mintey spoke of a time when a neighbor's cat had a litter of kittens under their porch and Martin went around the neighborhood trying to collect them and take them to Band of Mercy.
She would also, according to Miranda and others, take in cats she found in Dumpsters behind supermarkets and dogs that she found on the street. No creature was refused, and eventually it got out of control.
"I think they just got senile. They were overwhelmed and there were no contributions. I know it was disgusting, but how many years did she do this before it went bad?" Shear said.
That doesn't seem to hold much water with other members of the animal rescue community, however, or with the neighbors.
"You can chain a child to a bed and feed it too, but what good is that, what kind of quality of life?" Mintey said.
Miranda stressed that whatever Martin and Decker had done in the past, they had broken the law and should pay the price.
"People say `Why get mad at her (Martin), she tried,' but it was not a [shelter], it was an animal dungeon," Miranda said. "It's criminal what they did in there."
© Copyright 2002, North Coast Journal, Inc.
Linda Sue Martin & Donald Decker Lawson - Hoarding, ~100 animals seized, 60 euthanized
◼ link
The rescue of sick and decrepit animals from a home on Erie Street that was operating as the Band of Mercy Animal Rescue is continuing, with only a few cats remaining.
Martin, 56, and Lawson, 66, were arrested on suspicion of felony animal abuse after officials were able to view the horrible conditions the animals were living in.
Since July 15 Shannon Miranda of Miranda's Rescue in Fortuna has retrieved 75 animals from the now condemned home. More than 40 of them had to be euthanized. Miranda said he suspects that more than 80 animals will be removed from the home by the time he's done.
Miranda was accompanied back to the home by Deputy Doug Pool of the Humboldt County Sheriff's Department and county Animal Control officials. Pool said that, when he saw the conditions of the animals and the home, he had sufficient cause to arrest Lawson and Martin.
Both Pool and Miranda said that conditions in the house were appalling. They described piles of feces mixed with urine-soaked newspapers as much as 6 feet high in some places. Both said they were almost sick at the sight.
"There was no bathroom," Miranda said. "The toilet, sink and shower were all covered by those newspapers."
Miranda said the cats that remain are becoming hard to catch in his humane traps, because the traps are often set off by rats.
Miranda first started removing animals from the home when he was contacted by Martin, who said she was being evicted. "Over the phone I told her I only had room for eight dogs," Miranda said of a conversation with Martin before he visited the house. When Miranda saw stacks of newspapers soaked with urine and mixed with feces, 6 feet high in some places, he contacted the sheriff's department. Miranda said there was no bathroom in the home and Martin & Lawson were living in the same conditions as the animals.
Animals removed from the home are taken to Ferndale Veterinary and examined by veterinarian Kevin Silver. Of the animals euthanized, the cats all had either feline leukemia or feline AIDS, and the dogs all had extreme mange.
Miranda is billed for the veterinary work on the Band of Mercy animals under a separate account at Ferndale Veterinary, and he is attempting to find if the county is obligated to pay for any portion of it.
Reports that the Band of Mercy was at least partly funded by the Humboldt Area Foundation are true, but Barbara O'Neal, director of programs for the foundation, said the money the foundation gave to the rescue was at the request of donors' wills.
The $3,350 dollars given to the rescue last year was distributed by the foundation outside of its normal process for awarding grants -- a process which includes checking out a grant recipient.
But because the money was a direct donation tied to conditions stated in a will, no check on the recipient was required or made, she said.
Update 7/31/02:
Martin & Lawson plead not guilty at their first court appearance. They will be back in court for a preliminary hearing on August 9th.
1 of the dogs named Barney, rescued from the home was adopted.
Update 8/24/02:
The preliminary hearing for Marin & Lawson has been rescheduled for August 29th. Both face charges of felony animal abuse after Humboldt County sheriff's deputies witnessed the condition that nearly 100 animals, mostly dogs and cats, were living in at their home. Off the nearly 100 animals taken from the home, more than 60 had to be euthanized for aggression and/or medical conditions.
Update 9/14/02:
A shouting match between Bill Cater, Lawson's lawyer and Prosecutor Allison Jackson got the attention of all in the courtroom before the 2nd day of preliminary hearings official began over evidence. Superior Court Judge Timothy Cissna quickly brought order to the court.
Prosecutor Jackson called Shannon Miranda to the stand to describe the condition of each dog he removed from the home a week before Martin & Lawson were arrested. Miranda was able to recall the condition of 14 of the 19 dogs he removed. Each of the dogs suffered from mange and fleas and some had more severe medical conditions such as ear hematomas. After objections from the defense questioning Miranda's veterinary expertise, Jackson had him explain his vast, lifetime experience with helping animals.
Jackson then asked Miranda to describe the condition of the house when he was removing the initial 19 dogs.
"The front (yard) wasn't that bad, it was fairly clean," Miranda said. "But there was a stench you can't imagine." Miranda said from the front yard he could see a trail of newspapers and feces everywhere as Lawson was bringing caged dogs out of the house.
"I was just blown away," Miranda said. "Feces was everywhere, I wouldn't go in." Miranda said along with the dogs he took nine chickens and a rabbit.
Jackson provided Miranda with 101 pictures and photocopies of pictures and asked him to describe what he saw in each one. The pictures were of animals before they were taken to Miranda's Rescue, animals that were brought to the rescue, the Erie Street home and even some of bags full of animals that had already been euthanized.
Miranda said he didn't immediately report the condition the animals were living in to authorities because he was in a state of shock.
Cater was the first defense lawyer to begin questioning Miranda but was only able to squeeze in a few questions before court adjourned for the weekend. Cater asked what determined if an animal was to be euthanized and Miranda told him age, aggression, health, physical and emotional problems were all taken into consideration.
Miranda said he tried to save each animal, even going against veterinarian suggestions in some cases. He said that when the decision to euthanize a dog was made he would hold it, pet it and talk to it until it died.
Unless a plea bargain is struck, Martin & Lawson charged with 2 counts of felony animal abuse each will go to trial.
The next court appearance is scheduled for October 16th. Martin and Lawson remain free on their own recognizance.
Update 1/7/03:
Martin and Lawson were given a re-arraignment hearing on September 16th because additional charges have been brought against the couple. But the 2 did not attend a pretrial hearing on November 7th in which a possible plea agreement was discussed.
Judge Cissna handed down a $25,00 bench warrant for both Lawson & Marin that will be issued if the 2 don't show up for the next pretrial set for November 13th.
Judge Cissna stated the arrangement was that both Lawson and Martin will be charged with 1 felony count of animal abuse each and will see no immediate jail time. A new trial date of February 18th was tentatively set.
Of the 15 surviving animals taken to Miranda's Animal Rescue and nursed back to health all but one remains in his care. The rest have been adopted.
Update 2/20/03:
Martin & Lawson pleaded guilty in Superior Court to one count of felony animal abuse each.
The case against Lawson and Martin went to the Humboldt County Probation Department for a pre sentence report.
They're both due back in court March 19 for possible sentencing. Deputy District Attorney Allison Jackson said both will see no less than five years on felony probation. Martin and Lawson will also undergo psychological evaluations and must comply with whatever counseling is recommended by the evaluator. Prison time is possible but Jackson thinks that it is unlikely. Jail time or community service work is also a possibility.
The couple has been free on their own recognizance since just after their arrest.
Reference:
The Times Standard
The rescue of sick and decrepit animals from a home on Erie Street that was operating as the Band of Mercy Animal Rescue is continuing, with only a few cats remaining.
Martin, 56, and Lawson, 66, were arrested on suspicion of felony animal abuse after officials were able to view the horrible conditions the animals were living in.
Since July 15 Shannon Miranda of Miranda's Rescue in Fortuna has retrieved 75 animals from the now condemned home. More than 40 of them had to be euthanized. Miranda said he suspects that more than 80 animals will be removed from the home by the time he's done.
Miranda was accompanied back to the home by Deputy Doug Pool of the Humboldt County Sheriff's Department and county Animal Control officials. Pool said that, when he saw the conditions of the animals and the home, he had sufficient cause to arrest Lawson and Martin.
Both Pool and Miranda said that conditions in the house were appalling. They described piles of feces mixed with urine-soaked newspapers as much as 6 feet high in some places. Both said they were almost sick at the sight.
"There was no bathroom," Miranda said. "The toilet, sink and shower were all covered by those newspapers."
Miranda said the cats that remain are becoming hard to catch in his humane traps, because the traps are often set off by rats.
Miranda first started removing animals from the home when he was contacted by Martin, who said she was being evicted. "Over the phone I told her I only had room for eight dogs," Miranda said of a conversation with Martin before he visited the house. When Miranda saw stacks of newspapers soaked with urine and mixed with feces, 6 feet high in some places, he contacted the sheriff's department. Miranda said there was no bathroom in the home and Martin & Lawson were living in the same conditions as the animals.
Animals removed from the home are taken to Ferndale Veterinary and examined by veterinarian Kevin Silver. Of the animals euthanized, the cats all had either feline leukemia or feline AIDS, and the dogs all had extreme mange.
Miranda is billed for the veterinary work on the Band of Mercy animals under a separate account at Ferndale Veterinary, and he is attempting to find if the county is obligated to pay for any portion of it.
Reports that the Band of Mercy was at least partly funded by the Humboldt Area Foundation are true, but Barbara O'Neal, director of programs for the foundation, said the money the foundation gave to the rescue was at the request of donors' wills.
The $3,350 dollars given to the rescue last year was distributed by the foundation outside of its normal process for awarding grants -- a process which includes checking out a grant recipient.
But because the money was a direct donation tied to conditions stated in a will, no check on the recipient was required or made, she said.
Update 7/31/02:
Martin & Lawson plead not guilty at their first court appearance. They will be back in court for a preliminary hearing on August 9th.
1 of the dogs named Barney, rescued from the home was adopted.
Update 8/24/02:
The preliminary hearing for Marin & Lawson has been rescheduled for August 29th. Both face charges of felony animal abuse after Humboldt County sheriff's deputies witnessed the condition that nearly 100 animals, mostly dogs and cats, were living in at their home. Off the nearly 100 animals taken from the home, more than 60 had to be euthanized for aggression and/or medical conditions.
Update 9/14/02:
A shouting match between Bill Cater, Lawson's lawyer and Prosecutor Allison Jackson got the attention of all in the courtroom before the 2nd day of preliminary hearings official began over evidence. Superior Court Judge Timothy Cissna quickly brought order to the court.
Prosecutor Jackson called Shannon Miranda to the stand to describe the condition of each dog he removed from the home a week before Martin & Lawson were arrested. Miranda was able to recall the condition of 14 of the 19 dogs he removed. Each of the dogs suffered from mange and fleas and some had more severe medical conditions such as ear hematomas. After objections from the defense questioning Miranda's veterinary expertise, Jackson had him explain his vast, lifetime experience with helping animals.
Jackson then asked Miranda to describe the condition of the house when he was removing the initial 19 dogs.
"The front (yard) wasn't that bad, it was fairly clean," Miranda said. "But there was a stench you can't imagine." Miranda said from the front yard he could see a trail of newspapers and feces everywhere as Lawson was bringing caged dogs out of the house.
"I was just blown away," Miranda said. "Feces was everywhere, I wouldn't go in." Miranda said along with the dogs he took nine chickens and a rabbit.
Jackson provided Miranda with 101 pictures and photocopies of pictures and asked him to describe what he saw in each one. The pictures were of animals before they were taken to Miranda's Rescue, animals that were brought to the rescue, the Erie Street home and even some of bags full of animals that had already been euthanized.
Miranda said he didn't immediately report the condition the animals were living in to authorities because he was in a state of shock.
Cater was the first defense lawyer to begin questioning Miranda but was only able to squeeze in a few questions before court adjourned for the weekend. Cater asked what determined if an animal was to be euthanized and Miranda told him age, aggression, health, physical and emotional problems were all taken into consideration.
Miranda said he tried to save each animal, even going against veterinarian suggestions in some cases. He said that when the decision to euthanize a dog was made he would hold it, pet it and talk to it until it died.
Unless a plea bargain is struck, Martin & Lawson charged with 2 counts of felony animal abuse each will go to trial.
The next court appearance is scheduled for October 16th. Martin and Lawson remain free on their own recognizance.
Update 1/7/03:
Martin and Lawson were given a re-arraignment hearing on September 16th because additional charges have been brought against the couple. But the 2 did not attend a pretrial hearing on November 7th in which a possible plea agreement was discussed.
Judge Cissna handed down a $25,00 bench warrant for both Lawson & Marin that will be issued if the 2 don't show up for the next pretrial set for November 13th.
Judge Cissna stated the arrangement was that both Lawson and Martin will be charged with 1 felony count of animal abuse each and will see no immediate jail time. A new trial date of February 18th was tentatively set.
Of the 15 surviving animals taken to Miranda's Animal Rescue and nursed back to health all but one remains in his care. The rest have been adopted.
Update 2/20/03:
Martin & Lawson pleaded guilty in Superior Court to one count of felony animal abuse each.
The case against Lawson and Martin went to the Humboldt County Probation Department for a pre sentence report.
They're both due back in court March 19 for possible sentencing. Deputy District Attorney Allison Jackson said both will see no less than five years on felony probation. Martin and Lawson will also undergo psychological evaluations and must comply with whatever counseling is recommended by the evaluator. Prison time is possible but Jackson thinks that it is unlikely. Jail time or community service work is also a possibility.
The couple has been free on their own recognizance since just after their arrest.
Reference:
The Times Standard
JN - Animal abuse trial
◼ Animal abuse trial
Animal abuse trial
The operators of the Band of Mercy animal shelter will have their day in court.
On Monday, Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Timothy Cissna declared that the case against Linda Sue Martin and Larry Decker Lawson was sufficient to justify a trial.
Martin and Lawson are charged with felony animal abuse for mismanaging the Band of Mercy Animal Rescue. In July, it was discovered that nearly 100 animals -- mostly dogs and cats -- were being kept in filthy conditions.
The decision came after testimony from Shannon Miranda of Miranda Rescue in Fortuna, and Deputy Doug Pool of the Humboldt County Sheriff's office, both of whom assisted in clearing out the Eureka house that Band of Mercy operated in.
The next hearing is scheduled for Sept. 25. Meanwhile Martin and Lawson remain free on their own recognizance.
Animal abuse trial
The operators of the Band of Mercy animal shelter will have their day in court.
On Monday, Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Timothy Cissna declared that the case against Linda Sue Martin and Larry Decker Lawson was sufficient to justify a trial.
Martin and Lawson are charged with felony animal abuse for mismanaging the Band of Mercy Animal Rescue. In July, it was discovered that nearly 100 animals -- mostly dogs and cats -- were being kept in filthy conditions.
The decision came after testimony from Shannon Miranda of Miranda Rescue in Fortuna, and Deputy Doug Pool of the Humboldt County Sheriff's office, both of whom assisted in clearing out the Eureka house that Band of Mercy operated in.
The next hearing is scheduled for Sept. 25. Meanwhile Martin and Lawson remain free on their own recognizance.
◼ How the system failed to protect a dog that was never given a chance -- until it was too late
Above photos: A dog known as Phoenix, inset; and in the backgroung her mother and brother.
Photos courtesy of Friends For Life Canine Rescue.
