Friday, June 20, 2008

More Plea deals

Man accused of robbing, assaulting 'escort' gets plea deal
A Eureka man accused of robbing and assaulting a woman who’d solicited her “companionship” online in November 2007 will spend five years and four months in prison as part of a plea deal.

Jesse Ray Perez, 27, was arrested Nov. 29, 2007, on suspicion of robbing the alleged victim, assault with a deadly weapon, assault with intent to commit a sexual felony, sexual penetration by a foreign object and drug charges. He pleaded guilty to assault with a firearm as a strike offense, being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession of a controlled substance....

...The alleged victim reportedly advertised on the Internet that she was charging hourly rates for her companionship. She went to the Town House Motel in Eureka, booked a room and arranged to meet Perez, Deputy District Attorney Arnold Klein said. Perez wouldn’t comply with some of her safety rules, and he later demanded his money back, held a loaded gun to her head and allegedly sexually assaulted her, Klein said.

“During the argument, he brandished a pistol at her and struck her twice with the pistol,” the probable cause statement said. “He then took $100 in cash from her and fled.”

After fleeing, Eureka Police Department officers found Perez nearby with a loaded .22 caliber handgun, “multiple packages of suspected cocaine, a large amount of marijuana, packaging materials, two digital scales and 67 rounds of .22 caliber ammunition,” the probable cause statement said.

Transient sodomy suspects plead guilty to lesser crime
Two transient men arrested in early May on suspicion of sexually assaulting and beating up a man near Trinidad Beach pleaded guilty Wednesday to a charge that could keep them in jail up to four years.

Collin Gregory Roczey, 19, and Kevin Scott Walker, 35, were arrested by the Trinidad Police Department on May 10 after several 911 calls were made regarding a man being beaten and kicked by two men in the parking lot. It was discovered that the victim was physically and sexually assaulted and both suspects were reportedly yelling racial slurs at the victim as they were attacking him.

“Alcohol was consumed and allegedly the two arrested suspects turned on the third transient by sexually assaulting him by sodomy,” the Trinidad police log said. “The two suspects then followed the victim to the parking lot of Trinidad Beach and physically assaulted him by kicking him in the head and punching (him).”

The men pleaded guilty to assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury, which carries a two, three or four-year sentence. They were originally charged with kidnapping to commit a crime, assault with a deadly weapon and sodomy in concert with another person.

Humboldt County Deputy District Attorney Arnold Klein, who prosecuted the case, said he’s waiting to see the report from probation before recommending sentences for the men.

Two sentenced to 30 days, probation in pot growing plea deal 6/6/08
John Devoe, 42, and Clare Holmes, 37, had their six properties searched by Humboldt County Drug Task Force agents on Aug. 20, 2007, after an investigation based on an anonymous tip began. More than 200 marijuana plants, $20,000 in cash and 20 pounds of processed marijuana were reportedly seized by Humboldt County Drug Task Force agents between the residences. Devoe and Holmes agreed to forfeit more than $66,000, which included monies from bank and stock accounts and seized cash, as part of the plea agreement. (Prosecutor Maggie Fleming

Horse owner gets no time in jail 5/28/08
Drive-by suspect pleads out, gets 10-year term (Prosecutor Ben McLaughlin) (note: from comments below - Please, at least get your facts right. McLaughlin only appeared on the Smith case one time. He had nothing to do with the settlement negotiations.) Duly noted. That wasn't in the article.

71 comments:

Anonymous said...

Please, at least get your facts right. McLaughlin only appeared on the Smith case one time. He had nothing to do with the settlement negotiations.

Also, I'd like to hear your exact reason for thinking that the Zambrano case was simply "plead out." Do you have any particular knowledge of the file, the state of the evidence, the availability of witnesses? Didn't think so.

Shut your yap, you dolt.

Why is it that you failed to post Cardoza's, Mailman's, Ross', or McLaughlin's recent trial wins?

You are tired, and your politics boring.

Rose said...

Fair enough. If you have links, post 'em, I'll put 'em up. If I can find coverage of those cases, I will put them up

I've missed a few things because I've been taking a bit of time "off" from the blog, including a couple of the cases listed here, and when I searched 'plea deals' there were alot more older ones that I had missed as well.

My thinking with adding the prosecutors name (from the articles) was that the first two were Klein, and it wouldn't be fair or accurate to imply that the others were also Klein.

My thinking also is that I try to avoid putting the other prosecutors into the middle of this mess, to avoid associating them with Gallegos' failure.

