Thursday, June 21, 2007

 

Gallegos doesn't want to be rushed on the Moore killing investigation

According to the Times-Standard, he's been too busy to devote the time he wants to the questions. I'm sympathetic. Whatever he decides is going to further polarize an already Balkanized rural community, and he'll be right in the middle of it.
”Heat? I've been taking heat ever since I've been in office,” he said. “It's a comfortable place for me. Yes, I have a responsibility to do it as quickly as I can, but it must be nailed down not only on the facts of the law, but the reasons for the final decision.”
The most he'd say about the lingering questions:
But, he said, they involve two main issues: The lack of a decision-making process from the top down -- particularly regarding the timing of the raid on Moore's apartment, and whether he or the grand jury should decide if the shooting rises to the level of a criminal act.

Gallegos said he needed to go beyond the investigators' reports on some points and talk personally to experts “so that my mind can be resolved one way or the other.”

I'm sorry. I've supported Paul, and I'll probably support him for re-election again. But he's dropping the ball here. Moore's family has filed suit, and really the decision to prosecute should have been made before that happened.

Comments:
I would rather that he took the time to get the right decision than cave in to political pressure. Even from you Eric.
 
Transferring a post from the one immediately below. Fred said:

I'm not a Gallegos basher, but I think you're reaching out on this one.

The guy should have made a decision, one way or the other, by now.

Either that, or just dropped the issue, which I think is what he's planning on doing.


I agree. Didn't I say that?
 
I don't understand your need to support him in the next election though, Eric.

He has been a complete incompetent. If it comes to pass the the PALCO lawsuit goes nowhere (as it appears now), tell me exactly what he will have done to deserve reelection. He wont have the recall bogeyman to fall back on, he has multiple embarrassments from the plagarism, to the lack of a decision on the Cheri Moore incident.

He's also pissed off his base with the nonhandling of the Moore incident, as well as the animal abuse incidents out in the boonies, where he neglected to file any charges.

If a credible candidate comes along that can withstand the slings and arrows of an election, who isnt a polarizing figure from either the left OR right, he or she will trounce Paul, and rightly so...

Paul still has what, three years to right the ship, but even since the last election, he has done nothing.
 
Eric,

What is it about Paul Gallegos that induces you, a critical thinker, to state that:

"I've supported Paul, and I'll probably support him for re-election again."

...when you don't yet know who else might run? What if it's someone good?

Is it Gallegos' record of accomplishment? His moral clarity? Consensus-building? Efficiency?

This is what baffles me, and not just about your statement. It's the near-blind allegiance on behalf of many to this figure whose performance is mixed at best. I'd call it half-hearted, others - people in county agencies who work with the D.A.'s Office - call him a "do-nothing." Collating that with my experiences with Paul, it rings true.

I know you said "probably." Is that because someone better could theoretically run? For many of us, almost anyone who shows serious interest in the work would be an improvement. So maybe I'm your mirror image.

In any case, you aren't alone in your all-eclipsing allegiance to Gallegos. What am I missing here? Is it the guy's cologne?

I endorsed Dikeman. Gallegos' performance since the election hasn't exactly changed my mind. In your heart of hearts, don't you think Worth would have handled the Moore situation, and others, much more professionally?
 
Mr. Gallegos simply needs more time, in order to continue to enjoy this "comfortable place."
 
You'd support him again, Eric? Plagiarism? Mismanagement? Outright lies? Assault weapons for asset forfeiture? That's all cool with you? Incredible.
 
I really don't see the appeal of the guy. When the brain trust at PALCO decided to bankroll the recall, I knew that he would get a free pass from too many in this community. Take away his fight to stay in office and what do you have. CAST is gone (sorry kids!), Paul Hagen was fired (yahoo! say the environmental law breakers), and now we have the Cheri Moore fiasco.

I'm sure he's out there looking for the facts. He probably crossed paths with O.J. out hunting the real killers!

Let's face facts, other than some platitudes and posturing during the elections, what does he offer?

It's sad when the left or right decide that ideology trumps competence. We all suffer.
 
Well, let me start by describing what I like about Gallegos and his deputies' approach to justice. Under Terry Farmer if the police brought a case to them they felt obligated to prosecute even a weak case. I'm pretty certain that the reasoning was that the defendant was somehow deserving of the attention they got from the police and therefor should be punished if only to force the defendant to pay attorney fees for defense.

I dealt with a deputy who was frustrated with the policy. He had dropped a case against a client of mine who later prevailed in a false arrest claim. He dropped it because there was no case. He caught some flack in the office for dropping it. It was one of the reasons he left the office for the Bay Area.

I just figured that was par for the course. Prosecutors and police have to work together, so prosecutors show their "support" by backing up the charges the officers push. I saw this in Mendo county as well.

