So the reports are that all of the candidates were asked to rate Paul Gallegos on a scale of 0-10. Klein and Dollison gave Gallegos a 1 or a 2. Firpo dodged the question, but said that management is not one of Paul's strong points. She does still work for the man, so she gets a pass. However, Maggie Fleming gave Paul a 5. I wonder when she secretly campaigns with Republican groups if she gives him the same number, and reveals what her opponents think of him. Suffice it to say, Gallegos is not a 5 out of 10, and I guess that means that Maggie would do only half as bad a Paul instead of turning around the office. She has definitely lost my vote.
Nonsense. Your logic is twisted. This "secret" Republican campaigning is also quite imaginative.
A "5 out of 10" sucks no matter how you look at it. Remember Paul forced Arnie to retire and Paul forced Allan to resign.
Firpo didn't answer the question because she needs his help to even have a chance in June.
I guess there was also a question about the DTF. Who wants to give us the ridiculous answer that Firpo gave? HINT: She doesn't get a pass for this one.
Firpo and dollison dodged the question about keeping jobs and monies in Humboldt county while fleming stated she should consider it. Klein was the only candidate that said he would keep jobs in Humboldt county. The question pertained to the prosecutor position and salary that is being paid to a retired prosecutor who lives in southern California. The position never comes to court, he is just paid $47 buck an hour, 8 hrs a day to charge drug taskforce. DTF cases. Any defense attorney in Humboldt county can do this work and Humboldt county should allow local attorneys to bid for that work.
Bullshit. Defense attorneys can't do that work. But the da should have staff to do it . Unfortunately No one decent with experience wants to come here given the mess in that office. I am still laughing my ass off at Fleming ' s suggestions that a law school student with mentoring can. Talk about living in lala land
West keat is the retired prosecutor. Sorry about that. And yes, some criminal attorneys can do that work as we have many, many former prosecutors that now have they own private practice. BTW, the DTF have notbeen happy with this arrangements, as the cases are piling up.
BTW, firpo described Gallegos management style as "benign neglect ". Her exact words of how he described his management style. She was defending him. So sad.
At the debate, one of the questions asked to Firpo and Fleming was the number of hours currently being put in by both candidates. Fleming answered the question honestly. While Firpo did not. Firpo went on about the murder trial she is currently working on and picking a juror, while is a complete lie! Gallegos has allowed firpo to use Jackie pizzo to pick the Tree murder case while she is out campaigning. Pizzo is a DDA with less than3 years prosecutor experience! Shame on Firpo! Let's hope it doesn't turn into another Ferrer case!
@ 9:10 pm. So let me get this straight. Defense attorneys who represent criminals should be the ones who charge the drug cases? Are we going to pay them with the seized assets that they will be making the decisions on. The more I look at Humboldt I think the freaking drug mafia and their crooked lawyers run this town. The fairer comment is that if this retired prosecutor is Wes Keat then that is the same guy who gave Maggie $1,500 and was referred to the State Bar for prosecutorial misconduct by a Court of Appeal.
I just Googled "Wes Keat misconduct". This is what I got: Chavez v. Keat (1995) 34 Cal. App. 4th 1406 [41 Cal. Rptr. 2d 72]
Looks like Flemings bff and Pauls second in command also was guilty of civil rights violations too. This says he killed a guy. Shot him 6 times. This is way past bad judgment on her part. You can't make this shit up. Only in humboldt!
Anon @ 6:47, are you kidding me? We have some of the best criminal attorneys in this county. And no I am not an attorney. Why do you always spin valid comments to assume it is other campaigns throwing mud? Also, if you recall in the 2010 DA race, it was the defense attorneys whom signed a letter of support for Gallegos. Are you telling me they had nothing to gain from Gallegos? BTW, many of those attorneys are supporting Firpo and Gallegos is too! Just because he has not officially come out and said it does not mean anything. It is his actions, aka, fundraising party at his home, assignment. Of high profile cases, forcing his then backers to support firpo! The list goes on...
Kept him from drowning? He ought to have his pension taken away for that.
A group of defense attorneys who want the paul plea bargains to continue. Not impressive. Susan adams who I wouldn't and didn't vote for when she ran. That's pretty impressive too (Not)!
The plea deals of the Gallegos's era will continue with FIRPO and not with FLEMING. In fact, FIRPO is doing them now...for her buddies. Pay closer attention.
Of course there has to be plea bargains. There are too few courtrooms to take everything to trial.
I am talking about the give away deals of the Gallegos good ol' boy era. Firpo is giving away cases to those who support her.
For example, P v Ferrer was given away to Marek Reavis who WAS on her endorsement list. Her campaign took his name off as a result of the hoopla over that case.
This is not a hate script. It is what is actually going on.
Anon 9:57 First of all, Maggie came in late on the Whitmill case and saved Paul's ass. She got a deal that the victims were very happy with after watching Paul mess up the case so badly.
Ask Ken Quigley what he thinks of Paul and how grateful he was to have Maggie step in.
Anon: 12:07 thank you for putting me in the same category with Luke Brownfield. He is a good attorney. Ask law enforcement what they think of Luke. They hold him in high regard.
That is quite the compliment being mentioned in the same comment as Luke.
And what exactly do you fine so objectionable about me? How hard I fight for my clients, perhaps? The good results I get? Or is it my notable success in a man's world?
Maggie never had any problem dealing with my zeal. Unlike some of the other candidates, she always stays professional and never loses her cool.
Kathleen Bryson, do you really want to bring up Quigley after your use of the case when you ran for DA backfired.
Ken Quigley had a tragic loss. He is suffering and I have no intention of bothering him to ask about your candidate.
I have my own opinion of Luke Brownfield based on daily experience. And the same observation about you.
There are far better DDAs then Luke Brownfield who acts like he could care less about his job.
You are a better attorney than Luke Brownfield. And you do care about your clients. A little too much.