I have no real criticism of the hard working deputy district attorneys in that office. Aside from the fact that I think they have an obligation to speak out rather than kowtow and allow this disgrace to continue to go on, they are competent, working extremely hard under incredibly difficult circumstances with a demonstrably vindictive boss. I know they fear for their jobs. I know the new hires are not to blame for the lack of oversight, the lack of training, the incredibly backed up workload, the low staff levels.

So I try to keep them out of this. Maybe you're right, maybe I should put them front and center. I think they'd rather be kept out of it, they don't really want the spotlight.

It is funny though - my thinking also was that it is the number of plea deals that is the story - I wasn't thinking that wins are rare enough that they need to be mentioned. I rather expect the DA's Office to be winning cases, and that not worthy of special notice.

Anonymous said...

I also think your comments fair. My thoughts are that we all have to respect one anothers' opinions.

The fact is that there are a lot of people that work in the DA's office who try to do the best they can, with what they have. Of the thousands of cases that come into the office, a huge majority result in convictions.

Cases that go to trial are, by nature, triable. I don't think that a percentage of trial wins is an accurate barometer of success, or lack thereof, of an office.

Anonymous said...

Rose,

When you say they shouldn't allow "this disgrace" - what are you talking about? And I'm not sure I understand what you have against plea deals? The notion that every case should go to trial or the attorney handling the case must be incompetent is just absurd. Perhaps that's why Klein thought it fitting to say the victim wasn't around to testify, etc. It just seems like in the short time I've been reading the blog that it doesn't matter what the attys do in that office - damned if they do, damned if they don't. All b/c there are folk that dislike PVG?

Rose said...

Yeah, there's truth in that. The problem here is the schizophrenic nature of the cases that get pursued v the ones that don't.

Look. I've said before that my initial concept of this blog was actually a website with two sides. Good Boy Paul and Bad Boy Paul. Put things in the columns and at the end, add 'em up. Maybe it adds up to he did a good job. Maybe it doesn't.

And when it doesn't, people have a right to know. Because they want to make an informed decision. What happened as a result of the "Alliance for Ethical Business" and all of Salzman's efforts, including his now exposed web of lies, was that Gallegos got rock star treatment, with all favorable coverage and no attempts to seriously look at what was going on.

The only reason for this blog is that his record is kept all in one place. All of it.

If people are satisfied with a DA who pleas everything out because he got something, and they don't care about longer sentences, ok, then, he's their man.

If they don't care about having knowledgeable experienced people in that office, and they don't care if it is understaffed and seriously backed up, ok, then, he's their man.

But if they do care, if they want a DA who wants to put bad guys away for the longest possible time, who takes his or her job seriously, who cares about, nurtures and trains, and expects excellence from, the staff, then they will have to choose someone else.

If they care about the fact that the DA files cases for political reasons, harasses and attacks people for political reasons, then they will have to choose someone different.

He has been exposed - big time - on the Palco case. It had no legal merit. It didn't even make it TO trial, and he appealed it every step of the way.

The Douglas and Zanotti case is another politically motivated case.

May the right thing be done.

And the record will be here.

And may the result be that those who are in the DA's office working so hard and caring about hte people they try to help, may the result be that they are freed from that environment and provided, by the voters, a DA that will work with them to rebuild/create anew the excellent team that was once there.

Anonymous said...

RE: why some case are pursued but others aren't...I guess I can see that - I just think it's too bad that everyone gets skewered in the process.

The heading of this original thread is "More Plea Deals" but it doesn't sound like those were necessarily bad things, do you know what I mean? If there's a defendant saying, yeah, I'll plead guilty to this horrible felony...even though you don't have a victim...I guess I don't see that bad side to that.

And the horse case - wasn't she a very elderly mentally ill woman - why would we want her in jail with the likes of drug dealers and violent criminals?

Rose said...

I was replying to your 12:02 post, didn't see your 12:13 post.

OK, Well. I guess I should start by saying, that I do not intend to criticize the staff, or the DDAs.

Aside from "yougofree.com" Schwartz who earned it, and is thankfully now gone, and cannot do any more damage, my position was best articulated by an anonymous comment that I had in the sidebar for a long time - and here it is: Gallegos has taken what was "arguably the state's best small DA's office, with a cutting edge CAST program that "trained the trainers"... into a bunch of time serving bureaucratic wannabee brown nosers, lightly sprinkled with a couple of earnest learners who are sure to split as soon as possible.

