"The responsibility for this tragedy to have occurred should be solely laid out right upon the front of both of their feet."

◼ A comment, left by NorCalGuy101, here: Jason Warren’s Surviving Victims Discuss Cruz Waivers, the Death Penalty and the Importance of Cultivating Goodness - Ryan Burns/Lost Coast Outpost

...Warren has now been found guilty of murdering Hoopa woman Dorothy Ulrich, and doing so after lying in wait and torturing her. He was also found guilty of murdering HSU lecturer Suzanne Seemann and attempting to murder her friends and fellow educators Terri Vroman Little and Jessica Hunt. The three women were out for a run that morning when Warren, driving a car he’d stolen from Ulrich, passed them in the opposite direction, turned around and ran them down from behind at high speed.

The trial lasted a month, and the tragic morning itself is now more than three years past....

Seemann said his compulsion to be there every day stemmed partly from a kinship with Suzie’s parents and Hunt and Vroman Little and also Ulrich’s mother, Shirley Ortega. They were there to represent the deceased and to bear witness, he said. But he was also aware that the fate of the man who killed his wife was being placed in the hands of two attorneys — prosecutor Paul Sequeira and defense attorney Glenn Brown — and he wanted to hold them accountable.

“We needed to convey that there can’t be any mistakes,” Seemann said.

The Cruz Waiver

Or any more mistakes, he might well have said. From the beginning, this case has been tinged with anger and blame over a legal maneuver that allowed Warren to commit the crimes. Roughly a month before the murders, Warren was granted a Cruz waiver, part of a plea deal that allowed him out of jail and promised a lighter sentence. In exchange, Warren agreed to obey all laws and show up for his a Sept. 7, 2012, sentencing hearing. He did neither, of course, and thus the Cruz waiver proved to be a catastrophic error in judgment.

Judge Timothy Cissna, who heard the double-murder case, was the one who granted the Cruz waiver, but Hunt said she’s more angry at the deputy district attorney who was in the courtroom at the time and especially his then-boss, former DA Paul Gallegos.

“That’s who I blame,” Hunt said. “Part of their job is to be on top of who is getting processed in the courtroom, to be able to speak with authority about yes or no, that’s an OK person to get a Cruz waiver.”

In the aftermath of the crimes, Gallegos refused to admit that Warren should not have been set free. While saying he wished to God that his office had opposed the Cruz waiver or that the judge hadn’t granted it, Gallegos was quoted in the Times-Standard saying, “I don’t question the decision that was made. It was the right decision for that time.”

Seemann said that “decision” was likely ill-informed. “I actually arranged for a Public Records Act request to see what policies that office had for Cruz waivers, and what we discovered was that they had none,” he said. “So I think there was clearly a lack of clarity and direction” in the office....

________________________
"...there was clearly a lack of clarity and direction” in the office...."

And there it is. In a nutshell. From beginning to end, what defined Paul Gallegos' term in office as Humboldt County DA. It was evident in the beginning, and he never made any attempt to improve. Never. Law enforcement sounded the alarm early on. Prosecutors warned. This blog came about in part because so many had so much information they were afraid to speak themselves. The Grand Jury called it out. People who left the office described conditions in the office (and still do). And he never made any attempt to improve.

It was slipshod.

And people died. Not just the two in this case, either.

In the end, though, you can add the pot community to the list of those who are to blame. These two people were sacrificed on the altar of Humboldt weed. They kept him office, with their votes and their money. Knowing. And make no mistake, They Knew.

And, Ryan Burns article, linked above, is an excellent piece.

So sorry it had to be written.

SPRING FORWARD

If you didn't do it last night, set your clocks an hour forward and put batteries in your smoke alarms.

◼ It's also time to think about serving on the Grand Jury: Humboldt Superior Court seeking grand jury applicants - Times-Standard

Delusional Ken Miller defends his failed Palco lawsuit

If only HE could have gone and argued the case, surely the outcome would have been different. Surely.

At some point I will read the whole thing, I guess. I didn't get part the first couple sentences, and the "courageous" lawsuit. Yes. That one. The one Ken Miller wrote. The same one that was - literally - laughed out of court.