Other than that Ferndale incident I haven't seen anything like that since Gallegos has taken the office.

Dikeman would have handled the Moore matter professionally? His campaign manager announced that "the investigation is over" based upon the police conclusions alone. Dikeman would have signed off on the police report, and that would have been the end of it. No inquest. Nothing.

As for the alleged incompetence, well, I don't do that much criminal law, but he seems to be, to borrow from Hank Sims analysis last June, "getting the damn job done." Rose and others have highlighted on certain cases in which they didn't like the results, but trying cases like that in the media is extremely irresponsible. The prosecutor has a number of considerations, including the well-being of the victim, which isn't necessarily served by a trial. If the evidence is compromised, it may be in the victim's better interest to accept a plea that is less than perfect in the eyes of the public. I think it's pretty much irresponsible to publicly second guess any prosecutor's decisions in the absence of evidence of corruption because there is no way to know what the decision was based on. He is not free to disclose whether a victim compromised him or herself under oath in the preliminary hearing. He is not free to disclose whether there are inconsistencies the victim's story. He is not free to disclose any number of problems with the case.

Dikeman knew this and took advantage of it, as did the recall brigade. They took individual cases and attempted to try them in the public when Gallegos had no way to defend himself. Gallegos could have done the same thing with Dikeman. In fact, my secretary was a juror in a trial just months before the election in which the defendant was acquitted and the jurors were all over Dikeman afterward for even pushing the case. I'm not going to go into the details because Dikeman made a decision, which may have been a bad one, but one that was no doubt based upon nuances that neither the jury nor I can know. Gallegos could have made hay over it, but he didn't because he was bound to support the decisions of his deputy to maintain the integrity of the office. Dikeman should have known it was a shameless tactic, but he engaged in the campaign tactic anyway.

No, I don't think Dikeman was a professional. Sorry.

Am I totally happy with Gallegos? No. I strongly disapproved of his prosecution of Kat Zimmerman. His handling of the whole Oxbow Incident controversy was pretty lame. Hiring Tim Stoen was a mistake. The automatic gun order thing has me a little concerned about his view of the role of the office in law enforcement. He does come across as a politician with people in a way that sometimes turns me off.

But there's the approach I noted above. And there's the fact that I know him and like him, and despite his public persona I think he's genuine.

So I will probably support him. If somebody better comes along, or somebody gives me intrinsic evidence of incompetence other than the anecdotal, rumor, and subjective interpretation, then I'll consider otherwise. Unfortunately, it's also a choice of which machine to back. I don't necessarily vote for someone who is "progressive" against someone perceived as "conservative." But everything else being equal, I will.

But it's three years away. Bring Terrence Hallinan up here. I'll vote for him.
 
Ok, the cat's out of the bag. Eric would vote for Hallinan. If one knows anything about criminal law and about what happened to the SF DA's office, that's just moronic.
Even the public defenders in SF
decried Hallinan's incompetence.

Eric's comments about how the Gallegos/Farmer administrations differ is just ignorant and politically biased. He admits he doesn't do much criminal law. He cites one case, and puts his own spin on it. The fact is he knows nothing about the day to day internal workings of either office. Anyone who worked for both offices knows that the current DA is a dabbler, an incompetent, and
a political hack.

Eric, what happened to the DV unit and its grants? Gone. CAST? Ditto. The high tech prosecutor, investigator, and grant? You guessed it. Paul Hagen, remember him?

You really need to stay away from any discussion involving criminal law in general and the specifics of how it is practiced in Eureka because you don't know what you're
talking about.

Just say
I love Paul no matter what because that's what you really mean. Love doesn't need an explanation. It's irrational. That seems to be your comfort zone.
 
WOW Eric, I can't believe the crap I just read. You should run for DA next time. You have got to be kidding me. You really think that he is doing a good job?

He has no leadership, his Deputy Attorney's are jumping ship faster then they get hired. He leaves on vacation for months at a time. He screws up any case he personally takes to trial.

All I can say is, I can see how you defense attorney's want to support him. Look at the Toomey case, the cops had DNA evidence that he was the father. He admited to multiple counts of molesting this girl. He could have gotten double or triple what he got but no, they plead it out and Brown didn't have to do anything except smile.

Check out the Shasta County DA's office press release. Over 700 combined years of incarceration for child rapists.

You think he's doing a good job? How safe are your kids? Isn't Toomey from your home town?
 
So much for Free Speach eh Eric. Moderating comments now that dont' agree with your opinion is it?
 
I don't believe I've rejected any posts in this thread. If you posted something that hasn't appeared please send it again, or e-mail it to me.
 
"Dikeman would have signed off on the police report, and that would have been the end of it. No inquest. Nothing."

Beg to differ. I attended a press conference in which Dikeman called for the state attorney general's office to take over the investigation.
 