One weeps for Max Cardoza who won Angellel, and for Maggie Fleming who won so many impossible victories. Mired in Humboldt for personal reasons, they have to suffer the ignominy of working for Paul, with Yougo, yes, yougo who has freed more people as a prosecutor than he did as a defense attorney. As has Paul.


I understand that that message may have gotten lost here. I'll put it back in the sidebar. Whoever left that comment knows what is going on in that office, and knows that it is far worse than even I portray.

Rose said...

In response to you at 12:35 - again, people can decide. All DAs and all prosecutors make use of that tool, The question becomes, when is it too much.

Also, if you have something you think needs to be added, or pointed out, let me know.

Anonymous said...

Concur on Schwartz, but one or two attorneys does not an office make. I completely respect your opinion about Paul. I don't know the man that well, myself. However, I think you paint too broadly.

In my opinion, the general mischaracterization of the resolution of cases is what some people find offensive. Fleming and Cardoza plead-out dozens of cases every month, as do thousands of prosecutors across the country. Cardoza has been practicing here since he graduated law school. How many thousands of his cases do you think he resolved before trial?

The premise that plea agreements show weakness is incorrect. Outwardly, perhaps the perception is understandable--"Accused Rapist Gets Plea Deal." As an example, I would ask, What is the difference if a defendant pleads to second degree burglary or petty theft with a prior? Both are felonies. Both are priorable. Both carry the same penalty.

Headline: "Burglary suspect pleads to felony petty theft." BIG DEAL! It's the same thing, though I imagine the cadre of Gallegos haters would see it as an opportunity to disparage both he and the deputy DA handling the case.

If some of your followers want to remain consistently critical of the way cases are handled, why not call the deputy DA who worked the case? Why not learn for themselves the reason a case was approached and disposed of in a certain manner?

It just seems that there are axes to grind, perhaps rightly, I don't know. The bottom line is that the overwhelming majority of defendants in this county are convicted.

Rose said...

I see your point. So you think it is a waste of time to chronicle the plea deals. In theory if all the people plead out, but do time, and the backlog of cases could be reduced to some kind of manageable level, maybe that would be a good thing.

If by too broadly you mean you think I am against or otherwise criticizing the others in the office, then that is unfortunate. And it means I need to correct that perception.

Because this is what I know - those people who work as DDAs, for the most part, have high ideals, believe strongly in justice, in the system, in the law, and they understand their role and their obligation to both victims and to the accused. They have high moral standards, and they strive for excellence. They work well with the rest of the law enforcement community, they take classes to improve their level of knowledge, and they impart that wisdom to younger attorneys.

They work hard, and they put in way more hours than they are paid for.

In this county that means they put in alot of unpaid time, but if they miss an hour during the day, they lose an hours pay. there is no comp time.

They believe that they are working for the people - and they thought the people understood and appreciated it.

In the last 5 years they have learned otherwise.

They tend to be very private people - and the DA's job is to interface with the press, not theirs, and they do not want to be thrust into that role.

I believe the public needs to understand and know more about what the job means, and its value to them and to the community.

The fact that this community allowed so many experienced prosecutors to be "lost" - it's very sad.

And for what? A charlatan. A politically motivated case and a bunch of empty rhetoric.

Trying to keep this short - it's one drawback of this medium - long answers, in depth answers make everyone's eyes glaze over, but short soundbites lead to misperceptions and an incomplete picture.

What would you have me do? Ignore the plea deals? Rate the plea deals?

Anonymous said...

there is no comparing Cardoza and Fleming to any Gallegos hire, there is no comparing the staff he has to the staff he inherited. And there is a huge difference in pleas made from a position of strength (as in, I have a good relationship with all my witnesses, INCLUDING THE VICTIM, and they are under subpoena, ready to go) as opposed to weakness ( I am not ready for trial, I did not prep my witnesses, and I failed to subpoena them). The office is undeniably not what it was, and there is one reason and only one reason for that, and that reason is the elected DA.
Ask any honest public defender.

Rose said...

And I agree 100%.

Gallegos' backers like to squawk about Terry Farmer thinking it makes Gallegos look good.

Well, whether you liked Farmer or not, he had assembled a dynamite team, had overseen the creation of some pretty incredible programs, and most people wish they had him back now, even many of his detractors.

Some of the newhires have potential, and Gallegos does them an incredible disservice.

Like breaking in a colt, if you don't do it right, you ruin the horse forever.

He wasn't able to rise above his petty personal animosity, and so fired or lost some fantastic people. People who could've made him look good, since he likes to take credit for the wins. People who were ready to work with him despite what you have been told.