But let this record show, there was - and there is - nothing 'courageous' about an elected politician filing a lawsuit at the behest of his backers and handlers. 'COURAGE' would have been saying, "No, Ken. Sorry, it doesn't work that way."

Ken glosses over all the lies. Employs his spin doctored talking points, and his delusional version of reality. Even Gallegos knows it's false, if ever he were to admit the truth.

◼ Paul Gallegos restored honor to DA's office = Ken Miller's MY WORD in the Times-Standard

Now, if only he could restore our seasoned, trained, top-flight Prosecutors. He had 20 when he took office, right, Ken? How many prosecutors does he have now, not even counting whether they're experienced or not... six? seven?

Related: ◼ Good riddance to Paul Gallegos - Susan Dodd, Letter to the Editor/Times-Standard

Pick up The Arcata Eye and McKinleyville Press

Gallegos, in an interview with Daniel Mintz, says that he's withdrawing his Grand Jury response regarding grants. Developing. Some things in this article are not clear. Not adding up. Not making sense.

Humboldt County Grand Jury Faults DA Office, Gallegos Responds

◼ HUMBOLDT – The county’s Grand Jury has found that problems continue to “plague” the District Attorney’s Office, including poor management, failure to claim grant reimbursements and nepotism.

District Attorney Paul Gallegos has responded extensively to the findings, asserting that management of his office has actually improved and that members of the Grand Jury do not understand how grant reimbursements work.

Responses to the latest installment of the Grand Jury report were recently filed and among them are Gallegos’ retorts to another critical investigation of his office.

The Grand Jury found that “poor office management practices and communication continue to plague the District Attorney’s Office, after first being noted in the 2004-05 Grand Jury report” and that “these ongoing problems have been corroborated by the testimony of several witnesses.”

The witness testimony described “job-related frustrations,” including “needing to re-do tasks previously completed,” “delays in the timely completion of routine tasks” and “failures in communications between office staff.”

District Attorney’s Office staff also complained about “nepotism and favoritism toward relatives of supervisors,” according to the report, which described nepotism as a “problem” in the DA’s Office.... - California Grand Jury News

Daniel Mintz's articles appear in the McKinleyville Press, Arcata Eye and the Independent.

Gallegos said the grand jury is “very politically motivated.”

◼ Humboldt County Grand Jury looks at aging facilities, District Attorney's Office
Government agencies identified in a grand jury report must respond to the findings, and the Humboldt County District Attorney's Office is already planning a detailed response, said District Attorney Paul Gallegos in an e-mail.

”Rest assured, we do not agree with the findings,” Gallegos said in an e-mail.

There were four main findings that the grand jury reported within the district attorney's office. The first being the office failed to file for some grant reimbursements in fiscal year 2006-2007, and that other grant applications were not properly processed or submitted. The result was that some reimbursements were not received and were covered by the county's general fund.

The second finding stated that nepotism, or favoritism toward relatives of supervising personnel, was a problem in the district attorney's office, and that current county personnel rules were not sufficient to stop it.

”It is the grand jury's belief that the current county policy that nepotism only occurs when there exists a direct line of supervision is ineffective ...,” the report states. “Nepotism creates tension, provides an unnecessary source of resentment by staff and usually becomes a source of morale and retention issues.”

No specific circumstances are listed in the report, and calls to the grand jury's office were not returned by deadline.
The report also cites a lack of routine personnel evaluations, and that “poor office management practices and communication continue to plague” the office.

Gallegos did not respond specifically to any item in the report, leaving that for the written response. However, he said the grand jury is “very politically motivated.”

The grand jury recommended that the county office organize a grant-management program, review policies on nepotism, require that evaluations be performed on a set schedule, and that Gallegos “recognize the ongoing responsibility of his department” and abide by county policies.

“Very politically motivated.” Really? Now it is Gallegos who is in to conspiracy theories.

