Thursday, February 07, 2008

My WORD!

source

Bread and Circuses (Town Dandy, Feb 7, 2008)

Staring down at the Times Standard Op-Ed pages over the last five years, it has often occurred to us that those columns could be vastly improved with the addition of a single exclamation point. Too often the guest opinions do not live up to the section header under which they run. The usual header - "My Word" - conjures up manly visions of fists pounding tables, straight talking guys and gals calling it like it is. Sounds good, but when your eye scans downward what you generally get are the frightened scribblings of flaks and fussbudgets.

A suggestion? Add the exclamation point. "My Word!" The mental image of a sweating, bonneted Aunt Bea fanning herself to ward off heresy is almost always more apropos. And such was the case on Tuesday, Feb. 5, when former Deputy District Attorney Jeff Schwartz took up pen to scribe an early Valentine's letter to his ex-boss, DA Paul Gallegos. The Schwartz "My Word!" piece was called "Paul Gallegos: The beginning of an era," and it takes to task both the T-S editorial board and your humble servant for daring to suggest that the final failure, last month, of Gallegos' massive, five-year lawsuit against Pacific Lumber Co. reflects poorly on the DA.

Before we continue, let's get to the disclosure. Schwartz is the husband of the Journal's "Media Maven" columnist, Marcy Burstiner. I've never met the man, but I'm looking forward to someday doing so. He was supposed to show up at the Journal's Christmas party but the whole family came down with the norovirus that day. Just about the only thing I know about him is that before moving to Humboldt County and becoming a senior prosecutor under Gallegos, he was a San Francisco defense attorney with a website called "YouGoFree.Com." That's all in the past, although since stepping down from the District Attorney's office he has hied to his old occupation.

The nut of Schwartz's argument is based on the somewhat tired and dated notion of the "goold old boy" network, which Schwartz believes is still working to keep Gallegos down. Why? Because he had the gumption to prosecute members of their tribe.

Have you noticed that the non-historical cases he brought -- the cases against Debbie August and Palco. to name two -- never got past Humboldt's historical power base (the judiciary, the newspapers and the local law makers) and thus never reached a jury, which would have been made up largely of people who elected him?


I'm not sure what Schwartz means by "non-historical" here - failed? - and I'm not quite sure how, as an officer of the court, he can deplore the fact that the judicisary doesn't automatically roll over for whatever strikes Gallegos' fancy. Leave those things aside, though. The more important thing is that Schwartz is flat-out wrong on the facts.

Take the judiciary, one of "Humboldt's historical power bases." But Humboldt County judges have nothing to do with the death of the Palco suit. The appellate court killed it last month on the grounds that it had no basis in law. Neither did the Palco case founder in front of any local judge when it was back in trial court. It's true that judge Christopher Wilson ruled for Pacific Lumber on an early demurrer, but he gave the DA and his assistant Tim Stoen, leave to amend the case. And when the case was amended, Stoen fought - successfully - to have it heard before an out-of-town judge. It was Lake County's Judge Richard Freeborn who threw the case out in superior court, way back in 2005.

So what of Schwartz's charge against that other "power base" - the newspapers? This sadly, is where Schwartz dissolves into ridiculousness. Every newspaper in Humboldt County - even the Eureka Reporter - supported Gallegos' right to bring the suit, and every paper in Humboldt County editorialized strongly against Pacific Lumber's recall drive against the DA. Speaking for our paper, we would certainly do so again. It was dirty and rotten and reduced the rule of law to the level of an Alabamian backwater.

But it's one thing to bring the case, and quite another to win it. If our only desire is that Gallegos bring cases against the elite, we would have done as well with any bum standing on the Plaza ranting about the perfidity of "the corporations." It's even likely that the bum's rhetoric would be zazzier than Gallegos'. But we fear that there is no distinction between effort and accomplishment in the mind of Schwartz, or in the mind of any of the many Gallegos supporters who still look on the man with starry eyes and imagine that he has claimed the county on their behalf. Schwartz writes that Gallegos has many accomplishments in the prosecution of white-collar crime. Sadly, he does not bother to list any.

That isn't to say Gallegos hasn't achieved positive things. It's easy to make the case that the DA brought some sense to the county's prosecution of marijuana crimes, even if he did so by de-criminalizing the drug de-facto. It's a strategy that is not without its own consequences, but it's arguably more senisble than what came before.

Anything else? Schwartz himself listed two high-profile, white-collar cases that Gallegos brought and lost. In the one, he sought $250 million in remedies and in the other he sought the removal from office of a member of the Fortuna City Council. Are there any white-collar cases of so high a profile that Gallegos has won? If so, Schwartz has not remembered them. And so, to date, the man's reputation is more grounded in failure than in success. Read the rest...
***
Note: Schwartz doesn't even know how to spell Debi August's name.

OMG! The Media Maven's column in this same issue is titled Be Clear. She'd also advocate for a factual report. Obviously her advice hasn't rubbed off on Jeff "Yougofree.com."

7 comments:

  1. want to bet Yougo is sleeping on the couch this week?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like the picture of Aunt Bea, but I liked the one you posted earlier today with the close-up of Aunt Bea's face. I like Aunt Bea!

    ReplyDelete
  3. She was great. YOu know you can buy old series on CD now... I was looking for a picture that fit the expression Hank describes, but couldn't find it.

    We sure aren't livin' in Mayberry anymore. The innocence of those times is gone forever.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, Mayberry was a fictious town on a TV show. Yes, the innocence is gone.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have met Yougofree.com (Jeffy) and I have nothing good to say about him. I have some work to do or I would elaborate ! Maybe later.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Honorable Richard L. Freeborn was sitting in for the regular judge (The Honorable Stephen O. Hedstrom) in Dept. IV, Clearlake, yesterday, and I asked him if he was part of the dominant paradigm of good old boys conspiring to keep Paul Gallegos down. He said no, no he wasn't. That should settle that.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So what happened to a jury of your peers? Blind justice? A PG jury of his supporter's?? What the hell?
    D.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open. Play nice.