Thursday, October 19, 2006

Should Paul Gallegos recuse himself?

Should Paul Gallegos recuse himself in the Cheri Moore case?

35 comments:

  1. Do you receive any funding to post this blog, and if so, from whom?

    Thank you for your honest answer.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Do you mean like donations from the AEB or Local Solutions ?

    ReplyDelete
  3. No. I do not receive any funding of any sort from any person, any group or any other possible entity.

    I do this because I believe our District Attorney's office belongs to the people and should remain pure. It is the people's arm of the justice system, and it should not be influenced by special interests, by special interest donations, nor should it be used as a weapon by political activist groups.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The information posted here is appreciated.

    People should know, or be made aware of, what happens in the legal system, not just the high profile cases.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Should Paul Gallegos recuse Himself?" Most definetly, there's a clear conflict of interest: Paul has to pay back law enforcement for voting for the MAN, Worth Dikeman. Will he recuse himself, NO. His constituency and just as important, his ego will not allow it. Besides, Paul is too vindictive. Roy

    ReplyDelete
  6. Given that Paul has openly said that he wants to get a cop...given the fact that no law enforcment supported him, given the political way he has abused the Moore shooting case, he has to recuse himself and turn the matter over to the AG if he 1) wants to impanel a criminal GJ (interesting to see what his theory would be here or 2) simply file charges. if he filed charges no doubt that any competent attorney would file (and win) a recusal motion.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Speaking of the Cheri Moore case. Didn't her friend, the guy that was bringing her cigarettes or talking to her on the phone at the time of the incident just get busted for meth, coke, guns and more ? This is 2nd or 3rd hand information. The arrest was mentioned in todays T/S.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Speaking of the Cheri Moore case. Didn't her friend, the guy that was bringing her cigarettes or talking to her on the phone at the time of the incident just get busted for meth, coke, guns and more ? This is 2nd or 3rd hand information. The arrest was mentioned in todays T/S.

    Relevance?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Relevance? Eric you egotistical smuck, this is a blog not court.

    I guess the "RELEVANCE" would be to watch and see how he is prosecuted, if this is that person.

    With the speculation that our DA is going to try to charge or indict EPD officers over the Moore shooting this guy may be (or may have been) on the witness list. If so his credibility is in serious question. Is that enough relevance for you Eric ?

    And is it possible he gets a sweetheart deal so he will be a good little witness ? Is there any relevance in that Eric?

    What say you Eric? Speak, enlighten us with your knowledge and wisdom.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree. It is relevant on many levels.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Eric has an interesting post (titled "The other shoe isn't quite falling yet") on the process involved with these types of claims. To wit, this is a placeholder while the ambulance chaser figures out his suit (no, that's not how Eric worded it.) But he notes that he, heraldo and I agree that Gallegos should recuse himself on this one.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If PG recuses himself, as he should, the AG's office will decline (my opinion). That is why PG will not recuse himself. PG needs to satisfy his assoicates, supporters, controllers, etc. And PG needs to satisfy his ego and get his pound of flesh from EPD, and make all the other agencies sweat. It's revenge, control, a display of power. Mark my words.

    Go ahead Erick tell me I'm wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Times Standard 10/19/06; Marcus Smith (and his wife) arrested with meth, cocaine, handguns, and more.

    Times Standard 09/12/06; Marcus Smith, friend of Cheri Moore, testifies at the coroners inquest; Smith "felt something in the air and knew the police were going to kill her".

    Seems to be a little relevant.

    google........ check it out !

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thank you. I had missed that. It is certainly a very important part of this chapter in the Gallegos debacle.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I understand that there are some child endangerment issues with the Marcus Smith case? But those will never be prosecuted as the welfare of children does not seem to be an issue with Mr. G. And from what I read in todays paper the welfare of animals is not too much of a concern either.

    I would recommend a vote for Jerry Brown as AG ! And I am a life long Repbulican. Unlike many I vote the issue, not party line.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Gee whiz no response yet from Eric Kirk?

    And Heraldo hasn't posted in 4 or 5 days but he comes up on Eric's blog to have a go at the cops ?

    No comments from the left on the recent DA's decision on the animal abuse case ? I guess they're busy working on the spin ???????