Gallegos: ‘Vast Change’ is a work in progress Update w/response

◼ The McKinleyville Press ◼ The Arcata Eye - Gallegos: ‘Vast Change’ is a work in progress – February 17, 2010 ◼ The Independent

HUMBOLDT – District Attorney Paul Gallegos has caused an historic but controversial transformation of his office and he says a third term will give him a chance to see it through.

Gallegos is at once the county’s most championed and disparaged political figure. From what’s said of him, he’s either courageously aligned the DA’s Office with community values or turned it into a smoking crater.

Both attitudes will be on full show in the upcoming DA primary election.

The political split is reflective of a larger, cultural one and DA elections of the recent past have inflamed it. But Gallegos said it’s ultimately been constructive and re-election will allow him to “finish work that I started years ago.” He described what he views as the fundamental improvements that have happened since he was elected in 2003.

They include modernizing the office’s filing and information systems; new DUI, drug enforcement and cultural awareness training programs for police and investigators; improvements in the quality of investigations and initiating multiple fronts of community outreach, including tribal outreach.

Gallegos said a “vast change” has taken place and is ongoing. It’s been a famously turbulent process and Gallegos believes the office is better for it – and so is he. “It’s always wrong to say there’s nothing more to learn,” he said.

He’ll be facing at least two and probably three of his former prosecutors in the election and they’re already saying that the first thing Gallegos needs to learn is how to run the office. His critics say he’s caused an exodus of respected prosecutors, personally taken on high-profile felony cases at the expense of office management, and his relationships with police agencies are strained.

Gallegos has fired three attorneys and others chose to leave the office after he was elected. He isn’t apologetic. “Yes, we do have standards here and we have responsibilities to this community and to the office,” he said. “I was voted in to do a job and to turn this office around.”

It’s been said that the office is now staffed with young, inexperienced attorneys who aren’t well-managed or trained. Gallegos named eight prosecutors in the office who are “far from young and inexperienced,” and added, “We have a base level of young attorneys doing misdemeanor work that we’re training and will be replaced – that’s the way it’s always been and it’s the way it’s always going to be.”

Gallegos also named himself an experienced prosecutor but some say that’s part of the problem — that he doesn’t have time to be what a DA should be: a department head.

But Gallegos believes that “first and foremost,” a DA’s job is to be a trial attorney. “You have to lead by example and be willing to try those tough cases, those big cases for the community,” he said. “The people of this community deserve to see me in court – I’m not an administrator, they didn’t elect me to be an administrator, they elected me to make sure this office runs and it runs well.”

Gallegos added that the office has “working, functional relationships” with all agencies, including the Sheriff’s Office and police departments. “There are times when individual chiefs and agencies are unhappy with me and sometimes that is mutual,” he said. “But by and large we know what our responsibility to this community is and we fulfill it.”

He added, “At the same time, the tail cannot wag the dog and I would say there was a perception of the tail wagging the dog.”

One of Gallegos’ signature messages is that application of law has to be based on it content, not biases. “One of the fundamental things I believe is that it has to rain on the rich and poor alike,” he said. “The DA’s office shouldn’t just pick on poor people – you know, we never get criticism when we pick on poor people, the mentally ill and homeless people.”

Marijuana growers were seen by some as being picked on before Gallegos was elected. His medical cultivation guidelines were eventually adopted by the Board of Supervisors but as the DA’s Office has changed, so have the times. Now there are complaints about the impacts of marijuana growing and a demand for doing something about them, especially in Arcata.

Has Gallegos’ marijuana prosecution approach changed? He says it’s “absolutely the same” and that he supports prosecuting marijuana cases when appropriate. But he added, “The first key is to remove the hyperbole – we will sit down with Arcata any day to address the issues but they have to be real issues. We cannot break the law, I’m not going to violate people’s civil liberties.”

Nor will he be pressured into seeking recourses that aren’t pragmatic, he said. His use of plea bargains, especially in some of the cases he’s personally prosecuted, is another target of criticism. One of the more controversial plea deals is the one accepted by Jason Whitmill, one of two men who caused the death of nine-year-old Nicole Quigley while drag racing on Route 299.