Rose said...

Do you think it is fair or right for Gallegos to put Kelly Neel in charge of child abuse/assault cases?

Anonymous said...

Was Ms. Neel the DDA who's 14 year old victim froze on the stand, having spent almost no time with the prosecutor getting to trust the process? Oh good choice. Certainly the equal of Jackson, Wade, Fleming, etc etc. How many trials all the way to verdict? As a prosecutor, who has the burden of proof and has to put a case together? How many serious felonies?
Please, not another yougone.

Rose said...

Don't blame her. It is Gallegos' fault. He SHOULD know that senior DDA's should handle these cases. And he should assure that that is what happens. He SHOULD have a child abuse specialist, he instead has stated that he doesn't want anyone in his office to specialize in anything, and he has gone on at great length to elaborate on his theory of mismanagement (in radio interviews.)

He SHOULD take the whole thing seriously, He SHOULD have valued the CAST program instead of tearing it down. He SHOULD attend meetings, learn the procedure, and strive to IMPROVE the program...

It is apparent to anyone who looks that he does none of those things.

He takes the grant money for a dedicated Vertical Prosecutor (for CAST and DV), and throws in any name he chooses, no one checks, and no one is following up to make SURE that there is a vertical prosecutor and that the grant money is doing what it is supposed to do, which is free that prosecutor up so that they CAN focus on the case and do a good job.

Anonymous said...

The notion that Ms Neel only spent a minimal amt of time with the child victim is just not true. She spent quite a bit of time with her; for months. And anyone would know that if they would simply call and talk to her - so many things get posted in this blog that are just outright falsehoods - saying that Ms. Neel only talked w/ the victim just before putting her on the stand is ridiculous - and untrue.

Rose said...

I don't think I've ever said that.

You know I would like to talk to her. Unfortunately, I am afraid that if she talks to me she will get fired.

Rose said...

Incidentally - when I talk about rebuilding the team, I am not suggesting that you will be able to rehire those who are gone - people like Andrew Isaac, Rob Wade, Allison Jackson, Worth Dikeman, Paul Hagen or any of the other Senior Deputy District Attorneys.who've been "lost."

Most of them now have jobs in other counties, and the notion that they want to come back here, where they were basically spat upon by the people they had served so well is absurd at best.

Look, they are not Congressional staffers, who must expect to lose their job everytime a new person is elected to a position.

These are professionals, and they expect to do their job no matter who the DA is. And presumably, the DA could change every 4 years.

The idea that you would have complete turnover at the whims of a temporary elected official when you are talking about the DA's office is, again, absurd.

It is akin to getting rid of all the teachers at a school every time you hire a new principal.

Yet this is the myth Salzman effectively sold as a bill of goods. That Gallegos had a right to fire those who were "disloyal" to him.

He's not a king. It's not his office. Those are really not his employees to fire on the basis of disloyalty to HIM.

Do you understand that? They deserved job protection as much as any teacher ever did. They were let go without even a thank you from this county.

Anonymous said...

Which of them was involved in stealing documents from the DA's office for political gain Rose? (Weren't you involved in that?) Which of them told blatant lies about what was going on in the DA' office? No reasonable person would expect a DA to keep people in his office who steal and leak lies to the media. He has to have a staff he can trust not to stab him (and his cases) in the back for political gain.

red said...

Well,3:16, the only senior DDA PVG actually fired was Ms. Jackson. The rest quit, mostly snapped up by various other jurisdictions. The reasonable inference is that are saying Alison Jackson is a thief; if that is what you are saying, then you are a fucking liar, and too chickenshit to use a name at that. It should be apparent to anyone who has read any history that in politics, no one gets in much trouble for spreading lies. Telling the truth is what gets one in trouble in politics.

Rose said...

"Involved in that"?

No. That is another of Salzman's myths. That occurred back during the Recall, and was written about in the paper. I was not involved in the Recall effort - at that time I was focused on the hideous abomination that was Stoen, and on finding out what exactly was going on with Salzman, Stoen and Shellenberger.

I eventually obtained copies, as it became known that I was gathering the evidence of what Salzman was up to.

In fact many people theorize that it was Salzman and Stoen who cooked up that little stunt. That and the "break in" in which the heat was turned up. It smacked of the same tactics used in People's temple when Jim Jones pretended to be shot, and Stoen proclaimed to the high heavens that Jones came back from the dead.

If it did come from within the office, then I would submit to you that there were people who desperately were trying to tell the press just how bad things were - just how corrupt the Palco suit was. But no one listened.