Story & photos by MEGHAN VOGEL FULMER
JACKIE SIMPSON DIDN'T THINK MUCH ABOUT the call left on her answering machine that Friday afternoon in late March. Stopping by her office after a day spent in the field, Eureka's sole animal control officer was just checking the last of her messages before leaving work for the weekend. It wasn't until almost 6 p.m. that Simpson had a chance to return Cindy Bowser's call about a possible case of animal abuse in Myrtletown. She informed Bowser that the matter would have to wait until Monday.
Two days later, a dog that had been living at that location would be named "Phoenix" by veterinarians engaged in a desperate and ultimately futile battle to save its life; not long afterward, the dog's owner, Susan Tatro, would be arrested and charged with a felony and two misdemeanors in what has become one of Humboldt County's most widely publicized animal cruelty cases in recent memory. And now, for the first time, animal rights advocates are publicly questioning the role played by Eureka animal control -- not just about Simpson's decision to put off Bowser for the weekend, but also about the fact that she did not take aggressive action when she first received a complaint last December about "screaming" and "crying" dogs living in an outdoor pen at 1307 West Ave.
Simpson is not the only one who failed to take effective action. A Eureka police officer went out to the site the day before Phoenix was rescued, viewed the moribund animal, and was told by his supervisor to do nothing. Two days later, with Phoenix dead, animal rights advocates frantically tried to persuade the authorities to go onto the property and seize two other animals that had been trapped in the same pen. A search warrant was not obtained until the following day, by which time the two animals -- who were in better condition than Phoenix -- were gone.
When told that animal control knew about possible problems at the property last year, Kathleen Kistler, executive director of the Sequoia Humane Society, said that an on-site inspection of the pen should have been done then; either that, Kistler said, or animal control should have posted a notice on the property requiring the dogs' owner to come down to City Hall with the dogs so that their condition could have been assessed.
Tamara McFarland, co-founder of Friends for Life Canine Rescue, a local organization focused on finding homes for stray and abandoned dogs, accused animal control of abrogating its responsibilities: "There are laws in place that are meant to protect animals from these situations, and the fact that law enforcement didn't implement those laws resulted in this dog's death."
Simpson said anyone criticizing animal control in this case simply doesn't understand the law; absent an emergency situation in which an animal is in jeopardy of dying in a matter of minutes -- perhaps from heat stroke if locked in a car left out in the sun -- an animal control officer cannot trespass on private property without a search warrant. To obtain a warrant, an officer needs tangible evidence of abuse; that was lacking in this case, Simpson said, for the simple reason that the pen was too deep on the property to be seen clearly from the street.
NO SENSE OF URGENCY
"At the time I had no concrete evidence, there was no sense of urgency," said Simpson of her telephone conversation with Bowser on Friday, March 22. "All I knew was that she was telling me there was a dog that appeared to be unkempt and that it smelled bad. I couldn't enter onto the property without a search warrant."
Bowser said she expressed strong concern to Simpson about poor living conditions. Walking by the property earlier in the day, "it smelled like a broken sewer pipe and I really believed the smell was coming from the pen," Bowser recalled. "I was concerned about the dogs in the pen, about their well-being."
During the conversation, Simpson realized she had received a previous complaint about the same Myrtletown property before. It was in December, when another neighbor -- not Bowser -- had called complaining of dogs "screaming or crying in the night." Simpson went down to the West Avenue property to investigate. She knocked on the door, got no answer, then walked and drove the perimeter. She saw dogs in a pen, but the pen appeared to be fairly good sized and the dogs were quiet. Seeing no reason to investigate the matter further, she left.
Knowing that she had inspected the property over three months before did not raise a red flag in Simpson's mind that Friday evening in March. Instead, it merely strengthened her decision not to take any action. She said Bowser told her that the pen was small, "but I remembered that it had seemed O.K." As for the complaint about a foul smell emanating from the property, Simpson said "I had not noticed the smell before."
"I knew it was going to be one of those debatable situations," Simpson added. She said another factor in her thinking was that going out that late in the day on Friday would have involved requesting overtime pay.
Phoenix, a female kelpie about a year old, was eventually taken from the mud and feces-encrusted pen she was locked in on Sunday, March 24, by Eureka Police Officer Cindy Manos. Although McKinleyville veterinarian Cynthia Macune did all she could to save the animal, its emaciated state had brought on a severe case of hypothermia; the dog's starvation was so advanced that it had no body fat or muscle to insulate itself from the cold.
"A day would have possibly made a difference," said Macune of the dog's survival. "It's quite possible. It would have been nice to be able to work on her Friday evening."
"No, not really," said Simpson when asked if she regretted not going out that Friday night. "Because there was nothing I could've done anyway except stand on the edge of the property and look in."
Of course, had Simpson obtained a warrant after her December visit and inspected the pen then, she might very well have realized that the animals were being severely neglected; after all by March they were knee-deep in excrement, an indication that they were trapped for a very long time. But Simpson said it's possible that at that time Phoenix may not have been in bad enough shape to justify seizing her.
`A SHRIVELED-UP LITTLE THING'
Bowser [photo at left] had been concerned since late last summer about the crying puppy noises she had been hearing so frequently on her walks past a neighbor's fenced-in backyard. On a few occasions she and some fellow neighbors had even tried to contact the owner of the dogs.
"It was hard to tell who really lived in the house. People were always coming and going," said Bowser. "Sometimes there would be no lights on for days, but you could still hear puppies crying in the backyard. We didn't know who the owner was. Every time we went to speak with residents at the home it was a different person who didn't really know what was going on except that the dogs were not wanted. We wanted to offer help, but we didn't know who to talk to. I never did see the puppies, but it sounded like they were being hurt."
Bowser offered to find the puppies a home, explaining to whomever answered the door at Tatro's home that there were several options available to the dogs' owner, such as taking them to a shelter or an animal rescue organization. Since no one at the home would take responsibility of ownership however, the dogs remained in the backyard's 8-foot by 8-foot wire pen.
"If someone needs help with their animals, there are so many places and animal rescue organizations to call," added Bowser. "You just don't stick them in a box and allow them to starve to death."
The day after she called Simpson, Bowser went for another walk past Tatro's home to check on the dogs. This time she heard crying. And this time she decided to take matters in her own hands by entering the property to look into the pen herself.
"What I found was horrifying. I had no idea it was that bad," said Bowser who described the dogs' pen as being 5 inches thick with feces, reaching up to the middle of the dogs' legs. [photo below depicts empty food and water dishes, dried feces and footprints of the three dogs kept in an 8-foot by 8-foot pen.]
"You had to have something over your nose the smell was so bad," Bowser continued. "I was talking to two dogs trying to comfort them, and then all of a sudden I said, `My God!' Out of the corner of my eye I saw something moving just a shriveled up little thing lying there in the mud and feces. The dog could barely move. At that point I literally went screaming to my neighbor's for help and left a hysterical message with animal control."
She also called the Eureka Police Department. A young officer, fresh on the force, came out to assess the situation.
According to Bowser the officer was "horrified," and immediately called his supervisor to find out what sort of action he could take. He was told that nothing could be done. Officer Manos, who rescued the dog the next day, said the young officer "feels terrible," and requested that his name not appear in print. It is not clear who the supervisor was.
On Sunday, March 24, Bowser attended a meeting of Friends for Life, of which she is a member. Bowser notified McFarland of the dogs' situation. McFarland then contacted Manos, a friend.
"Thank God Tamara knew Cindy (Officer Manos)," said Bowser. "I wouldn't have known what to do otherwise, and if Tamara hadn't known Cindy, then probably nothing would've gotten done."
Susan Tatro
When Manos arrived to investigate shortly before 11 a.m., she found no one at home at the Tatro residence. To get a better look inside the pen, she threw in some pigs' ears as treats for the dogs so they'd stop jumping up on the pen's walls. Manos noted that the bigger of the two was dominant and took both treats. Although the dogs' living conditions were squalid, and two metal bowls in the pen were caked with dried mud indicating they had not been fed or watered in some time, they appeared not to be in any immediate danger. Manos called McFarland, telling her she had only seen two dogs that seemed to be in fairly good shape. McFarland, alarmed that the sick dog could possibly already be dead, insisted that there were three dogs, and both women went back to take a second look.
"I thought it was dead," said Manos when she went back to the property with McFarland and found the dog around 12:30 p.m. "There was small movement, but she didn't do anything only emitted little shivers that was her only response. She was cold to the touch."
"She was nothing but bones," Manos said, shaking her head at a loss for words.
Manos met Macune, the emergency on-call veterinarian that day, at the McKinleyville Animal Care Center at approximately 1:30 p.m. The dog's temperature had dropped so low that it didn't even register on Macune's thermometer, and it had no detectable blood pressure. According to Manos there was also a "maggoty area" on the dog's body. Macune guessed that the dog was around a year old, and said it weighed half of its normal weight according to its size and breed.
"I can't ever remember seeing a neglect case this bad. The degree of emaciation was amazing," said Macune. "This was a long-term situation that had been going on for weeks, if not months."
When the dog arrived at the office, all the doors and windows of the building had to be opened because of the overpowering stench.
"She was soaked in her own excrement covering her entire body. The wetness was just sucking out her heat even more," explained Macune. "At that point she had lost the ability to shiver. The ability to shiver is a basic mechanical body reflex, and once shivering stops and hypothermia sets in death happens usually within 24 hours."
The dog, named Phoenix in the hopes it would make a miraculous recovery, died later that night.
"At least she didn't have to spend another night out in the cold," Macune said. "At least she died warm and clean."
HOW MUCH POWER?
Manos went onto the property only after she knew that a dog was in dire condition. According to Simpson, Manos had greater freedom to act for another reason: because she's a full-fledged police officer while Simpson is not. "I'm essentially a civilian in uniform. Police officers have a lot more power than I do," she said. She said when she does need to write a warrant she has to track down a detective in the department to help her with the technicalities.
Simpson, who's been an animal control officer for 21 years, said that she used to more aggressively enforce animal cruelty laws but that the legal system tended to not back her up. She said she learned a hard lesson with one case in particular a few years ago when, without first obtaining a warrant, she seized animals that she believed were being neglected. "The district attorney's office refused to file charges and the person got all the animals back for free," Simpson recalled. Not only that, Simpson said, but the city was out about $1,000 in sheltering costs for the time the animals were impounded.
Simpson said animal control used to have greater powers to inspect properties for possible animal abuse, but that the law has changed over the years in favor of protecting people's property and privacy rights.
"Animal control's powers have been taken away from them," agreed Manos. "They are not allowed to go onto private property without a warrant. I could get on the property because I'm a police officer and I had reason to believe a crime was being committed. I could take Phoenix then without a warrant because of her appalling condition."
McFarland and Kistler say California law expressly gives animal control officers -- not just police officers -- the power to go onto private property to seize animals they believe are being abused. They pointed to a section of the California penal code titled "Animals in specified places without proper care or attention" that specifically applies to "any peace officer, humane society officer or animal control officer." The section reads: "When the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that very prompt action is required to protect the health or safety of the animal, the officer shall immediately seize the animal." The section says nothing about a search warrant or that the officer can only act in an emergency.
"If you get serious complaints from credible people, I think it's clear that you can investigate more thoroughly without having to go get a search warrant, which is not that easy to get," Kistler said.
Simpson, for her part, said "the way the laws read and how they play in court are two very different things."
Bradley Woodall of the Animal Legal Defense Fund in Portland, Ore., said that of all the cases that have come across his desk lately, Phoenix's has been bothering him considerably. "The suffering is extremely dire in this particular case. I've seen photos. It's tragic," said Woodall in a telephone interview from Portland. "Neglect like this case is one of the easier crimes to correct if the situation had been discovered sooner."
But Woodall refused to second-guess the way Simpson handled the case. "Unfortunately, an animal control officer has to see the animal in a public place before they can seek a search warrant. Most animal cruelty cases are well hidden on private property.
"Mrs. Tatro should have fed her dogs and I'm not going to point a finger at anyone other than Mrs. Tatro," Woodall said.
THE WORST-CASE SCENARIO
The worst-case scenario for animal rights advocates is that the case against Tatro might somehow get dismissed or the felony charge reduced to a misdemeanor. It's happened before -- most recently last year, when felony charges against Dan Ray Evans, a Eureka man accused of poisoning five neighborhood cats (and represented by District Attorney-elect Paul Gallegos), were all reduced to misdemeanors.
Woodall said he had concerns that the case might get thrown out because Manos went onto the property to rescue Phoenix without a search warrant and on the basis of information obtained by someone who trespassed -- namely Bowser. "The case may not be able to go forward because of that," Woodall said.
Kistler expressed incredulity at that possibility: "If you hear a neighbor stabbing his wife, anyone can go to into the house because that's a criminal act being performed. And it's a criminal act to not take proper care of an animal. If something that's defined as a crime takes place in your house, does that make it OK?"
Few Legal Protections
WHILE EUREKA ANIMAL CONTROL has come under fire for not doing more to investigate the conditions that led to the death of the 1-year-old female dog Phoenix, the fact remains that legally speaking animals are considered private property -- and hence can only be taken from their owners in extreme cases of abuse and neglect.
"You can't just go and take animals -- only in exigent circumstances when their life is in danger. Animals are personal property. You have to understand that principle," said Bob Timoni, director of the Haven Humane Society in Redding and a retired member of the Humane Society's state board of directors.
Bradley Woodall of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, a Portland, Ore., organization, said that "animals are considered property in every state in the country. Relinquishing property before being found guilty is an idea that is just now being proposed. To challenge property issues is futile to take someone's property is a really hard thing to do."
Woodall said that of all the animal cruelty cases being investigated in the nation, less than 10 percent are actually strong enough to be prosecuted in court. Of the 14,000 reports of abuse and/or neglect his office received last year, less than 5 percent made it to court, he said.
When asked if animals could be better protected if their legal status was changed from property to sentient creatures, Woodall responded, "Ideally that would be the case, but there's a lot of resistance (from people who) would rather not see those protective rights extended to animals. Take factory farming and research animals, for instance. These rights do extend more to dogs and cats because of their intricate relationships with human beings, but it's a slippery slope when discussing the value of one species over another."
To which Kathleen Kistler, executive director of the Sequoia Humane Society in Eureka, retorted: "For centuries children and women were considered property and weren't legally protected either."
Cruelty unchecked
FOR EVIDENCE OF A SICK SOCIETY, PAY A VISIT to Eureka's Sequoia Humane Society.
"We see so many animals at the shelter who are on the verge of starvation, they're dying or at death's door," said Executive Director Kathleen Kistler. "There's mange, scars, broken tails totally obvious abuse cases. Sometimes owners just bring their animals in to be put to sleep. These are nice animals that have been obviously neglected. Most of the time it's a lack of respect or caring, but sometimes it's just ignorance."
"People need to stand up and say this will not to be tolerated in their communities," said Bob Timoni, who heads the Haven Humane Society in Redding. "Whether you win or lose an animal abuse case is irrelevant. What does count is the message saying that we're not going to tolerate letting animals be treated this way."
If Kistler had to point the finger of blame somewhere, she'd single out "the entire society because animals, children, the elderly and women aren't thought of as important, and until people understand the interconnectedness of all these things and start to care a little bit more nothing is going to get done."