Whitmill was sentenced to 14 years, eight months in prison on a manslaughter charge, a punishment that members of Quigley’s family and others think is light. Gallegos had originally filed a second degree murder charge, which set a hard-nosed tone for the case and probably raised people’s expectations.

“It also raised Mr. Whitmill’s expectations,” said Gallegos. “And I didn’t charge it to get him to plead but it also let everyone know – ‘You do this and you may find yourself accused of murder.’ We put the community on notice.”

The downgrading of a vehicular manslaughter charge against Alan Bear, the man who drifted out of a State Route 299 travel lane and struck and killed bicyclist Gregory Jennings severely disappointed the bicyclists and trail advocates who are – or were – part of Gallegos’ support base. Asked about it, he said he made the right decision.

“I reduced it because the evidence changed,” Gallegos continued. “That guy got a year in jail – that was a big case for Humboldt County. When I got here, they said, ‘Paul , they never prosecute people who run over bicyclists.’ Guess what, no one will ever say that again – we sent someone to jail for a year for accidentally running over a bicyclist. That is a great thing, that is a big change for Humboldt County.”

Gallegos has had less time than it seems to establish his leadership. He’s been in office for seven years but the first four were steeped in turmoil and sidetracked by a recall election. He won a second term with a 53 percent majority and the division of opinion on him still runs strong and is probably as bitter as ever.

“I have shouldered the burden of change not only in this office but in this community,” Gallegos said. “I’ve been the meat in the grinder, so to speak … from the recall to the next election, which was a revisit of that whole past battle — and we’re seeing it again.”

Daniel Mintz

*******
I am at a loss. The quotes here are astounding. There's too much to address.

Gallegos has had less time than it seems to establish his leadership. He’s been in office for seven years but...

BUT. But what?

BUT he has failed to do so. Consistently. Over and over and over again. No more excuses.

The Humboldt County Grand Jury found that "Weak leadership and poor managerial practices" have undermined the office... Implicit in all evidence gathered by the Grand Jury - including interviews with the D.A. - is the unfortunate truth that the D.A. exhibits a limited understanding of how things are done in the department" Gallegos "lacks the global perspective needed to keep the department operating efficiently," and quotes an unnamed staff member as saying, "The D.A. does not fully understand the functionality of many of the things we do here"

Those are Daniel Mintz's words, writing about, and quoting, the Grand Jury findings in 2005.

◼ TS - Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations
◼ ER - 2004-05 Humboldt County Grand Jury Report 6/29/2005
◼ TS - Grand jury issues scathing DA critique June 29, 2005

"However, the informed, well-organized, diligent leadership essential during difficult times is missing," the grand jury report said. "Operations are neither as efficient nor as effective as they must be."

◼ McK Press - Grand Jury Report: D.A. guilty of 'weak leadership'
◼ ER - 2004-05 Humboldt County grand jury releases its final report
◼ NCJ - GRAND JURY REPORT IN


◼ The Grand Jury Report on the DA's office
◼ The Grand Jury Report on CAST
◼ TS - Gallegos responds to grand jury findings
◼ CAST Response/Grand Jury Report

Weak leadership and poor managerial practices - what has changed? This has been the case from day one.

The last election, the Times Standard opined that he should have yet another chance. Again we find that "a third term will give him a chance to see it through."

See what through? Further degradation of the office? Lose more prosecutors? Pile more work on already overworked inexperienced hires?

Seven YEARS. And he says "I’m not an administrator, they didn’t elect me to be an administrator,"

WTF?
***
UPDATE, Response to this article"
Letter to the Editor

I don't know what does:

I read Mr. Gallegos recent article in the Arcata Eye. Here is a man that says he needs a third term as Humboldt County District Attorney to finish what he started. That is a scary statement, especially if you are one of the victims of his incompetence.

I had the unfortunate opportunity of watching Mr. Gallegos try to prosecute what was suppose to be a murder case in Humboldt County Court. This man is no more a prosecutor than I am a brain surgeon. Mr. Gallegos was always late to court, could not answer any of the judge’s questions and always had the excuse that he did not have the case file with him.