There's never been any evidence either way - but the emails appear to have come from Stoen's own computer, and that would have required his password.

Rose said...

Remember, one of the reasons I startted trying to figure out what was going on was Salzman's statement that "Paul can't trust anyone in that office except Tim. There's a mole in that office."

Just three months into his office, WHAT DID GALLEGOS HAVE TO HIDE!?!?!

WHY WAS HE WORRIED ABOUT A "MOLE" LEAKING STORIES TO THE TIMES STANDARD?

WHAT STORIES WAS HE AFRAID OF COMING TO LIGHT?

A DA WHO IS AFRAID OF BEING EXPOSED HAS NO RIGHT TO HOLD THE OFFICE!

YOU F-CKING JERK. DON'T YOU GET IT?

IT IS WRONG TO USE THAT OFFICE FOR POLITCAL REASONS. IT IS WRONG TO FILE LAWSUITS ON BEHALF OF YOUR CAMPAIGN BACKERS. IT IS WRONG TO LIE TO THE PUBLIC.

EVERYTHING ABOUT IT IS WRONG.

AND IT HAS BEEN WRONG SINCE THE DAY IT BEGAN.

Anonymous said...

Every elected office is a political office. DOH!

Anonymous said...

So "Red" is Jackson.

Rose said...

So, 5:06. I guess if Paul was elected to Supervisor, backed by developers instead of activists, he should set right about approving all their big projects, eh? Even more than approving it, he should introduce some sort of actions to smooth the way, and pursue it at all costs, even when everyone who knows anything tells him that he cannot and should not.

And that would be ok with you obviously, because you favor the flip side.

K. I get it.

Anonymous said...

You make so many assumptions. No wonder you are such a big ASS!

Rose said...

M'kay, so we are in agreement that that would be wrong. It's a start. Do you then agree that what Gallegos did was wrong.

Bear in mind you now have the benefit of hindsight. You now KNOW that all of the courts found that the suit had no merit. Something that the various agencies tried to tell him, something his own investigators told him - even Stoen, in those infamous leaked emails said there was no case, and that he would give Ken Miller the bad news. then he came back a couple of days later and said he had found a way to make it fly.

That was wrong, right?

Anonymous said...

You are assuming facts for which I haven't seen the evidence. Assuming that because a case is lost that it shouldn't have been filed is another erroneous assumption. There is no doubt that PALCO lied on submitted documents. That they couldn't be held liable for those lies is a flaw in the system, not evidence that they did nothing wrong.

red said...

6:11, the Palco suit was not "lost." It didn't get that far. The case was dismissed because PVG could not state a cause of action. The suit was never decided on the merits because after three tries PVG could not state a coherent legal theory such that it deserved a decision on the merits. That sounds to me like a suit which should not have been brought.

BTW, 5:08, I am not Ms. Jackson. I am someone who is personally acquainted with Ms. Jackson and based on that I know she is not a thief.

Anonymous said...

That's what friends of people accused of dishonesty always say, Red. If we thought they were dishonest we wouldn't be friends with them, would we? There are people whose friends and family think they are pillars of morality until they are caught taking a bribe or soliciting gay sex in a rest stop bathroom.

Anonymous said...

One point about the initial posting on More Plea Deals, regarding the case involving DDA Fleming: The article in the Eureka Reporter indicated she did not agree to the sentence in the case, even though both the Times-Standard and Eureka Reporter included "Plea Deal" or "Plea Bargain" in the headlines of their articles. Check out the quote in the 3rd paragraph of the Eureka Reporter article:
http://www.eurekareporter.com/article/080605-two-sentenced-to-30-days-probation-in-pot-growing-plea-deal

It may be difficult to consistently offer accurate information when the local newspapers are often wrong and/or careless - but the situation could be viewed as an opportunity for Rose and others to add value by correcting obvious mistakes by the papers or digging for information the papers can't or won't provide.

Anonymous said...

Rose: You evidently really pissed off some of the dolts in the DA's office as well as some of the good folk. Without a doubt you have really pissed off some of the diehard PVG people who would rather die than admit they f'ing blew it with that moron.

You do know their desparation when they start anonymously personally attacking people. It really is disgraceful, but expected.

Fact - this county looks ridiculous with its incompetence on many levels.

Fact - Gallegos is a disgrace.

Fact - those that work there should really examine why they are carrying badges since they have basically turned their back on justice in favor of a pay check.

Rose said...

Yeah. Gallegos has his diehard defenders.

It won't do any good, though. Gallegos is done.

