Tuesday, April 01, 2014

DA Candidates In Trinidad Tonight

DA Candidates In Trinidad Tuesday Night - Tom Sebourn

TRINIDAD- The League of Woman Voters of Humboldt County will be holding a District Attorney Candidate Forum on Tuesday.

This is the community's chance to learn more about the intentions and goals of candidates Arnie Klein, Élan Firpo, Maggie Fleming, and Allan Dollison.

WHERE: Trinidad Town Hall, 409 Trinity Street
WHEN: April 1st From 6 To 7 P.M.

53 comments:

  1. And look who's keeping an eye out for Ms. Firpo:

    From: "Redwood Progressive"
    Date: March 31, 2014 11:47:13 PM PDT

    Subject: DA debate Tuesday 6pm Trinidad + SoHum Town Hall + Arts Alive!

    Tuesday April 1st (5:30 reception) 6:00 - 7:30pm
    DA debate at Trinidad Town Hall
    sponsored by the Trinidad Chamber of Commerce and LWV

    Friday April 4th (5:pm recpetion) 5:30 public forum
    SoHum D.A. Town Hall
    Veterans Memorial Building, 483 Conger St, Garberville
    sponsored by Elan Firpo

    Saturday April 5th
    Arts Alive corner of F St. and 2nd St.
    Elan Firpo Booth, stop by for refreshments & meet the candidate

    More info: ElanFirpo.com

    To request a Firpo yard sign, email Elan's campaign at: info@elanfirpo.com

    --------------

    From: rs@richardsalzman.com
    1751 Charles Ave Arcata CA 95521

    ReplyDelete
  2. So the tired line thrown out yet again by Maggie's people. So what if Salzman lists these events, so do others.

    Now shall we apply the same logic to what unions and law enforcement are doing for Ms. Fleming?

    You guys are so desperate. Been singing the same tune for months.

    While this could be any opponent's supporter, Maggie supporters must be afraid their annointed candidate may not make it on June 3rd.

    ReplyDelete
  3. By all means, remind voters that judges, court staff and law enforcement, and 39 pages of donors, have made the intelligent choice. Unions are made up of working people, by the way. Apparently being endorsed by them is bad? I suppose if you seek endorsements (which all the candidates did) and you don't get them (which Ms. Firpo, Mr. Klein, and Mr. Dollison did not) that's could make you sad.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous, nice spin. You think your choice is the only choice.

    There are other candidates in this race and you insult them.

    You act so superior and think your candidate is better than every one else. Sounds more like Maggie Fleming is bought and paid for with her endorsements.

    It also proves that with her backers there will be no oversight over the rest of the criminal justice system. And the average guy with no money has a lot to lose.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I appreciate all the help I can get in publicizing our events, from liberals and conservatives. Emails, website postings, social media and blogs alike. The more people we can reach the better.

    Thanks to all, including this blog, for helping get the word out.

    The best way for voters to choose a new DA is to hear from the candidates themselves at debates, forums and town halls.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ok gang, let's review once again: Maggie cannot be bought.

    Yes, she has received much coveted endorsements from law enforcement. All the candidates wanted these but she earned them through 20 years of hard work in Humboldt...her integrity intact.

    Why do we not get more comments about her left wing and moderate support? Why are people not outraged by Jimmy Smith's endorsement or Clif Clendenen's or Linda Atkins's? Well because those names do not beat the drum the way her opponents want the drum to sound.

    Like it or not, Maggie is a true blue Democrat who has EARNED the respect of law enforcement, and judges, and court staff, and attorneys, and .... fill in the space.

    So, time to move onto a subject that carries water as this whole "Maggie is bought" mantra is getting a bit old and sounding oh so false.

    The "average guy" with no money is best served by Maggie. I represent folks who have to pass the hat to afford my services. I have seen her work...she is only concerned with justice. Whether the person has money or not, we need a DA that does not just have the experience and knows her job, but one cares about human dignity.

    Maggie again.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If I were to hear from one of those average people in person and someone I knew was not sent by the 3 most frequent Maggie commenters here, I may believe Maggie is for the People .