One sign of the low priority given to protecting animals from abusive people -- and, for that matter, to protecting people from dangerous animals -- is that there is only one animal control officer for the entire city of Eureka, and only three for all of Humboldt County.
Tamara McFarland of Friends for Life Canine Rescue, a local organization, said more vigorous prosecution of animal cruelty cases could end up providing better protections to people. Why? Because many hardened criminals start out victimizing animals.
"It's impossible to separate cruelty to people and cruelty to animals. Study upon study has shown that people who abuse animals are far more likely to abuse children or spouses or to become serial murderers."
5.27.2010
JN - DA Trials - Gallegos, Hagen and Jackson make their case for the job of top prosecutor
◼ DA Trials - Gallegos, Hagen and Jackson make their case for the job of top prosecutor
(MAY 27, 2010) When handsome, young defense lawyer Paul Gallegos upset 20-year incumbent District Attorney Terry Farmer in 2002, many saw it as a watershed moment for Humboldt County politics — a landmark cultural shift away from the good ol’ boy conservativism that had dominated local government for generations in favor of stricter environmental accountability, a healthy respect for civil liberties and just general coolness (he surfs!). During his first few months in office, Gallegos made good on his campaign promise to shake things up by loosening medical marijuana guidelines and filing a massive fraud lawsuit against the Pacific Lumber Co.
Nearly eight years later, the DA’s office — and the politics surrounding it — have indeed changed profoundly. But if there’s a defining event from the Gallegos era thus far, it’s not his election but rather the failed recall attempt launched just three months into his first term. Funded by unscrupulous Palco CEO (hence defendant) Charles Hurwitz, the recall effort drove a wedge deep into existing fissures, both in the community — already polarized by the timber wars — and within the DA’s office, where staff remained bitter about Farmer’s ousting.
Allison Jackson
For supporters, the recall attempt turned Gallegos into a martyr. They viewed him as a courageous prosecutor being persecuted for standing up to corruption. Critics, meanwhile, charged that he was overreaching with the Palco suit at the expense of violent crime prosecutions. Though Gallegos handily defeated the recall effort, his detractors continued to accumulate cannon fodder: The Palco case was thrown out before reaching trial; the DA’s office suffered an exodus of experienced prosecutors, some leaving voluntary, others being canned; and in 2005, a Grand Jury report lambasted Gallegos for ineffectual leadership. Yet supporters stood by him, and in 2006, Gallegos defeated challenger Worth Dikeman (a Farmer loyalist who’d offered himself as a potential replacement during the recall try), thus marking his third election victory in four years.
In some circles, the discord of Gallegos’ first term has quietly festered during his second. Fault-finders have assiduously noted every plea bargain and loss — the Palco suit in particular, and also the case against two Eureka police officers for the shooting death of Cheri Lyn Moore. (The officers were acquitted after the judge ruled that Gallegos had misinformed the Grand Jury.) Supporters cite these same cases as evidence of Gallegos’ integrity; win or lose, they say, his decisions to prosecute reflect a refusal to be cowed by money or power. And they point to notable convictions, like that of corrupt Blue Lake Police Chief David Gundersen, as well as successes like the Curtis Huntzinger case, in which DA investigators garnered a full confession of child murder, 18 years after the fact.
Gallegos is now in the midst of a tough reelection campaign against two challengers, both of whom carry wounds from the battles of the past eight years: Allison Jackson, 50, a former Humboldt County Deputy DA now with Eureka’s Harland Law Firm, and Paul Hagen, 55, a former environmental circuit prosecutor now with Eureka firm Bragg, Perlman, Russ, Stunich and Eads. (A third challenger, former Deputy DA Kathleen Bryson, dropped out of the race last month citing family obligations.) In preparation for the June 8 primary election, each of these three lawyers sat down with the Journal to argue his or her case, looking to win over the jury of undecided voters.
Allison Jackson spent 10 years at the Humboldt County DA’s Office, earning a reputation as a tough-as-nails trial attorney specializing in child abuse, sexual assault and domestic violence cases. Gallegos fired her in 2004, shortly after the recall attempt. He was (and is) legally prevented from explaining why, but Jackson suggested, in the heat of the 2006 election, that she’d been fired in order to protect a defense attorney who presented forged evidence in court. Gallegos vehemently denied this. (“Forged Documents and Six Pounds of Weed,” May 18, 2006).
She’s now one of four partners at the Harland Law Firm, a 62-year-old civil firm housed in a handsomely renovated mechanics garage in Eureka. At the far end of the main hall, past bookshelves and ficus trees reaching from the parquet floor toward the steel crossbeams in the vaulted ceiling, lies Jackson’s office. Sitting behind her large mahogany desk on a recent Wednesday morning, Jackson said her decision to run for DA was not easy.
“I love my work here,” she said. “This building is beautiful. My partners are wonderful. My clients are wonderful. I absolutely adore my staff.” But she said she’s been approached by literally hundreds of people in recent years — in restaurants, banks, the post office — all asking her to please run for DA. Jackson herself has been one of Gallegos’ fiercest critics, questioning his knowledge of the law, challenging his office- and case-management abilities and condemning what she calls a revolving door of plea bargains. In the end, she said, her decision came down to “whether I could sleep in my skin at night.”
One of Jackson’s main passions as a litigator is protecting victims’ rights, a motive she traces back to the tragic and sudden death of her mother and stepfather at the hands of a drunk driver when she was 21. This occurred shortly before the Victims’ Bill of Rights was passed in 1982, so Jackson was not allowed to testify at the sentencing of the killer — an experience that firmly established her sympathy for victims. With her parents gone, she decided to abandon her dreams of becoming an anthropologist and wildlife photographer and instead became a lawyer, as her grandmother had been.
The Victims’ Bill of Rights not only expanded victims’ involvement in criminal trials, it also set limits on plea bargains. Therein lies Jackson’s most significant criticism of Gallegos. She believes that many of the deals he’s struck not only shortchanged victims and the public of justice, they were in fact illegal. She cites California Penal Code 1192.7, which prohibits plea bargaining in cases involving serious felonies unless a) the evidence is insufficient to prove the case, b) a witness disappears or c) the plea deal won’t substantially change the sentence.
Gallegos, she charged, has violated this statute countless times, most recently in the cases of Robert Bradshaw and Tracey Williams, both of whom were allowed to plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter rather than murder, and James Stanko, who pleaded to murder but not the string of armed robberies that preceded it. “It’s not any DA’s role in a serious or violent felony to usurp the jury function,” Jackson said. “If you have the evidence and the witnesses, you have to go forward.” As to how such allegedly unlawful pleas are allowed to occur, Jackson said, “I think there’s a fundamental lack of knowledge on [Gallegos’] part. I just can’t explain it any other way.”
She also criticized Gallegos’ “dismantling” of his senior-level deputy staff, saying she’s personally had to counsel inexperienced prosecutors from his office — and once even drafted a motion for one. There’s clearly a personal element to this gripe, since Jackson herself was among the deputy DA casualties. But she said the true tragedy of these departures (when combined with the time-consuming Palco case) was the effect they had on victims’ advocacy programs like the Child Abuse Services Team and domestic violence prosecutions.
The latter, Jackson said in another serious accusation, took a major step backward recently thanks to Gallegos’ handling of the Gundersen case, in which the Blue Lake police chief’s wife claimed she’d been repeatedly drugged and raped, only to recant her testimony in court. Jackson believes this change of heart stemmed from her treatment as a witness. “The DA’s office threatened this woman with arrest if she didn’t testify,” Jackson said. “They were engaging in the same type of abusive, harsh tactics the abuser was.” The fears of every rape victim — reprisal, badgering, public humiliation — were all realized in that case, Jackson said. And she’s convinced the subsequent county-wide drop in reported rapes is not coincidence.
“I intend to win this election,” she said, “and I intend to change all of that.”
Paul Hagen doesn’t drink coffee. Or alcohol, soda … not even tea. The human body is mostly water, he reasons, so drinking anything else pollutes it. Nevertheless, he agreed to meet outside Arcata’s Cafe Brio on a recent overcast morning, having skipped his weekly dawn swim through Stone Lagoon. One-on-one conversations with Hagen can be intense. When answering questions, he often looks off to the side, eyes darting as if tractor beams within them are retrieving data from the nearby sidewalk. He measures his words carefully, until, with his full thought more or less reeled in, he’ll turn, stare you straight in the eye and finish his point with articulate precision.
This no-nonsense disposition has served him well in court. From 1998 to 2006 he worked as an environmental circuit prosecutor for the California District Attorneys Association (CDAA). Deputized in Humboldt, Del Norte, Lake and, for a time, Mendocino counties, Hagen became the region’s top environmental prosecutor, investigating corporations large and small for such crimes as air and water pollution, archaeological looting and soil erosion. He won cases against Lockheed Martin, Louisiana Pacific and Pacific Lumber — twice.
In July 2006, however, he too was fired under politically charged circumstances. Hagen is convinced that his termination was retribution for questioning the endorsement process of the Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee, which ultimately backed Gallegos for reelection. Gallegos later acknowledged that he’d written two letters regarding Hagen’s work performance to the CDAA — at their request — but he told the Arcata Eye that Hagen’s theory was “way off the deep end.”
Hagen comes from Midwestern, blue-collar roots. He attended Northern Illinois University, where he served in student government and later interned for Congressman John B. Anderson. After graduating from the Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, Hagen moved with his wife to California, where he worked in construction, law clerking and various other jobs before being hired as an environmental analyst at Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro, then the state’s largest law firm. Prior to his work with the CDAA, Hagen taught environmental law at Cal State Hayward, San Francisco State University and S.F. City College and worked for the Mendocino County District Attorney’s Office. He now serves as Trinidad’s city attorney and handles a number of other clients, including the Shelter Cove Resort Improvement District and the California Teachers Association.
Hagen spoke of his track record in environmental prosecution with pride: “I did things nobody had done, went places nobody had gone, had successes nobody had tried.” He recalled a case against Lockheed Martin for hazardous waste remediation violations. “I filed a very unique motion asserting that corporations have no Fifth Amendment rights under the Constitution,” he said. “They fought it and lost.”
In Hagen’s quest to become DA, some have pointed to his lack of experience prosecuting serious violent felonies. Hagen counters that the same criticism could have been leveled at Gallegos before he got the job. Besides, he said, the rules of criminal jury trials are always the same, as is the goal: Get out the truth. And there he feels confident. “I learned early on that if you’re going to be a prosecutor, you have to be fearless in the face of the enemy,” he said.
Regarding Gallegos, Hagen questioned his judgment and competence in the Cheri Lyn Moore and Palco cases, pointing out that in both, a judge ruled that he’d failed to meet minimum standards to justify a trial. “You can say whatever you want about courage and willingness to take on corporations,” Hagen said. “I’ve taken on Palco and beat them — criminally and civilly.” He also questioned (as did Jackson) Gallegos’ decision to arm his investigators with AR-15 assault rifles. “It boggles my mind why they need them,” he said.
While serving on the Arcata Planning Commission, Hagen helped to rework the city’s marijuana ordinance so officials can combat grow houses based on land use code violations. He suggested this approach can be used elsewhere — including at the county level — and added that, if weed is legalized in November, it will allow local jurisdictions even greater leeway to regulate the industry. The only appropriate role for the District Attorney in that process, Hagen said, is to ensure that language in each ordinance provides a clear path for enforcement.
In closing, Hagen argued that being in tune with community priorities — having your finger on the pulse of the jury pool — is key to success as a DA. “I think I fit the county well and could do a very good job as DA,” he said.
In any election, the incumbent is subject to criticism of his tenure, an analysis that can be particularly thankless for district attorneys since, as Gallegos has said, the courts rarely produce satisfied customers. “People can criticize me for everything in this job,” he said last week during an interview in the DA’s office library, on the fourth floor of the county courthouse. “That’s the way it works. There isn’t a decision I make that doesn’t get criticized by every participant — because to the defendant I’m being too harsh. To law enforcement victims, too soft. The defense attorney, too harsh.”
What’s important, he argued, is that under his administration violent crime has been reduced despite drastic cuts to the office budget. In debates and on his campaign Web site he has pointed to statistics showing the rate of violent crimes — including homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault — between 1999 and 2008, the most recent year for which the state Department of Justice has compiled statistics. In 2003, Gallegos’ first year in office, the rate dropped a whopping 23 percent. By 2008 it remained 12 percent lower than in Farmer’s final year.
The significance and interpretation of these stats have been questioned by Gallegos’ challengers who argue that, first of all, violent crime has actuallyrisen 13.5 percent since 2003’s big drop. More importantly, they say, the factors that influence crime rates are far too nebulous and complex to justify any one person claiming responsibility. But Gallegos, who was called a “lightweight” when he first ran for the office, stuck to his guns. “People didn’t think we could bring down crime. I tell you, and I’ve told everyone, we can.” The stats, he said, are “an indication that my office continues to work well with law enforcement, despite all this hyperbole out there to the contrary.”
Gallegos dismissed Jackson’s allegations of unlawful plea deals as patently false, saying the court maintains a system of checks and balances to ensure such deals are appropriate. Furthermore, he said, with about 10,000 cases coming through the office each year and only five courtrooms in which to try them, plea deals are not only a logistical necessity, they’re often the best way to reach a swift conviction. “This is what plea bargains are,” he said. “They’re a bargain for the state [and] they’re a bargain for the people.”
Over the course of the interview, Gallegos was asked if, in retrospect, he would have done anything differently in the Palco, Gundersen or Cheri Lyn Moore cases. Each time he paused to consider before saying no. The charges were justified, he said, even if the court found otherwise. “We often disagree with the rulings, but we respect them.”
Gallegos defended his marijuana prosecution guidelines, saying the debate has been polluted by falsehoods and red herrings. So-called “home invasions,” for example, are actually robberies conducted during illegal business transactions, he said. Grow house vandalism is also a separate crime, he argued, one that shouldn’t infringe on the rights of legitimate medical marijuana users.
When his opponents’ objections to AR-15s came up, Gallegos simply said, “Crazy.” He then popped out of his chair and said, “Come talk to Billy [Honsal, one of the DA investigators].” Swinging open the library door, Gallegos led the way through the office toward the investigation unit, arguing while he walked. “I’m elected here in the county, but I’m a state officer,” he said. By extension, his investigative unit has authority above that of local law enforcement. “These guys are the only law enforcement officers who have jurisdiction everywhere in Humboldt County,” he said. “They literally — they’re the top cops.”
Rounding a corner, a group of men came into view: DA investigators gathered inside Investigator Wayne Cox’s office, chatting and laughing while watching a video on the computer. When asked to justify their need for the AR-15s, the response was emphatic and unanimous. The unit has become more proactive under Gallegos and Chief Investigator Mike Hislop, Cox said. Several of the investigators recalled being shot at from long distances while in the field. The AR-15 may have a fierce reputation thanks to its association with the military, but the fact is, they said, it’s the perfect tool for the job. “It’s a superior weapon for our environment,” said Investigator James Dawson.