The story of what happened with Allison Jackson's firing was touched on in a story in the North Coast Journal. It details a series of emails between Jackson and Gallegos, with his responses coming faster and faster as he gets more and more desperate. Then she is fired for refusing to bow.

Salzman has gone out of his way to discredit Jackson, who he hates. In classic Salzman style he uses terms like "disgruntled ex-employee."

As if that can explain away the facts.

Anonymous said...

Only thing wrong with that scenario is that county personnel said Gallegos had talked to them about firing her before the Denson situation occurred, as you surely know since it was reported in the NCJ you just referenced. There is also the little problem with how long she waited before making the claims that she was fired because of Denson. Your assumptions about what the e-mails signified are funny but certainly not convincing. Why did you use the e-mails as circumstantial evidence and ignore the contradictory, direct evidence which disproves it in the NCJ?

There seems to be some circular logic going on here. Gallegos is a slimeball because he fired Jackson and the proof that he is a slimeball is that he fired Jackson.

Anonymous said...

Your have your history wrong 12:12. County personnel did not say that Gags talked with anyone about firing anyone. Not in the Northcoast journal piece that I just re-read. Perhaps you read something different than the rest of us. Or perhaps you are Salzman or Gallegos.

Hey Rose, can you get the emails from the NCJ? Can anyone?

Anonymous said...

From the NCJ Weekly Wrap, 5/18/2006:

"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)."

Anonymous said...

Gallegos announced at his very first meeting with staff that he ws prepared to fire every single employee who failed to be personally loyal to him. Only problem was, he was utterly unable, when asked directly at that meeting , to say what he meant by disloyalty or to give an example. What he did NOT say was that the only important thing was to do an ethical, thorough, professional job of representing the people of Humboldt. His only
criteria was "loyalty" to him, not to justice.
Long live the Dear Glorious Progrssive Leader. Naturally, since the oath of office taken by DDA's says nothing about personal loyalty to the elected, a lot of DDA's knew right then that they would probably have to leave. And they did. Unlamented by the Supes, unlamented by Mr. Haeg. You all have the DA and the DDA's you deserve.

Rose said...

More DA firings on the horizon? 6/17/04

Forged documents and six pounds of weed - Why did District Attorney Paul Gallegos fire a top prosecutor? 5/18/06

Rose said...

Deputy Greg Pope of the Humboldt County Sheriff's Office worked with Jackson on the Child Abuse Service Team (CAST), a multi-agency task force that interviews children who are the victims of or witnesses to serious crimes. Pope said that it would be difficult to find a replacement who could fill Jackson's shoes.

"She was a tremendous asset to CAST, and just great to work with," Pope said. "Her knowledge and compassion for the victims were a great benefit for the county."

In the last six years, Jackson has prosecuted at least five cases of sexual abuse against minors that resulted in life sentences for the offenders. One of those offenders, Michael Hiscox, was given a sentence of 150 years to life earlier this year.

Jackson was also the original prosecutor assigned to the case of Pedro Martinez-Hernandez, a Fernbridge man arrested in late 2003 and charged with abusing his own daughter over a period of several years. Gallegos took over the case, which became controversial after he allowed the suspect to plead guilty to a single count that carried a 16-year sentence.

Gallegos said that now, in the wake of Jackson's dismissal, he is planning to hire two entry-level prosecutors. He said he had a deep pool to choose from, as a number of people sent their resumes in response to the classified advertisements.

"A lot of people want to come work for the office, from all over the place," he said.


IN RETROSPECT - you now know that he has been unable to fill those positions, and you can see his lack ofunderstanding of the value of a senior Deputy DA. He shares the opinion of his followers that anyone can be replaced with a pro bono attorney.

Rose said...

Even - it is worth adding - a pro bono attorney of the caliber of Steve Schectman, Mr. Vilica LLC.

Anonymous said...

Its the same article Rose and here is another quote from it:

"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."

Rose said...

Yep. And that's a fair statement by Hank. What conclusions do you draw from that?

Anonymous said...

"When asked whether he felt he had to find new, loyal deputies in the wake of the recall attempt, Gallegos was dismissive.

"I shouldn't," he said. "It's been my office for a year and a half. It wasn't not my office a month ago.

Nevertheless -- and without mentioning Jackson or any other current deputy DA by name -- Gallegos said that sometimes, when organizations change leadership, there can be irreconcilable philosophical differences between the staff and the new management."