Kevin - yeah, that was later. The first announcement was from his campaign manager stating "the investigation is concluded."
 
Right Eric, he was speaking the facts, at that point the investigation was over and the information had been turned over to the DA.

Just because he said, "The investigaiton is over" did not mean that was the end of it.

Dikeman wanted the case, knowing that it was a hot hot issue, sent to the Attorney General because he believed that neither he nor PVG could make a decision that would satisfy people in Humboldt County. He figured that a 3rd, nuetral party, with nothing to loose or gain, would and should make the final decision as to if there is or was enough evidence to support either criminal charges against the EPD officers or to exonerate them.

PVG is a crook. Maybe not in the sense that he steals physical items, but he has robbed Humboldt County of the ability to live in a crime free community.

Meth use has risen during his time in office. Why? because he won't prosecute the cases. Hell even when he does he gives them prop 36, which is a joke in itself.

Marijuana cultivation and sales has risen during his time in office. Why? Because he won't prosecute the cases. When he does he allows people to bring in doctor recomendations that the person obtains after he or she was arrested. He has allowed 1 person to have 99 plants and 3 pounds if they have a a 215 recomendation. Do you know what the street value of a pound of marijuana is? here, it's 3,000 dollars. In the city it's 6,000.

Man that must be nice to be able to legally grow the marijuana and then use some and sell the rest. Oh wait, that helps pay for thelawyers who support PVG.

Violent crimes in Humboldt County have also risen. This is again do to the fact that PVG's office allows plea bargaining to PC 415 from PC 245.

This County, and it's communities are not safe anymore. Police have their hands tied because they try to do what is right, they try to make cases, but PVG and his attorney's do nothing with them. They throw them our or plea them away and call it a win either way.

So I ask you again, Why or how can you support this man who is destroying your community and my community by letting the criminal's run the town.

As for not putting any of my posts in, nothing that I have noticed, but how do we know that your not deleting posts that you don't agree with.
 
Rose and others have highlighted on certain [Gallegos] cases in which they didn't like the results, but trying cases like that in the media is extremely irresponsible.

I agree totally. Thankyou so much Eric for an very informative, legal insider's analysis of the Gallegos situation. I've seen so much of the endless Rose Patroll garbage on yours and Heraldo's blogs, yet relatively little intelligent, informative defense of Gallegos from those on his side.
 
Kevin's right. I was at that press conference too, and so was Kimberly Wear.

That was the first time that Dikeman or his campaign addressed the Cheri Lyn Moore matter.
 
Well, that article was dated May 26. It was certainly discussed in the debate of May 11.

Gallegos also criticized the statement by Dikeman’s campaign manager and supervisor of the Eureka Police Department’s detective bureau Dave Parris that the DA’s investigation into the shooting of Cheri Moore is complete.

“We are engaged in the investigation of a shooting by an officer. Mr. Dikeman’s campaign manager has told this community that the investigation is over when it has not even begun. We are still in the process of collecting information. [This claim] is an outrage and it is a disservice to this community because it dissuades people from coming forward, thinking that we have already resolved that case when we haven’t.”


That was of course a Gallegos press statement, but this was in Cristina's article of the same date.

A disagreement between the candidates about whether an investigation into the shooting was indeed complete highlighted each one’s perceived relationship with law enforcement: while Dikeman spoke of an April 27 press conference during which Eureka Police Chief David Douglas asserted that there was no wrongdoing on the EPD’s part, Gallegos firmly stated: “the D.A. makes the final decision, not Chief Douglas.”
 
Stephen - no way am I letting that post through, especially not on this thread.

Zionists control this blog. Let's leave it at that.
 
Whoops -- my bad.
 
Eric,

I'll concede your point about the dates. But only because I'm too lazy to further research the mattter and the issue threatens to get into how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin territory.

I will go back to my original point, though. What is it about the towering mediocrity presently holding the position of D.A. that inspires such zealous, protective loyalty? To the point that people are willing to announce their probable support for his re-election even though we don't know whether he'll run again or who will oppose him.
 
No prob Hank. I wouldn't have remembered except that I've had to go back to those archives in several discussions.
 
Good thing you don't like Gallegos, Kevin! The guy who owns the press your paper is printed on doesn't like him either. A fortunate coincidence, I'm sure.
 
It's no coincidence at all. Don't you know that web press owners dictate the editorial expression of all the publications they print? Silly naif.

Of course, we were printing at the Triplicate during the election when I opposed Gallegos, as well as the recall, when I supported him. Seems those people in Crescent City just couldn't seem to make up their minds.
 
Alot is being made of a statement that the "investigation was over," not putting it in context. One part of the investigation was over, and other agencies still had their own investigations to conduct. That was clearly stated as I recall.