Kathleen Bryson, people humor you but they do not respect you. Dramatic flair does not make you a success in a man's world. Being taken seriously does.
Stop living vicariously through Maggie's run for DA. Stop acting like Maggie is queen. Your comments about Maggie's opponents. All of them are unprofessional. And you are vocal in public.
You are a nice woman Kathleen Bryson. Just bad judgments about people.
I am no Paul fan but this Maggie saved the day is ridiculous.
Maggie Fleming got the same result Paul Gallegos did in the Deidre Peterson case. Hung jury.
She tried it a second time. After feedback from the first jury. If she is the second best thing to sliced bread, she should have had a conviction.
The possibility of Maggie Fleming not being elected District Attorney is real. Agencies and attorneys who work with the District Attorney's office and support Maggie Fleming need to prepare for that reality.
Whatever you are, you are not a trial lawyer. The real question, of course, is why did't PAUL try it again, and of all people, why did he give it to Fleming. He didn't try it again because he knew it was probably unwinnable, he did not have the guts to say so and dismiss it, so he passed it off to the one person he thought could save his bacon.
The american Bar association says that it is unethical to take a person to trial when it can't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't surprise me Gallegos would do that. From what you say Miss Fleming decided to ignore her ethical responsibility to do his bidding. That's the problem many of us have. All of them worked for him so I am l am going to decide on the person who had the morals and guts to say no to that illegal stuff. Did she ignore the jurors and say To hell with it? For money?
The jury in the first trial, held last August, found Peterson not guilty of a charge of oral copulation with a minor, while the jury could not reach a verdict on the two charges she was retried on.
This most recent trial started at the beginning of March. The jury has been deliberating since Friday.
.. the vote on the first charge was five to five with two undecided, and the vote on the second was five for guilty, six for not guilty and one undecided.
Alternate juror in the case David Aronovici said the jury's conclusions did not surprise him. ”It's a tough case, really,” he said.
Aronovici said he thought neither side has enough substantial evidence that proved their case and that testimony on both sides had “mixed up stories.” ”I think the two attorneys did the best they could with what they had,” he said. Aronovici isn't convinced the next jury can reach a verdict if the case is retried.
”I think another jury's going to have the same problem,” he said.
The ABA does not say any such thing. You are ignorant or deliberately lying. Or both.
A hung jury means, by definition, that some jurors thought there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt. All the prosecutor needs is "probable cause".
There is a model code, and model rules, and ABA standards, all of which are guides, not binding rules. See, eg
Standard 3- 1.1 The Function of the Standards
These standards are intended to be used as a guide to professional conduct and performance. They are not intended to be used as criteria for the judicial evaluation of alleged misconduct of the prosecutor to determine the validity of a conviction. They may or may not be relevant in such judicial evaluation, depending upon all the circumstances.
See also http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1127&context=lawfaculty
ABA STANDARDS Standard 3-3.9(b)(i) ("The prosecutor may in some circumstances and for good cause consistent with the public interest decline to prosecute, notwithstanding that sufficient evidence may exist which would support a conviction. Illustrative of the factors which the prosecutor may properly consider in. exercising his or her discretion are: (i) the prosecutor's reasonable doubt that the accused is in fact guilty"). Neither the Model Rules nor the Model Code provide any guidance as to whether a prosecutor may decline to prosecute an existing charge, and the standard for exercising that discretion.
If you are a lawyer you scare the crap out of me. If you are saying it's OK to drag someone through a trial when it can't be proved I hope you aren't a lawyer in the D A'S office now. If any candidate thinks like you I will stay home in election day.
This is what I found: “A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice and that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence, and that special precautions are taken to prevent and to rectify the conviction of innocent persons.” •ABA Model Code Professional Responsibility, EC 7-13: “The responsibility of the public prosecutor differs from that of the usual advocate; his duty is to seek justice, not merely to convict.” (See In re Sakarias (2005) 35 Cal.4th 140, 159 [quoting EC 7-13.
The fact that the first jury hung means that it was proven to some of the jurors. Standing alone, that justifies a retrial. Now, it may be that the circumstances (see above 3.9) would have justified dismissal and indeed after the second mistrial, Mr. Gallegos did just that. To suggest that there was no basis for a retrial just ignores the facts. To suggest that when the elected District Attorney makes a legally valid decision to go to trial that his deputy is unethical for following that decision is baseless. Maybe facts are what's scaring you.
No you are scaring me and a lot of other people. There was no basis for a retrial where 7 people acquitted and the evidence didn't change and the 7 people said it could never be proved. Gallegos didn't make a valid decision nor did the prosecutor have the morals to just say no. I am saying it's unethical and to borrow a phrase, you saying his deputy was ethical for following that decision is baseless. You sound like Gallegos.
There are retrials all the time with splits much worse. You are welcome to your opinion, but every time a fact is published, the response is some combination of changing the subject, or stating an opinion.
But since you feel so strongly, you should send a complaint against Mr. Gallegos and Ms. Fleming to the Bar Association, explaining why you feel the retrial of the Peterson case was unethical.
But first, perhaps a little education. After all, maybe the judge should be cited for "unethically" allowing the case to go forward. Or not.
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Law Reviews 1-1-1997 The Power of the Judiciary to Dismiss Criminal Charges after Several Hung Juries: A Proposed Rule to Control Judicial Discretion
At 557--On the other hand, should the minority juror holdouts in two or more hung juries be in favor of conviction, a bar order may serve the interests of justice and efficiency since it takes unanimity, or near unanimity, to convict. Finally, where three hung juries are equally or nearly equally divided, a bar order seems appropriate, again subject to consideration of the other factors discussed in this Article.
????? Are you high 12:24? 7 voted acquittal. No new evidence. The facts don't change and if you weren't so busy bending yourself in to a pretzel you would see it. I get it that you don't agree. It remains the morally and ethically bankrupt choice to put people through it when you can't prove it.