The court-appointed, taxpayer-provided attorney for the defense made Mr. Gallegos look like a deer caught in the headlights and virtually kicked Mr. Gallegos’ butt all over the courtroom.

Some say that Mr. Gallegos needs to leave the courtroom to his deputies and administrate but he has proven that he cannot do this either. The morning that the preliminary hearing was to begin, Mr. Gallegos dropped the case into one of his deputy’s lap, and sent her into the courtroom late and totally unprepared.

After the preliminary hearing, Mr. Gallegos felt that with all of the publicity that this case was getting he could get some personal mileage out of handling the case himself, so he takes it away from the deputy after she spends day and night for a week getting up to speed.

After months of delays from the defense, numerous blunders from the prosecution and thousands of Humboldt County taxpayer dollars Mr. Gallegos decides he cannot prevail in the courtroom in front of a jury, so he plea bargains with the two who took my little girl’s life.

Mr. Gallegos then gives the file to one of his most talented prosecutors so she can go to the victim’s family and try to clean up the mess he made.

Mr. Gallegos did not show up for the sentencing hearing for Jason Whitmill or Anthony Flores which is a good thing because when Mr. Gallegos prosecuted Jason Whitmill back in 2007, he forgot to add his prior felonies which in turn allowed Whitmill out of prison a year early and 12 days before he killed Nicole Quigley.

I will remember this come June’s election and I hope and pray that everyone else in Humboldt County does, too.

Kenneth Quigley
McKinleyville

◼ Letters to the Editor – March 3, 2010 (Updated to include Feb. 24 letters) - Arcata Eye

What is she saying here? The people are too stupid to have an opinion?

Old news, just part of the record - In this letter to the editor, one of Salzman's head Orks chastises the Eureka Reporter for asking whether or not Gallegos can adequately manage the DA's office, based on the Grand Jury's findings. (At least we can assume she actually wrote the letter herself)

She seems to be saying that the people are too stupid and uninformed to have an opinion on that. Pretty funny.

More than that, though, she actually says that only the people who work in that office are qualified to make that call.

So tell us again, Claire, why you didn't listen to the people who did work in that office? Why you allowed them to be demeaned and denigrated? Why you didn't stand up for the working people who had served this county so well?

What happens to people who do speak out, Claire? What happens to people who tell the truth about Gallegos? The spin machine goes into full attack mode. And you are part of it.

Reporter poll exploits grand jury recommendations 7/6/2005
Dear Editor,

As often happens, and is the case here, newspapers and the media enjoy a unique forum for probing the public’s opinions on diverse subjects, many of which are complex or obscure.

Your survey question regarding the District Attorney Gallegos’ ability to “adequately manage the DA’s office” is not one the general public is either knowledgeable about or capable of professionally evaluating.

Only those who have a direct working or a professional relationship with the administration of this office can make that determination.

One may support or oppose Mr. Gallegos’ principles and philosophies but have no knowledge of his effectiveness as a public administrator.

Fortunately, a free press is guaranteed the right to express editorial opinions; sidebar surveys seldom evince much light on public questions. It appears that this Eureka Reporter poll is exploiting the grand jury’s comments rather than engaging in journalism’s highest role: to enlighten the public.

Claire Courtney
Eureka

Related:
◼ TS - Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations
◼ ER - 2004-05 Humboldt County Grand Jury Report 6/29/2005
◼ TS - Grand jury issues scathing DA critique June 29, 2005

"However, the informed, well-organized, diligent leadership essential during difficult times is missing," the grand jury report said. "Operations are neither as efficient nor as effective as they must be."

◼ McK Press - Grand Jury Report: D.A. guilty of 'weak leadership'
◼ ER - 2004-05 Humboldt County grand jury releases its final report
◼ NCJ - GRAND JURY REPORT IN


◼ The Grand Jury Report on the DA's office
◼ The Grand Jury Report on CAST
◼ TS - Gallegos responds to grand jury findings
◼ CAST Response/Grand Jury Report