I think its safe to assume that even Rose would agree that there were "irreconcilable philosophical differences" between Gallegos and Jackson. Expecting any DA to put up with the backstabbing crap in his office and to trust those who backstabbed while trying to do the job he was elected to do is unreasonable. He was elected, she wasn't. Every office has problems that can be made much worse with the type of tension and dissension that was present in the DA's office before, during and after the recall. He wasn't who they wanted for DA. In our system, right or wrong, the deputy DA's don't get to pick the DA. Maybe that would be a good way to do it, but it isn't the way we do it.

Anonymous said...

Who made it political Rose? The DA who got elected by the majority or the deputy DA's who opposed his election, worked to recall him, and supported their own choice for the office?

Anonymous said...

or how bout these quotes:

But he [Gallegos] 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

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.


Well I can certainly draw conclusions and they don't look good for Gallegos or whoever is trying to spin things his way here.

Anonymous said...

It certainly wasn't partisan politics either. Gallegos had strong backing, especially during the recall, of people from every point on the political compass.

Anonymous said...

You can draw all the conclusions you like but they aren't supported by evidence, just wishful thinking.

Anonymous said...

Also from the NCJ:

Many talented senior prosecutors with years of experience -- including Rob Wade and Nandor Vadas -- have left the office for other jobs since Gallegos became DA. Allison Jackson, a specialist in prosecuting child abuse, was fired, apparently for political reasons. As we reported earlier this year ("One year later," March 3), the loss of Jackson was an "incredible, monumental" blow to the county, in the words of a manager at the North Coast Rape Crisis Team. Unlike in previous days, the District Attorney's Office has no prosecutor permanently assigned to domestic violence cases, and only a part-time liaison to the county's multi-agency Child Abuse Services Team, according to Dikeman.

These charges were given added weight Tuesday, with the release of a grand jury report sharply critical of Gallegos (see "Weekly Wrap," p. 8). They are charges that can't be answered with a sneer about "Maxxam" or a "good old boys network," and Gallegos supporters would be well advised not to try that dodge. It won't fly.

Rose said...

Irreconcilable differences?

Like expecting him NOT to file a lawsuit on behalf of his backers?

Like expecting him to READ the file and charge accordingly in the case of Martinez-Hernandez?

Like expecting him to tell the truth when caught and not to lie and say he had contacted outside authorities?

Ummm, let's see, I could go on...

BUT - equate it back to a school - Does an incoming principal have the right to fire teachers for "disloyalty?" Should he?

No, that's why you have tenure. To protect the staff from the vagaries of the elected officials, whose ethics can be questionable.

Anonymous said...

Gallegos was elected to the position. The deputy DA's had the choice of following his direction or finding new jobs. Some decided to stay and play spoiler but it backfired on them and then they cried POLITICS! It's hilarious.

Anonymous said...

Well I think that I can tell what evidence is and when I read that Hank Sims has the e-mails, well since that would be enough for a jury, it is enough for me.

What gets me is some of you guys who even in the face of overwhelming evidence want to say that the "emperor has nice clothes" even when he is buck naked. Where we draw the line is when you folks who evidently have no qualms about lying about folks anonymously turn on private citizens. Frankly, I think it is better manners to thank the former county prosecutors that worked hard and left with their ethics in tact rather then saying "screw you." Hell, that is what has gotten us into the shitter with Gallegos and virtually nobody except the really wacked out left is buying it any more. I am a moderate and a democrat and I frankly believe that story in the NCJ.

Rose said...

It comes down to this - Gallegos and Salzman saw that as their office and they don't want anybody in the way.

You had Salzman acting as the de facto spokesperson for the office during the Martinez-Hernandez debacle, Salzman coaching Gallegos to fire people in order to eliminate the "mole" who was "leaking stories to the Times Standard" in February and March of 2003 - LONG before any "irreconcilable differences" had emerged.

You had Stoen and Gallegos allowing Ken Miller into the office to help write the PL suit, Stoen cutting off contact with the agencies who were trying to tell him he had no case - and you had Stoen, Gallegos and Salzman cooking up a scheme that would allow them to PRIVATIZE the DA's office and FUND the lawsuit with special interest money...

Irreconcilable differences?

I SHOULD HOPE SO!!!

Rose said...

What's funny is you have people here who, over on heraldo's blog are defending his anonymity, calling him a "whistle blower" and saying he should be protected as such - who are proclaiming that they care that HE might lose his job IF his name were known...

Yet those same people have no such sympathy for the Deputy DA's who have lost their jobs, no respect for any whistle blower aspects to their situation, which is genuine.