It's a no win friend. Either the person is incompetent to realize the facts don't change or didn't care enough to say no when she couldn't prove it.
Pretzel or not, I can read, and no, seven did not vote for acquittal, go back and read the piece. Moreover, whatever the split was, the ABA does not say what you claimed it said. The Loyola article goes into great detail regarding retrials after mistrials, and again does not support what you said, which was that Gallegos and, by extension, Fleming, had done something unethical in retrying Peterson. They did not, and you have no basis, aside from your opinion, which is based on an incorrect count of the votes, and profound ignorance of the law and of trial practice, to support your argument. He said she said cases are always tough. But most prosecutors are reluctant give up on a victim after just one try.
Selectively read in or out what you want. I copied and pasted what I read to support that it was wrong which you ignore. I get it. Your a lawyer and are untouchable. Only 5 out of 7 voted that he was guilty. Shit do the math.
Yes. She was a Wing nut then and now. A peculiar woman who impresses me as needing meds and a poor person to be any candidates spokesman. Good grief it's embarrassing to be at events with her. Embarrassing! Bad judgment from a campaign team having her front and center. Just plain bad.
She has a pretty good record in court. If you get to know trial lawyers, you may find that a number of them have rather flamboyant personalities, or can be that way at times. It can make them challenging to be around, but if you don't like that kind of person, next time you get arrested, call a fireman. Everybody likes firemen.
You obviously do not know her. She donates so much to charity and is very generous with people.
As far as meds, I just think she has a unique sense of humor that not everyone in our small little town can understand. She has traveled and lived in a variety of different places.
My concern is with those that feel the need to attack her anonymously. Maggie does not have her as a "spokesperson." I am not aware that she is on any committee or involved in any of the campaign inner workings.
So why attack her? I know there are a couple good ol' boy defense counsel who have tried, and failed. But they do not like that they are losing clientele to her. She charges fair, works harder, and is available to her clients by cellphone 7 days a week.
But, in any case, she is not an issue in this campaign...so why the malicious comments? Let's stick to the issues.
For all we know, you are a client or Kathleen's paralegal.
She donates to charity. So do many other people.
If you are truly a defense lawyer and you think her record is good, I hope no one hires you.
The flamboyant personalities you speak of use court procedures to get deals that do not require skills. What is your idea of a good lawyer? Blustering, rude flamboyant Owen Tipps?
Maggie has no clue how to run a campaign and poor choice of supporters. She thought all it takes to win is law enforcement support and the fact that she has the support of Bonnie Neely and the fact that she is Maggie Fleming. Outside the little courthouse world, no one care or knows the difference between 1 lawyer and another.
To win an election, you need to listen and chose people who have worked and have experience.
Just having years of experience as a lawyer does not make you an effective administrator.
Maggie is ill prepared to be in charge of anything. The office needs fixing and it is not going to be done by "play it safe Maggie".
Arnie Klein has no chance but he has shown that he would get in there, take no nonsense, and he would do what it takes to shake things up.
Also agree Fleming is ill prepared and is clueless about administration and management
But disagree re Klein having shown he can do squat. When he worked there he rarely read a file and was a complete joke which is why the lazy in that office support him quietly. They are hoping for 4 years of skating and doing nothing but saying "submitted. "
Lying about Ms. Fleming won't make your candidates any smarter, or any more experienced, or any more relevant. Maggie has the experience and wisdom of 25 years doing serious cases, she has never been disciplined or accused of a coverup, and she has the work ethic of a sled dog. Maggie Flemi g is the superior candidate, by far, in all categories. All of your petty slanders about how she worked her way through college, all your lame "part time" comments, all your refusal to face the facts cannot change that, or add one gram of experience or competence to the other three. So carry on with your desperate negatives.
They are facts. Sorry you can't handle the truth 1:20? I can't find anything extraordinary or that shows leadership or wisdom from her for the last ten years. How does that happen in such a small community? The 4 candidates are all about equal to me some positives some negatives but NOTHING exceptional.
I guess we just disagree. I have seen the testimonials from all the young lawyers Ms. Fleming trained, and read what victims and witnesses said, and note that defense lawyers like Albright, Schrock, and Truitt support her. If you can't see leadership in her directorship of CAST, in her DTF work, in the homicide cases she tried-- and won-- right up to the time she left, we just disagree. It may be that none are so blind as those who "can't find".
The grand jury report isn't backing that up and who the hell is allbright and shock and who cares really. Moving around that office for years just tells me that government work is comfortable with a pension. Searching the time standard doesn't reflect many trials other than a retrial of a case without a conviction and a marijuana case. But it is the sub standard so that search may not be complete.
So you vote for who you like and I will hold my nose.
Anon, that is so untrue about Arnie Klein. He is hard working, dedicated and diligent about the cases assigned to him while at the DA OFFICE. I know because I work there with him. There are those in that office that never liked him nausea he is Jewish. Paul knew that too, that this was attacks on Klein as well as other ethnic employees in that office but he never did anything about it!
You gotta be kidding. That's hilarious. He would ask the cops about the case cause he never read it and would cruise old town with you go free Schwartz at 11 a.m. In the morning. Give us a break. So paul like.
Look, ok, playing the race card is all the rage. Fine. But really, Klein as the victim of anti-Semitism in the DA's office? Just like the "other ethnic employees". PVG has faults, but if there's one thing he cain't abide, it's an ethnocentric racist. Oh, they aint making Jews like Jesus, anymore . . .
But an egocentric sexist is on the mark! Or just an narcissistic egocentric waste of good air. What a mess this all is. From what all the candidates say he ought to go back to southern California.
7:06 is right. After how many failed marriages and sexist comments about female attorneys and now a non-campaign, Arnie Klein should go back to Southern California.