    ReplyDelete
  17. Attention, please. Humboldt's renown community prophet at large has remodeled his blog site. For all Steve Lewis blog site fans, and we know there are millions of you out there, please go to http://steve-lewis.blogspot.com/ and bookmark the internet address.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Our boy Eric hasn't come back to this one ! Why do you think that is ? I have an idea or two.

    ***** follow the court case on Marcus Smith *******

    ReplyDelete
  19. I guess the "RELEVANCE" would be to watch and see how he is prosecuted, if this is that person.

    With the speculation that our DA is going to try to charge or indict EPD officers over the Moore shooting this guy may be (or may have been) on the witness list. If so his credibility is in serious question. Is that enough relevance for you Eric ?

    And is it possible he gets a sweetheart deal so he will be a good little witness ? Is there any relevance in that Eric?


    Well, it does not necessarily follow that because somebody has used illegal drugs that he is inclined to commit perjury. What would be a "sweetheart deal" in this case? Anything less than the death penalty?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Our boy Eric hasn't come back to this one ! Why do you think that is ? I have an idea or two.

    Sorry for having a life!

    ReplyDelete
  21. The relevance, Eric, is that if somebody is high on drugs at the time of an event, their ability to perceive and recollect the event is very questionable.

    You are a self proclaimed hotshot attorney, you should know that one.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hotshot? Hell, that term is before my time. Kind of like "groovy."

    Anyway, was he arrested for drug use at the time. I'm left with the impression that the arrest took place months later. Perhaps I'm missing something.

    Certainly your notion isn't that if he uses drugs that he's high ALL the time, right? Because in a court of law his drug use won't even be allowed into evidence unless there is evidence of intoxication at the moment in question.

    And not that it matters anyway because his statement that he knew she was going to die will be excluded as purely speculative unless he provides some concrete basis for his conclusion. A "hopeless feeling" isn't quite enough.

    His testimony is relevent because he had her on the phone and the police refused to take the phone and talk to her. It would be probative of the allegation being floated around that they had no desire to talk to her and were simply making plans to capture or kill her. The question will then shift to whether it was reasonable to assume that talking would be fruitless or counterproductive.

    So there's no need to attack this gentleman. His veracity won't be an issue unless the cops deny that he tried to hand them the phone.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hey, I can't find the thread where the arrest of Marcus Smith was originally brought up, but I do remember Rose saying something like "It's relevant on all kinds of levels."

    Why? The police corroborated everything he had to say, except for the stuff he said about what Moore was like as a person. The phone, his conversations with dispatch, all the stuff at the scene -- the police said it happened just like he said it did.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Multiple weapons found in meth bust

    "The Humboldt County Drug Task Force said the Eureka Police Department contacted its office after pulling over Marcus Smith Monday and finding two loaded handguns, an ounce of methamphetamine and an ounce of cocaine. "

    Ok, Hank, it's not politically correct to say it, but Cheri Moore wasn't June Cleaver. By the newspaper accounts, drug use was part of the path that led her to the point where she was shot. Whether or not she was using at the time, it was part of the path. That her friends were also users is relevant. It speaks to the culture she was involved in, and it is usually one that has a great deal of contact with police. It speaks to instability, and possible problems.

    It's not that being on drugs necessarily affects their credibility directly (but it would raise some questions in my mind) and it would also give an indication of how he - and she - might view cops - as adversaries, and see events through a particular prism.

    It's not to say she deserved what happened by any stretch of the imagination, but when you choose a certain path in life, you have to know it can end badly.

    She put everything in motion.

    Now, this kid is being portrayed as Beaver Cleaver. He wasn't. This isn't the Magical World of Disney. It's the real world.

    If you point a gun (even a toy gun) at a cop, or brandish a weapon, or try to run 'em over with a car, you know, all bets are off.

    The news account above would serve to illustrate that it might be reasonable to assume that the cops might fear that she had more than a flare gun. Would they have any way of knowing if she had a water gun, a flare gun or an entire arsenal in her apartment? Law enforcement encounters "those kinds of people" on a regular basis, and they would have some idea of the potential danger, seems to me.