When the Gundersen case came up again, Gallegos said, “We’ll give you a show and tell.” He, Honsal and Cox then proceeded to wheel out a library cart weighed down with heavy weaponry — a partial take from the investigation of the former Blue Lake chief, who in addition to battering his wife had amassed a huge, illegal personal arsenal. Onto a table in the corner of the building they spread out the guns, covering its surface with Sig Sauer and Ruger handguns, AR-15s, a Heckler and Koch UMP submachine gun and more. The men took obvious delight in assembling this display, which was odd considering that just moments earlier they’d attested that their assault rifles were merely practical implements. They may well be, but there’s obviously more to the allure.
Afterward, Gallegos continued with a tour through the office, bantering playfully with staff and showing off new technological upgrades. If there’s any residual tension or bitterness here, it’s not visible to the untrained eye. Among his personnel, Gallegos seemed happy and relaxed. Campaigning, by comparison, is just a hassle. “It’s frustrating,” he said. “But at the same time, it’s just like a jury. You do your job, put in the evidence and let a jury decide.”
For more information on the candidates, visit their Web sites:
Allison Jackson: aj4da.com
Paul Hagen: www.hagenforda.com
Paul Gallegos: votepaul.org
***
Several questions come to mind -
1. When Gallegos' bio gets mentioned, no one mentions that he came out of an unaccredited law school, and that is something that matters to attorneys. They will tell you.
2. When did DA investigators get shot at? Wouldn't that have made the paper? Made it onto posts on this blog?
HBeacon - The race for Humboldt County District Attorney Candidates answer last-minute questions
◼ link
The race for Humboldt County District Attorney Candidates answer last-minute questions
Franklin Stover, Humboldt Beacon
On Tuesday, June 8, Humboldt County voters have three choices for Humboldt County District Attorney: Paul Gallegos, Paul Hagen, and Allison Jackson.
Briefly, Gallegos is currently Humboldt County District Attorney. He earned a BS in Economics from the University of Southern California. Later, he attended LaVerne College of Law and was admitted to the California Bar Association. Gallegos opened a law office in Eureka under the name, Gallegos and Gallegos. He ran for Humboldt County District Attorney in 2002, unseating 20-year incumbent, Terry Farmer. In 2006, he was re-elected. Gallegos is now nearing the end of his second term.
Briefly, on candidate Paul Hagen, he served as a Deputy District Attorney in Humboldt, Del Norte, Mendocino, and Lake counties for more than 11-years. During that time, Hagen led a multi-agency task force investigating and prosecuting public health and safety violations and crimes against the environment. Hagen has organized and presented a series of State Bar conferences on environmental and land use law and volunteers his time as a mentor for the Humboldt Teen Court. Hagen was County of Mendocino Deputy District Attorney from 1995 to 1999.
Briefly, on candidate Allison Jackson, she has been with the Harland Law Firm in Eureka since 2004 and has a background in civil litigation representing clients in diverse State and Federal civil matters. From 1994 to 2004, Jackson was Deputy District Attorney for Humboldt County and Chairperson of the Humboldt County Sexual Assault Response Team from 1999 to 2004. In addition, she has been a participant member of the Humboldt County Child Death Review Team. She is an experienced Senior Trial Prosecutor in serious felony cases from arraignment, bail hearing and preliminary hearing through trial and sentencing.
Like the race for county Sheriff, the Humboldt Beacon posed two last minute questions to candidates seeking office in the June 8 election. The questions were of a general nature and asked:
What special skill or attribute will you bring to the office you are seeking? and, If elected, what would be your first priority on day one?
Beginning with Paul Gallegos' response, the incumbent D.A. said,
”I remain steadfastly committed to American values. When I took office 7-years ago I promised to do what's right, not just what's popular. A District Attorney must remain independent in order to serve justice for all. That is just the way I was brought up and the way I have always lived life. In office as District Attorney, I hold my staff to the same standard, retaining and hiring only those attorneys and investigators who could make the same pledge. I am proud to report that we now have an award-winning staff who work well together as a team unified by the values we hold dear. We owe our success to the fact that we seek justice and truth, not vengeance and victory. Knowing the truth sets one free to do the best work possible for the people who rely on us to do just that.”
Gallegos' chief priorities for day-one are as follows: “Public Safety. That has been the priority from day-one and will continue to be my priority throughout my term. For instance, by prioritizing cases we take to trial, we concentrate our efforts on taking the most violent and dangerous criminals out of society. It works: The conviction rate is high, crime is down and prison commitments are up. We not only prosecute crime. We prevent crime. Recently our investigators and attorneys prevented a convicted rapist from murdering a girl who was to testify against him. We have also sent child abusers to prison for hundreds of years each. They will no longer threaten public safety. Our Victim/Witness Division recently won federal recognition for their compassionate service to victims and witnesses of crime, ensuring the safety of people in their homes and on the streets.”
Moving over to candidate Paul Hagen, the Eureka attorney said that his set of skills and attributes will come in to play because he feels deeply about people.
”I am a person who believes deeply that life is about other people. All my decisions and actions are governed by my overarching belief that we are here in this brief life to help other people. In America, the people are the government, a revolutionary idea underpinning our Constitution. Public service, to me, is the highest form of helping as many people as possible.
The special skill or attribute I will bring to the District Attorney's Office lies in two, complementary, parts. First, my dedication to do all that is within my power to make life better for everyone in the society in which I live. In the District Attorney's Office, this means the people of Humboldt County. Second, my ability to inspire and lead people to perform to standards of excellence. These things then come together in service to the people, which here, is delivering justice.”
Hagen's main concern for day-one on the job was expressed this way: “The job of the District Attorney is to ensure that justice is delivered in a fair, even-handed and common sense manner. The day-to-day work of the DA is to run the office to accomplish this end. After all, it is the people who work in the office that deliver results in the courts.
My first priority on day-one would be to introduce myself to the DA office staff. A new administration brings new policies, priorities and standards. Of these, standards of excellence are paramount. Staff members need reassurance that they will be respected, and that the office will be a desirable place to work. They must know what is expected of them, and that they will be supported in all they do so long as they strive for and consistently achieve high levels of community service. This immutable priority will be with them until the day I leave office."
Finally moving to Allison Jackson, the veteran attorney summed up her skills and experience this way: “I have a 20 year history of fighting for my community, protecting the most vulnerable and standing up for the victims of crime. I've handled thousands of serious and violent felonies throughout the course of my career and demonstrated excellence in all areas of criminal law. I have keen administrative skills, and real experience in actually running a law office. I have trained young lawyers and police officers, teaching classes for the State. I was instrumental in building the Child Abuse Services Team Program, was past chairperson of the SART Board, and have trained other counties in establishing their own child abuse teams. I have served as an expert witness on the topic of prosecutorial ethics, and I am the only candidate who can effectively rebuild our District Attorney's Office, which is why I need your vote on June 8.”
Jackson explained that her main priorities for her first day on the job include, “bringing staff together, assess high priority cases to vertically assign them to individual deputies according to their strengths; begin evaluation to make sure cases are properly charged, and built so that they can successfully be brought to trial, thereby shutting down the revolving door of plea bargains, which have become commonplace with the incumbent; reach out to reestablish communication with law enforcement agencies to let them know that when they bust them, we won't let them go.”
Jackson added, “Scrap any idea that the DA's Office will be setting up its own SWAT Team, start rebuilding the Victim Witness Program, and reestablish Special Victims programs, such as Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, Child Abuse, Elder/Dependent Adult crimes. Victims and witnesses will have full access to the DA's Office regarding their cases - you'll no longer get a phone tree and a full mailbox - your questions will be answered in a timely manner.”
submitted photos
1. Candidate Paul Gallegos.
2. Candidate Paul Hagen.
3. Candidate Allison Jackson.
The race for Humboldt County District Attorney Candidates answer last-minute questions
Franklin Stover, Humboldt Beacon
On Tuesday, June 8, Humboldt County voters have three choices for Humboldt County District Attorney: Paul Gallegos, Paul Hagen, and Allison Jackson.
Briefly, Gallegos is currently Humboldt County District Attorney. He earned a BS in Economics from the University of Southern California. Later, he attended LaVerne College of Law and was admitted to the California Bar Association. Gallegos opened a law office in Eureka under the name, Gallegos and Gallegos. He ran for Humboldt County District Attorney in 2002, unseating 20-year incumbent, Terry Farmer. In 2006, he was re-elected. Gallegos is now nearing the end of his second term.
Briefly, on candidate Paul Hagen, he served as a Deputy District Attorney in Humboldt, Del Norte, Mendocino, and Lake counties for more than 11-years. During that time, Hagen led a multi-agency task force investigating and prosecuting public health and safety violations and crimes against the environment. Hagen has organized and presented a series of State Bar conferences on environmental and land use law and volunteers his time as a mentor for the Humboldt Teen Court. Hagen was County of Mendocino Deputy District Attorney from 1995 to 1999.
Briefly, on candidate Allison Jackson, she has been with the Harland Law Firm in Eureka since 2004 and has a background in civil litigation representing clients in diverse State and Federal civil matters. From 1994 to 2004, Jackson was Deputy District Attorney for Humboldt County and Chairperson of the Humboldt County Sexual Assault Response Team from 1999 to 2004. In addition, she has been a participant member of the Humboldt County Child Death Review Team. She is an experienced Senior Trial Prosecutor in serious felony cases from arraignment, bail hearing and preliminary hearing through trial and sentencing.
Like the race for county Sheriff, the Humboldt Beacon posed two last minute questions to candidates seeking office in the June 8 election. The questions were of a general nature and asked:
What special skill or attribute will you bring to the office you are seeking? and, If elected, what would be your first priority on day one?
Beginning with Paul Gallegos' response, the incumbent D.A. said,
”I remain steadfastly committed to American values. When I took office 7-years ago I promised to do what's right, not just what's popular. A District Attorney must remain independent in order to serve justice for all. That is just the way I was brought up and the way I have always lived life. In office as District Attorney, I hold my staff to the same standard, retaining and hiring only those attorneys and investigators who could make the same pledge. I am proud to report that we now have an award-winning staff who work well together as a team unified by the values we hold dear. We owe our success to the fact that we seek justice and truth, not vengeance and victory. Knowing the truth sets one free to do the best work possible for the people who rely on us to do just that.”
Gallegos' chief priorities for day-one are as follows: “Public Safety. That has been the priority from day-one and will continue to be my priority throughout my term. For instance, by prioritizing cases we take to trial, we concentrate our efforts on taking the most violent and dangerous criminals out of society. It works: The conviction rate is high, crime is down and prison commitments are up. We not only prosecute crime. We prevent crime. Recently our investigators and attorneys prevented a convicted rapist from murdering a girl who was to testify against him. We have also sent child abusers to prison for hundreds of years each. They will no longer threaten public safety. Our Victim/Witness Division recently won federal recognition for their compassionate service to victims and witnesses of crime, ensuring the safety of people in their homes and on the streets.”
Moving over to candidate Paul Hagen, the Eureka attorney said that his set of skills and attributes will come in to play because he feels deeply about people.
”I am a person who believes deeply that life is about other people. All my decisions and actions are governed by my overarching belief that we are here in this brief life to help other people. In America, the people are the government, a revolutionary idea underpinning our Constitution. Public service, to me, is the highest form of helping as many people as possible.
The special skill or attribute I will bring to the District Attorney's Office lies in two, complementary, parts. First, my dedication to do all that is within my power to make life better for everyone in the society in which I live. In the District Attorney's Office, this means the people of Humboldt County. Second, my ability to inspire and lead people to perform to standards of excellence. These things then come together in service to the people, which here, is delivering justice.”
Hagen's main concern for day-one on the job was expressed this way: “The job of the District Attorney is to ensure that justice is delivered in a fair, even-handed and common sense manner. The day-to-day work of the DA is to run the office to accomplish this end. After all, it is the people who work in the office that deliver results in the courts.
My first priority on day-one would be to introduce myself to the DA office staff. A new administration brings new policies, priorities and standards. Of these, standards of excellence are paramount. Staff members need reassurance that they will be respected, and that the office will be a desirable place to work. They must know what is expected of them, and that they will be supported in all they do so long as they strive for and consistently achieve high levels of community service. This immutable priority will be with them until the day I leave office."
Finally moving to Allison Jackson, the veteran attorney summed up her skills and experience this way: “I have a 20 year history of fighting for my community, protecting the most vulnerable and standing up for the victims of crime. I've handled thousands of serious and violent felonies throughout the course of my career and demonstrated excellence in all areas of criminal law. I have keen administrative skills, and real experience in actually running a law office. I have trained young lawyers and police officers, teaching classes for the State. I was instrumental in building the Child Abuse Services Team Program, was past chairperson of the SART Board, and have trained other counties in establishing their own child abuse teams. I have served as an expert witness on the topic of prosecutorial ethics, and I am the only candidate who can effectively rebuild our District Attorney's Office, which is why I need your vote on June 8.”
Jackson explained that her main priorities for her first day on the job include, “bringing staff together, assess high priority cases to vertically assign them to individual deputies according to their strengths; begin evaluation to make sure cases are properly charged, and built so that they can successfully be brought to trial, thereby shutting down the revolving door of plea bargains, which have become commonplace with the incumbent; reach out to reestablish communication with law enforcement agencies to let them know that when they bust them, we won't let them go.”
Jackson added, “Scrap any idea that the DA's Office will be setting up its own SWAT Team, start rebuilding the Victim Witness Program, and reestablish Special Victims programs, such as Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, Child Abuse, Elder/Dependent Adult crimes. Victims and witnesses will have full access to the DA's Office regarding their cases - you'll no longer get a phone tree and a full mailbox - your questions will be answered in a timely manner.”
submitted photos
1. Candidate Paul Gallegos.
2. Candidate Paul Hagen.
3. Candidate Allison Jackson.
3.28.2010
Daniel Mintz article on Allison Jackson
In this week's Arcata Eye, McKinleyville Press and Garberville's The Independent
Allison Jackson: ‘The community deserves something better’
HUMBOLDT – Former County Prosecutor Allison Jackson says she has a wide-ranging base of support that’s united in the belief that the District Attorney’s Office needs to change for the better.
“I would liken it to the Titanic with the bow up in the water and the band hanging from the railings – there’s no leadership and there’s really no administration of the office,” she said.
Jackson’s emergence as a candidate is no surprise, as it’s been rumored for months. But she said it was not an easy decision, as she’s enjoying a civil law career with the Harland Law Firm.
“The tote board was real heavy on the ‘don’t do this side,’” she said. “But on the ‘do this’ side was the knowledge of what needs to be done and the leadership to do it, and thinking that there’s about 129,000 people – every child, every woman, every man -- that deserves something better.”
What they deserve is the assurance that those who commit crimes will be appropriately held accountable and that the rights of defendants will be preserved, she continued. Those aspects are being undercut by incumbent District Attorney Paul Gallegos’ “almost complete inability” to hire and maintain mid- to senior-level prosecutors, said Jackson.
She added that she’s not the only one who’s noticed that lack of case preparation is resulting in day-of-trial plea bargains that leave crime victims and their families feeling short-changed. Over-charging of defendants is also happening, Jackson continued, for the same reasons.
“These things are occurring so frequently, it’s almost mind-boggling,” she said.
Jackson’s bid to replace Gallegos is part of a power struggle that began shortly after the DA was first elected. He survived a 2004 recall attempt which saw then-Prosecutor Worth Dikeman as a candidate. Jackson supported Dikeman when he challenged Gallegos again in the 2006 election.