Actually I was referring to Gallegos. Back to So Cal Paul. You have done enough damage here. But we have plenty of pot. No justice but lots of pot and murder, robberies and slap on the wrist plea bargains. Oh yes and a decimated d.a.'s office too. Thanks and see ya.
C'mon, no need for this. Everyone, including Arnie, knows he's history in 30 days. Let's all stay positive about our candidates good points, not mislead or divide the voters, keep it factual, documented, provable, objective, above the belt kind of thing.
The problem is that the character defamations of certain candidates and their supporters started on this blog and other blogs by two candidates and their supporters.
That is factual, documented and relevant to this race.
When those two candidates rein their mud slinging supporters, classy dialogue will follow.
Arnie Klein choosing to run when he was history from the start and his inflaming this community with emotion will not be history in 30 days.
I have seen mud slinging from all camps not just those two. Also, when a person stands up for their candidate and points out a weakness in another candidate, that is not mud slinging.
I have been an attorney for 34 years. I began my career as a deputy district attorney in another county and came to Humboldt County in 1984 serving as chief assistant district attorney in the 1980s and '90s. Since leaving public service, I have practiced law as a partner in one of Humboldt County's oldest firms. I have both prosecuted and defended through jury trial everything from DUI cases through homicides.
I am familiar with the candidates running for district attorney, and have been saddened by the negative and nasty tone of the anonymous commentary and mud-slinging these candidates, all good people, have been subjected to. The level of negativity is beneath the dignity of the office. Each of the candidates deserves our respect for their desire to serve, and our gratitude for subjecting themselves to the personal, financial, and professional sacrifice associated with candidacy for this important public office.
My message is simple and positive. I support Maggie Fleming to be our next district attorney because she is quite clearly the best qualified candidate. In terms of experience, judgment, ethics and integrity, I know from my experience Maggie Fleming is an exceptional choice.
Truth and competence matter. While I don't always agree with Maggie, I do know that she listens, cares deeply about others, and is vested in doing justice. I have great confidence in her judgment and sense of fairness to do so.
Please join me in supporting Maggie Fleming to be our next district attorney.
So the reports are that all of the candidates were asked to rate Paul Gallegos on a scale of 0-10. Klein and Dollison gave Gallegos a 1 or a 2. Firpo dodged the question, but said that management is not one of Paul's strong points. She does still work for the man, so she gets a pass. However, Maggie Fleming gave Paul a 5. I wonder when she secretly campaigns with Republican groups if she gives him the same number, and reveals what her opponents think of him. Suffice it to say, Gallegos is not a 5 out of 10, and I guess that means that Maggie would do only half as bad a Paul instead of turning around the office. She has definitely lost my vote.
ReplyDeleteMaggie did vote 5. I believe Klein was 1 and Dollison 2.
ReplyDeleteOink oink "secretly campaigns". Such swill.
ReplyDeleteStay positive about your candidates.
Nonsense. Your logic is twisted. This "secret" Republican campaigning is also quite imaginative.
ReplyDeleteA "5 out of 10" sucks no matter how you look at it. Remember Paul forced Arnie to retire and Paul forced Allan to resign.
Firpo didn't answer the question because she needs his help to even have a chance in June.
I guess there was also a question about the DTF. Who wants to give us the ridiculous answer that Firpo gave? HINT: She doesn't get a pass for this one.
Anyone?
Da Toof Fairy?
ReplyDeleteFirpo and dollison dodged the question about keeping jobs and monies in Humboldt county while fleming stated she should consider it. Klein was the only candidate that said he would keep jobs in Humboldt county. The question pertained to the prosecutor position and salary that is being paid to a retired prosecutor who lives in southern California. The position never comes to court, he is just paid $47 buck an hour, 8 hrs a day to charge drug taskforce. DTF cases. Any defense attorney in Humboldt county can do this work and Humboldt county should allow local attorneys to bid for that work.
ReplyDeleteSo are you a defense attorney who would profit if Klein was elected?
DeleteAnd isn't the prosecutor you mention a friend and endorser of Fleming's?
Another diss at Firpo and Dollison brought to you by an unbiased Klein and Fleming supporter.
Dammit - be specific - WHO? don't just say 'a retired prosecutor' - SAY WHO IT IS.
ReplyDeleteIt is a LEGITIMATE ISSUE.
Bullshit. Defense attorneys can't do that work. But the da should have staff to do it . Unfortunately No one decent with experience wants to come here given the mess in that office. I am still laughing my ass off at Fleming ' s suggestions that a law school student with mentoring can. Talk about living in lala land
ReplyDeleteFinally someone in the know.
DeleteWest keat is the retired prosecutor. Sorry about that. And yes, some criminal attorneys can do that work as we have many, many former prosecutors that now have they own private practice. BTW, the DTF have notbeen happy with this arrangements, as the cases are piling up.
ReplyDeleteI am sure those former prosecutors who are raking in money as private attorneys would love the power and steady job.
DeleteThe District Attorney's election is not so more incompetent local lawyers can get rich. Do your job and defend people in the courtroom.
BTW, firpo described Gallegos management style as "benign neglect ". Her exact words of how he described his management style. She was defending him. So sad.
ReplyDeleteSo sad is your grasp of English. Or ethics.
DeleteAt the debate, one of the questions asked to Firpo and Fleming was the number of hours currently being put in by both candidates. Fleming answered the question honestly. While Firpo did not. Firpo went on about the murder trial she is currently working on and picking a juror, while is a complete lie! Gallegos has allowed firpo to use Jackie pizzo to pick the Tree murder case while she is out campaigning. Pizzo is a DDA with less than3 years prosecutor experience! Shame on Firpo! Let's hope it doesn't turn into another Ferrer case!