    Arnie Klein and Allan Dollison are the two that have brought up concerns that I felt related to someone like me.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wow! Just got back from the debate. Shame on the League of Women Voters for such an overt display of favoritism. Bizarre questions for which Maggie had pre-prepared responses

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kudos to Kevin Hoover at the KEET debate last week for a great job. The LWV showed their colors tonight

      Delete
  9. Has the League of Women voters ever been impartial?

    If you have been involved in elections, they have a preferred candidate.

    Tonight's blatant favoritism should show the people the character of a candidate and what kind of District Attorney Maggie will make.

    There are three other candidates, check them all, pick one you like.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm a Trinidad voter. I'm sure people saw right through what was going on especially when Maggie went to her nicely stacked index cards to answer the very specific penal code section question. Richard Salzman has nothing on this bunch. Final straw for me. No way that woman gets my vote.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Shame on you anonymous 8:14 pm. i guess Maggie Fleming did better than your favorite ?!

    Maggie Fleming is an extremely bright woman (that means smart), she has a boatload of experince, she is used to preparing for court and came to the debate prepared ?1 So you thumbsuckers snivel that she had some kind of advantage, favoratism. Please

    ReplyDelete
  12. So smart she needed the questions in advance and had the precise answers in front of her on index cards. I'd look pretty smart that way too. Totally lacking integrity, but smart.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Who is getting Rose's vote?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Just look at the way smart Maggie has handled her campaign and her supporters.

    Maggie supporters do not back off. They have with names and anonymously responded or attacked every other opinion. I think today's debate showed which candidate and campaign is lying and misleading.

    I agree with 9:18 Richard Salzman is nothing compared to Fleming and her lackeys. And Salzman did not make Maggie Fleming do what she did tonight.

    Rose, I hope you let these comments stay. You may not like Salzman but these comments are relevant to the DA's race.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Wow, Dollison and Fleming know the law, Firpo did not, and Firpo's people go berserk, accuse the League of Women Voters of being in a conspiracy, accuse, with no evidence, that it was all a set up.

    All because Firpo, who just plea bargained a murder case, did not know the law that controls plea bargaining in murder cases. The issue is not what Dollison and Fleming knew, because how could any questioner know in advance what the question revealed ---

    That Firpo did not know the single most important statute controlling plea bargaining in homicide cases.

    The only people who knew for sure that Firpo did not know would have been--- Firpo's people. Now there's a conspiracy for you.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Actually, Dollison got the question last, so he heard Maggie's prepared answer. They even went out of order to make sure Firpo got the question first. I'm not at all impressed with Maggie's campaign or her internet game.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I won't take it down, this is within the scope, though it would be better if people actually put their name to their opinions and accusations. There's nothing to be scared of.

    I do take exception, though, to the notion that anyone is bought and paid for. It's always a fear, often a conspiracy theory, and occasionally true. I do not believe any of these four people is like that.

    I do believe they all four genuinely want to fix that office, for the right reasons. they have seen how bad it is, they'd had to work under those conditions, they know it is wrong, and grotesquely unfair to the people working there. they know it affects justice being done. Each one knows they can do it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 11:23 you are either a Maggie Fleming or an Arnie Klein supporter. The bashing Firpo or Firpo supporters is a common and always from those two campaigns.

    Probably Arnie Klein. Discussing the Ferrer case which your candidate is politically grandstanding and gives you away.

    From what I read Klein is a no show at many events. If he has the flu I hope he feels better. If he is suddenly healed by Thursday for sentencing, then his BS will be clear.

    Before you go beserk and start saying that I am a Firpo supporter. I had not decided but now I have. Reading these blogs, I see two campaigns with the same lame arguments, Fleming and Klein.

    I have seen the other debates. I am leaning either Dollison or Firpo because of certain answers.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Fleming. Wants a 60 hour a week job. Currently not even working 20.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The reasons not to like Fleming grow by the day

    ReplyDelete
  21. Rose, $61K is chump change to you. A first time candidate raising that much in 2 months.