It may be that Dave Parris had a separate interview with someone (I'll check the dates), but at Dikeman's press conference, Kevin and Hank are right. Dikeman called for it to be handed over to the AG, stating that, given the current situation, neither ne nor Gallegos could be seen as impartial, It was a lengthy press conference, with a lot of questions from all of the reporters, with alot of complexities. Out of that two main phrases were seized upon - that Dikeman did not see himself as being "in the loop" - meaning he was not privvy to what Gallegos was up to as he was not in the office, and that Dave Parris said the "investigation was over." Again, that was part of a longer explanation.

I guess that's what sells papers, and Gallegos' spin doctors got right to work on it.

The fact remains, Dikeman was right, the case should go to the AG. Should have happened al long time ago.
 
Rose - the CM statement was weeks before the Dikeman press conference. Dikeman altered his position to sound more neutral, or his CM went off half-cocked. Either way, the impression I was left at the time was that he had felt that the police had conducted their investigation, found that everything was appropriate, and that was that.

I should say however, for the record, that I read Rose's blog regularly. While I don't agree with her take on all of the facts, I've never found anything factually inaccurate, or at least not deliberately inaccurate. I don't think it's fair to critically scrutinize most cases in a public forum outside of the courtroom, but she is fair with the facts available.

Kevin - basically as I said, it's his philosophy of due process as it differed from Farmer (and Massini). He doesn't push cases just to "support the police." He pushes cases based on the strength of evidence. I find it refreshing. It's what got him into trouble with the police organizations.

I'll have a very illustrative anecdote on point at some point in time, but the matter is still active so I have to hold off.
 
Fair enuf. I'm out of my depth on this one - not up on current events - so I'll let you and Rose duke it out on the facts and maybe I'll learn something.

Besides, I haven't yet gotten my daily fax from Mr. Arkley dictating my editorial stance, so I'll hold off on further opining till that comes over.
 
Kevin L. Hoover said...
"Don't you know that web press owners dictate the editorial expression of all the publications they print?"

Your web press owner certainly has some input.
 
For the uninitiated - I think the implication here is that Rob Arkley is influencing the Arcata Eye content. It's kind of a silly thing aimed also at the North Coast Journal.

Actually, I've been accused of being in his pocket as well.
 
Rob Arkley Jr. is an aggressive, power-hungry and ambitious man.

He would never allow a Humboldt County newspaper to be printed on his press if that newspaper was genuinely independent.
 
My comment that Eric has again deleted in his fear of honest intellectual debate can be read on my Steve Lewis blog in the comment section under the Jewish Thought Police in action on Eric's blog topic.
 
I'm out of my depth on this one...

You're out of your depth on just about everything -- except Zappa and music.
 
"it's his philosophy of due process as it differed from Farmer (and Massini). He doesn't push cases just to "support the police." He pushes cases based on the strength of evidence. I find it refreshing. It's what got him into trouble with the police organizations.

Are you for real on this? Oh I forgot, you only do a criminal case or two.

My experience is that he doesn't give a damn about the evidence. What matters is how he looks. What has gotten him into trouble with the police is his dishonestly and incompetence in plea bargaing very strong cases. Go over to Rose's blog for better coverage of that.

I find it deeply sad, that you are so closed minded on this...but it is not suprising. Did't Gallegos' wife do something pro-bono for your wife. Talk about the good old boy network - wait is this now the new "little boy" network?
 
Like I said, I'll give you a concrete example once a certain matter has played out.

Joan did in fact help my wife out at one point. Not pro bono, but she charged far less than would have been justified by the work she performed.

However, that's not why I support her husband.
 
The anti-Gallegos crowd is really worked up into a frenzy. I think Erics POV represents most Gallegos supporters. Were not happy, but we know it could be worse. I for one understand PG's reasoning for holding up the Moore decision. This is a highly questionable case for obvious reasons. Instead of caving into pressure for a decision either way, he is waiting for the time to do it right. Go to the Human Resources section of the county website and basically every classification for DA employees are being hired right now.

The real crime in my humble opinion is that the DA's office is elected at all. This is a throwback to Patronage, the most corrupt system in U.S. history. Is there one single advantage to the general public by electing a partisan to such an administrative office?
 
What I find funny in this talkback is Hank and Kevin jumping the gun (Slightly) to attack Gallegos. Can you guys use a little, y'know, 'objectivity' here?
 
It makes me sick to my stomach to watch 'Animal Cops' on tv and see people elsewhere getting arrested for leaving their dog in the rain, but here, in our neck of the woods, you can mass murder and neglect dogs, horses, whatever, because Gallegos won't do one thing. His standard response is that it wasn't intentional. Ask Shannon Miranda.
 
I also believe they may have blown that case, but I am also fascinated whenever conservatives begin to sound like PETA members.
 