ReplyDelete@ 9:10 pm. So let me get this straight. Defense attorneys who represent criminals should be the ones who charge the drug cases? Are we going to pay them with the seized assets that they will be making the decisions on. The more I look at Humboldt I think the freaking drug mafia and their crooked lawyers run this town. The fairer comment is that if this retired prosecutor is Wes Keat then that is the same guy who gave Maggie $1,500 and was referred to the State Bar for prosecutorial misconduct by a Court of Appeal.
ReplyDeleteI like you anonymous!
DeleteI just Googled "Wes Keat misconduct". This is what I got: Chavez v. Keat (1995)
ReplyDelete34 Cal. App. 4th 1406 [41 Cal. Rptr. 2d 72]
Looks like Flemings bff and Pauls second in command also was guilty of civil rights violations too. This says he killed a guy. Shot him 6 times.
This is way past bad judgment on her part. You can't make this shit up. Only in humboldt!
Okay, so it wasn't "Da Toof Fairy." But excellent guess.
ReplyDeleteIt was Department of Tobacco and Firearms. Yes, that is right, Firpo did not know that DTF stood for Drug Task Force.
You could'nt make this stuff up.
And yet you did make it up.
DeleteI believe Wes Keat was a sheriff at one point.
ReplyDeleteI also believe he is not running for office.
But his bff is.
DeleteYou know the old saying that you can tell a lot in a person from who they hang with and accept money from.
This whole DA race is pretty depressing.
Anon @ 6:47, are you kidding me? We have some of the best criminal attorneys in this county. And no I am not an attorney. Why do you always spin valid comments to assume it is other campaigns throwing mud? Also, if you recall in the 2010 DA race, it was the defense attorneys whom signed a letter of support for Gallegos. Are you telling me they had nothing to gain from Gallegos? BTW, many of those attorneys are supporting Firpo and Gallegos is too! Just because he has not officially come out and said it does not mean anything. It is his actions, aka, fundraising party at his home, assignment. Of high profile cases, forcing his then backers to support firpo! The list goes on...
ReplyDeleteYes Gallegos put a prosecutor on Father Freed's murder who has never taken a murder case to trial. That was to help her run for office.
ReplyDeleteIt makes me sick. And it makes me sad for the victims' families. We really need experience in that office.
Why can't Firpo stay in the office and work hard and learn? Why does she have to take over when she clearly isn't ready?
Doesn't Maggie also have the support of defense counsel? Bill Bragg, Neal Sanders, Larry Killoran, Kathleen Bryson etc...?
ReplyDeleteAnd Jimmy Smith? Susan Adams?
Why are we focusing on Wes Keat? He was the only thing that kept Gallegos from drowning all those years.
He also knows the Penal Code like the back of his hand. What a genius.
6 good reasons not to vote for her!
DeleteKept him from drowning? He ought to have his pension taken away for that.
DeleteA group of defense attorneys who want the paul plea bargains to continue. Not impressive. Susan adams who I wouldn't and didn't vote for when she ran. That's pretty impressive too (Not)!
Now we know why Maggie refused to be video taped. So she could make crap up.
ReplyDeleteIt was Bill Bragg and Maggie Fleming that lost to HumCPR.
ReplyDeleteMaybe she thinks she can redact her mistakes.
Maggie totally fucked over on Allison Jacckson in her run for DA. No respect for her at all.
ReplyDeleteAllison Jackson did a substantially better job at managing CAST then Maggie ever did.
DeleteMaggie had nothing to do with the campaign in 2010.
ReplyDeleteMaggie is good at doing nothing.
ReplyDeleteMs. Jackson was a very good prosecutor and a valued member of the CAST team.
ReplyDeleteShe was never the Director or "manager" of CAST.
She did few, if any, homicide cases. But she was very, very good at trying sex cases.
The Maggie supporter. Day's schedule:
ReplyDelete1.Attack the character of any one who points out facts about Maggie
2. Question the character of any one who chooses another candidate
3. Refuse to take responsibility for any of Maggie's mistake
Neely, Atkins, Mielke, Losey cancel out the the valid supporters. Maggie condones the behavior of her sleazy supporters.
Not fit to be in the position to make life changing decisions about people.
The plea deals of the Gallegos's era will continue with FIRPO and not with FLEMING. In fact, FIRPO is doing them now...for her buddies. Pay closer attention.
ReplyDeleteSo you are saying Maggie never made a plea deal?
ReplyDeleteDid your experienced candidate not exolain to you that plea bargains are a part of the criminal justice system?
Must be hard when you type from the standard I hate Paul, I hate Firpo script.
I believe Maggie did that super-controversial plea bargain the Jason Whitmill case.
DeleteOf course there has to be plea bargains. There are too few courtrooms to take everything to trial.
ReplyDeleteI am talking about the give away deals of the Gallegos good ol' boy era. Firpo is giving away cases to those who support her.
For example, P v Ferrer was given away to Marek Reavis who WAS on her endorsement list. Her campaign took his name off as a result of the hoopla over that case.
This is not a hate script. It is what is actually going on.
It is not what is actually going on, it is what you think is going on.
DeleteMarek Reavis is a good attorney.
Unlike someone supporting Arnie like Luke Brownfield
All he mumbles is I submit. So moved. Must be that 42 years of experienced mentoring by Arnie.
Or Maggie's choice of attorney supporters like Kathleen Bryson. Serious error of judgement.
Yeah let us trust Arnie and Maggie as our next DA.
Anon 9:57
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, Maggie came in late on the Whitmill case and saved Paul's ass. She got a deal that the victims were very happy with after watching Paul mess up the case so badly.
Ask Ken Quigley what he thinks of Paul and how grateful he was to have Maggie step in.
Anon: 12:07 thank you for putting me in the same category with Luke Brownfield. He is a good attorney. Ask law enforcement what they think of Luke. They hold him in high regard.
That is quite the compliment being mentioned in the same comment as Luke.
And what exactly do you fine so objectionable about me? How hard I fight for my clients, perhaps? The good results I get? Or is it my notable success in a man's world?