    After Maggie's Fortuna sign ordiannce BS, her first 460s and this blatant favoritism tonight by League of Women Voters, her list of endorsers, you still defend Maggie Fleming, then you have some preferences among the four.

    Maggie Fleming cannot relate to the average working class joe. I feel the others can.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Ha, this was an April Fools’ joke, right? Rose? Salzman’s cat? Mad River Union?
    Headlines:
    League in league!
    “Women” unmasked!
    3X5 Cards Used! This Can Only Mean - Giant Conspiracy!
    KevPod is really Kev “Pud” & rules them all!

    ReplyDelete
  23. LOL Kevin's April Fool's editions are the best!

    And, anon, 61K is not chump change, but it's not a huge sum either. But it could be a million dollars and the candidate STILL not be 'bought and paid for' - the bought and paid for is a character thing, and can take place for sums as low as Ken Miller's $100 donations. If the mindset is right. Some people aren't for sale at any price.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Since I do not comment anonymously, my comments do not matter? Hello Anonymous, hi how are you? Are you the same person over and over again? Or are you multiple people all scared to death that your candidate is not worthy to be thee DA?

    Well, here it is. I stand up for the little guy, the accused, and I make no apologies for it.

    Why don't we all agree that Ms. Firpo, after being a lawyer only 5-6 years, might actually not know the answer to the question that was asked. Perhaps, having only been in court a short time, she might not know the answer to a lot of questions that thee DA needs to know.

    It is no big deal. Rome was not built in a day. We are all still learning. Why can't we just say that Ms. Firpo has amazing potential but is not yet ready to take the reins? It would not only be true but it would make thee Anonymous or the multiple Anonymouses look a lot less paranoid and conspiracy oriented.

    Also, at the other non-League of Women Voter debates, why did Maggie do so well? Are we going to now fault her for being well prepared and knowing all the answers? Perhaps that is because she is the best choice?

    I don't know. Stuff for you all to think about in your little anonymous homes. (-:

    ReplyDelete
  25. Maggie Fleming is an outstanding individual. i have no doubt she will do a fantastic job as the DA of Humboldt County.

    I cannot imagine why anyone would say such ugly tinings about such an exceptional human being.?!

    I support Maggie Fleming because I think she is the best person for the position. I think she can/will make a difference. The difference is I support Maggie Fleming without taking trash and lying about her opponents.


    ReplyDelete
  26. Anon at 8:52. It would be nice if Fleming and her team had your attitude. This race would be much less ugly. Her camp is topped barely by Arnie's in the amount of vitriol and dirty tricks.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anon at 10:05 I agree.

    Kathleen Bryson you have been very polite most of the time but that last remark shows the problem with some Maggie supporters.

    Fortunately for you some of us little anonymous ones know quite a few facts about you but have the class to keep it to ourselves.




    ReplyDelete
  28. What is Flemming going to do when the FEDS come to push HumCo around? She seems very nice, and very well versed on the law. However, good catholic girls don't stand up to the men in charge. Not saying anything about her, but the religion that she holds of value. If she is taught to be subservient, then when the big boys come calling she will cave. Even though you may not like Paul, He kept the feds aways the best he could. Flemming is trying for the dope grower vote, so my question is, how can she keep those interest safe by keeping the feds out, and still appease all of her uber conservative backers? There is a conflict here, you cannot keep the interest of all parties safe. Someone will lose. It seems Flemming wants the dope grower vote, but who will she turn on when the time comes?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anon 8:17 OMG since when did one's religion come into interest in a DA race. You seem to be reaching into space for a reason not to vote for Maggie. You know if there are good reasons you want to vote for another candidate, put that out there, but to trash a candidate because of religious belief, well maybe that just helps Maggie's cause! Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  30. It seems Mr. Losey you are the one who took that rather far. I was stating that it is engrained in religious folks to take orders from higher ups. That was my point about religion, and obedience. However, you did attempt to distract from my actual question which is, how is she going to stand up for the growers, this is a common conversation in the grower circle, so maybe you should answer it, and not attack if that is the vote you are looking for. No, I do not have any candidate in mind as of yet, but you are certainly making it easier.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anon 9:00 you can say what you want, whether you are an endorser for a candidate or not, nobody knows the difference. Maggie is not one who will kowtower. She has managed every major unit in the DA's office and won the respect of all who have worked with and for her, including Paul. She will stand up for all people, not just the growers,but she is one person who will defend the rights of all, she has done this in the past and she will do this in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Richard really needs to quit trying to influence the DAs race with his BS tidbits.

    Is that really the latest spin? That PAUL kept the feds at bay?

    Bullshit. He's the reason they're here. They saw what a mess he made and had to come in.

    AND - let's not forget his little asset-forfeiture empire. Where do you think that hits? Right at the people with the toys, no?

    Richard Salzman needs to stay out of this race and let these people run on their own without his spin and attempts to manipulate the vote. Knock it off.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Why do you not ask Maggie the question directly Anon 10:32? She is very open to all questions whether they be cannabis related or not.

    Anon 10:32 - what exactly is the problem with what I said? It is true that Ms. Firpo does not have the requisite experience to do the job. That is not below the belt. What she has been able to accomplish in the short time she has been a lawyer is amazing.

    As for me not being "polite" enough and your thinly veiled threat to uncover my dirty laundry or skeletons or whatever you may be referring to...what does that have to do with the DA's race?

    I think it just says more about you than me: you like being anonymous and you like malicious gossip.

    Okay, then tell everyone what you think you know about me. That is not going to change the fact that Maggie is the best choice for our county. News flash: I am not running for office.

    I suppose, Rose, you should be ready in case the person goes too far. (-:

    All Anons: Enjoy the day. Life is too short. This could be our last day on this earth. There are no guarantees. Father Eric had no guarantee and nor do we. So let's make the most of our short time here.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Kathleen - frankly - Paul didn't have any real experience when he ran either. If people cared about that, they have had ample opportunity to select a DA who was competent and experienced. Who truly were mentors.

    ReplyDelete
  35. But Rose, maybe by now people are seeing the truth with the DA's office and not what Paul and his supporters have said. Yes, people had the chance in the past but now they have a second chance with a candidate who truly is a mentor. We can only work hard to support the best candidate. What voters do or don't do is up to them.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Mike:

    As retired law enforcement, maybe you can answer why Maggie is down playing her endorsement by the Deputy Sheriff's?

    First, she told them not to announce it. Then only admitted when forced to do so. Never has put out a press release about it. And buries it on her endorsement page.

    And while you are at it, how about they fact they plan to contribute up to $10,000?

    Yes, I am running Allan's campaign. Yes, I have a stake in this contest and am biased. But Allan has make it his position he will "Work WITH Law Enforcement not FOR Law Enforcement."

    What position / changes is Maggie offering Law Enforcement for their support?

    ReplyDelete
  37. RESPECT. The same thing Allan is offering.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I'm sorry Rose, but it has to be more than that, especially since they were at first going to endorse Elan and then endorsed Maggie without ever interviewing any of the other candidates.

    And I'm not implying anything sinister here, but as you say, both Allan and Maggie are similar in the "respect" aspect, so what positions is she taking they find so much more to their liking?

    Also, why has Maggie not trumpeted their endorsement?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Ms. Bryson, I do like that suggestion and I think that it should be asked of all of them. So, I will take your advice and post it to LOCO questions. I would like to state all most none of the serious drug questions have been answered. This speaks loudly of the candidates. Drug addicts vote. Growers voter. Trimmers vote. I hope the candidates decide to answer some of the questions regarding drugs,as well as the marijuana and feds question that I will be submitting. Ms. Bryson thank you for being a much better representative of your candidate than and I appreciate you being direct and friendly. I am sorry I have to post anonymously, but it is the nature of the question that make the anon a necessity. Mr. Losey. His people skills will get your candidate no votes.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Jim, there had not been an HDSO vote about endorsing Elan when she spoke to the E-Board. That happened before Maggie decided to run. Paul had not made up his mind and once Paul announced his not running, then Maggie could run a clean campaign about what her accomplishments have been and what she has to offer. Folks like you would like to think there is more to it,but the HDSO members know that Maggie will treat law enforcement no differently than any other group or person. Ask any of them what they are expecting other than a far better run DA's office. Law enforcement knows that Maggie is the only candidate who has managed every major unit in the DA's office and she earned their respect from the manner in which she managed these units. She has and will work WITH law enforcement Jim, not for them!

    ReplyDelete
  41. I agree with you, Jim, about all of the groups that endorse without hearing from all the candidates, in some cases before the filing period even closes. How can you expect anyone to take your endorsement seriously if you don't.

    Along those lines - The Central Committees should not endorse one candidate over another, but should merely provide a support system for ALL of their party's candidates. Individuals, of course, should be free to support whomever they choose.

    But I don't buy the notion that everyone who receives donations is bought and paid for. I just don't.

    Sure, there's reason to be watchful - remember Gallegos' $10,000 donations from Bear River and subsequent dismissal of the chairman's son's 9 felonies. And, the filing of the PL Lawsuit.

    It can be problematic in other cases, as has been discussed before.

    But I don't think that's a factor here. Law enforcement has been united in wanting a competent DA for years now. What was once unprecedented, a unanimous endorsement, has held for the last couple elections. I would expect that they looked at the support given to Gallegos in the last election by the other candidates, and decided that wasn't ok with them. Arguably, Maggie did not support Gallegos.

    As to why it would be downplayed, the answer is simple. The well has been poisoned, exactly by people characterizing their endorsement as 'wanting something' - as wanting special treatment, and the poison spread by Salzman still has residue. They are afraid their heartfelt endorsement is the kiss of death.

    It shouldn't be. If these were teachers endorsing Gary Eagles, or a challenger to Gary Eagles, and those teachers aid, look, you have no idea what the working conditions are, and we do, you'd listen (you being the voters). That doesn't happen in this case, and the level of disrespect has been so flagrant and mean-spirited in this age of Gallegos - well, you can understand it, I am sure.

    All that said - I DO NOT get ANY hint of disrespect from these candidates. They are not Gallegos. They are not like Gallegos. They should not be smeared with the Gallegos brush. Fortunately, his era is about to end.

    Grant law enforcement the respect they deserve.

    ReplyDelete
  42. The candidates all articulated their positions on drugs/rehab/treatment/prosecution quite clearly at the Tea Party Debate, the Arcata forum, and the Trinidad Forum. There's not a dime's worth of difference, all of them understand how Humboldt feels, know what works and what does not, and are well aware that legalization is in the very near future.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Thanks Mike for not answering my question about how Maggie is seriously downplaying the endorsement. Nor why the HDSO made an endorsement without at least having the courtesy of interviewing the other candidates.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Jim, I am sorry to be the one to point this out, but I heard Allan say that law enforcement would "want something" in return for their support.

    This was at the DA Debate in Arcata. I was sorry to hear him say that, not just because I consider him a friend, but also because he started his "opening statement" (for lack of a better word) at this debate for a moment of silence for the slain Mendo Deputy. I thought that was really cool until I heard his later comments that were meant to undermine Maggie's support by law enforcement.

    I felt that it was an unkind thing to say about law enforcement. Most of law enforcement is just doing their very difficult jobs and getting a lot of flack. All the many many ones I know do NOT want Maggie to play favorites. They just want a well run DA's office. They need their confidence restored.

    So, Jim, since you are wonderful enough (I consider you too a friend) to comment in your own name, why did Allan say that about law enforcement? Why did he more than imply that they would "want something" in return for their support? It was recorded and I heard it with my own two ears. You were also there. Can you comment?

    ReplyDelete
  45. I thought I did a pretty good job of explaining why HDSO voted the way they did. Maggie has the support of law enforcement because of her abilities and experience in the DA's office that none of the others have, including your candidate. Why is she downplaying the endorsement of HDSO, why don't you ask her, of course it could be as simple an answer as Rose gave in her post at 1:15 above. Of course you want to see a diabolical reason so you won't be satisfied anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  46. The candidates in this race have something to run FOR.