    You don't honestly believe that anyone went in there with the intent to kill?

    disclaimer: I am making assumptions and extrapolating from the limited information I have - in this case. I am not well-informed, nor have I made an effort to be well-informed about Cheri Moore. So take it for what it's worth. But I believe the drug culture is very relevant to the whole entire thing.

    And as an aside, I see all this energy going into caring about her, but none for the "Four children, ranging from 3 to 12 years old," who were in (Marcus Smith's) home and "placed into protective custody." Now there's someone who could use the help and energy, some honest caring, and they are alive and can benefit from it.

    I see all this pent up rage surrounding this latest incident, and no outrage that two teenagers killed a homeless man as easily as they shot at a cow.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The difference is that the teenagers weren't working for us. What they did was absolutely heinous and brutal, but we weren't paying them to do it, in our names. That's why there's the outrage.

    I still don't see exacty what you're saying about Marcus Smith. You're saying that his arrest proves that she was friends with a tweaker, and that she lived in the netherworld. Well, I don't think that was any secret up to this point.

    Originally, I thought you were saying it was "relevant on all kinds of levels" because it cast some negative light on his testimony. I don't think it did that.

    ReplyDelete
  26. No. I don't question his testimony.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The thread you are looking for may be on Eric's

    ReplyDelete
  28. The relevance is that someone who uses drug may not be able to perceive or recollect an event accurately if they were on drugs at the time of the event. If this man testified, it would be fair game for him to be asked if he was using drugs/alcohol on the day of the event, and if he said, "Oh, no, I never use drugs," his arrest could be used to impeach him. When you take the stand, you put your credibility at issue.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "s what I mean, it is relevant on many levels.

    And like it or not people who use drugs, and especially people who sell drugs, cannot be viewed quite the same as law abiding citizens. They're choosing to live outside the law, that colors their viewpoint, and even if no one disputes his testimony, it affects his credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  30. How about this. Marcus Smith was allowed to say something (at the inquest)to the effect he knew Moore was going to get killed, he had a feeling or some crap like that. That kind of self serving statment would probably not be allowed in real court, criminal or civil.

    Smith is/was her(Moore's)friend and most likely her meth connection. Which by her own diary showed was part of her downward spiral. Smith is out selling drugs (cocaine & meth)with kids at home. He is carrying guns. Don't know how much you've been around a courtroom but his credibility is TOAST. The real point is to see what the DA's office does with this case, Smith's case? Follow the ball. Rumor and speculation is that Gallegos is working to get the EPD chief, Lt, and some of the SWAT team charged criminally. That's why he won't give a ruling on the Moore shooting. Smith is or will be a witness in that case, if Gag's is soooo stupid (and I think he is), so his credibility is a concern for Gallegos. And when Marcus Smith was first arrested his wife was released. She went to the pool hall on 5th street, that just happened to be where Gag's had a $50.00 per person fundraiser for his last election. Later when the cops found evidence to arrest the wife/mother they located her in the pool hall. Call it conspiracy theory but these events have become intertwined. With cocaine, meth, and guns this guy should go to prison (if the system was working and that justice for all stuff was for real). Even in the screwed up DA world of Humboldt County this guy (and wife) should get nothing less that state prison suspended and felony probation. NO prop 36 and no straight possession. Anything else is outright WRONG and many would say another sign of corruption in the DA' office. Eric will read this and go to GAg's so who knows. Gag's is so intoxicated with power he may go ahead and give his buddy/new buddy Smith and wife a sweetheart deal. Interesting stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Eric doens't seem to want to touch this one ??? Come on Erwic.

    ReplyDelete
  32. There must be some truth or logic to it.

    oh well, eric is just a chump.

    ReplyDelete
  33. News reports tonight indicate that toxicology reports show that the kid, Christopher Burgess was on meth.

    No surprise there, is there?

    Now - what about Marjorie Burgess's OTHER kid?

    Maybe Ken Miller can take him in. Show how much he cares.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Eric is going to supply the marshmellows for the Friday night bonfire at Moonstone beach. In memory of the passing of that bright, friendly, non violent, sweet, lover of puppies and poetry Chris Burgess.

    Who's going to supply the meth?

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open. Play nice.