"I am also fascinated whenever conservatives begin to sound like PETA members"

Wow....Just Wow, Eric.
That case was sick and whether one is conservative or progressive has nothing to do with whether or not one would be rightfully horrified by what went on there...

You see Eric, unlike many there are quite a few of us here who are pretty damn moderate, who are mad as hell what the Salzman crowd has done to our local democratic party..., and along with him, we are disusted by the incompence that is Paul V. Gallegos.

639 says:"The anti-Gallegos crowd is really worked up into a frenzy."
No, 639, not all. We are merely puzzled by those such as you who unquestioningly make excuses for him, labling those who dare point out his ineptitude as "worked up into a frenzy".

I dont think that many of us would apply the same standards that you seem to be demanding of us here when it comes to GWBush and co...gee, consistency, what a concept...ME, I'm mad as heck and I am questioning both

As for your comment regarding whether or not that should be an elected position, and THEN comparing it to a system of patronage, are YOU KIDDING ME?

Should we just leave it up to YOU?
Nahh, I think we should leave it up to the voters, even if we end up with PVGs once in a while...
 
10:12 you need to read a history book. Ever wonder why Sheriffs are elected here in California, but city police chiefs are not? One would think if you believed in the equal enforcement of law, and not petty political attacks and partisanship, you might see why electing people to such an office is a bad idea. Oh, but of course, its your guy who is the only one who can prosecute cases in a fair manner...
 
"You're out of your depth on just about everything -- except Zappa and music."

Tonight I was out of my depth on Zappa and music, too, as you know if you heard the show. So at least I have consistency going for me. That's something, isn't it?

"What I find funny in this talkback is Hank and Kevin jumping the gun (Slightly) to attack Gallegos. Can you guys use a little, y'know, 'objectivity' here?"

I'd like to address this. We aren't reporting news here; we're expressing opinion. Journalists form opinions on things they experience just like normal people.

I'm not aware of any reason why we shouldn't have the right to express ourselves outside of the news pages, especially since we spend so much of our time ensuring that others' views are known to the public.

If there's any value in our being secretive about our so-called thoughts, I'd like to know what it is.

Obviously, once we make our attitudes known, it gives skeptical readers the ability to scrutinize the news we write even more knowledgeably, since they know what our biases are and could recognize any leakage.

Does that make sense? It's been a rough night. I started my show with a blown segue and it deteriorated from there. Then this idiot in an Audi wagon with a canoe on top tailgated me through the Safety Corridor.
 
emotional bashing aside, i am going to need an analysis of the records of Farmer and Gallegos, side by side, before i give any creedence to these comments: conviction rates, office turn-over, lawsuits, etc...
 
" believe they may have blown that case, but I am also fascinated whenever conservatives begin to sound like PETA members."

A. I am not conservative.

B. It wasn't just "that" case. What about those yahoos who opened fire (multiple times ) on a litter of puppies and left them to die in a ditch in Blue Lake? One pup survived although it had to have a leg amputated. The sentence? The mama dog was removed from their custody and they were ordered not to own dogs anymore.

He just doesn't seem to care.

Can you name even one animal abuse case prosecuted under Gallegos?
 
Soft on Marijuana + So. Hum. Campaign contributions = Paul V Gallegos.

The electorate has spoken, just deal with it!
 
"10:12 you need to read a history book"

Uhhhhh 106, and this is in response to whether or not District Attorneys are elected or not? And you cite Police Chiefs and Sherrifs??????????????????.

Can you cite ANYWHERE in the United States where a District Attorney is NOT an elected position??

Now run along 106, back to your history book...also might want to pick up a book of facts.
 
All of the journalists in this county gave Gallegos the benefit of the doubt - BIG TIME - for years. No one has been given more opportunity and support. But his record is coming home to roost. It cannot be ignored or excused any longer.

It has nothing to do with hating Gallegos. I am sure he is a very nice guy, a good Dad and an attentive husband, maybe even a decent defense attorney. But he is a dismal failure as a DA, and the long term effects of his mismanagement will take years to fix.

He can return to private practice and all of this will go away. Heck, Eric could even hire him if he thinks he can be trusted.
 
Can you cite ANYWHERE in the United States where a District Attorney is NOT an elected position??

I'm pretty certain that there are states where DA's are appointed. I'll see what I can dig up later. In the meantime, here's a portion of the Wikipedia entry for "District Attorney."

A district attorney (D.A.) is, in some U.S. jurisdictions, the title of the local public official who represents the government in the prosecution of criminals. The district attorney is the highest officeholder in the jurisdiction's legal department and supervises a staff of assistant district attorneys. Similar functions are carried out at the local level in other jurisdictions by officers named the Commonwealth's Attorney, State's Attorney, County Attorney, or County Prosecutor. Depending on the system in place in the particular state or county, district attorneys may be appointed by the chief executive of the region or elected by the people.
 
