Arnie Klein's My Word

◼ Hauling homeless into court a waste - Arnie Klein/My Word Times-Standard

...There were many different options that could have been explored, such as homeless court, a diversionary program, or penal code 849, which basically states “deemed not arrested and released.'' In other words, he could been held in jail over night and released in the morning. If the prosecutorial authorities felt that this homeless man had to be prosecuted, they could have filed the case as an infraction, which would have resulted in a court trial that did not necessitate the presence of a jury and a defense attorney....

◼ Arnie Klein's My Word - Fred's Humboldt Blog
__________________
◼ votearnieklein.com
◼ Arnie Klein for Humboldt County District Attorney 2014

Vigilantism is not, no scratch that... Universal justice is not universally popular

◼ Gallegos campaign ad, I mean, "My Word"

◼ Universal justice is not universally popular
Paul V. Gallegos/For the Times-Standard
Posted: 06/24/2010 01:37:11 AM PDT

I want to send a heartfelt thank you to everyone who made our spring campaign a success. It would not have been possible without each and every one of you who volunteered, donated and endorsed. Thank you for all you have given and the many hours of hard work and dedication you selflessly gave over the last several months. It is the sum of your very efforts that made our campaign successful.

I am grateful for the votes and affirmation I received, and to those who did not vote for me, I want you to know that I have heard your voices and I intend to redouble my efforts to earn your votes in November.

Joanie and I moved here about 15 years ago, and fell in love with this remarkable community. Eight years ago I ran for district attorney on a platform of Justice For All -- including those historically neglected by the justice system such as children, victims of domestic violence, people of color, and victims of corporate fraud -- and for modernization. It's hard to believe now, but when I inherited the office, criminal case information was kept on index cards-- not computers.

Since then, my office has aggressively prosecuted the powerful -- even when it's been unpopular. My office prosecuted Maxxam/PL on evidence of fraud. We prosecuted Blue Lake's police chief for multiple felonies including illegal weapons. We prosecuted an oil company and won a major settlement to protect our drinking water.

But universal justice is not universally popular, and some would rather go back to how things used to be. This would be a mistake.

When I came to office, the murder of Blue Lake teen Curtis Huntzinger was still unsolved after 18 years. It was presumed to be unsolvable. But my investigators cracked the case and obtained a full confession from his murderer, Steven Daniel Hash.

During the campaign, one of my opponents made the disturbing accusation that I had let a child abuser off with a slap on the wrist. It was odd because she, under the previous office, had handled the case back in 2000, and should have known the original sentence was overturned on appeal; my office had to re-prosecute it anew in 2004, and the perpetrator was sentenced to eight years in prison.

I'll be the first to admit how much I've learned in the past eight years. Delivering justice to all is not easy. Behind the big publicity stories are thousands of small success stories and dozens of daily tragedies. We can't bring back loved ones -- but we can prosecute to the full extent of the law with the best evidence we have, which is what we do.

We cannot go back to how things were; the improvements and progress we've achieved over the last eight years are simply too precious to give up.

I ask for your support on my campaign as we move toward a November victory. For more information, go to votepaul.org.
Paul V. Gallegos is the Humboldt County district attorney.

Where to begin.

Paul Hagen's "My Word" in TS today

worth reading - Why DA's Palco suit was ill-advised

Former environmental prosecutor Paul Hagen explains the flaws in Gallegos' Palco suit, the reason why it failed to make it into court, what was wrong with the reasoning behind Gallegos' Appeal of that rejection, the subsequent rejection of his Appeal (made a published Opinion), and the CA Supreme Court's final nail in the Palco suit coffin, a final rejection.

The Appeals Court found that the state has failed to prove, on its third try, a reasonable possibility that the (complaint)'s defect can be cured by amendment.”

Hagen's own credentials dwarf Gallegos' - and he notes: I would like to make it clear that I in no way approve of Palco's behavior. I personally prosecuted them twice criminally (obtaining literally every last penny available as penalties under the 15 counts I charged collectively) and once civilly (against Scopac, actually), receiving $80,000 in a settlement, $35,000 of which I sent to schools in the Van Duzen watershed.

And I found Palco's behavior in the recall election astounding and shameful, an incredibly bad set of decisions to fund petition signers and more in an effort to drive out an elected official.

That said, Gallegos' decision to prosecute Palco was a political one, make no mistake. Political prosecutions are never a good idea.

Within days of taking office, Gallegos directed his chief investigator to conduct an investigation. When his investigators reported they could not find evidence of a crime, the suit was filed civilly instead. The day before it was filed, a member of a local watchdog organization sat in the DA's library and read the complaint.

Paul Hagen is one of the rare few with the courage to speak out. It cost him his job.

ER Failed Gallegos lawsuit one more obstacle for community to overcome 5/3/08

Deadfall author Robert Scott on Paul Gallegos' plagiarized My Word

Obviously, Robert Scott is still following events here in Humboldt County. When he made this post, he must not have known that Paul Gallegos' "My Word" was largely plagiarized. Perhaps he has followed the story since then:

Response to Editorial
Recently the District Attorney of Humboldt County, Mr. Paul Gallegos, wrote an editorial in the Eureka Times Standard. This is my response to that editorial. I am posting it here, because according to Lisa, the Times Standard does not take editorial comments from people who live outside the county. Mr. Gallegos' editorial was entitled - Vigilantism a force of anarchy.

Though Mr. Gallegos' recent editorial about vigilantism didn't make specific references to any particular case, I'm wondering if he had the cases of Sherry Lynn Smith and Andrea LaDeRoute in mind when he wrote it. The reason I believe this may be is that both the surviving sisters of Sherry and Andrea have been very vocal in their displeasure at the way the Humboldt County District Attorney's Office has handled those cases. If he was not referring to Smith and LaDeRoute, then it has to be wondered how many victims family members feel disenfranchised by the DA's office in that county.

As has been written about many times over the years in Humboldt County newspapers, including the Times Standard, Mr. John Annibel is the main suspect in the murders of Smith and LaDeRoute. In fact, the Fortuna Police Department has stated that Mr. Annibel is the only suspect in the murder of Andrea LaDeRoute, and has submitted all its evidence to the DA's office in that regard.

No one is advocating vigilantism, which would take Mr. Annibel out of the court system and somehow administer arbitrary justice. Instead there is an agreement that the system should work exactly as Mr. Gallegos stated, "the report of a crime and its investigation, the review of that investigation and possible accusation, the disposition or trial on the accusation, a verdict, and a judgement." Neither Pam Smith Annibel nor Lisa LaDeRoute Lawler disagree with that assessment. What they do agree on is that the system on these cases has failed at the District Attorney level.

In the probable cause report concerning Mr. Annibel, Detective Mike Losey wrote, "Based on the evidence and information, probale cause exists to believe LaDeRoute has been murdered. Further, the available physical evidence, as well as circumstantial evidence, indicates that John Annibel murdered Andrea LaDeRoute." It was only the failure to proceed by then District Attorney Bernard C. dePaoli that short-circuited the trial. Mr. DePaoli was later arrested and convicted for taking a bribe to change a witness' statement in the murder case of Philip Kellotat. To say the least, it should cast doubt on his handling of other murder cases during his tenure as District Attorney of Humboldt County, especially Andrea's case.

One thing Mr. Gallegos failed to mention in his editorial on vigilantism is the role of the District Attorney's Office. It is to stand up for the rights of a victim of crime. In the case of Sherry Lynn Smith and Andrea LaDeRoute, the District Attorney's Office is their voice, because they can no longer speak for themselves.

Once again, Pam Smith Annibel and Lisa LaDeRoute Lawler do not want to railroad John Annibel. All they want is for Sherry and Andrea to have their day in court. Without the district attorney's office, functioning as it should, they can never have that happen. This is a far cry from vigilantism. Both sisters understand that neither the prosecutor, nor defense attorney, or even a judge is the trier of fact. The trier of fact in these cases are twelve ordinary citizens of Humboldt County who would decide upon Mr. Annibel's guilt or innocence. Mr. Annibel's rights would be protected by his defense counsel, as they should be. It is the duty of the of the District Attorney's Office to stand up for Sherry and Andrea's rights.

Robert Scott

Mr. Scott, if you read this post, here are links to stories relating to Paul Gallegos' "My Word" Op-Ed on Vilgilantism:
THE OX-BOW INCIDENT by ROBERT LOUIS FELIX
a copy of THE OX-BOW INCIDENT in case the link goes down
TS - Paul Gallegos' My Word
ER - WHOSE WORD WAS 'MY WORD'?
ER - A second Gallegos column raises questions about attribution

And, another take on what he was trying to say, who he was trying to go after:
When law enforcement fails, 'vigilantism' sometimes needed

There may be other answers to some of your questions, and Lisa's questions here as well.

PLAGIARISM Policies and Regulations

District Attorney Paul Gallegos, Law degree from the University of La Verne in 1991 ...

The University of La Verne
2 0 0 5 - 2 0 0 6 COURSE C ATA L O G
Pg 34

Policies and Regulations
Plagiarism – Plagiarism is prohibited conduct and subject to sanctions, which may include suspension or expulsion. Plagiarism is defined as representing, expressly or implicitly, the work of another to be one’s own. Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to, using the words of another without proper attribution, paraphrasing the words of another without proper attribution or using the ideas of another without proper attribution. Lack of knowledge of what constitutes plagiarism shall not be a defense to a charge of plagiarism.

http://www.eurekareporter.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?ArticleID=14776
WHOSE WORD WAS 'MY WORD'?
http://www.eurekareporter.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?ArticleID=14776
A second Gallegos column raises questions about attribution
http://www.eurekareporter.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?ArticleID=14840
District Attorney Paul Gallegos comments on attribution flap

http://www.eurekareporter.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?ArticleID=14929
People insist on making connections that don't exist for personal gain
(Yes Jamie got the talking points and dutifully wrote a letter that sounds eerily like Joan Dunning's. This was obviously written BEFORE the plagiarism came to light. Wonder what Jamie has to say now?)

Who wrote Gallegos' apology?

The spin doctors are at work. In today's Times Standard, Gallegos apparently submitted a written apology for his plagiarized My Word. It is so markedly different (read coherent), you have to ask, WHO WROTE THAT FOR HIM?

Now this is ironic...

Winner of the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Essay Contest for High School Students:
Paul V, Gallegos Courage under Pressure
from www.jfklibrary.org

uhhhh, guys....

[PDF] Paul V. Gallegos: Courage Under Pressure
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Thus, when Humboldt County District Attorney Paul V. Gallegos decided to ... and I voted for Paul Gallegos. Unfortunately, now we see what his true platform ...
Winning Essay

Given that the hero of the story Paul Gallegos is now shown to be ripping off Robert Kennedy's quotes...
ER - A second Gallegos column raises questions about attribution

RELATED STORIES:
THE OX-BOW INCIDENT by ROBERT LOUIS FELIX
a copy of THE OX-BOW INCIDENT in case the link goes down
TS - Paul Gallegos' My Word
ER - WHOSE WORD WAS 'MY WORD'?
ER - A second Gallegos column raises questions about attribution

Paul Gallegos is a Plagiarist?

It's tempting to say something flippant like "Plagiarism is not a victimless crime."

But there's just nothing funny about this.

When I posted Salzman's Plan for the Trust Fund, the idea was that their own words tell the story. You don't have to make up a conspiracy theory, which is what any criticism of Paul is said to be. The story is all there. In their own words. In their emailed communications, and quotes in articles in various publications. Lies and spin. Manipulating public opinion. I figured if people could see it for themselves, it might help them make an informed decision

Paul Gallegos lied to the Times Standard about the Trust Fund proposal, and about many other things. Sometimes, the lie is printed one day, and a few days later the different version of the truth is printed, and the reporter never questions the discrepancy. Because it is Paul.

Now, in the Times Standard's "My Word" op-ed forum, it is Gallegos' own words that do him in.
Or rather, his own choice to plagiarize the works of others that clearly demonstrate his dishonesty.

In the fullness of time, the full extent of the dishonesty, and the dishonest tactics that permeate Gallegos' tenure is being exposed, and will continue to be exposed.

He should resign.

RELATED STORIES:
THE OX-BOW INCIDENT by ROBERT LOUIS FELIX
a copy of THE OX-BOW INCIDENT in case the link goes down
TS - Paul Gallegos' My Word
ER - WHOSE WORD WAS 'MY WORD'?
ER - A second Gallegos column raises questions about attribution

Plagiarism?

Could this be why Paul Gallegos had to go to LaVerne - an unaccredited Law School? Plagiarism? It will not only get you an "F", it can get you kicked out of school. Sheer speculation on my part.

But it's not just the lifted phrases that are interesting here, it is Gallegos' instinctive, immediate, denial. It is part of his pattern. Deny, then admit, defend obliquely, then blame someone else. It shows up in the Pelican Bay incident, the Victim Witness debacle, and many more. If you are looking for the "tell" phase, the one that indicates an untruth is about to follow, try "certainly," "absolutely" and "at the end of the day."

I pity Richard Salzman, who now has to find a way to cover for Paul Gallegos yet again. He must be getting tired. But you can't blame this one on politics, there is no political campaign in play, and Gallegos did this to himself. You can't blame the Eureka Reporter, though the Orks will surely try, because that is the same as saying that everything that is critical of Paul must be censored. (Which did seem to be the theme of his plagiarized piece.)

ER - WHOSE WORD WAS 'MY WORD'?
by Heather Muller , 9/7/2006
http://www.eurekareporter.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?ArticleID=14767

Significant portions of a guest commentary submitted by Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos, and printed in the Saturday edition of the Times-Standard, appeared earlier in an academic paper written in 2000 about a World War II-era Western starring Henry Fonda.

Gallegos’ commentary appeared as a “My Word” guest column in the Times-Standard, under the title “Vigilantism a force of anarchy.” In it he argued that vigilantes put the rights of all people at risk by overriding the safeguards of due process — an argument legal scholar Robert Louis Felix made six years earlier in “The Ox-Bow Incident,” a paper written about a 1943 film by the same name.

“There’s certainly nothing earth-shattering about the thoughts,” said Felix, a professor emeritus of legal research at the University of South Carolina School of Law.

But it was not just the thoughts that Gallegos used. In at least 10 instances, complete sentences and parts of sentences from the 2000 paper — found on the Internet by using the Google search engine — appeared in Gallegos’ submission.

“There’s such a thing as fair use, which means that within certain limits work can be quoted for academic purposes. I’m saying quoted now, not lifted. I think clearly phrases are taken out of the article,” Felix said.

“If I knew that the article had been read and parts of it lifted without any intention to acknowledge or attribute it, I’d be offended.”

The movie, based on a 1940 novel by Walter van Tilburg Clark, tells the story of three innocent men who are lynched for a crime that didn’t occur.

“I couldn’t say if this is a crime or not, but in academic circles we call it plagiarism,” said Lee Bowker, Ph.D., emeritus dean of Humboldt State University’s College of Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Bowker had not seen the two articles and spoke only in general terms about a problem that is common on college campuses. “The taking of even a single line from another source without attribution is plagiarism. That’s the academic standard,” he said. “It’s an extremely serious offense. It’s so serious that presidents of universities have been fired for it. Faculty members have had their tenure revoked. A single instance proved against a faculty member can ruin that person’s career.”

“I would not accuse him of plagiarism,” Felix said, “but it’s difficult to imagine he wrote this particular (opinion) piece without some knowledge of the article.”

Reached by phone Wednesday afternoon, Gallegos initially said he was not specifically aware of the article Felix had written, but later said that he believed he had read it, adding that he had read a lot of articles about the “The Ox-Bow Incident.”

“It’s one of my favorite stories. ... As a prosecutor, I loved the story.”

When asked if he knew that swaths of his “My Word” commentary had previously appeared in Felix’s article, Gallegos responded, “No. I was not aware of that.”

“Obviously the question here is whether I intended to take direct quotes without attribution, and no, I didn’t intend that,” he said.

“Certainly when you’re getting ideas sometimes you write them back in a way that sounds very similar.”

But Gallegos maintained that he did not intend to represent Felix’s work as his own. “If I’ve done that, I certainly apologize to the professor.”

Felix said his paper had originally been presented at a 2000 meeting of the American Culture Association in New Orleans. A version of the article has been collected in “Screening Justice,” a book of essays about law and film.

Felix said he does not know who currently holds the copyright on the article.


Paul Gallegos

From “Vigilantism a force of anarchy”
Times-Standard (Sept. 2, 2006)

Vigilantism is a force of anarchy without much promise of justice.

Since absolute truth regarding guilt is not possible in all cases, some toleration of error is necessary.

… manages the risk of error in a way that is most favorable to the citizen.

If the accused is found guilty, the system has worked.

If the accused is found not guilty, the system remains intact …

Vigilantism is when all or most of the functions of the administration of justice are performed by one person or persons.

When the legal system is adhered to, the system demonstrates its commitment to … laws … .

… our legal processes have greater importance than getting the right results.

Today, I see a growing tendency for individuals or a group of individuals to disregard our established practice in the administration of justice: orderly progression within the limits of official power and rational decision making.

Robert Louis Felix

From “The Ox-Bow Incident”
Legal Studies Forum (2000)

Vigilantism is a force of anarchy without much promise of correction.

Since absolute truth regarding guilt is not possible in all cases, some toleration of error is necessary.

… manages the risk of error in a way that is most favorable to the accused.

If the accused is found guilty, the system has worked ...

If the accused is found not guilty, the system remains intact …

… vigilantism, in which all or most of the functions of administration are performed by the same persons …

When legal forms are adhered to, the system demonstrates its fidelity to law.

… adherence to legal forms needs more to commend it than getting the right results.

(T)he novel and the film provide narrative and dramatic illustrations of the evils caused by the deliberate or misguided failure to observe established practice in the administration of criminal justice: orderly progression within the limits of official power and rational decision making.

Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.

RELATED STORIES:
THE OX-BOW INCIDENT by ROBERT LOUIS FELIX
a copy of THE OX-BOW INCIDENT in case the link goes down
TS - Paul Gallegos' My Word
ER - WHOSE WORD WAS 'MY WORD'?
ER - A second Gallegos column raises questions about attribution

Losing the Victim Witness Grant

Some of the clearest examples of Paul Gallegos' mismanagement of the District Attorney's office relate to the grants that provide approximately 60% of his office's funding. The spin that he employs to hide his failures is both fascinating and tragic. But before we discuss the spin, let's examine what happened with the Victim Witness Grant

The first the public heard of it, Paul was laying off almost the entire Victim/Witness Unit, what was left of it. That's a total of four people. That unit had been in the D.A.'s office for at least 20 years and losing four more people was going to do a great deal of damage to their efforts. (he had already laid off two positions.)

It was to be quietly passed through on the Board of Supervisor's Consent Calendar, without explanation, without discussion, without notice. Only when the item was pulled from the Consent Calendar did the public learn what was happening.
Even then, very little attention was given to it. Gallegos claimed it was political maneuvering, and the reporters seemed happy with that explanation

This saved him from explaining not only why this was happening, but why he hadn't alerted the Board sooner, asked for help, or sought alternate sources of funding.

Gallegos' muffed the federal grant application.

Take a look at the County's website. There are clues which suggest what happened:

Pull down the Board agenda (for 5/10/05 (co.humboldt.ca.us/board/agenda/questys/ ).  Look in the Consent Calendar for the item asking the Board for permission to De-allocate the positions for Victim Witness and to begin the lay-off process. (Note: FTE means Full Time Employee)

District Attorney
7.   Request for the Disallocation of a 1.0 FTE Program Coordinator Position and 3.0 FTE Victim Witness Program Specialist Positions in Budget Unit 252 Effective July 30, 2005
RECOMMENDATION: Approve request, and authorize the Personnel Department to begin the layoff process for the disallocated positions.

Next, you need to pull down the Agenda Item. You should get the Memo pages for the Item directed to the Board.
Documents
Victim Witness Positions Deallocated--2005 05 10

Attached to that is a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice and a one-page attachment to that letter explaining the reasons for the denial. Read that last page and it all becomes clear.

(co.humboldt.ca.us/board/agenda/questys/MG16273/AS16276/AS16290/AI41777/DO42894/BOSAgendaItem.pdf)

(co.humboldt.ca.us/board/agenda/questys/MG16273/AS16276/AS16290/AI41777/DO42894/6.TXT)

This is an example of Paul failing to do his job.

Looking at this Board Item, several things tell the story.

First, Paul tried to not attach the letter. You can see the handwritten asterisk adding the attachments.

The staff in the D.A.s office had been told that their failure to get the grant was Governor Schwarzenegger's fault and nothing more. Clearly that is what Paul wanted the Board to think.

Then what happens is that someone at the CAO's office asked for more as to what the factors were for the denial. That is when the letter gets added.

As you can also see the denial took place months prior, in a letter dated September 24, 2004, received by the Board September 27, 2004, yet the FAX indicator on the top of the DOJ letter is dated May 5, 2005, indicating that they couldn't even find their copy of that denial.

It looks like they didn't spend enough time working on it and hurried it at the last minute to meet a grant deadline.

The best evidence of that is that they did not tailor the grant to what the federal government wanted, they didn't provide enough detail on what was to be done with the grant, they didn't develop any new products, they didn't describe the partners role nor did they get the partners to sign on to the grant. 

That last detail is the key. You can rush something out the door when you realize you have waited too long, but what you can't do is to get your partners to rush along with you.

Related:
ER - Interview Process Cuts Down On Trauma Of Children 5/6/04
Losing the Victim Witness Grant
ER - Board of Supervisors talks over grant denial for program 5/11/2005
NCJ - VICTIM PROGRAM THREATENED: 5/12/05
ER - Gallegos says program is safe 5/15/2005
ER - Victim witness program funds sought by county 5/18/2005
TS - Proposed cuts to victims program delayed May 18, 2005
TS - My Word - DA leadership: The 8-step program May 24, 2005
County to fund Victim Witness Program The Eureka Reporter 6/8/2005
Supes mull grant application 5/14/07