SALZMAN SOLICITING MONEY

An example of "Viral Email":

http://www.ratical.org/corporations/PaulGallegos.html
(this link is still good as of 8/16/06)

From: Paul Cienfuegos
Date: Friday, May 02, 2003 12:28 PM
Subject: Humboldt County (California) urgently needs your help

Dear friends across the United States, from the people of Humboldt County struggling against Maxxam Corporation,

         As many of you probably already know, we have a world-famous case here of corporate fraud and environmental destruction caused by Maxxam Corporation, which is headquartered in Texas (CEO: Charles Hurwitz) and is chartered in Delaware. In November of 2000, in an upset election that toppled the good-old-boy power structure here, a dissident District Attorney was elected by the people of our county to replace a D.A. who had been looking the other way for years as Maxxam Corp violated the law literally hundreds of times. Just weeks after taking office, Paul Gallegos stunned everyone by filing a major fraud lawsuit against the corporation. That event set off a firestorm across California's north coast. And because Maxxam still runs the county politically, its allies have responded by quickly organizing a recall campaign to oust our new D.A. as quickly as possible before he shakes things up too badly.

         The reason that I'm writing to all of you is that we urgently need your help here to defend our new D.A. from the recall campaign while simultaneously supporting his bold move to sue Maxxam for fraud.

         Below, you will find a brief note from Richard Salzman who is coordinating the local campaign to support the D.A. and his historic lawsuit. Justice will not be served in this county unless we can raise substantial amounts of money to at least try to match what the corporation's supporters are already raising in their already vicious media campaign against Gallegos. Thus I am asking you to consider making a generous donation toward this cause.

         Also below, you'll be able to read an Op-Ed written by our D.A. in our local daily last week, followed by two major articles about the issue from the Los Angeles Times and the Daily Journal .

Please respond not to me, but to Richard Salzman.

Thanks in advance,
Paul Cienfuegos
Arcata, CA
Co-director, Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County

A note from Richard Salzman to our supporters across the nation

Last year the residents of Humboldt county, on California's redwood coast, elected Paul Gallegos, a man of the people, not beholden to any special interest as District Attorney in an upset victory against the incumbent DA of 20 years, best known for his authorization of the use of pepper spray as a pain compliance technique on non-violent protesters. Eight weeks after taking office and one day before the four year statue of limitations ran out, he filed a lawsuit alleging fraud against Maxxam corporation's wholly owned subsidiary Pacific Lumber. Pacific Lumber's apologists have now launched a recall of the district attorney in hopes of removing him from office in order to avoid answering these charges in a court of law.

This is clearly a David and Goliath story when viewed from the national stage. A community faced with having exercised true democracy now being subverted in the most overt manner by an out-of-state corporation using all the worst tactics of instilling fear in their workers and promoting hate-mongering against any who dare oppose them. We will need the support of concerned citizens from throughout the country if we are to keep Maxxam from buying this election.  We have invested all we have on producing a series of nine commercials which we are now putting into rotation.

In order to buy the air time to run the whole series, we will need to raise some $30,000 (what their campaign had already raised by the time they served Paul the notice of recall) over the next few weeks/months. In addition to financial support we are asking voters around the country to write to their representatives as well as to ours, urging their support of our beleaguered DA. We need elected officials nationwide to speak up in outrage over this attempt to circumvent justice and buy an election. This story has been covered in both the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times as well as the San Francisco Chronicle and papers in DC and elsewhere. We encourage people to speak out wherever they live in opposition to this attempt to circumvent justice.

Yours in solidarity,

Thanks for your support.
Richard Salzman - coordinator
Alliance for Ethical Business
po box 387
Eureka Ca 95502
707.845.3700
aeb@inreach.com

"The Alliance for Ethical Business is a citizens group working to ensure that corporate fraud and illegal business practices are prosecuted in a court of law."

***

MY WORD
All people are equal under the law
by Paul Gallegos
27 April 2003
Eureka Times-Standard


To the people of Humboldt County:

One of the primary goals of our society is to realize the unfulfilled promise that all people are equal before the law. I was elected district attorney by the people of Humboldt County because they share my commitment to fulfilling this promise.

Shortly after taking office we became aware that Pacific Lumber Co. may have engaged in fraudulent conduct. We had a duty to investigate the matter and did. As a result of that investigation and the evidence we uncovered, we filed a lawsuit against them.

Because it is a matter which will be resolved in court, I do not wish to discuss the details of it here. Nor will I engage in a discussion about the possible outcomes. As with all court cases, the pleadings which have been filed are public records and are available for public inspection. For convenience we have placed a copy of the complaint and other documents of public interest at our web page at http://www.co.humboldt.ca.us/distatty/.

However, I would like to explain what this case is not about. It is not about whether Pacific Lumber Co. is being properly regulated by the government. Nor is it about forestry and water laws. It is not an attempt to put any company out of business or to end logging. Clearly the wealth of our county is tied to the wealth of our people. Rather, it is about fraud and, ultimately, whether our laws apply to all or just some of us.

It has been suggested that we should not have filed this case against the biggest business in Humboldt County. This suggestion is troubling and perplexing, as it implies that we either do or should have different rules for people based on their wealth or political power. Clearly, this cannot be.

Nobody is above the law. This fundamental principle was at the heart of the American Revolution more than 200 years ago. As American citizens, we are not bound by race or religion but by the beliefs enshrined in our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. I know we all share these beliefs and a commitment to their fulfillment. I also know that it is our individual conduct that gives meaning to these beliefs and that they will only be realized by our commitment to fulfilling them.

Some people say that our suit against Pacific Lumber defined me. My response is that it has not defined me, it is defining US. We are all in this together. It is a painful process. But we will come through it together and be better for it because all people will know that in Humboldt County all people are equal under the law and no one, not even the most rich or most powerful, gets preferential treatment.

As your DA, I know where I stand. It is where I have always stood: for equal treatment before the law. As readers of this paper know, I wasn't the candidate predicted to win the election. I didn't have nearly as much money as my opponent. I wasn't well-connected. I had never before run for public office. However, I won because the people of Humboldt County elected me. They elected me for the very change that some seek to prevent.

I am honored and privileged to have the responsibility of serving the people of Humboldt County. I am honored and privileged to have the opportunity to work with the people at this office, who work tirelessly to serve this community. I know that I can comfortably speak for all of them when I say that we feel fortunate to have the opportunity to work for you.

Thank you.

Paul Gallegos was elected district attorney in March 2002 and took office in January. He lives in Eureka.

***
Update: And his suit against PL didn't even pass demurrer. That is to say, it was found to be without merit and not worthy of going to trial. In the meantime, the Humboldt County District Attorney's Office is in disarray, Gallegos has been the subject of a scathing Grand Jury Report, he has lost all but three of the veteran Prosecutors he inherited, and he has been unable to replace them. Some of his new hires leave after a matter of weeks, one lasted only a few days. He has lost his secretary, his office manager, and three of his investigators. His relationship with law enforcement is so bad that every single law enforcement group in the County endorsed his opponent in the last election. He has been caught plagiarizing his Op-Eds in the local paper - and that is just the beginning of the legacy Paul Gallegos will be leaving in Humboldt County. All the national publicity he got as a result of the services of a fancy out of town PR man won't change that.

And if you read that viral email above and are moved to send money, you should be asking where that money is going.

Is Stoen's past relevant?

Is Stoen's past relevant?

Isn't that just character assassination?

Wasn't he just a young college student who made some mistakes in his early years, for which he will pay for the rest of his life?

Shouldn't we be sympathetic to him, feel sorry for him, maybe even look up to him for what he has been through?

"Paul (Gallegos) can't trust anyone in that office except Tim."

"Paul can't trust anyone in that office except Tim."

So, let's learn more about Tim Stoen.

IT’S NOT FAMILY FARE...

Imagine yourself in Church. The Pastor speaks.

“You know how far I have told you to go and don’t go any further than that. You can sleep with her but do not fuck her. Tell her that you don’t believe in it, or that you are homosexual or something, but do not fuck her.” He is speaking to “Mark”. He continues: “Some people in here are wondering why I trust you with these sex assignments so I think you should tell about the time you asked me to fuck you.”

Mark’s dutiful reply (anything less would result in punishment): “I know that your teachings are that I am a homosexual. I appreciated your fucking me because I knew I needed it. I found the experience to be both physically and mentally painful. I know that the pain was an indication of how much I needed to be fucked. I am taking your advice and using a vibrator up my ass so that I can learn to enjoy it. Thank you for helping me realize what I really am.” Mark had said all the right words, wording his answer cautiously,

WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD STAY ANOTHER DAY IN THAT CHURCH?

In another incident, the Pastor forces a man to perform oral sex on a woman who is on her period - in front of the group.

WHO WOULD STAY ANOTHER MINUTE IN THAT CHURCH?

In yet another incident the Pastor tells about the women he is “fucking to keep them in the Cause.” But now he was being “forced” to perform the same service for some of the men. He referred to Eric as “The Noxema Kid” “When Eric asked me to fuck him, he said he always uses Noxema, and I believed him,” he said, laughing in spite of Eric’s blushing mortification. “As soon as we used it, we both knew it was a mistake.” Even in this act, he had to make himself look good. “As Eric was crying in pain from the burning Noxema on his rectum, I got a cloth and helped him wash it off. I didn’t even take the time to clean myself up, although I was also in pain.”

SHOCKED? These were regular occurrences in the meetings of the People’s Temple’s inner circle, known as “The Planning Commission.”

Long before this, Jim Jones had announced to his followers that John Victor Stoen, the then one-year old child of the People’s Temple head attorney, Tim Stoen and his wife, Grace was really his child. That Grace had not taken to the work very well, having come into the church only out of marriage to Tim. She was having marital problems and threatened to leave the Church, and slander Tim (the reason left vague, though some accounts say Grace was unhappy about Stoen’s transvestite tendencies. Jim had to prevent her from bolting, so he seduced her “to protect us.”

Meanwhile (again left vague), Jim had also gone to bed with (fucked) TIM. He said men needed this, too.

WOULD YOU STAY IN THAT CHURCH?

Tim Stoen did. And what makes Tim Stoen different than the others caught up in this story is that for 10 years he aided and abetted Jones as the mind-bending violence, rape and torture escalated. For 10 years. Tim Stoen. Second-in-command-right-hand-man-attorney to the People’s Temple. Head of the “Diversion’s Department” or “Dirty Tricks Department” of the People’s Temple. 

Educated man. Former Assistant District Attorney in Mendocino County, Former Assistant District Attorney in San Francisco, both WHILE he was with Jim Jones, more recently former Assistant District Attorney in Mendocino County, former candidate for State Assembly, most recently the Assistant District Attorney for Humboldt County.

OVER THE YEARS, TIM STOEN PROVED THAT HE WOULD DO ANYTHING FOR THE CAUSE.    

Most people take their kids to Church to foster a sense of community and morality, to teach them right from wrong.

In the Catholic Church, members are expected to unload their guilty consciences in the Confession Booth. The penalties exacted for sins committed and confessed are penitent recitations of Biblical verses - the proverbial “10 Hail Mary’s.”

In the People’s Temple, members were expected to confess their “sins” publicly at every turn, and if they had none to confess, they had to make them up. They were required to sign “confessions” - bizarre notarized affidavits, some of those blank, which could be filled in by Temple higher-ups at a later date. These were held to prevent any members from defecting for fear it would be used against them

Then, at best, they were subjected to humiliation and excoriation in sessions known as “catharsis” in the “Planning Commission Meetings.”

At worst, they were beaten… Most of the beatings took place in Planning Commission Meetings. "The beatings were intensely brutal. They used large people such as Jack beam and Ruby Carroll, both of whom weigh 200 pounds. Many times the beatings would be done on children four and five years old. The board they used ("The Board of Education") was three quarters of an inch thick and about two and a half feet long. Children were beaten the number of times decided by Pastor Jones, often as many as 150 times. During the beating, Jim Jones would demand that a microphone be held to the child's mouth so that the audience could hear the groans of pain. A microphone was unnecessary as the screams could be heard throughout the entire building.: (Al and Jeannie Mills sworn statement, Oct 18, 1976 - As Temple Attorney, Stoen was surely aware of that.)

In another "Planning Commission" Meeting in 1976, a man accused of molesting a young boy was beaten. Mills recounts: "While the boy, Searcy, was forced to watch, Peter was stripped naked and beaten with a board all over his body. His penis was banged until it drained blood. The nurse had to catheterize him, and a stream of blood and urine poured out. When the beating ended, all the P.C. Members had to walk past Peter, one by one, to see his bruised and bleeding body."

Telling on others became a means of self defense, self protection and advancement.

Special punishment was reserved for children. Jeannie Mills describes "The Blue-Eyed Monster" as related by a 5 year old - kindergarten age girl who had come back into her care..."I got in trouble in the church because I lied, and Father (Jones) said I'd have to go to the Blue-Eyed Monster. Then they took me in this dark room, and the monsters were all over the room. They said, "I am the Blue-Eyed Monster and I'm going to get you." Then a monster grabbed my shirt and tore it open. You remember, Mommy, that shirt I had in my suitcase when I came here, with the big tear in front? That's the shirt the Blue-Eyed Monster tore open." ... "Then all of a sudden the monsters started to say, "I'm going to get you again" and then one hit me right here," she said pointing to her chest. "Then it felt like a knife was going right down to my back, and my body started to shake back and forth like this." ... "Then my teeth were tied together so I couldn't open them." ... "I couldn't believe it - it hurted so bad." A five year old child.

In other books you learn that the little girl is describing a darkened room filled with adults armed with cattle prods (thus the BLUE electric light). They zapped the child with the cattle prods, the impact of the electrical current locked the child's teeth together as they were propelled across the room to be hit yet again.

Jeannie Mills describes this and other abuses and notes that, "Following such beatings and punishments, the Temple’s Attorney secured protective legal documents, notarized parental releases and “requests” for punishment. "

"The Temple's Attorney." "The Lawyer."

In Jonestown, the sadistic torture evolved:

Adults who were punished spent up to a week in “the ”box” - a wooden prison 3x3x6 feet... For Children, “Big Foot” awaited.” replacing "the Blue-Eyed Monster."

“Ordinary childhood antics and mischief resulted in a trip down a dark path, each child firmly escorted by camp enforcers, to where Jones waited at the side of a water well. White with fear, the children were hoisted and dropped by rope into the water. Other members waited in the blackness of the well, coached by Jones to seize the children and drag them underwater. In the darkness, cut off from parents and any possibility of help, the children paid for naughtiness, dunked again and again....
...Their terrified screams often reverberated through Jonestown, then faded into the lush, silent jungle.” ("The Suicide Cult," also mentioned in "Seductive Poison.

“Stoen was our head attorney. Any risk ever taken was cleared through him. The one who made sure that our legal department (you know, the legal department files complete with 'blank signed papers' and 'self-incriminating affidavits' and 'irregular notarizations' was all shipshape... ... it was Stoen who authored many of the transgressions of the law, as often as not, autonomously!.)"

Some 287 children died in the Jonestown massacre. Many were wards of the State of California who had been turned over to Jim Jones and other Temple members by California judges. All the paperwork was in order. All the i’s dotted and t’s crossed. All arranged by the Temple's lawyer. All in order to bring more money flowing into the Church's coffers.

Considering the physical and psychological torture the children of the People’s Temple endured - one could argue that they were lucky to have died.

And that's not all.

Note: Everything in quotes comes from the books on People's Temple. For those who would say I have selected the most salacious passages from the various books on People's Temple, you would be correct, for the purposes of this post. But reading those books is like descending into Hell, and these passages only reflect a numbing series of daily practices that went into the mindset of the people who ultimately ended up dead in Guyana.

Paul Gallegos hired him to be his Assistant District Attorney, said Tim was a "stud" - that anyone would be "stoked" to have him. And these are not the most disturbing passages.

A funny resemblance

What does a good-looking, naive, young, idealistic, charismatic D.A. in Humboldt County have in common with a good-looking, naive, young, idealistic, charismatic preacher named Jim Jones?

Tim Stoen.

So, was I right about Stoen? What was his role in People's Temple? And how did it compare to what he was all of a sudden doing here?

More questions that had to be answered

So, who is this Michael Shellenberger guy?

Who is this Michael Shellenberger guy who lives in Sacramento (actually its El Cerrito) and is working with Richard Salzman to form the Alliance for Ethical Business? And what does he care about this new D.A., Paul Gallegos? HOw is he involved with Tim Stoen? Is he involved with Earth First?

What's going on?

Why is Ken Miller posturing? Is he involved in all this?

These are some of the questions I was asking after talking with Richard.

What did he mean when he said it was bigger than I could possibly imagine?

bits and pieces -

Press Releases:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
January 21, 2003

For more information, please contact:
Michael Shellenberger, Salmon Forever, 510-525-9900
Ken Miller, Humboldt Watershed Council, 707-839-7444
Jesse Noell, Salmon Forever, 707-443-7433
Cynthia Elkins, EPIC, 707-923-2931

Groups Demand Water Board Curtail Excessive Logging
Independent Scientific Panel Says Pacific Lumber Logging Will Prevent Recovery of Five North Coast Watersheds
Eureka, CA -- The North Coast Regional Water Quality Board will decide whether or not to take actions to reduce Pacific Lumber Company's rate of logging in five watersheds at a meeting on January 23. The public hearing comes on the heels of a strong report by an independent science panel, which unanimously recommended an immediate reduction in the rate of logging to ensure recovery of the sediment-impaired watersheds.

The Panel scientists wrote that "it is essential that corrective actions be started soon and not be postponed awaiting research and monitoring that will take place over a period of years."

"If the Water Board hopes to salvage any of the credibility it has lost with the public, scientists and local residents, it must slow down the logging that's causing flooding and landslides," said Dr. Ken Miller, an emergency room physician and a Director of the Humboldt Watershed Council, an association of local residents, some of whom have been flooded out of their homes because of sediment build-up in stream channels from Pacific Lumber's logging.

"PL's logging threatens to permanently destroy some of California's most ecologically and economically important watersheds," Dr. Miller added. "Humboldt County is seeking over $5million in emergency disaster relief due to recent storm damages to property, roads, bridges, and sedimentation of Humboldt Bay. Much of that damage is attributable to PL's excessive rate of logging."

California water law says that when water quality conditions are threatened or degraded, the Water Board must step in to require a "Report of Waste Discharge" by the discharger-in this case PL. If the Board follows the law, it will require PL to temporarily halt activities that threaten sediment discharge, which, according to the report, includes the cutting of trees, while the Board considers options.

Jesse Noell of Salmon Forever said: " The Report provides a detailed list of the needed information to decide what actions to take to protect these watersheds."

Cynthia Elkins of the Garberville-based Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC) stated: "The Regional Board has ignored its duty to protect these watersheds for far too long. With this report in hand, it has no excuse to allow PL's rapacious rate and style of logging to continue."

Where, how, and how fast PL logs are the central issues. The best available science, according to the Panel, can determine with sufficient accuracy, how much can be logged in these watersheds before landslides and erosion destroy the streams.

Residents say the Water Board has broken the law to accommodate Pacific Lumber, whose logging operations have clogged streams, killed threatened species and knocked over ancient redwoods in Humboldt Redwoods State Park. Water Board members are appointed by Governor Davis, who has received $450,000 in contributions from the timber industry.

- end -


***

"BIGGER than you can POSSIBLY IMAGINE!"

"BIGGER than you can POSSIBLY IMAGINE!"
"I can't promise you I can call these people off, but I will try."

Richard Salzman's words. March 2003.


It's impossible to separate Richard Salzman from the phenomenon that is Paul Gallegos.

Largely credited with having gotten Gallegos elected, Salzman came into Gallegos' campaign committee weeks before the (March 2002 Primary) election. He claimed to have turned things around, alienating many of Paul's friends and supporters.

I met Richard on election night. He wasn't at Paul's party. He was at Jill Geist's election night party, working the phones, calling the elections office, getting the updates. He was dynamic and energized, and fun. And he wanted to join Jill's campaign team.

We knew nothing about him. But we welcomed him aboard. He had sales experience, he said, being an artist's representative, he became the primary fundraiser for the campaign. He wasn't afraid to make cold calls, to ask for money.

He worked on the campaign from March until the November General election, which Jill won.

She and Paul both took office in January of 2003.

In March of 2003, things changed.

Shortly after the PL lawsuit was announced (which was LONG before Stoen actually FILED it), Richard had heard a rumor that there would be a recall effort. He came to find out if I knew anything about it.

Richard was in full gear. fully mobilized, in the process of forming the "Alliance for Ethical Business," opening a bank account, and planning an ad campaign to support the lawsuit, or support Paul's filing of the lawsuit, and in essence against the Recall. I advised him against it. Pointed out that even if it was true, the issue would die, the only way it would have life is if he gave it life. Recall's have a poor history of success.

I didn't understand his actions. I knew he was a Paul supporter, and he had never shown this other side. WHY was he doing this?

We argued about what he was doing. After 3 hours, I had him convinced that he would do nothing but hurt Paul Gallegos, who he supposedly cared about. I told him that if he persisted in what he was doing people would think Paul was "bought and paid for." Little did I know.

He said he couldn't promise that he could call these people off, but that he would try. And that he would give my name to a guy in Sacramento, Michael ShAllenberger, who would call me, so that I would know "they" had considered what I had to say.

Shellenberger did call me, and I told him the same thing. But it wasn't what he wanted to hear.

At that point, I had no idea who - or what - Michael Shellenberger was. My early attempts to find out were unsuccessful because Richard pronounced his name ShAllenberger. Whenever I typed the name Michael Shallenberger, nothing came up.

Only when Paul was injured in his surfing accident, and he claimed to have been surfing with his "college-buddy" Michael Shellenberger, was I able to type the correct name into a websearch.

Then the pieces began to fall together.

But, back to that first conversation with Richard. He said, "Paul can't trust anyone in that office except Tim." And suddenly I could see Stoen whispering in Jim Jones' ear, "You can't trust that guy, that guy is an FBI informant, that guy is a mole, that guy over there is...." you get the idea. It was chilling.

Richard went on, "There's a mole in the office." So, he said, he had advised Paul to fire three people the next day. This, he said would accomplish two purposes... one, it might eliminate the informant/mole, and two, if it didn't, it would scare them all into submission. He was talking about the D.A.'s office.

Now - I ask you, two months into office, what did Paul have to hide?

He went on to make his ads, some of them featured a guy named Chompers Cook, talking about how if this lawsuit went through, he could see more logging jobs to come, that logging would return to the way it used to be.

I had the opportunity to stop Paul Gallegos in the coffee shop and tell him to tell Richard not to run those ads. That they would be damaging to him. He said, "What ads?" This was surprising since Richard's implication had been that Paul was in on the whole thing, and the ad agency preparing the ads was under the impression that they were working for Paul. I have since come to believe that Paul was not being honest. That he knew full well what I was talking about.

At any rate, a week or so later, I received a call from Richard, saying he was not upset that I had talked to Paul, but he clearly was upset.

I repeated what I had told him earlier, that I believed he was being used, that the people behind the so-called "Alliance" should have to disclose who they were and what their interests were, that he was being put at risk, that they should be honest and do things legally and in an up-front manner.

His reply was that he knew what he was doing, he told me there were "five of us working on this every day!" and assured me that he would have names up on the website within the week.

What he then did was start soliciting people's donations and endorsement, and running those names as the backing of the AEB. Using them as cover, if you will. To this day, the names of those behind the AEB have not been revealed.

He grew angrier as we spoke, demanded to know who I was working for.

He said, "This is BIGGER THAN YOU CAN POSSIBLY IMAGINE!" in a how-dare-you-interfere tone.

So, I started to look into it.

And, what I have found is very disturbing.

Why maintain this blog?

Time to answer some of the FAQs.
What makes you so critical of Paul?
Why haven't we been told any of this?
How much more is there?

Answers coming up.

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

Update re: Grants

It appears the information given to me by Paul Gallegos as a result of the Public Records Act Request is incomplete.
Pages missing, and the like.

Hmmm.

Read second - GALLEGOS' REQUEST FOR OPINION

GALLEGOS' REQUEST FOR OPINION


In this document you see Paul Gallegos attempting to implement Salzman/Stoen's plan. And while he was busy seeking creative financing in the form of special interest money for his Palco suit, he was neglecting his office, neglecting to apply for grants for his office's programs.

The complete text of Paul Gallegos' REQUEST FOR OPINION, which he submitted to the Attorney General's Office, will be posted as the first comment on this post.

As you read it, consider this: THE REAL QUESTION. No matter how carefully couched in legalese, the real question is whether or not the Humboldt County District Attorney can SOLICIT and accept SPECIAL INTEREST MONEY to fund the public prosecution of Pacific Lumber Company.

It is my contention that allowing politically motivated activist groups to hijack the public judicial system, using similarly inclined public officials to act on their behalf in pursuit of their political agendas should never be permitted. Allowing a District Attorney to pursue a specific case above all others, funded by special interest groups, in pursuit of fulfillment of campaign backer's political agendas should never be permitted. The detrimental effects on society and on the public judicial system are immeasurable.

Note: While Gallegos withdrew his Request on September 23, 2004. I am told that this may be because he was given a heads up that the Opinion to be rendered would not be in his favor. Nevertheless, if you read Salzman's Plan (complete text on previous post) you will see that Gallegos continued to set about implementing portions of that plan, specifically the plan to bring in "pro-bono" attorneys to work on the PL case.

Read First - SALZMAN'S PLAN

Do you think it is ok to PRIVATELY fund a PUBLIC prosecution? More than that - to SOLICIT, accept and use SPECIAL INTEREST MONEY to privately fund a public prosecution?

"There have been rumors Gallegos supporters are launching a community fund-raising effort to fund the Palco suit. Gallegos and his staff say while they are open to such a proposal, they're not aware such a fund exists." ..."Salzman says he's heard some talk of a community fund, but he's not involved in that effort." April 30, 2004 Times Standard Front page story by James Tressler

Rumors? Open to such a proposal? How about orchestrating such a Fund.

On March 29, 2004, exactly one month before he made that statement, Paul Gallegos submitted a formal 'Request for Opinion' to the Attorney General's office to pave the way for Richard Salzman and Tim Stoen's plan to solicit special interest money to privately fund a public prosecution.

That plan is detailed below.

Before you read it, ask yourself this question: If Stoen and Gallegos were prosecuting Kobe Bryant, and Gallegos' backers and handlers were the Aryan Brotherhood, who were contributing money to fund the prosecution of Kobe Bryant - to "get that black man" - would that be ok? I contend that no same person would say yes.

And should District Attorney Paul Gallegos be acting at the behest of his Campaign Manager to use his public office in the name of a cause?

***

The memo included below, dated April 14, 2003, references an attached document given to County CAO Loretta Nickolaus by Tim Stoen. The document, included here is a Memorandum to Richard Salzman dated March 31, 2003. It is available as a public records act request.

In this document RICHARD SALZMAN, GALLEGOS' CHIEF CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISER (March primary 2002) and then CAMPAIGN MANAGER (Recall election, March 2004) and acting head of the so-called "Alliance for Ethical Business" (one of many groups targeting Pacific Lumber Company) is soliciting an opinion for Stoen/Gallegos.

****

Cover page:

Interoffice Memo

Date: April 14, 2003
To: Tim Stoen, Assistant District Attorney
CC: Paul Gallegos, District Attorney
Board of Supervisors
Tammy Falor, County Counsel
From: Loretta Nickolaus, CAO

Re: Request for establishment of a Trust Fund expenditure anticipated in the Pacific Lumber Company (Palco) lawsuit.

Last week you stopped by my office to give a "heads up" stating that you were planning to prepare an item for Board approval. You referred to a memo (copy attached) that outlined a proposal. The proposal would include a recommendation to establish a trust fund that would supplement the DAs budget for costs associated with the fraud case you have recently filed against Palco. The memo suggests calling the new trust the Headwaters Litigation Fund.

The memo also points out that the Board has established other trust funds for special purposes and needs. Examples would include a trust fund to widen the Buckhorn Grade or the DAs environmental trust fund used to clean up contaminated properties. The Board has also accepted private donations to cover the cost of buying library books and a gift of funds to study the housing needs in the community.

I am not in a position to weigh in on the Palco case and cannot support establishing this trust fund any more than I could recommend that the Board accept Donations from Palco for the sole purpose of prosecuting tree sitters (for example). However, given these tough budget times and the probability that it is going to get a lot worse before it gets better, why don't you explore (with the assistance of the Attorney General's Office and County Counsel) the creation of a more flexible fund called the DAs Prosecution Fund to be used to supplement the DAs budget not only for fraud cases but also drug, abuse and homicide cases.

I hope this feedback is helpful.



***********************
ATTACHED DOCUMENT
***********************

Page 1 of 7:

MEMORANDUM

To: Richard Salzman "Alliance for Ethical Business"
From: Gail Holder
Re: Legal guidelines for possible fundraising to supplement the District
Attorney's budget for anticipated costs involved in the PL lawsuit
Date: March 31, 2003

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

I. Whether a District Attorney, as a sitting elected official can solicit for, and accept donations to supplement his Agency's budget for anticipated costs associated with the public purpose of prosecution, and if so, what legal guidelines regulate the solicitation, acceptance, and disbursement of such contributions?

II. Whether the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) created by the Political Reform Act of 1974 (Proposition 9) exerts authority or jurisdiction over fundraising not associated with pre-election candidate, campaign fundraising, but rather for expenditures for public purposes, as designated by a sitting public official in executing his legal duties?

III. Whether a District Attorney's acceptance of pro bono legal assistance tendered by attorneys, law firms, or paralegals constitutes the acceptance of "gifts" or "bequests" by a sitting elected official and if so, what legal authority, if any may regulate, limit, or prohibit acceptance of such pro bono assistance by the District attorney in the instant matter of the PL lawsuit?

BRIEF ANSWERS

I. Yes. Contributions designated for the public purpose of proceeding with the PL lawsuit may be accepted by the District Attorney's office, via establishment of an Agency-fun approved by the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, which Board is empowered to approve or deny the District Attorney's proposal. If denied, an alternative plan for acceptance of contributions will be the formulation of an Agency fund held in trust through an Escrow account.

II. Probably not. The FPPC is a bipartisan, independent body which administers and enforces the Political Reform Act's rules on conflicts of interest, campaign contributions and expenditures, and lobbying disclosure, while the commission exerts...

Pg. 2 of 7:

...jurisdiction over *Conflicts of interests *Mass mailing violations *Campaign disclosure violations *State lobbying violations *Personal use campaign funds and *Money laundering, all but the latter have relevance exclusively to issues related to candidates for office, and campaign fundraising issues. California Government Code _82015 addressing payments made "at the behest " of an elected official to be used for legislative or governmental purposes may be an FPPC issue and will be discussed below.

III. No. Pro bono assistance presents no conflicts of interest, as such assistance constitutes a benefit to the county, and to the people, rather than to the elected official personally. Pro bono assistance does not constitiute a "gift," "bequest," or "devise," within the meaning of FPPC rules.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On February 24, 2003, Paul V. Gallegos, District Attorney of Humboldt County (DA) acting to protect the general public from unfair business practices, filed a complaint for civil penalties, injunction and restitution against THE PACIFIC LUMBER COMPANY (PL), and its subsidiaries, in the Superior Court of California, County of Humboldt. Complaint: People v. Pacific Lumber Company on behalf of The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, pursuant to sections 17204 and 17206 of the Business and Professions Code.

District Attorney Gallegos and Assistant District Attorney Tim Stoen subsequently appeared before the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors (March 12, 2003) for the purpose of requesting permission of the Board for the DA's office to retain outside counsel to assist with the PL litigation. The Board opposed the allocation of any County monies to the PL lawsuit. Standing alone, Third District Supervisor, John Wooley put forth a motion to allow the District Attorney to present a finalized proposal supporting his request, but the rest of the Board voted the motion down. Although the Board rejected the DA's request for special counsel, Mr. Gallegos stands by his decsion to proceed with the lawsuit, and now seeks to supplement his budget for anticipated costs of the suit, inclusive of witness fees, travel expenditures, depositions, et cetera. Presently, the District Attorney's office is engaged in pursuing a lawful course by which to solicit, accept, and utilize contributions so crucial to supplementation to the Agency's budget, and to the success of the PL litigation. The District Attorney's office seeks now to delineate and resolve all of the issues involved in establishing a lawful procedure for accepting, reporting, depositing, and disbursing monetary contributions to support the PL lawsuit.

pg 3 of 7:

DISCUSSION:

I. Whether a District Attorney, as a sitting elected official can solicit for, and accept donations to supplement his Agency's budget for anticipated costs associated with the public purpose of prosecution, and if so, what legal guidelines regulate the solicitation, acceptance and disbursement of such contributions?

As an elected official, acting within the scope of his official duties, and to satisfy a public purpose such as proceeding with the Pacific Lumber Company Lawsuit, the District Attorney may accept contributions from both individual and organizational donors. the preferred method is the establishment of a Trust Fund through the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors.

AUTHORITY FOR LEGAL GUIDELINES:

AUTHORITY: SUBJECT:

Government Code Section 25355 Acceptance of gifts by the Board
Government Code Section 25356 Treatment of specified and unspecified donations

California Government Code Section 25355, West 2003,

"The Board may accept or reject any gift, bequest, or devise made to or in favor of the County, or to or in favor of the Board in trust for any public purpose. The Board may delegate to any County officer or employee the power to accept any gift, bequest, or devise made to or in favor of the County. The officer or employee shall file with the Board each quarter a report that describes the source and value of each gift valued in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or any other amount as determined by the Board. The Board may hold and dispose of the property and the income and increase thereof for those lawful uses and purposes as are prescribed in the terms of the gift, bequest or devise. In accounting for or inventorying gifts, bequests, or devises, the officer or employee shall follow the appropriate procedures contained in the State Controller's manual entitled "Accounting Standards and Procedures for Counties.:

California Government Code Section 25356, West 2003,

"If any gift, bequest or devise is unaccompanied by any provision prescribing or limiting the uses and purposes to which the property is received, or the income or increase

pg 4 of 7:

Page four is missing. No one seems to have a copy of this except perhaps Tim Stoen, Salzman or Holder

pg 5 of 7

...first step to be undertaken by the DA's office is to formalize a request to the Board of Supervisors for the establishment of a Trust Fund for expenditures anticipated in the PL lawsuit.

PROCEDURE TO BE USED BY DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN REQUESTING TRUST FUND.

As per instructions of County Treasurer, Steve Stawn (sp) offered via phone conference March 20, 2003, the following process must be followed: Initially, three (3) weeks before the proposal is made before the Board, the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors must be notified of intent of DA's office to present a proposal for establishment of agency/trust fund to be used for the PL lawsuit. the clerk will make this request a future Agenda Item.

Secondly, the DA appears before the Board with a formalized, written proposal delineating the necessity of a Trust Fund to supplement anticipated costs associated with the Pl lawsuit. A working title of the Trust Fund might be Headwaters Litigation Fund (HLF). The DA requests approval of the Board for the proposed HLF.

Thirdly, after consideration of the proposal, the Board will do a status report which is a recommendation for approval or denial of the proposal; (see attached documents (A) Agenda Item No. E-5; and (B) Agenda Item No. C-3) In both cases, the Board approved. Also see Times Standard article, Trust Fund to Widen Buckhorn Grade Backed March 26, 2003 for clarification of Trust Funds.

Lastly, after approval (1) the Trust Fund is set up, and (2) the Agency is oriented on how funds will be accessed. Mr Strawn stated that the Auditor/Controller's office oversees the disbursement of all County monies, and as such, will monitor the disbursement of the HLF. (3) the DA's office will be advised on budgeting matters, and of how to access the HLF Funds. Generally, after approval and establishment of the Trust Fund, expenditures are accessed via presentation of a budget.

In the event that the Board of supervisors denies the District Attorney's proposal for a trust fund to be established as per Government Code _ 25355, for the public purpose of the PL litigation, the alternative plan will be a trust fund set up as an Escrow account. Escrow law is contained in Division California Finance Code commencing with the regulations, are contained in Subchapter 9, title 10 of the California Code of Regulations with section 1700 (10 C.C.R. _1700 et seq).

!!. Whether the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) created by the Political Reform Act of 1974 (Proposition 9) exerts authority or jurisdiction over fundraising not associated with pre-election candidate, campaign fundraising, but rather for expenditures for public purposes, as designated by a sitting public official in executing his official duties?

According to FPPC spokesperson and researcher, "Trish," via phone conference on April 1, 2003, the FPPC, the FPPC almost exclusively oversees fundraising issues associated with candidates, and pre-election fundraising. Trish's response to an inquiry regarding...

pg 6 of 7

...Government Code _ 82015 (B) (iii), was that this section is a "relatively new" and "gray area" of the law, which "should not be a problem or an issue in the instant matter."

Government Code _ 82015 (B) (iii), reads

"A payment not covered by clause (i), made principally for legislative, governmental or charitable purposes, in which case it is neither a gift nor a contribution. However, payments of this type that are made at the behest of a candidate who is an elected officer shall be reported within 30 days following the date on which the payment or payments equal or exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000) in the aggregate from the same source in the calendar year in which they are made..." (see attached document marked "C" to review section 82015.)

FPPC spokesperson Trish conjectures that if the HLF is set up through the County' Government Code 82015 regulations may be negated by the stringent County trust fund regulations. This further research on Government Code 82015 (B) (iii) is forthcoming. Trish will determine whether or not, once the HLF is set up, the District Attorney himself, may lawfully solicit for funding via phone calls and personal letters to perspective (sp) donors. According to the FPPC representative, however, it si established that others in the Agency may solicit for funding on behalf of a public purpose (HLF), which solicitation is outside the scope of the FPPC authority.

III. Whether a District Attorney''s acceptance of pro bono legal assistance tendered by attorney's, law firms, or paralegals constitutes the acceptance of "gifts" or "bequests" by a sitting elected official and if so, what legal authority, if any may regulate, limit, or prohibit acceptance of such pro bono assistance by the District Attorney in the instant matter of the Pl lawsuit?

A phone conference with FPPC representative Adrian on March 28, 2003 revealed that pro bono assistance offered to a sitting elected official for a public purpose, benefit the County and the people of the County, but not the official personally. Such assistance does not constitute a "gift" or "bequest" within the meaning of FPPC regulations, and may, therefore, be accepted without reservation, by the sitting District Attorney in the instant matter. Adrian stated that such acceptance by the Da of pro bono assistance does not constitute a "conflict of interest" within the meaning of FPPC regulations.

CONCLUSION:

Although the District Attorney's prior bid for County approval for the hiring of outside counsel to assist in the PL lawsuit, was rejected by the Board of Supervisors it is herein suggested that the Da go before the Board with a proposal which constitutes an offer the...

pg 7 of 7

...Board 'cannot refuse.' Emphasis should be placed upon the fact that the District Attorney's Office seeks no money, either directly, or indirectly, from the General Fund, but rather requests the establishment of a trust fund whose coffers will abound with contributions from individuals and organizations some of whom have already come forward with spontaneous offers of monetary donations.

It is prudent to make the HLF proposal clear, and comprehensible to the Board, and to render the process of approving and setting up the trust fund as simple as possible. In the improbable event that the Board denies the proposal, the backup plan of the Escrow account should be implemented.

It is concluded that the District Attorney of Humboldt County may lawfully accept contributions for the public purpose of budget supplementation to proceed with the PL lawsuit. The rule of law is California Government Code Sections 25355 and 23556 addressing acceptance of gifts by the Board of Supervisors and treatment of specified and unspecified donations. FPPC Regulations, California Government Code 82015 addressing "behested payments" in excess of five thousand dollars ($5,000) from a single source, are satisfied by simply filling out a form and filing that form with the County Clerk. Applying the relevant rules of law to the facts contained therein, the District Attorney, after lawfully establishing the trust fund, may solicit, accept and utilize unlimited contributions for the public purpose of the PL litigation.

Once the trust fund is established, fundraising plans could include calls and letters to environmentally involved celebrities, and to organizations such as the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and the Wilderness Society Planning and Conservation League. Full page ads in the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle could attract powerful allies to contribute significantly to the cause. Although local radio, television and newspaper releases might serve to clarify the DA's position on the lawsuit, and perhaps win some measure of support, a controversial, even hostile local environment and the facts appear to indicate that significant budgetary supplementation will likely come from out of the immediate area.

Gail Holder


****

PAUL GALLEGOS' DEFENDERS

Paul Gallegos cannot run on his record. Richard Salzman's spin machine is in full gear.

First read this letter to the editor in the Eureka Reporter written by Kay Rackauckas claiming that the Orange County DA only has one prosecutor assigned to CAST, thereby justifying Gallegos' understaffing of Humboldt County's Child Abuse Services Team. This letter will also be included as the FIRST COMMENT on this post

Then read up on Kay Rackauckas and her husband "Tony" Rackauckas

Missing Wives, Lousy Lies & Mob Ties
Exhaustive grand-jury investigation confirms DA corruption

OCW - Missing Wives, Lousy Lies and Mob Ties
OCW - DAs Wife Missing

Excerpts:

"On June 26, the Orange County grand jury rocked the local legal establishment when it declared that Rackauckas routinely abuses his awesome prosecutorial powers to protect friends and punish perceived enemies. According to the grand jury’s fact-filled, 100-page report, "Office of the District Attorney: An in-depth investigation," the DA is Nixonian in the darkest sense of the word: paranoid, petty, partisan, secretive, retaliatory and arrogant. And though this was a civil proceding, it’s easy to conclude that the jury’s findings demand a criminal investigation."

Or try this one:

DA puts Pub back in Public Funds

"Outraged by last month’s grand jury report detailing corruption in the district attorney’s office, six senior criminal detectives have retired and another dozen officers are expected to follow them in coming weeks, the Weekly has learned.

The Orange County grand jury’s 100-page "Office of the District Attorney: An In-Depth Investigation" report accused DA Tony Rackauckas and Don Blankenship, the head of his criminal-investigation division, of cronyism, mismanagement and misuse of public resources.

Several prosecutors say they fear the summer fallout will cost the government agency responsible for prosecuting criminals 500 years’ worth of gumshoe experience."

DOCUMENTS RELATING TO PAUL GALLEGOS ILLEGALLY TAPING PELICAN BAY CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS AND TAKING "NON-LEGAL RELATED" PAPERS FROM INMATE:

One of the myths of the Recall was that Paul was an unknown quantity. This was used as the basis for arguing to "give him a chance."

As mentioned on Fred's Blog (http://humboldtlib.blogspot.com/) people in the legal and law enforcement community already knew a great deal about Paul. They had prosecuted cases in which he was a defense attorney. They knew his level of competence. They were aware of his reputation and character.

They also knew why he was reputedly no longer welcome in Del Norte County.

While representing inmates of Pelican Bay, Gallegos was apparently caught trying to illegally pass notes between inmates, which were confiscated "in full view of Paul Gallegos." after Gallegos stated that the notes, reading "hey there, how is it going? This is Deadeye" (from one inmate to another) were not personal but rather legal in nature and were for him. Later, the story goes, Gallegos admitted he knew he could not pass them on to the inmates they were addressed to.

During this discussion, Gallegos apparently illegally taped the conversation without the knowledge or consent of the two correctional officers involved, which, if true, would be in violation of California Penal Codes 134, 135 and 636, and possibly California Code of Regulations Title 15, Section 3175(n).

Gallegos' tape recorder and tapes were bagged into evidence, described in the documents.

The following documents describe the events.
Names of the people involved have been redacted. Private people do not need to be drawn into this politically charged arena, nor do they need to be put at risk.


****

1.
Memorandum

Date: January 11, 1997

To: ______________
Correctional Captain
Central Services

From: Department of Corrections
Pelican Bay State Prison, P.O. Box 7000, Crescent City, CA 95531-7000

Subject: ATTORNEY PAUL GALLEGOS TAPING STAFF IN THE SECURITY HOUSING UNIT VISITING AREA

On January 11. 1997, at approximately 1215 hours, Inmate H____________, yelled to me, "Hey, _____, I need you to pass these papers to my attorney." I told Inmate H______ to stand by for a minute that I was busy and would be right there. I retrieved several pieces of yellow lined paper which had been folded over twice from Inmate H______ who was in attorney booth #1 and proceeded to the security door, unlocked the port and in full view of Attorney Gallegos, started to flip through the papers to insure that they were of a legal nature. I glanced at the heading of the first page and the first line of the page, then the second piece of paper and the third piece of paper, and etc. which all appeared to be personal notes to different inmates addressed as such and signed. I informed Attorney Gallegos that the papers in question did not appear to be of a legal nature and that the visiting sergeant would be called to review the papers.

I then folded the papers, returned to my station, tucked the papers under the left side of my open log book and called Correctional Sergeant (A) ________ and informed her of the situation. I then went back to filling out my log books and completing a report that I was in the middle of writing when Inmate H______ requested the passing of the papers. When Sgt. ________ arrived in the front of the Security Housing Unit Visiting she called me and I took the folded papers and handed them to her through a port in the security door.

The papers in question started out with a greeting such as "Hey there" then continued "This is Deadeye" and that is as far as I read as that was enough to raise question that this did not fall within the guidelines for legal material and that an Administrator needed to review those papers closer to make a determination.

After handing the papers to Sgt. _______, she began to discuss the matter with the Attorneys, to explain to them as to why there was a question in this matter. I then observed Attorney Gallegos snatch the paper from Sgt. ______'s hands, fold them and put them in his rear pocket. At this point I closed the port and returned to my station.

Submitted for your review.

___________
Correctional Officer
Badge #________

***

2.

Memorandum

Date: January 11, 1997

To: ___________
Correctional Lieutenant
Investigations

From: Department of Corrections
Pelican Bay State Prison, P.O. Box 7000, Crescent City, CA 95531-7000

Subject: UNAUTHORIZED TAPING OF OFFICER AND SERGEANT CONVERSATION:

On January 11, 1997 at approximately 1220 pm, I responded to the Security Housing Unit (SHU) Visiting area at the request of Officer ________. She had concerns regarding hand written material given to her by Inmate H___________. ______ requested Officer _____ pass the hand written material to his attorney Paul Gallegos. _____, upon scanning the written material given to her by ______, per California Code of regulations Title 15, sections 3175(J) (K), observed the beginning words to a specific inmate and then something to the effect of "Hey there how is it going? this is dead eye". I talked with Attorney Gallegos in the presence of his Investigator, __________, explaining institutional concerns regarding legal mail and that personal letters could not be passed. Mr. Gallegos said the letters were for himself and were legal material. Mr. Gallegos also indicated he was aware he could not legally pass the materials to other inmates. Unknown to me, Mr. Gallegos placed a state issued tape recorder on the counter during this discussion. Mr. Gallegos stated he believed Officer _______ had read the written material provided by _____. Officer _____ was standing behind the security door between the front desk and back of SHU Visiting and stated no she just scanned not read the material. I gave the written materials to Gallegos explaining again that these "notes" could not be passed on to the various inmates. Mr. Gallegos stated something to the effect that he knew he could not legally pass them on. Mr. Gallegos went back to the Attorney Visiting Booth I with Mr. ______. About one minute later Mr. ______ came out to talk to me again regarding the written material from ______ and set the tape recorder on the counter. I noticed the red light on the tape recorder and asked Mr. ______ if he was taping the conversation. Mr. _____ stated "Yes, I am." I refused to say anything else and turned the tape recorder off. I informed Mr. ______ he could not tape our conversation. ______ stated something to the effect, "Well, you knew you were being taped earlier didn't you?" I said I most certainly did not know I was being taped and confiscated the tape recorder with the tape inside, although I am not sure it was the same tape with my and Officer _______'s voices. I phoned the Watch Commander, Lieutenant ____________, and informed him of the situation. I also phoned Captain _________ informing him of the situation.

Lieutenant ________ and Captain _________ responded to the area and spoke with Mr. Gallegos and Mr. _______. The tape recorder with the tape inside was placed into an evidence bag by Officer _________ per institutional procedures, observed by Mr. Gallegos and Mr. ______.

_____________
Correctional Sergeant (A)
Visitor Processing


****

1.
Memorandum

Date: January 11, 1997

To: ____________
Correctional Captain
Central Services

From: Department of Corrections
Pelican Bay State Prison, P.O. Box 7000, Crescent City, CA 95531-7000

Subject: ATTORNEY PAUL GALLEGOS TAPING STAFF IN THE SECURITY HOUSING UNIT VISITING AREA

On January 11, 1997, at approximately 1220 hours, Private Investigator ________ came up to the Security Housing Unit Officer desk and informed me that inmate H_______ had some paper work for his Attorney Gallegos. I notified Correctional Officer _______. C/O _______ opened the port and started to scan the papers. She then stated this is not legal work. I'm going to call the Sergeant, ______ went to get Gallegos, C/O ______ then informed Gallegos that the paperwork did not appear to be legal.

Correctional Sergeant (A) ________ arrived and I resumed my duties as visitor processing. At approximately 1250 hours, Correctional Lieutenant _________ is notified and arrived. Then at approximately 1350 hours, Correctional Captain ________ arrived with Security & Investigations Officer ___________.

All the individuals mentioned above went to a separate area, then at 1415 hours Gallegos and ______ resumed their attorney visit with Inmate G__________, Captain _______, Lieutenant ________, Sgt. _______ and Officer ________ left the area at 1415 hours.

During their conversation Gallegos said Officer _______ knew about the recording. I then stated to him, "No, I did not, I wasn't paying attention, I was busy processing visitors and doing other duties."

Submitted for your review
________
Correctional Officer
Badge # __________

QUESTIONS ABOUT GRANT FUNDING for the DA's Office. Public Records Act Request

It took over a month to get information from Paul Gallegos. Information that legally should have been provided within 10 days.

When Paul Gallegos fired Gloria Albin Sheets, he said it was because he had "lost" a grant. When Nandor Vadas left the DA's office, Paul said it was because he had "lost" what sounded like the same grant.

Did he lose the grant? Did he lose two grants? Or was it the same grant? Had he lost the grant at all? Or is he still receiving the grant? And if he is, is he fulfilling the requirements of the grant?

Speaking on KINS/Talk Shop, Paul talked alot about grants - that using grants was to subsidize yourself, grants being the icing on the cake, he'd like to see more and more funding from the General Fund to reflect the community's commitment to the office, but that doesn't happen, which he blames on the Board of Supervisors... says when he came in the office was 60% grant funded, and that he has set about to "systematically wean" ourselves from that... "some we try to hold on to" says they are all so competitive... in other words he rambled around, but generally gave his new spin on why he lost the grants.

He says that the Domestic Violence/Victim Witness grant was held onto longer than they should have, "should've weaned ourselves long ago"... Speaking of the Victim Witness Advocates he had so callously thrown under the bus, they're "tough to come by," but said that "when they are grant funded you can't use them the way you want to.." said that Phil Crandall at HHS said he could "throw you something for a year... see what you can do..." and that "now we can use them as we need them..."

By his own account, his office is 60% funded by grants. It is incomprehensible to me that a department head would even consider "weaning" himself from 60% of his budget.

I have alot of friends who have applied for grants over the years, they faced a steep learning curve, but they learned the ins and outs of grant applications, and they were largely successful. Here, you have a man who took over a department that was SIXTY PERCENT FUNDED BY GRANTS, existing grants, grants the office had been receiving for 10 years, 12 years. It's not as if he HAD to go out and secure new sources of funding. But once your budget is cut at the County level, and once you have "lost" a grant, one would think you would go out looking for replacement money. Apply for new grants. Reapply for the ones you lost. Fix whatever you did wrong on your applications.

Any good department manager would fight for his people, fight to save his programs, work to ADD to what his office had. At the very least he should have worked to replace what he "lost."

It appears that he didn't do any of those things.

BUT - he DID spend an awful lot of time trying to come up with ways to fund his PL suit. Detailed elsewhere on this blog, he was given a plan of action by his campaign backers, Salzman's Plan (see read first on this blog), and he took that plan all the way to the Attorney General's office.

I wanted to know if he really lost the grant, I wanted to know how many grants he lost, if any.

So -

On April 3rd I filed a Public Records Act Request with Paul Gallegos' DA's Office.
By law, he had 10 days to give me the information I requested.

On April 14th, I was notified by his office that he was invoking his right to a 14 day extension, because the records I asked for were not readily available. "Due to the volume of records in your request and shortage of staff necessary to comply, we are invoking our right to an additional 14 days in which to respond to your request." This, even though the material I requested should be a simple matter of copying materials that were readily available in files, as they would have been prepared in order to apply for grants, and kept as records for the grantors. He failed to mention at that time that any of the records in question would be denied.

He failed to deliver those materials on April 28th.

On May 4th, I was notified by his office that part of what I asked for was available, but that he was withholding information on the Spousal Abuse grant and the Statutory Rape grant due to pending litigation. He claimed he had run it by County Counsel.

"The records do not contain documents from the Spousal Abuse Prosection Program or the Statutory Rape Vertical Prosecution Program. These documents are the subject of pending litigation and per advice of County Counsel and Government Code section 6254(b) we are not able to disclose at this time. We will be happy to provide them once the lawsuit has resolved. Please let us know if you wish them to be provided at that time."

Because the files I had requested were not prepared as a result of pending litigation, but rather for the granting agencies to which he was applying, he had no legal right to withhold any of the information I asked for. So, I asked again. This time I cc'd the Eureka Reporter.

On May 5th, Gallegos responded that he had turned it all over to County Counsel to decide.

County Counsel decided to give me all the information I asked for. All 1,664 pages.

My Public Records Act Request, and Gallegos' response is posted as the FIRST COMMENT on this post