The reason DA's are still elected is that California progressives back during the reforms didn't get around to reforming the system. You can look at U.S. attorneys who act like DA's. You can look at just about any other country, and no 'DA' is ever elected by popular vote. I am perplexed as to why you would be so hostile towards this, but then again, you write like Rose, act like Rose, and obviously think like Rose. Get over the fact that some people are not disgusted by Paul Gallegos. Get over the fact that Worth Dikeman lost and was fired. More importantly, get over your hostile attitude.
 
Eric, please tell me you don't rely on wikipedia?

If so I just lost all respect for you and your... cough cough, wisdom (did I just say wisdom)

wikipedia is 100 percent un-reliable. It is edited and twisted by anyone who has a conspiracy theory.

You have a better chance of finding the truth by googling it.
 
Eric, please tell me you don't rely on wikipedia?

Not as a final authority, but certainly as a starting point in research. I have found them to be surprisingly accurate. Yes, wingnuts can post their stuff there, but there is a mechanism for challenging the objectivity and accuracy of the entries. Most of the biased and inaccurate stuff gets flagged pretty quickly.

But yes, I take it with a grain of salt. This is a pretty generic entry however.
 
Oh I know it was generic, but anytime I hear or see the word Wikipedia, It makes me wence in pain that someone would actually use it.
 
"Get over the fact that some people are not disgusted by Paul Gallegos. Get over the fact that Worth Dikeman lost and was fired. More importantly, get over your hostile attitude. "

Sheeeitttt, 106, why dont you GET OVER BLINDLEY DEFENDING THIS GUY.

If you read any of these posts youd see that some of us actually voted for the guy (in my case twice -when including the recall).

Again, I simply can't imagine you, 106 saying the same when it comes to other political situations, gee, the presidential one comes to mind. Are you going to be consistent and say to "get over it"?????

I thought not. Run along now, f@$n hypocrite. At least I am out calling for BOTH of their heads, can you say the same?
 
9:47 are you purposely trying to make the anti-Gallegos crowd look more insane than they already are? I mean, you act like a guy who PG made register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. Take some deep breaths!
 
"I'm not aware of any reason why we shouldn't have the right to express ourselves...."
- Kevin Hoover of the Arkley Eye

Kevin, as a fellow Frank Zappa fan I would love to give you the benefit of the doubt. However, when commenters express the obvious - that the Arcata Eye and the North Coast Journal have definitely pulled their punches where Arkley and his authoritarian ways are concerned, you and Hank Sims start screaming like a couple of stuck pigs! I think you Arkley tools doth protest too much. You give yourselves away, in case you didn't know. And to say that using Arkley's press has no impact on your editorial decisions is total bullshit. He could shut you guys down in a New York minute if he chose to do so. That's why Hoover and Sims take it easy on the Arkley machine. How about Arkley foes, like Richard Salzman? Completely different story! Sims' turned Salzman's letters to the editor into a crusade spanning multiple issues of the NCJ. Notice the NCJ has never done anything even remotely similar regarding Arkley or his dirty financial and political dealings? Hoover and Sims need to quit pretending they're neutral on the issue of the Arkleys attempting to run Eureka like their own personal kingdom. You are not neutral. You may have opinions, and you may express them from time to time, but business is business. And Arkley has your organizations by the balls, and everyone knows it. Who are you trying to fool? The louder Hoover and Sims get about this issue, the guiltier they appear. And this time, why don't you sell-outs deal with the message instead of simply attacking the messenger? Or are you unable to? Guilty as charged.
 
"9:47 are you purposely trying to make the anti-Gallegos crowd look more insane than they already are? I mean, you act like a guy who PG made register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. Take some deep breaths!

Sat Jun 23, 11:56:00 PM "

Perfect example of someone not responding to the questions asked or points raised in the post. Try and discredit the poster without actually making any valid counterpoints, as there are none to be made.

Only, I will call you on your bullshit each.and.every.time.
 
Oh puleeeze.... Stating that a paper printed on the Arkley press supports the Arkey politics is like stating that you support Communist rule because you bought a sweatshirt at Target (made in China). It is merely a case of buying a service at a price and location that fits your budget.
 
I suppose I'll spend a few minutes of deadline time on this, since the person claims to be a Zappa fan and therefore can't be completely bereft of reason.

"However, when commenters express the obvious - that the Arcata Eye and the North Coast Journal have definitely pulled their punches where Arkley and his authoritarian ways are concerned, you and Hank Sims start screaming like a couple of stuck pigs!"

I don't think you can support that claim with any citations. Hank can speak for himself, but I've read plenty of criticism of Rob Arkley's endeavors in the Journal, and the Town Dandy hasn't been terribly indulgent.

But with regard to the Eye, we simply don't cover Eureka, where Rob does his business. We never have. I can't think of a Rob-related issue that's touched Arcata in the slightest. Can you?