Gallegos’ supporters see Jackson as a conservative who would reverse the change the DA has fought for and delivered. She rejects that view.
“I’m interested in forward progress,” said Jackson. “Some things have to change because they’re simply not working and what’s needed is a return to what’s thought of in the profession as an acceptable and appropriate way of prosecuting certain crimes.”
Vertical prosecution – specialization in crime categories like child abuse, domestic violence and sexual assault – only exists superficially now, she continued. “That really has to be fixed, I don’t believe in accepting mediocrity, you need to strive for excellence.”
Nor does Jackson view herself as a conservative candidate. “I’m a fourth generation Democrat,” she said. “Holding people accountable for their crimes, protecting defendants’ rights and honoring victims’ rights – that’s not a conservative/liberal thing, that’s the one thing that actually unites us all.”
Jackson described how she would lead, saying that the “sole, primary function of the DA is to be the administrator of the office” – which contrasts Gallegos’ stance that the community expects a DA to try cases personally.
“When you give up your administrative function just to go and play in a courtroom, you’re letting the community down and that’s what’s occurred here,” Jackson said. She added that if she’s elected, she’ll probably have to try some cases due to a shortage of senior deputies but her plan is to rebuild the office so that’s not necessary.
Marijuana prosecution, particularly of medical cases, is an important election issue. Jackson said she grew up in the Santa Cruz mountains, a haven of hippie culture, which “gives me a different perspective than other people might have.”
She said she will guard the legal right to use marijuana medically but she also wants to guard against exploitation of the community. “What we in Humboldt are owning, because of our tolerance, has been the greed of people who come here from out of the area,” Jackson continued. “They’ve come up here and they’ve exploited our tolerance and that’s resulted in some pretty horrific things in grow houses and in neighborhoods, and some pretty significant environmental damage.”
Asked what her guidelines for medical marijuana will be, Jackson declined to quantify growing area or plant numbers. She said the totality of evidence has to be considered to determine if the concept of medical cultivation is being capitalized on at the community’s expense.
“I’m really looking at going after and enforcing prohibitions against large scale, clearly commercial grows,” she continued. “And I can guarantee you, if you’ve got cancer or if you have MS or acute back pain, you’ve got nothing to worry about from me.”
And like the other candidates, Jackson is in favor of marijuana legalization in the state and she wants it on a federal level too. “If you know you’ve got this many people that are using it – and we do – you’ve just created a black market that has made a lot of people very wealthy at the same time has created huge burdens, at least for this community.”
Marijuana prosecution isn’t something Jackson is known for. In her 10 years as a county prosecutor, she specialized in cases involving crimes against children and women. But she believes her involvement in prosecuting a marijuana case led to her exit from the office.
Gallegos fired her in 2004, shortly after the recall election, a move that intensified an already bitter political clash between those who support the DA and those who believe he’s done harm to the office.
Jackson has said that her complaint against marijuana defense attorney Ed Denson—who is a Gallegos supporter -- is the reason why the DA fired her. And when asked about the circumstances of her firing,
she reiterated that it was because she reported that Denson knowingly submitted a client’s altered medical marijuana documentation as evidence.
“It was never investigated, it was buried and the underlying cases were dismissed and I was fired – and I wear that as badge of honor,” she continued.
Gallegos has said that Jackson’s firing was not because of the complaint or anything related to it and Denson has firmly denied the allegation. Jackson’s candidacy is likely to re-ignite politically-related speculation about why she was fired.
Replacing one’s boss is probably the best revenge for having been fired but Jackson said it has nothing to do with her decision to run. “My decision to run is solely based on the fact that we have people that are not being held fully accountable for what they’ve done to others, we have victims and victims’ families that have been hurt and are not getting their justice and as a community, we are being diminished because of that,” she said.
Jackson’s belief in those principles is long-held and she said decided she wanted to be a prosecutor when she was 21 years old. In that year of her life, her mother, her step-father and her family’s dog were killed in a car crash.
The driver of the other car was charged with DUI but Jackson didn’t feel well-served by the system when the case was resolved.
“I really do empathize with victims and I understand, really to my core, why it’s important to build a case and to prove it,” she said.
Daniel Mintz
Eye Correspondent
Allison Jackson: ‘The community deserves something better’
HUMBOLDT – Former County Prosecutor Allison Jackson says she has a wide-ranging base of support that’s united in the belief that the District Attorney’s Office needs to change for the better.
“I would liken it to the Titanic with the bow up in the water and the band hanging from the railings – there’s no leadership and there’s really no administration of the office,” she said.
Jackson’s emergence as a candidate is no surprise, as it’s been rumored for months. But she said it was not an easy decision, as she’s enjoying a civil law career with the Harland Law Firm.
“The tote board was real heavy on the ‘don’t do this side,’” she said. “But on the ‘do this’ side was the knowledge of what needs to be done and the leadership to do it, and thinking that there’s about 129,000 people – every child, every woman, every man -- that deserves something better.”
What they deserve is the assurance that those who commit crimes will be appropriately held accountable and that the rights of defendants will be preserved, she continued. Those aspects are being undercut by incumbent District Attorney Paul Gallegos’ “almost complete inability” to hire and maintain mid- to senior-level prosecutors, said Jackson.
She added that she’s not the only one who’s noticed that lack of case preparation is resulting in day-of-trial plea bargains that leave crime victims and their families feeling short-changed. Over-charging of defendants is also happening, Jackson continued, for the same reasons.
“These things are occurring so frequently, it’s almost mind-boggling,” she said.
Jackson’s bid to replace Gallegos is part of a power struggle that began shortly after the DA was first elected. He survived a 2004 recall attempt which saw then-Prosecutor Worth Dikeman as a candidate. Jackson supported Dikeman when he challenged Gallegos again in the 2006 election.
Gallegos’ supporters see Jackson as a conservative who would reverse the change the DA has fought for and delivered. She rejects that view.
“I’m interested in forward progress,” said Jackson. “Some things have to change because they’re simply not working and what’s needed is a return to what’s thought of in the profession as an acceptable and appropriate way of prosecuting certain crimes.”
Vertical prosecution – specialization in crime categories like child abuse, domestic violence and sexual assault – only exists superficially now, she continued. “That really has to be fixed, I don’t believe in accepting mediocrity, you need to strive for excellence.”
Nor does Jackson view herself as a conservative candidate. “I’m a fourth generation Democrat,” she said. “Holding people accountable for their crimes, protecting defendants’ rights and honoring victims’ rights – that’s not a conservative/liberal thing, that’s the one thing that actually unites us all.”
Jackson described how she would lead, saying that the “sole, primary function of the DA is to be the administrator of the office” – which contrasts Gallegos’ stance that the community expects a DA to try cases personally.
“When you give up your administrative function just to go and play in a courtroom, you’re letting the community down and that’s what’s occurred here,” Jackson said. She added that if she’s elected, she’ll probably have to try some cases due to a shortage of senior deputies but her plan is to rebuild the office so that’s not necessary.
Marijuana prosecution, particularly of medical cases, is an important election issue. Jackson said she grew up in the Santa Cruz mountains, a haven of hippie culture, which “gives me a different perspective than other people might have.”
She said she will guard the legal right to use marijuana medically but she also wants to guard against exploitation of the community. “What we in Humboldt are owning, because of our tolerance, has been the greed of people who come here from out of the area,” Jackson continued. “They’ve come up here and they’ve exploited our tolerance and that’s resulted in some pretty horrific things in grow houses and in neighborhoods, and some pretty significant environmental damage.”
Asked what her guidelines for medical marijuana will be, Jackson declined to quantify growing area or plant numbers. She said the totality of evidence has to be considered to determine if the concept of medical cultivation is being capitalized on at the community’s expense.
“I’m really looking at going after and enforcing prohibitions against large scale, clearly commercial grows,” she continued. “And I can guarantee you, if you’ve got cancer or if you have MS or acute back pain, you’ve got nothing to worry about from me.”
And like the other candidates, Jackson is in favor of marijuana legalization in the state and she wants it on a federal level too. “If you know you’ve got this many people that are using it – and we do – you’ve just created a black market that has made a lot of people very wealthy at the same time has created huge burdens, at least for this community.”
Marijuana prosecution isn’t something Jackson is known for. In her 10 years as a county prosecutor, she specialized in cases involving crimes against children and women. But she believes her involvement in prosecuting a marijuana case led to her exit from the office.
Gallegos fired her in 2004, shortly after the recall election, a move that intensified an already bitter political clash between those who support the DA and those who believe he’s done harm to the office.
Jackson has said that her complaint against marijuana defense attorney Ed Denson—who is a Gallegos supporter -- is the reason why the DA fired her. And when asked about the circumstances of her firing,
she reiterated that it was because she reported that Denson knowingly submitted a client’s altered medical marijuana documentation as evidence.
“It was never investigated, it was buried and the underlying cases were dismissed and I was fired – and I wear that as badge of honor,” she continued.
Gallegos has said that Jackson’s firing was not because of the complaint or anything related to it and Denson has firmly denied the allegation. Jackson’s candidacy is likely to re-ignite politically-related speculation about why she was fired.
Replacing one’s boss is probably the best revenge for having been fired but Jackson said it has nothing to do with her decision to run. “My decision to run is solely based on the fact that we have people that are not being held fully accountable for what they’ve done to others, we have victims and victims’ families that have been hurt and are not getting their justice and as a community, we are being diminished because of that,” she said.
Jackson’s belief in those principles is long-held and she said decided she wanted to be a prosecutor when she was 21 years old. In that year of her life, her mother, her step-father and her family’s dog were killed in a car crash.
The driver of the other car was charged with DUI but Jackson didn’t feel well-served by the system when the case was resolved.
“I really do empathize with victims and I understand, really to my core, why it’s important to build a case and to prove it,” she said.
Daniel Mintz
Eye Correspondent
3.26.2010
TS - Money flows into local races in Humboldt County
◼ Money flows into local races in Humboldt County
In a 10-week period, more than $200,000 in contributions were pumped into the campaigns of locals running for four county offices, according to disclosure forms filed with the Humboldt County Elections Office this week.
The California Fair Political Practices Commission requires that candidates for office who will raise or spend $1,000 or more in a calendar year file Form 460s with their local elections office, detailing exactly how much they've raised from whom, what nonmonetary donations they've received and where they've spent their campaign money. The forms are public, meaning anyone can walk into the Elections Office and request copies.
Forms filed Monday detail candidates' campaign activity from Jan. 1 to March 17, and indicate that running for county office -- at least a high-profile one -- is generally not a cheap endeavor.
The following is a look at campaign disclosure filings for the four highest-profile races in Humboldt County. The numbers are based entirely on the candidates' Form 460s filed with the Elections Office this week.
4th District supervisor
The race to become Humboldt County's next 4th District supervisor is quickly shaping up as the most expensive on the North Coast, as three candidates vying for the seat combined to raise more than $70,000 in the disclosure period.
Incumbent Bonnie Neely -- who has held the 4th District seat for 24 years -- led all candidates for the filing period, raising $43,259 in donations.
Neely, who ended the last filing period with $25,348 in cash on hand, reported hauling in $22,634 in cash contributions in this filing period to go with a $5,000 loan from her husband Terry Farmer and $15,625 in nonmonetary donations.
In total, Neely reported receiving 32 donations of $100 or more, 15 donations of $250 or more and six donations of $1,000 or more. She reported receiving a total of $834 in contributions of less than $100 from an undisclosed number of donors.
The incumbent's biggest reported contributors for the filing period were Blue Lake Rancheria, which contributed $10,000; Steven Blank, a commissioner on the California Coastal Commission, which Neely chairs, who contributed $2,000; Zach Zwerdling, an Arcata attorney, who contributed $1,300; Michael Atkins of McKinleyville, who contributed $1,000; Eureka attorney Neal Sanders, who contributed $1,000; and Humboldt Redwood Company, which contributed $1,000.
Neely reported spending $13,832 during the filing period, and ended with $39,149 in cash on hand.
Challenger Eureka Mayor Virginia Bass reported raising a total of $24,315 in the filing period, with $22,152 in cash contributions and $2,163 in nonmonetary contributions.
Bass, who reported starting the filing period with $52,767 in campaign cash on hand, reported receiving 47 donations of $100 or more, 22 donations of $250 or more and six donations of $1,000 or more. She also reported receiving $4,289 in donations of $100 or less from an undisclosed number of donors.
The Eureka mayor's biggest reported contributors for the filing period were Harvey M. Harper Co., which contributed $2,000; Shaw and Peterson Insurance Co., which contributed $1,700; and C&K Johnson Industries, Eureka developer Steve Strombeck, and Don's Rent-All, each of which contributed $1,500 in the filing period.
Bass reported spending a total of $21,775 in the filing period, and ended with $33,154 in cash on hand.
Challenger Eureka City Councilman Jeff Leonard trailed the pack in fundraising, and reported raising a total of $2,728 in the filing period, with $2,444 in cash contributions and $284 in nonmonetary donations.
Leonard, who reported beginning the period with $4,838 in cash on hand, reported receiving four donations of $100 or more, two donations of $250 or more and zero donations of $1,000 or more. He also reported receiving $1,594 in contributions of $100 or less from an undisclosed number of donors.
The councilman's biggest reported contributors for the filing period were Bayside's Ruth Robertson, who donated $400; Kramer Investment Corp., which contributed $250; and Allpoints, Inc., and Eureka's Richard Whitaker, who each contributed $100 in the filing period.
Leonard reported spending a total of $6,728 in the filing period, and ended with $838 in cash on hand.
5th District supervisor
Four candidates in the race to become the county's next 5th District supervisor reported raising a combined $39,601 in campaign donations for the filing period.
Lost Coast Communications President Patrick Cleary reported leading the pack in fundraising, bringing in a total of $20,357 in campaign contributions. Cleary, who began the period with no money in his cash-on-hand piggy bank, reported receiving $15,057 in cash contributions, $300 in nonmonetary donations and loaning his campaign $5,000.
In total, Cleary reported receiving 45 donations of $100 or more, 15 donations of $250 or more and two donations of $1,000 or more. He also reported receiving $1,131 in donations of less than $100 from an undisclosed number of donors.
Cleary's biggest reported contributors for the filing period were Blue Lake Rancheria, which donated $5,000, and McKinleyville's Victor Koshkin, who donated $1,000.
Cleary reported spending $5,849 in the filing period, and ended with $14,427 in cash on hand.
McKinleyville resident Ryan Sundberg reported raising $14,567 in the filing period. Sundberg, who began the period with $41,500 in cash on hand, reported receiving $14,750 in cash contributions and $17 in nonmonetary contributions.
In total, Sundberg reported receiving 16 donations of $100 or more, nine donations of $250 or more and seven donations of $1,000 or more. He reported receiving $0 in donations of $100 or less.
Sundberg's biggest reported contributors for the filing period were Blue Lake Rancheria, which contributed $5,000; Shaw & Peterson Insurance Co., C&K Johnson Industries, Eureka developer Steve Strombeck and Don's Rent-All, all of which contributed $1,500; and Humboldt Redwood Co. and Arcata Realtor Justin Porteous, both of which contributed $1,000.
Sundberg reported spending $26,255 during the filing period, and ended with $31,630 in cash on hand.