All part of that strange "protect the little boy at all costs" mentality and the same determined effort to protect the one they managed to get into office who will do their bidding.

Thinks about it.

Anonymous said...

Can you give an example of a DDA who lost their job because they were a whistle blower Rose? Don't insult me by using Jackson, that has already been dismissed.

Anonymous said...

To 2:40 pm: you wrote:
“Gallegos was elected to the position. The deputy DA's had the choice of following his direction or finding new jobs. Some decided to stay and play spoiler but it backfired on them and then they cried POLITICS! It's hilarious.”

Uh - I think you wrote before thinking. Isn’t that office about right and wrong, what is legal and what isn’t. You have it as “Paul’s way or the highway.” Nope, the way I see it is that it is a prosecutors responsibility to say no to a corrupt boss. To move on or to get fired but not to be a yes man. Evidently, 2:40 is a yes man and not an ethical one.

Anonymous said...

Let's put this on a different footing. Say Jill Geist had a secretary she inherited who supported Jill's opponent and this secretary was very uncooperative, spread lies about her and worked actively for her recall. Should she be entitled to fire the secretary or would that be dirty politics?

Anonymous said...

Bad analogy. The roles are different. But, the answer is no, the secretary is AFSME and can only be fired for cause.

But, who was uncooperative to Paulie? Who spread lies and what were they? Who worked actively on the recall?

Can't answer that one can you...?

Anonymous said...

Jackson and Dikeman I'd get you the exact lies they told but I'm busy right now. They were reported and you can find them.

Anonymous said...

Answering 2:53 - looks like all the other DDA's left after the Jackson fiasco. In fact, it looks like they left in droves.

How the hell did everything here degenerate onto an attack of people who left that office? Is that the only was Gallegos' incompetent handlers know how to try and deflect the truth from their dim witted puppet?

How about the issues for once folks.

Anonymous said...

I think we will wait for you to get "un"busy then and provide them.

Rose said...

Since it is possible that you could have a new DA every 4 years, do you really want complete turnover every 4 years because the guy you elected has a thin skin, can't get along with the staff he inherits, expecially the ones whose skills so vastly dwarf his own, because the staff knows the ins and outs and protocol and expects him to behave morally and legally correctly?

Is that really what you are saying?

THINK ABOUT THIS -

Anonymous said...

Looks like Rose's last question fubared the Orks...they are speechless and still not getting it.

Rose said...

Deliberately obtuse is what they are 3:32.

Anonymous said...

I used to work in that office and I can tell you that the office was in bad shape during and after the recall. The DDA’s did not participate in the recall other than Dikeman who ran in order to protect the office if the recall was successful. There was too much fear. I was there, although left later on. What I can tell you is that after Paul fired Jackson, the office was so fractured that it couldn’t work. Paul had tried to fire Fleming the day before he fired Jackson, but backed off. The talk in the office was that he accused Maggie of leaking information to the press. She didn’t talk about it but everyone heard what happened. Then the next day he fired Jackson. Her firing shocked us so much that many of us simply cried at our desks all day because we knew it was the beginning of the end. After that, it went all to hell. Then the deputies started to leave in droves because if Paul could do that then nobody was safe if they did their jobs. As clerical, we all watched and there was nothing any of us could do. When Dikeman ran, some of us tried to talk anonymously to the press because something had to change, but there was so much cover up that the public simply didn’t know how bad it was. I am now in a different office and am glad for it. But for whomever, sliming good people to cover up for Paul’s stupidity is simply wrong.

Rose said...

Thank you, 9:12. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

9:12 clearly knows the terriory. As to the firing, he pulled phone records and went in to Maggie accusing her of the leak But the call he was excited about involved answering a call from the T/S regarding a case she had handled, and that was the sole call he had on her. Frustrated, with no new developments and purely out of spite, he fired Jackson the next day in the middle of an ongoing prelim. He's a volatile, vindictive, petty man
who's driven by his insecurities.
He should go far.

Anonymous said...

Well. where are all you smart asses now?

Anonymous said...

I went to school with 9:12. She actually yelled at me once for keeping my music loud. She's smart I have no doubt. Why she doesn't think the same is beyond me.

Anonymous said...

4:23 - how condescending to assume that 9:12 is a she.

You sound foolish for doing so.

Anonymous said...

3:12, it might not be an assumption. 4:23 just might actually know 9:12.
PS. All the clerical in the office at the time Jackson was fired
were "she"s. Or didnt you know that?
So who's condescending now?

Anonymous said...

Really?

Perhaps you need to recheck the employee list and expand it.