    They are contestants, and adversaries to some degree, but they do not have to run AGAINST each other, in the sense that they have to assign evil motives. There are none.

    You as voters get to decide who you think is most likely to be able to fix the problems - do you even KNOW there are problems? Do you even know what they are? Do you understand the importance of fixing them? Do you have any idea how that might be accomplished, or why?

    Probably not, because there's been little to NO reportage on this.

    Reporting has been relegated to "Election Rond-Up" and "My Words" and Questionnaires all lined up side by side, sprinkled with passionate in-depth analysis of 460s, which have nothing to do with the issues, the problems that exist or the candidates themselves, it's just a proxy war over who is supported by whom.

    It's sad, really.

    ReplyDelete
  47. "Rond" = Round. Round-Up.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I came to this blog though a link from lost coast. I had a real question. It is clear with the exception of, Mr. Fergison and Ms. Bryson, that regular people and their opinions and questions are not wanted here. This place apparently is for the agenda of campaigns. I wish you all well. Remember that going to peoples houses and meeting them is not the only way you make an impression. You all have made one today.

    ReplyDelete
  49. There have been 20 anonymous comments on this thread. I'm sorry - What is your question?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Good one Rose! With mine, make that 21 anonymous comments.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Dollison's State Bar Discipline Case: 1997-2000. Count 1 Case #97-O-18138. Misconduct by Dollison happened August 1997(Maisterra); Count 6 Case # 98-O-00763 misconduct happened August 1997 Cruz); Count 1 Case # 98-O-03596 happened February 1997 (Stockett); Count 1 Case # 97-O-18526 Failure to perform and Failure to communicate re his clients. There are a total of 16 Counts of misconduct in California Supreme Court Case # S088328 file stamped July 27, 2000. All of the other Counts related to violations of the State Bar rules of professional conduct. Dollison failed and refused to respond to or comply with the State Bar investigators until A few of the California Penal Codes sections which Dollison could have been charged with include section 487 Grand Theft; section 470(c) forgery; 484 receiving money and willfully failing to provide the paid for services. sections 487 and 470(c) are felonies, and section 484 can be a misdemeanor or felony, called a wobbler. In any case there are many attorneys who face administrative discipline and are then charged criminally by the agency in the jurisdiction where the offense took place. Dollison’s assertions of mental health problems and psychiatric care at the State Bar proceedings would not have been of much help, if any, had he been prosecuted. Anyone can obtain the complete Discipline file from the California State Bar consisting of 34 pages, as I did.

    Any claim the Dollison is some poor post war casualty deserving of our sympathy and forgiveness is simply not justified. First, Dollison is an administrative officer in the civil affairs activities, not a “front line” point of the spear operational combat soldier. His bronze star is NOT for combat action as he does not have the combat designation “V” for an award requiring combat.
    Fourth, all of his State Bar misconduct was before either the Iraq or Afghanistan conflicts.

    The invasion of Iraq started in March 2003 by an invasion force led by the United States.

    The invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 an invasion force led by the United States and the
    United Kingdom.

    Dollison’s mischaracterization of his military exploits seeks to draw in the veteran vote. He does not fool any of us who really served in “combat” during our tours, and were the victims of “officers” like Dollison who pander and exaggerate his Army “reserve” activities as if he was a “real” soldier. Dollison is an embarrassment to all who really served and sacrificed.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Ok, Rambo. You obviously feel very strongly about this. Just as I do about Gallegos

    You really SHOULD be brave enough to stand up like a man, and use your real name. Stand by your opinion. I do. You can, too. You have risked your very life, taken on far more dangerous things than 99% of the people here, if your assertion is to be believed.

    Why hide behind the anonymous moniker, then?

    You have every right to do so, of course. But I am asking in all curiosity. You have the God-Given right to free speech, to advocate or decry a candidate, to speak out even against the leader of the free world without being jailed or killed.

    WHY would you not exercise this right, for which you risked your life, and for which other people have given their life?

    With all due respect - I ask for an answer.

    Seriously - NO ONE is going to hurt you.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open, but moderated, for the time-being. Good luck.