Fifth Division Harbor District Commissioner Patrick Higgins reported raising a total of $5,244 in the filing period. He reported receiving no loans or nonmonetary donations, and raised all the funds in cash donations.
In total, Higgins reported receiving 12 donations of $100 or more, six donations of $250 or more and two donations of $1,000 or more. He also reported receiving $144 in donations of $100 or less from an undisclosed number of donors.
Higgins' biggest reported contributors were Blue Lake self-employed consultant Wiliam Kier, who contributed $1,000, and Patrick and Diane Higgins, who contributed $1,000.
Higgins reported spending $4,254 in the filing period, and ended with $989 in cash on hand.
McKinleyville resident Jeffrey Lytle reported receiving no donations of any kind and receiving a $50 loan from J.L. Construction. He reported spending $2,084 during the filing period and ending with $0 in cash on hand. Lytle filled out many of the Form 460s with “N/A,” seeming to signify “not applicable,” so it's unclear if he began the filing period with any cash on hand.
Humboldt County sheriff
The two candidates vying to become the county's next sheriff combined to raise $48,595 in the filing period.
Humboldt County Undersheriff Mike Downey led the two candidates, and reported raising $27,033 in the period. Downey, who entered the period with $1,905 in cash on hand, reported bringing in $24,491 in cash contributions and $2,542 in nonmonetary donations.
In total, Downey reported receiving 50 donations of $100 or more, 30 donations of $250 or more and three donations of $1,000 or more. He also reported receiving $6,509 in contributions of $100 or less from an undisclosed number of donors.
Downey's biggest reported contributors were Humboldt County Correctional Peace Officers, which contributed $1,500; Travis Campbell/TAP Ventures, LLC, in Bayside and Carlsbad plumber William Beeson, both of whom contributed $1,000.
Downey reported spending $25,543 during the period, and ended with $3,658 in cash on hand.
Humboldt County District Attorney's Office Chief Investigator Mike Hislop reported receiving $21,562 in donations during the period. Hislop, who entered the filing period with $0 in cash on hand, reported bringing in $14,739 in cash contributions and $6,823 in nonmonetary donations.
In total, Hislop reported receiving 32 donations of $100 or more, 16 donations of $250 or more and two donations of $1,000 or more. He also reported receiving $4,949 in contributions of $100 or less from an undisclosed number of donors.
Hislop's biggest reported contributors were Arcata's Pat Murphy, who is self-employed, and Bill Davidson, of Eureka's Bill Davidson Bail Bonds, both of whom contributed $1,000 during the filing period.
Hislop reported spending $7,960 during the period, and ended with $6,778 in cash on hand.
Humboldt County district attorney
Four candidates racing to become the county's next top law enforcement official combined to report raising almost $65,000 over the last couple of months.
Incumbent District Attorney Paul Gallegos, who has held the post since 2002, led the way, reporting a total of $27,093 in donations during the period. Gallegos, who entered the filing period with $0 in cash on hand, reported receiving $7,093 in cash contributions, $0 in nonmonetary donations and a $20,000 loan from David Gallegos of Weston, Fla.
In total, Gallegos reported receiving five donations of $100 or more, four donations of $250 or more and one donation of $1,000 or more. He also reported receiving $693 in donations of $100 or less from an undisclosed number of donors.
Gallegos' biggest reported contributors were David Gallegos, who contributed $5,000; McKinleyville's Ken Miller, who contributed $500; and Eureka's Zwerdling Dibble, LLP, which contributed $500.
Gallegos reported spending $16,197 in the filing period, and ended with $10,895 in cash on hand.
Challenger Allison Jackson, who entered the filing period with $0 in cash on hand, reported raising $13,674 in the filing period, entirely through cash donations.
In total, Jackson reported receiving 32 donations of $100 or more, 26 donations of $250 or more and one donation of $1,000 or more. She also reported raising $423 in donations of $100 or less from an undisclosed number of donors.
Jackson's biggest reported contributors were Harland Law Firm, which contributed $1,000; and Eureka developer Steve Strombeck, Barnum Timber Co., Eureka Oxygen, Kramer Investment Corp. and 15 others, each of which contributed $500.
Jackson reported spending $11,838 in the filing period, and ending with $1,835 in cash on hand.
Another challenger, Paul Hagen, entered the filing period with $0 in cash on hand, but reported raising $10,347 in the period. Hagen reported receiving $2,780 in cash donations, $167 in nonmonetary donations and receiving a combined $7,400 in loans, $5,200 from himself and $2,200 from Eureka's Margaret Herbelin.
In total, Hagen reported receiving nine donations of $100 or more, four donations of $250 or more and no donations of $1,000 or more. He also reported receiving $167 in contributions of $100 or less from an undisclosed number of donors.
Hagen's biggest reported contributors were Chicago attorney Darren Watts, who contributed $700; Eureka's Margaret Herbelin, who donated $500; and Bayside's Loren and Linda Azevedo, who contributed $300.
Hagen reported spending $4,537 in the filing period, and ended with $5,642 in cash on hand.
Kathleen Bryson, who also entered the filing period with $0 in cash on hand, reported raising a total of $13,750, with $8,750 in cash contributions and $5,000 in a loan from herself to the campaign.
In total, Bryson reported receiving three donations of $100 or more, and no donations larger than that. She also reported receiving $8,450 in contributions of $100 or less from an undisclosed number of donors.
Bryson's biggest reported contributors were Senior Resource Director Margaret Kraft, Humboldt County Law Librarian Richard Edgar and lawyer Eleanor Kraft, each of whom contributed $100.
Bryson reported spending $18,208 during the period, and ended with $1,241 in cash on hand with an outstanding debt of $10,700.
Thadeus Greenson can be reached at 441-0509 or tgreenson@times-standard.com.
Thadeus Greenson/The Times-Standard
Posted: 03/25/2010 02:10:35 AM PDT
In a 10-week period, more than $200,000 in contributions were pumped into the campaigns of locals running for four county offices, according to disclosure forms filed with the Humboldt County Elections Office this week.
The California Fair Political Practices Commission requires that candidates for office who will raise or spend $1,000 or more in a calendar year file Form 460s with their local elections office, detailing exactly how much they've raised from whom, what nonmonetary donations they've received and where they've spent their campaign money. The forms are public, meaning anyone can walk into the Elections Office and request copies.
Forms filed Monday detail candidates' campaign activity from Jan. 1 to March 17, and indicate that running for county office -- at least a high-profile one -- is generally not a cheap endeavor.
The following is a look at campaign disclosure filings for the four highest-profile races in Humboldt County. The numbers are based entirely on the candidates' Form 460s filed with the Elections Office this week.
4th District supervisor
The race to become Humboldt County's next 4th District supervisor is quickly shaping up as the most expensive on the North Coast, as three candidates vying for the seat combined to raise more than $70,000 in the disclosure period.
Incumbent Bonnie Neely -- who has held the 4th District seat for 24 years -- led all candidates for the filing period, raising $43,259 in donations.
Neely, who ended the last filing period with $25,348 in cash on hand, reported hauling in $22,634 in cash contributions in this filing period to go with a $5,000 loan from her husband Terry Farmer and $15,625 in nonmonetary donations.
In total, Neely reported receiving 32 donations of $100 or more, 15 donations of $250 or more and six donations of $1,000 or more. She reported receiving a total of $834 in contributions of less than $100 from an undisclosed number of donors.
The incumbent's biggest reported contributors for the filing period were Blue Lake Rancheria, which contributed $10,000; Steven Blank, a commissioner on the California Coastal Commission, which Neely chairs, who contributed $2,000; Zach Zwerdling, an Arcata attorney, who contributed $1,300; Michael Atkins of McKinleyville, who contributed $1,000; Eureka attorney Neal Sanders, who contributed $1,000; and Humboldt Redwood Company, which contributed $1,000.
Neely reported spending $13,832 during the filing period, and ended with $39,149 in cash on hand.
Challenger Eureka Mayor Virginia Bass reported raising a total of $24,315 in the filing period, with $22,152 in cash contributions and $2,163 in nonmonetary contributions.
Bass, who reported starting the filing period with $52,767 in campaign cash on hand, reported receiving 47 donations of $100 or more, 22 donations of $250 or more and six donations of $1,000 or more. She also reported receiving $4,289 in donations of $100 or less from an undisclosed number of donors.
The Eureka mayor's biggest reported contributors for the filing period were Harvey M. Harper Co., which contributed $2,000; Shaw and Peterson Insurance Co., which contributed $1,700; and C&K Johnson Industries, Eureka developer Steve Strombeck, and Don's Rent-All, each of which contributed $1,500 in the filing period.
Bass reported spending a total of $21,775 in the filing period, and ended with $33,154 in cash on hand.
Challenger Eureka City Councilman Jeff Leonard trailed the pack in fundraising, and reported raising a total of $2,728 in the filing period, with $2,444 in cash contributions and $284 in nonmonetary donations.
Leonard, who reported beginning the period with $4,838 in cash on hand, reported receiving four donations of $100 or more, two donations of $250 or more and zero donations of $1,000 or more. He also reported receiving $1,594 in contributions of $100 or less from an undisclosed number of donors.
The councilman's biggest reported contributors for the filing period were Bayside's Ruth Robertson, who donated $400; Kramer Investment Corp., which contributed $250; and Allpoints, Inc., and Eureka's Richard Whitaker, who each contributed $100 in the filing period.
Leonard reported spending a total of $6,728 in the filing period, and ended with $838 in cash on hand.
5th District supervisor
Four candidates in the race to become the county's next 5th District supervisor reported raising a combined $39,601 in campaign donations for the filing period.
Lost Coast Communications President Patrick Cleary reported leading the pack in fundraising, bringing in a total of $20,357 in campaign contributions. Cleary, who began the period with no money in his cash-on-hand piggy bank, reported receiving $15,057 in cash contributions, $300 in nonmonetary donations and loaning his campaign $5,000.
In total, Cleary reported receiving 45 donations of $100 or more, 15 donations of $250 or more and two donations of $1,000 or more. He also reported receiving $1,131 in donations of less than $100 from an undisclosed number of donors.
Cleary's biggest reported contributors for the filing period were Blue Lake Rancheria, which donated $5,000, and McKinleyville's Victor Koshkin, who donated $1,000.
Cleary reported spending $5,849 in the filing period, and ended with $14,427 in cash on hand.
McKinleyville resident Ryan Sundberg reported raising $14,567 in the filing period. Sundberg, who began the period with $41,500 in cash on hand, reported receiving $14,750 in cash contributions and $17 in nonmonetary contributions.
In total, Sundberg reported receiving 16 donations of $100 or more, nine donations of $250 or more and seven donations of $1,000 or more. He reported receiving $0 in donations of $100 or less.
Sundberg's biggest reported contributors for the filing period were Blue Lake Rancheria, which contributed $5,000; Shaw & Peterson Insurance Co., C&K Johnson Industries, Eureka developer Steve Strombeck and Don's Rent-All, all of which contributed $1,500; and Humboldt Redwood Co. and Arcata Realtor Justin Porteous, both of which contributed $1,000.
Sundberg reported spending $26,255 during the filing period, and ended with $31,630 in cash on hand.
Fifth Division Harbor District Commissioner Patrick Higgins reported raising a total of $5,244 in the filing period. He reported receiving no loans or nonmonetary donations, and raised all the funds in cash donations.
In total, Higgins reported receiving 12 donations of $100 or more, six donations of $250 or more and two donations of $1,000 or more. He also reported receiving $144 in donations of $100 or less from an undisclosed number of donors.
Higgins' biggest reported contributors were Blue Lake self-employed consultant Wiliam Kier, who contributed $1,000, and Patrick and Diane Higgins, who contributed $1,000.
Higgins reported spending $4,254 in the filing period, and ended with $989 in cash on hand.
McKinleyville resident Jeffrey Lytle reported receiving no donations of any kind and receiving a $50 loan from J.L. Construction. He reported spending $2,084 during the filing period and ending with $0 in cash on hand. Lytle filled out many of the Form 460s with “N/A,” seeming to signify “not applicable,” so it's unclear if he began the filing period with any cash on hand.
Humboldt County sheriff
The two candidates vying to become the county's next sheriff combined to raise $48,595 in the filing period.
Humboldt County Undersheriff Mike Downey led the two candidates, and reported raising $27,033 in the period. Downey, who entered the period with $1,905 in cash on hand, reported bringing in $24,491 in cash contributions and $2,542 in nonmonetary donations.
In total, Downey reported receiving 50 donations of $100 or more, 30 donations of $250 or more and three donations of $1,000 or more. He also reported receiving $6,509 in contributions of $100 or less from an undisclosed number of donors.
Downey's biggest reported contributors were Humboldt County Correctional Peace Officers, which contributed $1,500; Travis Campbell/TAP Ventures, LLC, in Bayside and Carlsbad plumber William Beeson, both of whom contributed $1,000.
Downey reported spending $25,543 during the period, and ended with $3,658 in cash on hand.
Humboldt County District Attorney's Office Chief Investigator Mike Hislop reported receiving $21,562 in donations during the period. Hislop, who entered the filing period with $0 in cash on hand, reported bringing in $14,739 in cash contributions and $6,823 in nonmonetary donations.
In total, Hislop reported receiving 32 donations of $100 or more, 16 donations of $250 or more and two donations of $1,000 or more. He also reported receiving $4,949 in contributions of $100 or less from an undisclosed number of donors.
Hislop's biggest reported contributors were Arcata's Pat Murphy, who is self-employed, and Bill Davidson, of Eureka's Bill Davidson Bail Bonds, both of whom contributed $1,000 during the filing period.
Hislop reported spending $7,960 during the period, and ended with $6,778 in cash on hand.
Humboldt County district attorney
Four candidates racing to become the county's next top law enforcement official combined to report raising almost $65,000 over the last couple of months.
Incumbent District Attorney Paul Gallegos, who has held the post since 2002, led the way, reporting a total of $27,093 in donations during the period. Gallegos, who entered the filing period with $0 in cash on hand, reported receiving $7,093 in cash contributions, $0 in nonmonetary donations and a $20,000 loan from David Gallegos of Weston, Fla.
In total, Gallegos reported receiving five donations of $100 or more, four donations of $250 or more and one donation of $1,000 or more. He also reported receiving $693 in donations of $100 or less from an undisclosed number of donors.
Gallegos' biggest reported contributors were David Gallegos, who contributed $5,000; McKinleyville's Ken Miller, who contributed $500; and Eureka's Zwerdling Dibble, LLP, which contributed $500.
Gallegos reported spending $16,197 in the filing period, and ended with $10,895 in cash on hand.
Challenger Allison Jackson, who entered the filing period with $0 in cash on hand, reported raising $13,674 in the filing period, entirely through cash donations.
In total, Jackson reported receiving 32 donations of $100 or more, 26 donations of $250 or more and one donation of $1,000 or more. She also reported raising $423 in donations of $100 or less from an undisclosed number of donors.
Jackson's biggest reported contributors were Harland Law Firm, which contributed $1,000; and Eureka developer Steve Strombeck, Barnum Timber Co., Eureka Oxygen, Kramer Investment Corp. and 15 others, each of which contributed $500.
Jackson reported spending $11,838 in the filing period, and ending with $1,835 in cash on hand.
Another challenger, Paul Hagen, entered the filing period with $0 in cash on hand, but reported raising $10,347 in the period. Hagen reported receiving $2,780 in cash donations, $167 in nonmonetary donations and receiving a combined $7,400 in loans, $5,200 from himself and $2,200 from Eureka's Margaret Herbelin.
In total, Hagen reported receiving nine donations of $100 or more, four donations of $250 or more and no donations of $1,000 or more. He also reported receiving $167 in contributions of $100 or less from an undisclosed number of donors.
Hagen's biggest reported contributors were Chicago attorney Darren Watts, who contributed $700; Eureka's Margaret Herbelin, who donated $500; and Bayside's Loren and Linda Azevedo, who contributed $300.
Hagen reported spending $4,537 in the filing period, and ended with $5,642 in cash on hand.
Kathleen Bryson, who also entered the filing period with $0 in cash on hand, reported raising a total of $13,750, with $8,750 in cash contributions and $5,000 in a loan from herself to the campaign.
In total, Bryson reported receiving three donations of $100 or more, and no donations larger than that. She also reported receiving $8,450 in contributions of $100 or less from an undisclosed number of donors.
Bryson's biggest reported contributors were Senior Resource Director Margaret Kraft, Humboldt County Law Librarian Richard Edgar and lawyer Eleanor Kraft, each of whom contributed $100.
Bryson reported spending $18,208 during the period, and ended with $1,241 in cash on hand with an outstanding debt of $10,700.
Thadeus Greenson can be reached at 441-0509 or tgreenson@times-standard.com.
Thadeus Greenson/The Times-Standard
Posted: 03/25/2010 02:10:35 AM PDT
3.17.2010
Eye - DA candidate Allison Jackson’s Campaign Announcement
◼ DA candidate Allison Jackson’s Campaign Announcement - Arcata Eye
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Note: The following is a press release issued by the Allison Jackson campaign following her candidacy announcement last Saturday. – Ed.
EUREKA – With more than 100 people who turned out in support, attorney Allison Jackson formally kicked off her campaign in Eureka Saturday afternoon to be the next Humboldt County District Attorney.
Campaign chairman Ron Pierre said the district attorney position is the most important in the county and called for strong leadership in that post.
Pierre noted that the crowd who came to support Jackson was a diverse mixture of residents from across the political spectrum.
Fifth District Supervisor Jill Duffy, who also attended the campaign event, said that Jackson alone possesses the experience and tenacity for the job.
Jackson is a partner at the Eureka-based Harland Law Firm where she has worked since 2004 representing clients in civil litigation, land-use, employment, and other areas of law. Jackson has also worked in the Humboldt, Santa Cruz and Santa Clara county district attorney offices.
Jackson said that as district attorney, she will show leadership and get results–not just give lip service.
“When I am elected you will finally have a district attorney who actually runs the office and who actively works to make sure that the laws are enforced,” Jackson said. “People will be charged and their cases will proceed based upon the evidence of what they have done and not who they are.”
Jackson said she will treat victims and witnesses of crimes with simple human dignity, adding that her core values and principles of law and order were instilled in her by the three generations of formidable women who raised her.
Former Humboldt County Administrative Officer Loretta Nickolaus called Jackson a veteran prosecutor who knows what it takes to administer the district attorney’s office.
Nickolaus said Jackson knows the Penal Code, can give clear jury instructions and gets sentences that fit the crime. She also gave a stern warning to those who might break the law.
“Allison won’t fool around here,” Nickolaus said.
Nickolaus said Jackson is a fierce and effective prosecutor who will represent everyone. She said Jackson brings a wealth of experience and will be there for the victims of crime and their families.
Tags: DA, Jackson
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Note: The following is a press release issued by the Allison Jackson campaign following her candidacy announcement last Saturday. – Ed.
EUREKA – With more than 100 people who turned out in support, attorney Allison Jackson formally kicked off her campaign in Eureka Saturday afternoon to be the next Humboldt County District Attorney.
Campaign chairman Ron Pierre said the district attorney position is the most important in the county and called for strong leadership in that post.
Pierre noted that the crowd who came to support Jackson was a diverse mixture of residents from across the political spectrum.
Fifth District Supervisor Jill Duffy, who also attended the campaign event, said that Jackson alone possesses the experience and tenacity for the job.
Jackson is a partner at the Eureka-based Harland Law Firm where she has worked since 2004 representing clients in civil litigation, land-use, employment, and other areas of law. Jackson has also worked in the Humboldt, Santa Cruz and Santa Clara county district attorney offices.
Jackson said that as district attorney, she will show leadership and get results–not just give lip service.
“When I am elected you will finally have a district attorney who actually runs the office and who actively works to make sure that the laws are enforced,” Jackson said. “People will be charged and their cases will proceed based upon the evidence of what they have done and not who they are.”
Jackson said she will treat victims and witnesses of crimes with simple human dignity, adding that her core values and principles of law and order were instilled in her by the three generations of formidable women who raised her.
Former Humboldt County Administrative Officer Loretta Nickolaus called Jackson a veteran prosecutor who knows what it takes to administer the district attorney’s office.
Nickolaus said Jackson knows the Penal Code, can give clear jury instructions and gets sentences that fit the crime. She also gave a stern warning to those who might break the law.
“Allison won’t fool around here,” Nickolaus said.
Nickolaus said Jackson is a fierce and effective prosecutor who will represent everyone. She said Jackson brings a wealth of experience and will be there for the victims of crime and their families.
Tags: DA, Jackson
3.09.2010
JN - Forged documents and six pounds of weed
◼ Forged documents and six pounds of weed
Why did District Attorney Paul Gallegos fire a top prosecutor?
by HANK SIMS
According to Worth Dikeman, it's the incident that finally made him decide that District Attorney Paul Gallegos would never grow into the job, and the thing that made him decide he had to run against his boss. It's puzzled courthouse insiders for nearly two years.
Why did Gallegos fire Deputy DA Allison Jackson, a 10-year veteran prosecutor with a sterling reputation among people who deal with sexual assault and child abuse cases, on June 9, 2004, shortly after the defeat of the recall attempt against him?
Recently, Jackson, who is supporting Dikeman's campaign, approached the Journal offering her view of the reasons. Nobody who knew Jackson would have ever described her as a Gallegos supporter. She, along with every other prosecutor in the DA's office supported his opponent when he first ran for office; she, like most prosecutors refused to publicly support him during his successful fight against his recall. Yet she doesn't think Gallegos fired her because she wasn't a political supporter, exactly — she thinks he fired her to protect a local defense lawyer who was.
Some of the people privy to the events that took place during Jackson's last days as a prosecutor have said that they don't recall certain particulars — and Gallegos certainly disputes their significance — but no one has denied that the story, as largely told through court documents and e-mail correspondence Jackson retained, went like this.
On the morning of Friday, May 28, 2004, Jackson agreed to appear in a preliminary hearing in place of another prosecutor. The case involved a charge of possession of marijuana for sale, and when the original prosecutor was called to another courtroom to appear in a different case, Jackson volunteered to fill in. Perusing the case file a few minutes before court convened she realized that she recognized it.
A few weeks earlier, a Southern Humboldt man was in Eureka, with his probation officer. He admitted to the officer that he was in possession of a gun, and was told that that was a violation of his probation. Could he turn the gun over to his attorney, the man asked? The probation officer first said that would be fine, but later changed her mind and called the DA's office for an opinion. The prosecutor she reached was Jackson, who told the probation officer that she had indeed given the man incorrect information; it was not acceptable protocol for him to turn his gun over to a private attorney. The probation officer responded to Jackson's judgment by phoning the sheriff's substation in Garberville and reporting what the man on probation had told her. (The Journal knows the man's name from court documents relating to the case, but could not reach him for his side of events and so decided not to name him in this story.)
Sheriff deputies were dispatched to collect the illegal weapon. When they arrived at the man's place of business, they found, in addition to the gun, six pounds of marijuana in six separate one-pound bags. When the man arrived, they arrested him despite his protestations that he and his wife were both qualified medical marijuana users. Later that evening, the suspect's wife brought in a "physician's statement" issued by a San Francisco doctor showing he was authorized to possess medical marijuana under the terms of Proposition 215. She also showed her own 215 documentation.
(The politics of charging for possession of marijuana when a doctor is willing to document that the drug will be used for medical purposes is cloudy at best. Federal prosecutors have refused to be bound by Proposition 215, but county prosecutors have generally been more sympathetic with the wishes of the California electorate. Sources in the county sheriff's office have speculated that if the man or his wife had been able to produce valid documentation by a doctor of the drug's medical use at the time of arrest, the arrest probably would never have been made.)
Studying the case file before appearing at the hearing, Jackson noticed something about the physician's statement. Near the bottom of the document there is a section in which the doctor is supposed to indicate how long the "prescription" was in effect. The doctor had checked a box next to "six months." Yet there was nothing in the document that indicated the start date. Six months from when?
She found the answer while searching through the defendant's probation report, which documented details of his previous arrest. There, she discovered what appeared to be an identical copy of the physician's statement, with every loop and curlicue of the doctor's handwriting the same in both documents. There was one exception, however: The copy from the probation file contained a date stamp — "Issued July 10, 2001." The physician's statement that the wife had presented only had white space where the date stamp once was. Someone, she concluded, had altered an old, expired medical marijuana document to make it seem current.
In the preliminary hearing, she pointed this out to the judge. The judge then barred the defense attorney — Southern Humboldt's Ed Denson, who specializes in marijuana cases — from entering the physician's prescription into evidence. The court went into recess. Jackson was packing up her paperwork when she happened to glance over at Denson's table. According to her recounting of events, she saw Denson with both the original and the tampered version of his patient's physician's statement, one in each hand. Jackson later said that Denson came over to her table and complimented her on her catch — "Pretty slick" — before stuffing both documents in his briefcase and leaving the courtroom.
Before that moment, Jackson says now, she had assumed that the defendant or his wife had altered the physician's statement. Now she wasn't so sure. In any case, it now seemed clear to her that Denson, who had also represented the same defendant in the previous case, had in all likelihood knowingly attempted to submit a fraudulent document into the record. This is not only an ethical offense punishable by the California State Bar Association — it's also a felony.
She immediately returned to her office and discussed what she had seen with Dikeman, who was at the time a more senior colleague . She also discussed it with the office's lead investigator, Jim Dawson. They all agreed that the appropriate thing to do was to ask a judge to sign a search warrant targeted at Denson, in order to find and preserve the incriminating evidence Jackson thought she had seen.
That afternoon, Jackson sat down and typed out a long e-mail to Paul Gallegos, telling him what she had seen and arguing the need for a search warrant. She didn't hear back from him that day, nor on the following Monday. Finally, at 2:16 p.m. on the afternoon of Tuesday, June 1, he sent Jackson three e-mails in a row. In the first, Gallegos restated the evidence Jackson said she had, then said: "Ed [Denson] represented [the defendant] in the first case so he must know that the current 215 [documentation]has been forged or fraudulently altered." He then asked whether Jackson had herself notified the judge about what she thought she had seen and whether she had asked Dawson to contact Denson so he could explain himself.
In a second e-mail, sent three minutes later, Gallegos asked if Jackson had referred the matter to the Bar Association and wrote "I think this is serious conduct. My first question is always: can we prove it? What do you think?" Finally, ten minutes after that, he sent another e-mail thanking Jackson for bringing the matter to his attention.
Jackson wrote back at 3:15 p.m., answering the questions in Gallegos' first e-mail. She said that she could not have notified the judge at the time she noticed that Denson was in possession of the documents, as court had already adjourned. She said that she had held back on notifying the Bar Association until they could gain possession of the evidence, and that Dawson would not contact Denson and ask him to explain until a warrant had been served.
According to Jackson, she did not hear back from Gallegos for several days. Finally, at 8:06 a.m. on Friday, June 4, she wrote him again, asking for a decision. "Please get back to me as soon as possible as this has sat a week already and I don't want this to get stale." She says she did not get a response.
On Tuesday, June 8, the defendant's San Francisco physician wrote out a new physician's statement for him. "Three (3) lbs. of processed cannabis is not an unreasonable inventory amount for this pt.'s medical condition," it read.
The next day, Gallegos fired Jackson.
The day after that, Denson faxed the defendant's new prescription to Gallegos, along with a note: "Dear Paul: Here is Dr. Ellis' note concerning amounts of medical marijuana for [the defendant] as I promised in my e-mail." (A copy of the fax was provided to the Journal by Jackson.)
The search warrant that Jackson had proposed was never carried out. Eventually, the charges against the defendant were dropped.
When asked about this incident last week, Gallegos was vehement in his assertions that Jackson's firing had nothing to do with her proposed investigation into Denson. "Ms. Jackson may have those beliefs, but it had absolutely nothing to do with that," he said. He said that his decision to fire Jackson came long before the events surrounding this case. But he said he could not give his reasons for firing her, even after the Journal provided him with a notarized statement from Jackson authorizing him to do so. He said he had not, and never would have, contacted Denson about the proposed investigation.
In a follow-up e-mail sent to the Journal earlier this week, Gallegos said that faxes come into his office from defense attorneys all the time. A fax from Denson with a new marijuana prescription for his client would not have been unusual. He declined again to say why he had fired Jackson.
"There was a triggering event but it had absolutely nothing to do with [this case] or Mr. Denson," Gallegos wrote. He suggested that the Journal talk with Rick Haeg, the county's personnel director, who he said could verify that Gallegos had spoken with him about firing Jackson "significantly prior" to the date she was fired. (Haeg said that he did remember speaking with Gallegos about dismissing Jackson before the event, but could not say how soon before her firing he had done so).
Gallegos also wrote that members of his office had decided not to press forward with the search warrant. "I discussed the matter with both my lead investigator, Jim Dawson, and my assistant, Wes Keat," Gallegos wrote. "If either of them had thought it was appropriate to move forward on Ms. Jackson's claims, we would have proceeded on them." He wrote that there were numerous legal and factual hurdles any potential case against Denson would have had to overcome, most of them centering on whether or not Denson knew he was submitting a falsified document. He asked why neither Jackson nor Dikeman ever reported the case to the state bar.
In a call that came in just as the Journal was going to press, Gallegos said that a notice titled "Whistleblowers are Protected" was posted prominently in the office, and suggested that Jackson could easily have contacted the state Attorney General if she wished to pursue alleged wrongdoing.
Assistant District Attorney Wes Keat confirmed last week that Gallegos had issues with Jackson before she was fired, but said that any statement about his reasons for firing her would have to be speculative. When asked why the investigation that Jackson had called for had never been pursued, Keat said that he didn't know the answer. "I remember the story, and I remember it not going anywhere," he said. "I sensed that it was Paul's decision, but I never heard Paul say that much."
And though Keat said that at the time he had no reason to doubt Jackson's telling of events, and that he thought it "shocking" that a member of the bar could have knowingly attempted to deceive the court, he added that there may have been good reasons not to investigate. He just wasn't sure what they were.
"There's a few reasons why we wouldn't play in such a case," he said. "We're generally reluctant to pursue such things against other lawyers. There's some aspect, some chance, some probability that Mr. Denson made a mistake, rather than engaged in misconduct. I don't know whether he was trying to get over, or if he just made a goof, or somewhere in between."