Maggie never had any problem dealing with my zeal. Unlike some of the other candidates, she always stays professional and never loses her cool.
Kathleen Bryson, do you really want to bring up Quigley after your use of the case when you ran for DA backfired.
ReplyDeleteKen Quigley had a tragic loss. He is suffering and I have no intention of bothering him to ask about your candidate.
I have my own opinion of Luke Brownfield based on daily experience. And the same observation about you.
There are far better DDAs then Luke Brownfield who acts like he could care less about his job.
You are a better attorney than Luke Brownfield. And you do care about your clients. A little too much.
Kathleen Bryson, people humor you but they do not respect you. Dramatic flair does not make you a success in a man's world. Being taken seriously does.
Stop living vicariously through Maggie's run for DA. Stop acting like Maggie is queen. Your comments about Maggie's opponents. All of them are unprofessional. And you are vocal in public.
You are a nice woman Kathleen Bryson. Just bad judgments about people.
I am no Paul fan but this Maggie saved the day is ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteMaggie Fleming got the same result Paul Gallegos did in the Deidre Peterson case. Hung jury.
She tried it a second time. After feedback from the first jury. If she is the second best thing to sliced bread, she should have had a conviction.
The possibility of Maggie Fleming not being elected District Attorney is real. Agencies and attorneys who work with the District Attorney's office and support Maggie Fleming need to prepare for that reality.
I am no Paul fan but this Maggie saved the day is ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteMaggie Fleming got the same result Paul Gallegos did in the Deidre Peterson case. Hung jury.
She tried it a second time. After feedback from the first jury. If she is the second best thing to sliced bread, she should have had a conviction.
Whatever you are, you are not a trial lawyer. The real question, of course, is why did't PAUL try it again, and of all people, why did he give it to Fleming. He didn't try it again because he knew it was probably unwinnable, he did not have the guts to say so and dismiss it, so he passed it off to the one person he thought could save his bacon.
ReplyDeleteThe american Bar association says that it is unethical to take a person to trial when it can't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't surprise me Gallegos would do that. From what you say Miss Fleming decided to ignore her ethical responsibility to do his bidding. That's the problem many of us have. All of them worked for him so I am l am going to decide on the person who had the morals and guts to say no to that illegal stuff. Did she ignore the jurors and say To hell with it? For money?
DeleteThe jury in the first trial, held last August, found Peterson not guilty of a charge of oral copulation with a minor, while the jury could not reach a verdict on the two charges she was retried on.
ReplyDeleteThis most recent trial started at the beginning of March. The jury has been deliberating since Friday.
.. the vote on the first charge was five to five with two undecided, and the vote on the second was five for guilty, six for not guilty and one undecided.
http://www.zoominfo.com/CachedPage/?archive_id=0&page_id=-707578214&page_url=//www.presstelegram.com/california/ci_14754694&page_last_updated=2010-03-25T15:01:19&firstName=Deirdre&lastName=Peterson
Alternate juror in the case David Aronovici said the jury's conclusions did not surprise him.
ReplyDelete”It's a tough case, really,” he said.
Aronovici said he thought neither side has enough substantial evidence that proved their case and that testimony on both sides had “mixed up stories.”
”I think the two attorneys did the best they could with what they had,” he said.
Aronovici isn't convinced the next jury can reach a verdict if the case is retried.
”I think another jury's going to have the same problem,” he said.
http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_13072719
The ABA does not say any such thing. You are ignorant or deliberately lying. Or both.
ReplyDeleteA hung jury means, by definition, that some jurors thought there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt. All the prosecutor needs is "probable cause".
There is a model code, and model rules, and ABA standards, all of which are guides, not binding rules. See, eg
Standard 3- 1.1 The Function of the Standards
These standards are intended to be used as a guide to professional conduct and performance. They are not intended to be used as criteria for the judicial evaluation of alleged misconduct of the prosecutor to determine the validity of a conviction. They may or may not be relevant in such judicial evaluation, depending upon all the circumstances.
See also http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1127&context=lawfaculty
ABA STANDARDS Standard 3-3.9(b)(i) ("The prosecutor may in some circumstances and for good cause consistent with the public interest decline to prosecute, notwithstanding that sufficient evidence may exist which would support a conviction. Illustrative of the factors which the prosecutor may properly consider in. exercising his or her discretion are: (i) the prosecutor's reasonable doubt that the accused is in fact guilty"). Neither the Model Rules nor the Model Code provide any guidance as to whether a prosecutor may decline to prosecute an existing charge, and the standard for exercising that discretion.
If you are a lawyer you scare the crap out of me. If you are saying it's OK to drag someone through a trial when it can't be proved I hope you aren't a lawyer in the
DeleteD A'S office now. If any candidate thinks like you I will stay home in election day.
This is what I found: “A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice and that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence, and that special precautions are taken to prevent and to rectify the conviction of innocent persons.” •ABA Model Code Professional Responsibility, EC 7-13: “The responsibility of the public prosecutor differs from that of the usual advocate; his duty is to seek justice, not merely to convict.” (See In re Sakarias (2005) 35 Cal.4th 140, 159 [quoting EC 7-13.
This was online from a judge.
The fact that the first jury hung means that it was proven to some of the jurors. Standing alone, that justifies a retrial. Now, it may be that the circumstances (see above 3.9) would have justified dismissal and indeed after the second mistrial, Mr. Gallegos did just that. To suggest that there was no basis for a retrial just ignores the facts. To suggest that when the elected District Attorney makes a legally valid decision to go to trial that his deputy is unethical for following that decision is baseless.
ReplyDeleteMaybe facts are what's scaring you.