So how is it "obvious" and "definite" that I, and the Eye, have favored him? Citations, please. Then we'll have something tangible to talk about.

"And to say that using Arkley's press has no impact on your editorial decisions is total bullshit. He could shut you guys down in a New York minute if he chose to do so."

True. And he'd lose a lot of business and the hard-earned respect of skeptics. We'd all just print elsewhere; the other web presses would love to have the business.

You ought to give Rob Arkley some credit for taking the high road with his press. It clearly prints lots of things that clash with his beliefs - the ER publishes Amy Goodman and Bill Press columns (among other liberals and conservatives), which probably don't exactly jibe with his belief systems. Can you honestly say you'd be as tolerant?

"That's why Hoover and Sims take it easy on the Arkley machine. How about Arkley foes, like Richard Salzman? Completely different story!"

That's because Richard, who I like personally, deceived us and defrauded our readers with false letters. If Rob Arkley were to do that that and we knew about it, we'll write about it.

"Hoover and Sims need to quit pretending they're neutral on the issue of the Arkleys attempting to run Eureka like their own personal kingdom. You are not neutral. You may have opinions, and you may express them from time to time, but business is business. And Arkley has your organizations by the balls, and everyone knows it. Who are you trying to fool? The louder Hoover and Sims get about this issue, the guiltier they appear. And this time, why don't you sell-outs deal with the message instead of simply attacking the messenger? Or are you unable to? Guilty as charged".

Well, it sounds to me like this person really dislikes Rob Arkley and is determined to paint the local independent newspapers as his collaborators, the lack of any evidence or citations notwithstanding.

If it matters, here is the sum total of my relationship with Rob Arkley: I've met him a few times, many years ago. I've exchanged a few e-mails with him, such as when I asked him about Captain Buhne for the story a few months back. And we pay one of his companies, Western Web, to print our newspaper. That's it, and it's more or less commensurate with the kinds of contacts professionals in our small area inevitably have as the years go by.

In terms of editorial judgment ("judgment" might better be in quotes in my case) and news story selection, it's simple: I base my decisions on what most impacts Arcatans and what I can realistically accomplish with the limited time and resources available to me.

There, the stuck pig hath spoken.
 
Thanx Kevin. Can you tell me if We're only in it for the Money ever made it onto DVD? A friend of mine in high school played his copy for me back in 1980, but I was unable to find it anywhere for the next couple of years. Not even at Rasputin's. I've never bothered to look since.
 
Oops. CD. Not DVD.
 
Hoover, you need to stop complaining about Salzman. Isnt it YOUR JOB to make sure the people writing letters are who they say they are? Doesnt that take about a minute and a half out of your day? Thank god for Erics blog, because your bias shows so brightly you might as well be a lighthouse warning people to stay away.
 
"Hoover, you need to stop complaining about Salzman. Isnt it YOUR JOB to make sure the people writing letters are who they say they are? Doesnt that take about a minute and a half out of your day? Thank god for Erics blog, because your bias shows so brightly you might as well be a lighthouse warning people to stay away."

I sense that there's no real point in addressing these objections to my conduct, imaginary or otherwise. But what the hell.

First, I do take full responsibility for the Salzman deception and every single thing that appears in the Arcata Eye, no ifs ands or buts.

As it happens, I did call R. Trent Whatever-he-called-himeself, the fictional signatory to one of Richard's letters, at the number provided. I got someone - a male voice - who said that yes, he was R. Trent and that he did write the letter. I didn't recognize the voice at the time, but I assume it was Richard.

I don't run fingerprints on the letters, nor do I require that people bring them in person and show me a photo ID. At some point, you have to trust people not to lie to you. Richard feels strongly about his politics, apparently enough to overcome his respect for process and to go ahead and cheat to get things into print. I think it's cheesy, but I don't hate him for it. Nor do I fel constrained from objecting to it. The point is, I did do my due diligence.

"Thank god for Erics blog, because your bias shows so brightly you might as well be a lighthouse warning people to stay away."

I'll agree that everyone should thank the deity of their choice for Eric's blog. And if my bias wards away hysterical people who believe things for which there is no indentifiable basis, well, that only lessens my workload (I'm referring to the useless nut letters I received this week). In fact, I wish it would do more of that.

Eric, I'm not sure if WOIIFTM is on CD, but I'd guess so. I don't have it myself on that form of media.
 
So how is it "obvious" and "definite" that I, and the Eye, have favored him? Citations, please. Then we'll have something tangible to talk about.

Hilarious. As if you would ever openly admit to the Arkleys' relationship with you, or openly support some reactionary political position or strategy of his.

You know you have a fairly liberal readership in Arcata to keep misinformed and distracted. You have to play to them, as your closet-Arkleyite allies at the Journal do. You're going to do your damnedest to make sure nothing tangible ever gets into the public record.

So, for the time being, the public has only circumstantial evidence, but it reveals a convincing pattern. Your ill-informed support of Arkley's candidate Dikeman is one example. Your participation in Arkley's witch-hunt of Salzman with the Journal is another. Your personal support of Arkley's drive to put Shawn Warford and the Advocate out of business is another. Your inevitable and relentless attacks and smears of Arcata leftists who are particularly outspoken and active in challenging the political status quo is another.

You just viscerally despise courageous people like Ornelas and Meserve. It shows very clearly in the nasty, petty, vindictive way you've written about them and others over the years.

Add to this the fact that, as pointed out by the commenter above, you always pull your punches with the Arkleys. You even do PR for them when you mischaracterize these greedy, ruthless, antisocial people as "philanthropists" -- just as their other supporters do.

Sims puts on a particularly well-crafted show (you could learn a trick or two from him), but nothing he has ever written about Arkley, as far as I know, amounts to any serious criticism that would do Arkley political harm. It's all kid gloves stuff designed to make Hank look like an "independent journalist" to the Journal's naive leftist readership.

Add to all this the fact that you print your paper on Arkley's press -- in a politically polarized county where Arkley is the de facto leader of Humboldt County conservatives -- and it is perfectly obvious to all but the most corrupt and uninformed that, when it comes to Humboldt County politics, you are a political ally of the Arkleys when it comes to destroying his more effective political enemies.
 
Kevin, why did you include the Arkleys in the dedication in one of your Police Log books?
 
Wowee, there's a lot of wayward assumptions to respond to in those last two, especially the first one. But at this point I have less than six hours to finish the paper and get it to the printers, so any detailed response will have to wait.

I may not do so, though. That first person is so tied up in knots with hostility, I doubt that he/she is interested in rational discussion. I'll only say that I don't hate Bob. O. or Dave Meserve. Sometimes I even like them more than they like each other! Bob will probably have a column in next week's paper.

But as for you, Mr. 5:15:

"Kevin, why did you include the Arkleys in the dedication in one of your Police Log books?"

I thanked Lois and Robin Arkley (along with 60 or so other people) in both my books, and will probably do so in the third. Why? Because they're great Arcatans!
 
"You just viscerally despise courageous people like Ornelas and Meserve. It shows very clearly in the nasty, petty, vindictive way you've written about them and others over the years. "

mmmmm yes...just bring up the "A" team, aand that gets u a free pass

Courageous when it comes to BigBob, and Dave, what isnt this a national forum? Meserve,,,DOES NOT APPLY...
 
You know, Econews prints out at Western Web too.

Does that make them "a political ally of the Arkleys when it comes to destroying his more effective political enemies?"
 
As for Hank, how soon people forget.
 
It's no use addressing this rationally.

The folks Hank refers to as the ""shut-ins" can take in virtually any piece of info, work it around and around in their minds and out the other end comes the inevitable conclusion that it's support for the Arkley mission.

Even criticism of Rob winds up being part of the "well-crafted show."

Back to deadline...
 
Kevin Hoover said...
It's no use addressing this rationally.

Of course. You couldn't address this issue rationally to save your life.

You completely ignored the point of the 5:11 comment, which was that your political behavior shows a pattern:

So, for the time being, the public has only circumstantial evidence, but it reveals a convincing pattern. Your ill-informed support of Arkley's candidate Dikeman is one example. Your participation in Arkley's witch-hunt of Salzman with the Journal is another. Your personal support of Arkley's drive to put Shawn Warford and the Advocate out of business is another. Your inevitable and relentless attacks and smears of Arcata leftists who are particularly outspoken and active in challenging the political status quo is another.

Add to this the fact that, as pointed out by the commenter above, you always pull your punches with the Arkleys. You even do PR for them when you mischaracterize these greedy, ruthless, antisocial people as "philanthropists" -- just as their other supporters do.

 
Kevin L. Hoover said...
You know, Econews prints out at Western Web too.

Dream on, Hoover. Econews does NOT print on Arkley's Western Web press.
 
For the record, the ECONEWS does not print at Western Web (Arkley's press). Please get your facts straight before dragging us into this kind of crap. Thank you.

Erica Terence
ECONEWS editor
 
That first person is so tied up in knots with hostility, I doubt that he/she is interested in rational discussion.

You're projecting, Kevin.
 
Don't you people have anything better to do?
 
Kevin Hoover: "I'll only say that I don't hate Bob. O. or Dave Meserve. Sometimes I even like them more than they like each other!"


Yeah, I'll bet you loved it whan Bad Bob gave you the "up your ass" fist sign when Gallegos beat your candidate!
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Free Website Counter
Free Web Site Counter

Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
To see more details, click here.
Click for www.electoral-vote.com