As to the fax that Denson sent to Gallegos the day after the latter fired Jackson, Keat said there could be a reasonable explanation for that, as well. "It's not unusual for defense attorneys to approach the boss to get better treatment than what they're getting in court — sort of going over the prosecutor's head."
Reached last week, Denson initially said he had no recollection of the case whatsoever. When shown documents from the record, he was able to retrieve his own files on the case and was able to discuss it. He said that he could not speak about some aspects of the case, because he could not violate the attorney-client privilege, but said that he had not had any discussions with Gallegos about a potential investigation relating to the attempted submission of false documents — that this was the first he had heard of it. He strenuously denied having knowingly attempted to submit false evidence.
"No one in this office has ever altered a piece of evidence, and I would never knowingly present one to court," he said. "You never make a knowingly false statement to a jury or judge — it's beyond the pale. You don't do that."
Denson said that he was concerned to hear that the Journal was in possession of the fax, which he did not specifically recall sending.
"Assuming I did fax that document to Mr. Gallegos, it would have been part of a confidential negotiation to try to settle the case," he said. "This is what concerns me about these documents being out in the world, is that when you try to settle a case — those are supposed to be the most confidential documents."
Intrigued by the possibility that Gallegos was preparing to clean house in the wake of his successful defeat of the recall effort, the Journal contacted Jackson two years ago, shortly after she was fired. She declined at that time to speak about her experiences in the office, or why she believed she had been fired. She maintained that stance for two years, declining to speak to make public statements about it. Now in private practice at Eureka's Harlan Law Firm, she said last week that she hadn't wanted to see her name bandied about in the press, to be vilified by Gallegos supporters.
"I didn't talk about this at the time, because I didn't think that given what was going on it would have mattered," she said. "It would have only made me into a political football."
She said that she never reported the incident to the Bar Association because she was never able to get documentary evidence, and that by the time she had been fired the case had long since gone cold.
She decided to come forth now, she said, because she thought her story could make a difference. She makes no bones about the fact that she hoped her story would damage Gallegos politically. "If it wasn't meant to affect whether or not he got elected again, it wouldn't have come out at all," she said. She would be the first to admit that, yes, she is a disgruntled former employee.
Gallegos has said that she was fired for a good reason, and though he can't or won't speak about it, that the reason had nothing to do with the events described in this story. She believes, as does Gallegos' opponent, Worth Dikeman, that her firing had everything to do with it. It's difficult, given the long passage of time between the events and her decision to talk about them, to discern exactly what the truth is. By consciously delaying her decision to speak up until the heat of an election campaign, Jackson has only herself to blame if people do not find her explanation credible. Still, however it is read, the story does shed light on how the district attorney's office — a non-partisan arm of law enforcement — has become thoroughly consumed by politics of the bitterest and most personal sort. Draw whatever conclusions you will.
Why did District Attorney Paul Gallegos fire a top prosecutor?
by HANK SIMS
According to Worth Dikeman, it's the incident that finally made him decide that District Attorney Paul Gallegos would never grow into the job, and the thing that made him decide he had to run against his boss. It's puzzled courthouse insiders for nearly two years.
Why did Gallegos fire Deputy DA Allison Jackson, a 10-year veteran prosecutor with a sterling reputation among people who deal with sexual assault and child abuse cases, on June 9, 2004, shortly after the defeat of the recall attempt against him?
Recently, Jackson, who is supporting Dikeman's campaign, approached the Journal offering her view of the reasons. Nobody who knew Jackson would have ever described her as a Gallegos supporter. She, along with every other prosecutor in the DA's office supported his opponent when he first ran for office; she, like most prosecutors refused to publicly support him during his successful fight against his recall. Yet she doesn't think Gallegos fired her because she wasn't a political supporter, exactly — she thinks he fired her to protect a local defense lawyer who was.
Some of the people privy to the events that took place during Jackson's last days as a prosecutor have said that they don't recall certain particulars — and Gallegos certainly disputes their significance — but no one has denied that the story, as largely told through court documents and e-mail correspondence Jackson retained, went like this.
On the morning of Friday, May 28, 2004, Jackson agreed to appear in a preliminary hearing in place of another prosecutor. The case involved a charge of possession of marijuana for sale, and when the original prosecutor was called to another courtroom to appear in a different case, Jackson volunteered to fill in. Perusing the case file a few minutes before court convened she realized that she recognized it.
A few weeks earlier, a Southern Humboldt man was in Eureka, with his probation officer. He admitted to the officer that he was in possession of a gun, and was told that that was a violation of his probation. Could he turn the gun over to his attorney, the man asked? The probation officer first said that would be fine, but later changed her mind and called the DA's office for an opinion. The prosecutor she reached was Jackson, who told the probation officer that she had indeed given the man incorrect information; it was not acceptable protocol for him to turn his gun over to a private attorney. The probation officer responded to Jackson's judgment by phoning the sheriff's substation in Garberville and reporting what the man on probation had told her. (The Journal knows the man's name from court documents relating to the case, but could not reach him for his side of events and so decided not to name him in this story.)
Sheriff deputies were dispatched to collect the illegal weapon. When they arrived at the man's place of business, they found, in addition to the gun, six pounds of marijuana in six separate one-pound bags. When the man arrived, they arrested him despite his protestations that he and his wife were both qualified medical marijuana users. Later that evening, the suspect's wife brought in a "physician's statement" issued by a San Francisco doctor showing he was authorized to possess medical marijuana under the terms of Proposition 215. She also showed her own 215 documentation.
(The politics of charging for possession of marijuana when a doctor is willing to document that the drug will be used for medical purposes is cloudy at best. Federal prosecutors have refused to be bound by Proposition 215, but county prosecutors have generally been more sympathetic with the wishes of the California electorate. Sources in the county sheriff's office have speculated that if the man or his wife had been able to produce valid documentation by a doctor of the drug's medical use at the time of arrest, the arrest probably would never have been made.)
Studying the case file before appearing at the hearing, Jackson noticed something about the physician's statement. Near the bottom of the document there is a section in which the doctor is supposed to indicate how long the "prescription" was in effect. The doctor had checked a box next to "six months." Yet there was nothing in the document that indicated the start date. Six months from when?
She found the answer while searching through the defendant's probation report, which documented details of his previous arrest. There, she discovered what appeared to be an identical copy of the physician's statement, with every loop and curlicue of the doctor's handwriting the same in both documents. There was one exception, however: The copy from the probation file contained a date stamp — "Issued July 10, 2001." The physician's statement that the wife had presented only had white space where the date stamp once was. Someone, she concluded, had altered an old, expired medical marijuana document to make it seem current.
In the preliminary hearing, she pointed this out to the judge. The judge then barred the defense attorney — Southern Humboldt's Ed Denson, who specializes in marijuana cases — from entering the physician's prescription into evidence. The court went into recess. Jackson was packing up her paperwork when she happened to glance over at Denson's table. According to her recounting of events, she saw Denson with both the original and the tampered version of his patient's physician's statement, one in each hand. Jackson later said that Denson came over to her table and complimented her on her catch — "Pretty slick" — before stuffing both documents in his briefcase and leaving the courtroom.
Before that moment, Jackson says now, she had assumed that the defendant or his wife had altered the physician's statement. Now she wasn't so sure. In any case, it now seemed clear to her that Denson, who had also represented the same defendant in the previous case, had in all likelihood knowingly attempted to submit a fraudulent document into the record. This is not only an ethical offense punishable by the California State Bar Association — it's also a felony.
She immediately returned to her office and discussed what she had seen with Dikeman, who was at the time a more senior colleague . She also discussed it with the office's lead investigator, Jim Dawson. They all agreed that the appropriate thing to do was to ask a judge to sign a search warrant targeted at Denson, in order to find and preserve the incriminating evidence Jackson thought she had seen.
That afternoon, Jackson sat down and typed out a long e-mail to Paul Gallegos, telling him what she had seen and arguing the need for a search warrant. She didn't hear back from him that day, nor on the following Monday. Finally, at 2:16 p.m. on the afternoon of Tuesday, June 1, he sent Jackson three e-mails in a row. In the first, Gallegos restated the evidence Jackson said she had, then said: "Ed [Denson] represented [the defendant] in the first case so he must know that the current 215 [documentation]has been forged or fraudulently altered." He then asked whether Jackson had herself notified the judge about what she thought she had seen and whether she had asked Dawson to contact Denson so he could explain himself.
In a second e-mail, sent three minutes later, Gallegos asked if Jackson had referred the matter to the Bar Association and wrote "I think this is serious conduct. My first question is always: can we prove it? What do you think?" Finally, ten minutes after that, he sent another e-mail thanking Jackson for bringing the matter to his attention.
Jackson wrote back at 3:15 p.m., answering the questions in Gallegos' first e-mail. She said that she could not have notified the judge at the time she noticed that Denson was in possession of the documents, as court had already adjourned. She said that she had held back on notifying the Bar Association until they could gain possession of the evidence, and that Dawson would not contact Denson and ask him to explain until a warrant had been served.
According to Jackson, she did not hear back from Gallegos for several days. Finally, at 8:06 a.m. on Friday, June 4, she wrote him again, asking for a decision. "Please get back to me as soon as possible as this has sat a week already and I don't want this to get stale." She says she did not get a response.
On Tuesday, June 8, the defendant's San Francisco physician wrote out a new physician's statement for him. "Three (3) lbs. of processed cannabis is not an unreasonable inventory amount for this pt.'s medical condition," it read.
The next day, Gallegos fired Jackson.
The day after that, Denson faxed the defendant's new prescription to Gallegos, along with a note: "Dear Paul: Here is Dr. Ellis' note concerning amounts of medical marijuana for [the defendant] as I promised in my e-mail." (A copy of the fax was provided to the Journal by Jackson.)
The search warrant that Jackson had proposed was never carried out. Eventually, the charges against the defendant were dropped.
When asked about this incident last week, Gallegos was vehement in his assertions that Jackson's firing had nothing to do with her proposed investigation into Denson. "Ms. Jackson may have those beliefs, but it had absolutely nothing to do with that," he said. He said that his decision to fire Jackson came long before the events surrounding this case. But he said he could not give his reasons for firing her, even after the Journal provided him with a notarized statement from Jackson authorizing him to do so. He said he had not, and never would have, contacted Denson about the proposed investigation.
In a follow-up e-mail sent to the Journal earlier this week, Gallegos said that faxes come into his office from defense attorneys all the time. A fax from Denson with a new marijuana prescription for his client would not have been unusual. He declined again to say why he had fired Jackson.
"There was a triggering event but it had absolutely nothing to do with [this case] or Mr. Denson," Gallegos wrote. He suggested that the Journal talk with Rick Haeg, the county's personnel director, who he said could verify that Gallegos had spoken with him about firing Jackson "significantly prior" to the date she was fired. (Haeg said that he did remember speaking with Gallegos about dismissing Jackson before the event, but could not say how soon before her firing he had done so).
Gallegos also wrote that members of his office had decided not to press forward with the search warrant. "I discussed the matter with both my lead investigator, Jim Dawson, and my assistant, Wes Keat," Gallegos wrote. "If either of them had thought it was appropriate to move forward on Ms. Jackson's claims, we would have proceeded on them." He wrote that there were numerous legal and factual hurdles any potential case against Denson would have had to overcome, most of them centering on whether or not Denson knew he was submitting a falsified document. He asked why neither Jackson nor Dikeman ever reported the case to the state bar.
In a call that came in just as the Journal was going to press, Gallegos said that a notice titled "Whistleblowers are Protected" was posted prominently in the office, and suggested that Jackson could easily have contacted the state Attorney General if she wished to pursue alleged wrongdoing.
Assistant District Attorney Wes Keat confirmed last week that Gallegos had issues with Jackson before she was fired, but said that any statement about his reasons for firing her would have to be speculative. When asked why the investigation that Jackson had called for had never been pursued, Keat said that he didn't know the answer. "I remember the story, and I remember it not going anywhere," he said. "I sensed that it was Paul's decision, but I never heard Paul say that much."
And though Keat said that at the time he had no reason to doubt Jackson's telling of events, and that he thought it "shocking" that a member of the bar could have knowingly attempted to deceive the court, he added that there may have been good reasons not to investigate. He just wasn't sure what they were.
"There's a few reasons why we wouldn't play in such a case," he said. "We're generally reluctant to pursue such things against other lawyers. There's some aspect, some chance, some probability that Mr. Denson made a mistake, rather than engaged in misconduct. I don't know whether he was trying to get over, or if he just made a goof, or somewhere in between."
As to the fax that Denson sent to Gallegos the day after the latter fired Jackson, Keat said there could be a reasonable explanation for that, as well. "It's not unusual for defense attorneys to approach the boss to get better treatment than what they're getting in court — sort of going over the prosecutor's head."
Reached last week, Denson initially said he had no recollection of the case whatsoever. When shown documents from the record, he was able to retrieve his own files on the case and was able to discuss it. He said that he could not speak about some aspects of the case, because he could not violate the attorney-client privilege, but said that he had not had any discussions with Gallegos about a potential investigation relating to the attempted submission of false documents — that this was the first he had heard of it. He strenuously denied having knowingly attempted to submit false evidence.
"No one in this office has ever altered a piece of evidence, and I would never knowingly present one to court," he said. "You never make a knowingly false statement to a jury or judge — it's beyond the pale. You don't do that."
Denson said that he was concerned to hear that the Journal was in possession of the fax, which he did not specifically recall sending.
"Assuming I did fax that document to Mr. Gallegos, it would have been part of a confidential negotiation to try to settle the case," he said. "This is what concerns me about these documents being out in the world, is that when you try to settle a case — those are supposed to be the most confidential documents."
Intrigued by the possibility that Gallegos was preparing to clean house in the wake of his successful defeat of the recall effort, the Journal contacted Jackson two years ago, shortly after she was fired. She declined at that time to speak about her experiences in the office, or why she believed she had been fired. She maintained that stance for two years, declining to speak to make public statements about it. Now in private practice at Eureka's Harlan Law Firm, she said last week that she hadn't wanted to see her name bandied about in the press, to be vilified by Gallegos supporters.
"I didn't talk about this at the time, because I didn't think that given what was going on it would have mattered," she said. "It would have only made me into a political football."
She said that she never reported the incident to the Bar Association because she was never able to get documentary evidence, and that by the time she had been fired the case had long since gone cold.
She decided to come forth now, she said, because she thought her story could make a difference. She makes no bones about the fact that she hoped her story would damage Gallegos politically. "If it wasn't meant to affect whether or not he got elected again, it wouldn't have come out at all," she said. She would be the first to admit that, yes, she is a disgruntled former employee.
Gallegos has said that she was fired for a good reason, and though he can't or won't speak about it, that the reason had nothing to do with the events described in this story. She believes, as does Gallegos' opponent, Worth Dikeman, that her firing had everything to do with it. It's difficult, given the long passage of time between the events and her decision to talk about them, to discern exactly what the truth is. By consciously delaying her decision to speak up until the heat of an election campaign, Jackson has only herself to blame if people do not find her explanation credible. Still, however it is read, the story does shed light on how the district attorney's office — a non-partisan arm of law enforcement — has become thoroughly consumed by politics of the bitterest and most personal sort. Draw whatever conclusions you will.