No you are scaring me and a lot of other people. There was no basis for a retrial where 7 people acquitted and the evidence didn't change and the 7 people said it could never be proved. Gallegos didn't make a valid decision nor did the prosecutor have the morals to just say no. I am saying it's unethical and to borrow a phrase, you saying his deputy was ethical for following that decision is baseless. You sound like Gallegos.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThere are retrials all the time with splits much worse. You are welcome to your opinion, but every time a fact is published, the response is some combination of changing the subject, or stating an opinion.
But since you feel so strongly, you should send a complaint against Mr. Gallegos and Ms. Fleming to the Bar Association, explaining why you feel the retrial of the Peterson case was unethical.
But first, perhaps a little education. After all, maybe the judge should be cited for "unethically" allowing the case to go forward. Or not.
ReplyDeleteLoyola of Los Angeles Law Review Law Reviews
1-1-1997
The Power of the Judiciary to Dismiss Criminal Charges after Several Hung Juries: A Proposed Rule to Control Judicial Discretion
At 557--On the other hand, should the minority juror holdouts in two or more hung juries be in favor of conviction, a bar order may serve the interests of justice and efficiency since it takes unanimity, or near unanimity, to convict. Finally, where three hung juries are equally or nearly equally divided, a bar order seems appropriate, again subject to consideration of the other factors discussed in this Article.
http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2026&context=llr
Sure hope you aren't a prosecutor.
ReplyDeleteAnd voila, no facts, no law = personal attacks.
ReplyDelete????? Are you high 12:24? 7 voted acquittal. No new evidence. The facts don't change and if you weren't so busy bending yourself in to a pretzel you would see it. I get it that you don't agree. It remains the morally and ethically bankrupt choice to put people through it when you can't prove it.
ReplyDeleteIt's a no win friend. Either the person is incompetent to realize the facts don't change or didn't care enough to say no when she couldn't prove it.
Pretzel or not, I can read, and no, seven did not vote for acquittal, go back and read the piece. Moreover, whatever the split was, the ABA does not say what you claimed it said. The Loyola article goes into great detail regarding retrials after mistrials, and again does not support what you said, which was that Gallegos and, by extension, Fleming, had done something unethical in retrying Peterson. They did not, and you have no basis, aside from your opinion, which is based on an incorrect count of the votes, and profound ignorance of the law and of trial practice, to support your argument. He said she said cases are always tough. But most prosecutors are reluctant give up on a victim after just one try.
ReplyDeleteSelectively read in or out what you want. I copied and pasted what I read to support that it was wrong which you ignore. I get it. Your a lawyer and are untouchable. Only 5 out of 7 voted that he was guilty. Shit do the math.
ReplyDeleteActually that should have been" 5 out of 12."
ReplyDeleteI am a defense counsel and I respect Kathleen's caseload and her results.
ReplyDeleteT-S twisted Ken Quigley's words.
And you know that how? Were you present during the interview?
DeleteWhen she was running for DA, defense counsel were not involved in her campaign team or daily campaign business.
Having a defense attorney defend another defense attorney, if you are even a lawyer, is hardly an objective opinion.
Kathleen is capable of speaking for herself. Kathleen also has friends who know her well. Unlike you.
Kathleen can support whoever she wants. It is the way she goes about it that turns off people.
Yes. She was a Wing nut then and now. A peculiar woman who impresses me as needing meds and a poor person to be any candidates spokesman. Good grief it's embarrassing to be at events with her. Embarrassing! Bad judgment from a campaign team having her front and center. Just plain bad.
ReplyDeleteShe has a pretty good record in court. If you get to know trial lawyers, you may find that a number of them have rather flamboyant personalities, or can be that way at times. It can make them challenging to be around, but if you don't like that kind of person, next time you get arrested, call a fireman. Everybody likes firemen.
ReplyDeleteIt's not flamboyant. It's ill. There's something very wrong.
ReplyDeleteYou obviously do not know her. She donates so much to charity and is very generous with people.
ReplyDeleteAs far as meds, I just think she has a unique sense of humor that not everyone in our small little town can understand. She has traveled and lived in a variety of different places.
My concern is with those that feel the need to attack her anonymously. Maggie does not have her as a "spokesperson." I am not aware that she is on any committee or involved in any of the campaign inner workings.
So why attack her? I know there are a couple good ol' boy defense counsel who have tried, and failed. But they do not like that they are losing clientele to her. She charges fair, works harder, and is available to her clients by cellphone 7 days a week.
But, in any case, she is not an issue in this campaign...so why the malicious comments? Let's stick to the issues.
11:09 and 9:20 why do you anonymously respond.
ReplyDeleteFor all we know, you are a client or Kathleen's paralegal.
She donates to charity. So do many other people.
If you are truly a defense lawyer and you think her record is good, I hope no one hires you.
The flamboyant personalities you speak of use court procedures to get deals that do not require skills. What is your idea of a good lawyer? Blustering, rude flamboyant Owen Tipps?
Maggie has no clue how to run a campaign and poor choice of supporters. She thought all it takes to win is law enforcement support and the fact that she has the support of Bonnie Neely and the fact that she is Maggie Fleming. Outside the little courthouse world, no one care or knows the difference between 1 lawyer and another.
To win an election, you need to listen and chose people who have worked and have experience.
Just having years of experience as a lawyer does not make you an effective administrator.
Maggie is ill prepared to be in charge of anything. The office needs fixing and it is not going to be done by "play it safe Maggie".
Arnie Klein has no chance but he has shown that he would get in there, take no nonsense, and he would do what it takes to shake things up.
I agree Klein has no chance.
ReplyDeleteAlso agree Fleming is ill prepared and is clueless about administration and management
But disagree re Klein having shown he can do squat. When he worked there he rarely read a file and was a complete joke which is why the lazy in that office support him quietly. They are hoping for 4 years of skating and doing nothing but saying "submitted. "
I do not disagree with the lazy or those that support him.
DeleteMy point about Klein was he, unlike Maggie, does not kow tow to the powers that be. That is not a vote of confidence in Klein.
Lying about Ms. Fleming won't make your candidates any smarter, or any more experienced, or any more relevant. Maggie has the experience and wisdom of 25 years doing serious cases, she has never been disciplined or accused of a coverup, and she has the work ethic of a sled dog. Maggie Flemi g is the superior candidate, by far, in all categories. All of your petty slanders about how she worked her way through college, all your lame "part time" comments, all your refusal to face the facts cannot change that, or add one gram of experience or competence to the other three. So carry on with your desperate negatives.
ReplyDeleteMaggie supporters call it lying, others the truth.
DeleteThis county deserves a District Attorney not bought and paid for by unions, elected officials, law enforcement and lawyers.
The voters need to go out in force and support their pick of the other three candidates and show Maggie and her bully supporters, money does not rule.
There are many hardworking and more competent attorneys, private and public, who fight for justice every day.
With the money behind Fleming, they could get elected, they just chose not to sell their soul at any cost.
When Maggie states her true feelings on marijuana and drugs and runs as who she is, maybe she can regain some respect.
They are facts. Sorry you can't handle the truth 1:20? I can't find anything extraordinary or that shows leadership or wisdom from her for the last ten years. How does that happen in such a small community? The 4 candidates are all about equal to me some positives some negatives but NOTHING exceptional.
ReplyDeleteI guess we just disagree. I have seen the testimonials from all the young lawyers Ms. Fleming trained, and read what victims and witnesses said, and note that defense lawyers like Albright, Schrock, and Truitt support her. If you can't see leadership in her directorship of CAST, in her DTF work, in the homicide cases she tried-- and won-- right up to the time she left, we just disagree. It may be that none are so blind as those who "can't find".
ReplyDeleteThe grand jury report isn't backing that up and who the hell is allbright and shock and who cares really. Moving around that office for years just tells me that government work is comfortable with a pension. Searching the time standard doesn't reflect many trials other than a retrial of a case without a conviction and a marijuana case. But it is the sub standard so that search may not be complete.
ReplyDeleteSo you vote for who you like and I will hold my nose.
Anon, that is so untrue about Arnie Klein. He is hard working, dedicated and diligent about the cases assigned to him while at the DA OFFICE. I know because I work there with him. There are those in that office that never liked him nausea he is Jewish. Paul knew that too, that this was attacks on Klein as well as other ethnic employees in that office but he never did anything about it!
ReplyDeleteYou gotta be kidding. That's hilarious. He would ask the cops about the case cause he never read it and would cruise old town with you go free Schwartz at 11 a.m. In the morning. Give us a break. So paul like.
ReplyDeleteOr paid for by Green Diamond, large property owners and Timber?
ReplyDeleteThat is Firpo.
Look, ok, playing the race card is all the rage. Fine. But really, Klein as the victim of anti-Semitism in the DA's office? Just like the "other ethnic employees". PVG has faults, but if there's one thing he cain't abide, it's an ethnocentric racist. Oh, they aint making Jews like Jesus, anymore . . .
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lyricsfreak.com/k/kinky+friedman/they+aint+makin+jews+like+jesus+anymore_20079424.html
But an egocentric sexist is on the mark! Or just an narcissistic egocentric waste of good air. What a mess this all is. From what all the candidates say he ought to go back to southern California.
ReplyDelete7:06 is right. After how many failed marriages and sexist comments about female attorneys and now a non-campaign, Arnie Klein should go back to Southern California.
ReplyDeleteActually I was referring to Gallegos. Back to So Cal Paul. You have done enough damage here. But we have plenty of pot. No justice but lots of pot and murder, robberies and slap on the wrist plea bargains. Oh yes and a decimated d.a.'s office too. Thanks and see ya.
DeleteC'mon, no need for this. Everyone, including Arnie, knows he's history in 30 days. Let's all stay positive about our candidates good points, not mislead or divide the voters, keep it factual, documented, provable, objective, above the belt kind of thing.
ReplyDeleteThe first sensible comment I have seen so far.
DeleteThe problem is that the character defamations of certain candidates and their supporters started on this blog and other blogs by two candidates and their supporters.
That is factual, documented and relevant to this race.
When those two candidates rein their mud slinging supporters, classy dialogue will follow.
Arnie Klein choosing to run when he was history from the start and his inflaming this community with emotion will not be history in 30 days.
I have seen mud slinging from all camps not just those two. Also, when a person stands up for their candidate and points out a weakness in another candidate, that is not mud slinging.
ReplyDeletetoday's TS
ReplyDeleteWhy I support Maggie Fleming for DA
I have been an attorney for 34 years. I began my career as a deputy district attorney in another county and came to Humboldt County in 1984 serving as chief assistant district attorney in the 1980s and '90s. Since leaving public service, I have practiced law as a partner in one of Humboldt County's oldest firms. I have both prosecuted and defended through jury trial everything from DUI cases through homicides.
I am familiar with the candidates running for district attorney, and have been saddened by the negative and nasty tone of the anonymous commentary and mud-slinging these candidates, all good people, have been subjected to. The level of negativity is beneath the dignity of the office. Each of the candidates deserves our respect for their desire to serve, and our gratitude for subjecting themselves to the personal, financial, and professional sacrifice associated with candidacy for this important public office.
My message is simple and positive. I support Maggie Fleming to be our next district attorney because she is quite clearly the best qualified candidate. In terms of experience, judgment, ethics and integrity, I know from my experience Maggie Fleming is an exceptional choice.
Truth and competence matter. While I don't always agree with Maggie, I do know that she listens, cares deeply about others, and is vested in doing justice. I have great confidence in her judgment and sense of fairness to do so.
Please join me in supporting Maggie Fleming to be our next district attorney.
Michael K. Robinson, Eureka
This is truly a great read for me and definitely be back to read some more. Thank you for the effort to publish this.
ReplyDeletewww.n8fan.net
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete