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 # __________
Monday, May 29, 2006
Monday, May 08, 2006
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
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
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Madman in Our Midst
Recommended reading:
MADMAN IN OUR MIDST: Jim Jones and the California Cover Up
by Kathleen Kinsolving and Tom Kinsolving
In this article, Tom and Kathleen Kinsolving describe what happened when their father, Les Kinsolving, began investigating the People's Temple. His early articles began to expose what was happening with the People's Temple. He had many interactions with Tim Stoen.
After the massacre at Jonestown, "Kinsolving was notified by the FBI of Temple death squads, and advised by agents that he should arm himself. Weeks later, the New York Times reported that Tim Stoen "planned the murder of Lester Kinsolving" and "had even used the District Attorney's office of Mendocino County" to research "the type of poison that could be used."
It's fascinating reading, especially if you are interested in understanding Tim Stoen's role in People's Temple. You may see marked similarities between his activities and comments then and his activites and comments in Humboldt County.
Some excerpts:
"Stoen elaborated on a long list of achievements, such as Jones's past appointments to various positions of public trust, "including Foreman of the Mendocino County Grand Jury...and that Jones was "the most compassionate, fearless, and honest person I know of..."
"Within a few minutes of entering People's Temple Sanctuary, Kinsolving was interrogated by Stoen, who was wearing a blue-green pulpit robe. Stoen then revealed himself not only to be an (unordained) assistant pastor of People's Temple, but Assistant District Attorney of Mendocino County."
Stoen's comments about "this wonderful group of people and their remarkable pastor Jim Jones...Jim has been the means by which more than 40 persons have literally been brought back from the dead this year.
"...I have seen Jim revive people stiff as a board, tongues hanging out, eyes set, skin graying and all vital signs absent...Jim will go up to such a person and say something like "I love you" or "I need you" and immediately the vital signs reappear...Jim is very humble about his gift and does not preach it..."
"The Sept. 20 story, "Probe Asked of People's Temple", revealed that earlier that year Ukiah Baptist pastor Richard Taylor had asked Mendocino County District Attorney Duncan James to investigate Tim Stoen's conduct surrounding Temple member Maxine Harpe's suspicious suicide."
For Leo J. Ryan, who gave his life, we dedicate this article.
© 1998 Kathleen and Tom Kinsolving
***
***
After 30 years, Jim Jones aide seeks forgiveness - Stoen apologizes to reporter: 'You were right ... I was wrong'
Wednesday, March 2, 2005 By MIKE GENIELLA THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
30 years later, Tim Stoen apologized to Les Kinsolving. One wonders if he will do the same to Debi August and Pacific Lumber Company.
"From my heart, I apologize for my mistreatment of you, including the
organizing the picketing, filing the lawsuit, and castigating your
motives."
***
MADMAN IN OUR MIDST: Jim Jones and the California Cover Up
by Kathleen Kinsolving and Tom Kinsolving
In this article, Tom and Kathleen Kinsolving describe what happened when their father, Les Kinsolving, began investigating the People's Temple. His early articles began to expose what was happening with the People's Temple. He had many interactions with Tim Stoen.
After the massacre at Jonestown, "Kinsolving was notified by the FBI of Temple death squads, and advised by agents that he should arm himself. Weeks later, the New York Times reported that Tim Stoen "planned the murder of Lester Kinsolving" and "had even used the District Attorney's office of Mendocino County" to research "the type of poison that could be used."
It's fascinating reading, especially if you are interested in understanding Tim Stoen's role in People's Temple. You may see marked similarities between his activities and comments then and his activites and comments in Humboldt County.
Some excerpts:
"Stoen elaborated on a long list of achievements, such as Jones's past appointments to various positions of public trust, "including Foreman of the Mendocino County Grand Jury...and that Jones was "the most compassionate, fearless, and honest person I know of..."
"Within a few minutes of entering People's Temple Sanctuary, Kinsolving was interrogated by Stoen, who was wearing a blue-green pulpit robe. Stoen then revealed himself not only to be an (unordained) assistant pastor of People's Temple, but Assistant District Attorney of Mendocino County."
Stoen's comments about "this wonderful group of people and their remarkable pastor Jim Jones...Jim has been the means by which more than 40 persons have literally been brought back from the dead this year.
"...I have seen Jim revive people stiff as a board, tongues hanging out, eyes set, skin graying and all vital signs absent...Jim will go up to such a person and say something like "I love you" or "I need you" and immediately the vital signs reappear...Jim is very humble about his gift and does not preach it..."
"The Sept. 20 story, "Probe Asked of People's Temple", revealed that earlier that year Ukiah Baptist pastor Richard Taylor had asked Mendocino County District Attorney Duncan James to investigate Tim Stoen's conduct surrounding Temple member Maxine Harpe's suspicious suicide."
For Leo J. Ryan, who gave his life, we dedicate this article.
© 1998 Kathleen and Tom Kinsolving
***
***
After 30 years, Jim Jones aide seeks forgiveness - Stoen apologizes to reporter: 'You were right ... I was wrong'
Wednesday, March 2, 2005 By MIKE GENIELLA THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
30 years later, Tim Stoen apologized to Les Kinsolving. One wonders if he will do the same to Debi August and Pacific Lumber Company.
"From my heart, I apologize for my mistreatment of you, including the
organizing the picketing, filing the lawsuit, and castigating your
motives."
***
FROM THE LAST DAY of THE DEBI AUGUST TRIAL
I hesitate to call it a trial, because this "trial" never made it to the Jury selection process.
Stoen's pattern seems to be to try his cases in the public, in the media, in a usually successful attempt to get his prey to settle to avoid court costs and further embarrassment. In both his cases in Humboldt County, people stood up to him and his cases were dismissed outright without ever making it to trial. One called "Smoke and Mirrors" and worse. Had Debi August not stood up to him, she would have been another notch on his belt. Instead he was exposed.
The information contained in this DECLARATION and its 19-page attachment reveals that:
The DA (Paul Gallegos) and ADA (Tim Stoen) told the Grand Jury that everything would remain secret if they went forward with the accusation.
They assured them that witnesses would not be identified.
Gallegos and Stoen disclosed confidential Grand Jury information without the permission or notification to the Grand Jury.
Gallegos and Stoen affirmatively sought the release of the information they assured the Grand Jury was totally protected by "attorney client privilege."
Stoen expressly told the Grand Jury that he was "their attorney."
Stoen waived the attorney-client privilege he had promised the Grand Jury against the wishes of the Grand Jury, but in favor of his office which clearly had a conflict in the matter.
The grand jury accusation process was being run by the DA (Gallegos) and ADA (Stoen).
Gallegos did not seal the record after promising the Grand Jury that he would nor did he advise the Grand Jury that he didn't seal it.
The Grand Jury felt that "The Grand Jury was badly used and misled by the DA and ADA and that the mishandling of the entire accusation process undermined the integrity of the Grand Jury System in Humboldt County."
The entire text of this declaration and the 19 page attachment are posted here as the FIRST COMMENT. To read it, click comments.
Stoen's pattern seems to be to try his cases in the public, in the media, in a usually successful attempt to get his prey to settle to avoid court costs and further embarrassment. In both his cases in Humboldt County, people stood up to him and his cases were dismissed outright without ever making it to trial. One called "Smoke and Mirrors" and worse. Had Debi August not stood up to him, she would have been another notch on his belt. Instead he was exposed.
The information contained in this DECLARATION and its 19-page attachment reveals that:
The DA (Paul Gallegos) and ADA (Tim Stoen) told the Grand Jury that everything would remain secret if they went forward with the accusation.
They assured them that witnesses would not be identified.
Gallegos and Stoen disclosed confidential Grand Jury information without the permission or notification to the Grand Jury.
Gallegos and Stoen affirmatively sought the release of the information they assured the Grand Jury was totally protected by "attorney client privilege."
Stoen expressly told the Grand Jury that he was "their attorney."
Stoen waived the attorney-client privilege he had promised the Grand Jury against the wishes of the Grand Jury, but in favor of his office which clearly had a conflict in the matter.
The grand jury accusation process was being run by the DA (Gallegos) and ADA (Stoen).
Gallegos did not seal the record after promising the Grand Jury that he would nor did he advise the Grand Jury that he didn't seal it.
The Grand Jury felt that "The Grand Jury was badly used and misled by the DA and ADA and that the mishandling of the entire accusation process undermined the integrity of the Grand Jury System in Humboldt County."
The entire text of this declaration and the 19 page attachment are posted here as the FIRST COMMENT. To read it, click comments.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
SUBMISSION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS DEPARTMENT regarding Gallegos' Request for Opinion and Salzman's Plan
Re: Opinion No. 04-406 Re: Request for Formal Opinion - Authority of a board of supervisors to establish a trust fund to receive gifts from the public earmarked for the district attorney to use in the prosecution of particular cases.
submitted via e-mail: Gregory.Gonot@doj.ca.gov
Dear Mr. Gonot,
Please consider the following input when considering the Request before you.
I. THE REAL QUESTION. No matter how carefully couched in legalese, the real question before you 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.
The answer should be an immediate and resounding "No!" A "Trust Fund" such as this is unconstitutional in that it violates the spirit of "equal protection under the law." The District Attorney's Office belongs to the people, and should remain pure. No District Attorney's office should ever SOLICIT or accept special interest resources or funding for the public purpose of prosecuting ANY person, entity or firm, particularly in pursuit of a politically motivated agenda.
That this question is even being given serious consideration is disturbing. The extreme potential for corruption of public officials and public office alone demands that this request be denied. The fact that this very request indicates that corruption may have already occurred is even more troubling, and warrants further investigation on the part of the Attorney General's office, in addition to the denial of this request.
II. AS EVIDENCE of District Attorney Paul Gallegos' intent to solicit special interest money to fund the public prosecution of Pacific Lumber Company, see Humboldt County Interoffice Memo, dated April 14, 2003, a portion of which is referred to herein as "Salzman's document" (transcribed below, see EXHIBIT A) in which, Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos' chief fundraiser, turned Campaign Manager Richard Salzman, has procured a paralegal's read on whether or not the District Attorney may solicit, accept and use "donations" to fund the public prosecution of Pacific Lumber Company. Focused primarily on whether or not this violates FPPC rules, the paralegal concludes that Gallegos may, in fact, solicit and accept "donations" to "contribute significantly to the cause" by establishing a "Trust Fund" to be called "The Headwaters Litigation Fund."
The document details the procedure by which Gallegos can circumvent the Humboldt County Board of Supervisor's anticipated denial of the establishment of the "Trust Fund."
Then, the plan of political action is described: (paragraph 4, pg 7 of 7 of Salzman's document, attachment to Humboldt Co. Interoffice Memo) "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."
The plan also allows Gallegos to thwart the Board of Supervisor's decision to deny Assistant District Attorney Tim Stoen's request to hire an outside law firm to "assist" in the prosecution of Pacific Lumber Company. (Section III, pg 1 of 7 of attachment to Humboldt Co. Interoffice Memo) "...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? "
This plan, apparently procured on behalf of Paul Gallegos and Tim Stoen by Richard Salzman as head of the "Alliance for Ethical Business," has been in the works for over a year, and is now before you in the form of a "Request for opinion" by Paul Gallegos.
Evidence will show that this "Trust Fund" will serve to further the actions and agenda of Gallegos' campaign backers and contributors who have been involved in a decade or more long effort to destroy Pacific Lumber Company. With this District Attorney now acting on their behalf, and at their behest, this long-standing agenda will be fulfilled.
To compare this case to Borland is deceptive and inadequate.
III. SOLICITATION: In paragraph 2 of the request before you, it is stated that "we anticipate that some members of the public will be making gifts earmarked for the district attorney to use in the prosecution of particular cases, including both criminal actions and Unfair Competition Law civil actions"
This statement is deceptive, designed to hide the fact the the District Attorney and his Assistant District Attorney, with the assistance of Gallegos' campaign backers, plan to SOLICIT these "gifts" (call it what it is, special interest money) to fund ONE case, and one case only, not, as they imply "particular cases," plural. From paragraph 3 Pg 7 of attachment to Humboldt Co. Interoffice Memo "...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."
What's more, the District Attorney (the chief law enforcement officer of Humboldt County) intends to go out of his way to solicit these "gifts" by placing "full page ads in the Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle."
(Note that while the cost of a full page ad in the Los Angeles Times, at open rate is $103,200.00. ($800.00 per inch) $129,000.00 if the ad runs on Sunday ($1,000.00 per inch) and the cost of a full page ad in the San Francisco Chronicle, at open rate is $73,788.00. ($572.00 per inch) $77,529.00 if the ad runs on Sunday ($601.00 per inch), the cost of an ad in the local paper, The Times Standard is $30.50 per inch, or $3,934.50.
But an ad in the local paper would not "attract powerful allies to contribute significantly to the cause." To pretend that "significant monetary donations" would be coming in from members of the "general public" is therefore false and misleading.
IV. UNDUE INFLUENCE: Pg 2 section II paragraph 1 of the request in front of you states "In our situation, it appears there would be even less possibility of undue influence when the financial assistance comes from members of the general public who will not be direct victims in the earmarked case." (Note that this remark appears to have abandoned the pretense of several cases benefiting from the "Trust Fund")
What's more, Pg 2 section II paragraph 1 of the request in front of you mentions the test as whether the financial assistance is of "...a nature and magnitude likely to put the prosecutor's discretionary decision making within the influence or control of an interested party..." as being an important part of the question before you.
Again, this is deceptive and seeks to hide the true source and magnitude of the funds Gallegos intends to solicit accept and use. In their own words, (paragraph 4, pg 7 of attachment to Humboldt Co. Interoffice Memo) citing "... 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."
In fact, though some degree of small "donations" from the "general public" will be solicited and accepted, the intent of this "Trust Fund" is outlined in Salzman's document. The intent is to solicit large "gifts" from "environmentally involved celebrities" such as Woody Harrelson and Bonnie Raitt. The potential also exists for "significant budgetary supplementation" to come from the likes of George Soros, as Gallegos' lead campaign consultant (see Exhibit C, below), besides being intensely involved in anti-Pacific Lumber Company activities for an extended period of time has links to Soros. Salzman's document also mentions "significant budgetary supplementation" to come from outside sources such as "Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and the Wilderness Society Planning and Conservation League."
Even Salzman's document is deceptive in that it chooses the "respectable" members of the environmental activist community in order to elevate the nature of their intent. Left out are Earth First!, E.P.I.C., Salmon Forever and Humboldt Watershed Council, less respectable, more controversial, and significantly more vested in the ongoing attack on Pacific Lumber Company, and, in at least one case, specifically instrumental in the filing of the specific case in question.
The "financial assistance" or "significant budgetary supplementation" in this case can be expected to run into the millions. And it most definitely is of "a nature and magnitude likely to put the prosecutor's discretionary decision making within the influence or control of an interested party"
Based on the statement that the planned full page ads would be designed to "...attract powerful allies to contribute significantly to the cause." I believe the facts and an investigation will prove that this District Attorney and his Assistant District Attorney are already acting under "undue influence." acting on behalf campaign backers and contributors representing the extreme arm of the environmental activist community - interested parties with a political agenda, who have secured in Paul Gallegos and Tim Stoen a vehicle allowing them to pursue their specific goals.
Specifically, interested parties are represented by Ken Miller of Humboldt Watershed Council, Salmon Forever, and BACH (Bay Area Coalition for Headwaters) who, evidence will show, helped Stoen draft the Pacific Lumber Company lawsuit; Michael Shellenberger of Lumina Strategies, Gallegos' lead campaign consultant, and public relations activist (see exhibit C below for his many a.k.a.'s, links to Earth First!, Salmon Forever, Ken Miller, and Richard Salzman and the "Alliance for Ethical Business").
The extent to which these and other politically motivated special interest groups are involved should be the subject of a full-scale investigation by the Attorney General's Office. The longevity and extent of the ongoing attack on Pacific Lumber Company by these interested parties should be part of this investigation and should be considered when rendering an opinion in this matter.
V. INTERESTED PARTIES: In the Conclusion of the Request before you, the District Attorney stipulates that "... To make sure there could be no possible "interested party" issue, we would propose that such an ordinance prohibit earmarked gifts from any direct competitors of the persons being prosecuted."
In other words, in an attempt to pretend that this office will not be corrupted by these "donations" they will not accept money from other timber companies (The District Attorney sees competitors as "interested parties"), but they are free to solicit "significant budgetary supplementation" from interested parties he chooses not to mention; Earth First! E.P.I.C. Humboldt Watershed Council, Sierra Club, political entities with a political agenda, the very entities who have been hell-bent on destroying the company, and overturning the Headwaters Agreement. These are the "interested parties" which must be considered in the context of this Request and that Gallegos hopes you will not be aware of as you formulate your Opinion.
Do not be deceived. It is not the competitors of Pacific Lumber Company who are to fear, for they are next on the activists' agenda, and allowing this "Trust Fund" to be established will set legal precedent.
To grant this request - or to register an Opinion in the affirmative - has the effect of turning the District Attorney's office over to the special interest groups which have increasingly come to use the Court system as a weapon, through numerous civil lawsuits that they themselves have instigated. Now, they're seeking to add an even more powerful weapon to their arsenal, the ability to use the public prosecutorial system when they are successful in placing their sympathizers in publicly elected positions.
This situation is somewhat unique. At this time, no other industry is under such dedicated and concerted attack as the timber industry. Gallegos' backers have been involved in the ongoing efforts against Pacific Lumber Company as well as Boise Cascade, and other timber interests. Yet other politically motivated activist groups stand waiting in the wings, hoping to see legal precedent set in this case. Groups such as ELF (Earth Liberation Front), ALF, (Animal Liberation Front) and others, probably including many of Michael Shellenberger's groups, Rainforest Action Network for example.
VI. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: A full investigation of the gross conflict of interest between the "Alliance for Ethical Business" and District Attorney Paul Gallegos and Assistant District Attorney Tim Stoen is necessary to fully determine the extent of corruption this request represents. Specifically, examining the money trail between the "Alliance for Ethical Business" and Public Relations activist/lead campaign consultant Michael Shellenberger and his firm Lumina Strategies, and the many entities he manages and under which he co-exists, and the relationship with Gallegos and Stoen should be very revealing. (see exhibit B and C below)
VII. IN CLOSING: While there is no doubt that a Board of Supervisors can establish a Trust Fund to allow people to contribute funds to build a neighborhood playground, or improve a road, for example, there can also be no doubt that this Request cannot and should not be equated with that.
Nor should the Board of Supervisors be put in a position whereby they are forced to allow Gallegos to establish this "Trust Fund," when it is designed to contradict and circumvent their expressed wishes.
Paul Gallegos stated numerous times in the course of the recent 'Recall Paul' campaign that the District Attorney's office belongs to the people, and that the District Attorney's office is not for sale - in fact, the memo below, the request before you, and the facts indicate that he does not understand what those statements mean - and does not care.
The District Attorney's Office must treat all people, and all entities equally. If this request is approved, and this "Trust Fund" is established there will no longer be equitable treatment for all; undue resources and energy will be spent on one case above all others. This "Trust Fund" violates Equal protection statutes, and should be considered unconstitutional.
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.
I thank you for your time and consideration. I have included supporting documents and relevant supportive information. Hopefully, this will aid you in making your determination, and in your investigations.
****************
RELATED:
Read second - GALLEGOS' REQUEST FOR OPINION
The complete text of Paul Gallegos' REQUEST FOR OPINION, which he submitted to the Attorney General's Office
TIM STOEN'S LETTER TO THE FPPC
Paul Gallegos' and Tim Stoen's efforts to privately fund the PL lawsuit took many forms.
THE FPPC RESPONSE TO STOEN
The full text of the FPPC's response to Tim Stoen's letter regarding "Raising Funds for prosecution of District Attorney Lawsuit Against Pacific Lumber Company."
SUBMISSION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS DEPARTMENT regarding Gallegos' Request for Opinion and Salzman's Plan
submitted via e-mail: Gregory.Gonot@doj.ca.gov
Dear Mr. Gonot,
Please consider the following input when considering the Request before you.
I. THE REAL QUESTION. No matter how carefully couched in legalese, the real question before you 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.
The answer should be an immediate and resounding "No!" A "Trust Fund" such as this is unconstitutional in that it violates the spirit of "equal protection under the law." The District Attorney's Office belongs to the people, and should remain pure. No District Attorney's office should ever SOLICIT or accept special interest resources or funding for the public purpose of prosecuting ANY person, entity or firm, particularly in pursuit of a politically motivated agenda.
That this question is even being given serious consideration is disturbing. The extreme potential for corruption of public officials and public office alone demands that this request be denied. The fact that this very request indicates that corruption may have already occurred is even more troubling, and warrants further investigation on the part of the Attorney General's office, in addition to the denial of this request.
II. AS EVIDENCE of District Attorney Paul Gallegos' intent to solicit special interest money to fund the public prosecution of Pacific Lumber Company, see Humboldt County Interoffice Memo, dated April 14, 2003, a portion of which is referred to herein as "Salzman's document" (transcribed below, see EXHIBIT A) in which, Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos' chief fundraiser, turned Campaign Manager Richard Salzman, has procured a paralegal's read on whether or not the District Attorney may solicit, accept and use "donations" to fund the public prosecution of Pacific Lumber Company. Focused primarily on whether or not this violates FPPC rules, the paralegal concludes that Gallegos may, in fact, solicit and accept "donations" to "contribute significantly to the cause" by establishing a "Trust Fund" to be called "The Headwaters Litigation Fund."
The document details the procedure by which Gallegos can circumvent the Humboldt County Board of Supervisor's anticipated denial of the establishment of the "Trust Fund."
Then, the plan of political action is described: (paragraph 4, pg 7 of 7 of Salzman's document, attachment to Humboldt Co. Interoffice Memo) "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."
The plan also allows Gallegos to thwart the Board of Supervisor's decision to deny Assistant District Attorney Tim Stoen's request to hire an outside law firm to "assist" in the prosecution of Pacific Lumber Company. (Section III, pg 1 of 7 of attachment to Humboldt Co. Interoffice Memo) "...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? "
This plan, apparently procured on behalf of Paul Gallegos and Tim Stoen by Richard Salzman as head of the "Alliance for Ethical Business," has been in the works for over a year, and is now before you in the form of a "Request for opinion" by Paul Gallegos.
Evidence will show that this "Trust Fund" will serve to further the actions and agenda of Gallegos' campaign backers and contributors who have been involved in a decade or more long effort to destroy Pacific Lumber Company. With this District Attorney now acting on their behalf, and at their behest, this long-standing agenda will be fulfilled.
To compare this case to Borland is deceptive and inadequate.
III. SOLICITATION: In paragraph 2 of the request before you, it is stated that "we anticipate that some members of the public will be making gifts earmarked for the district attorney to use in the prosecution of particular cases, including both criminal actions and Unfair Competition Law civil actions"
This statement is deceptive, designed to hide the fact the the District Attorney and his Assistant District Attorney, with the assistance of Gallegos' campaign backers, plan to SOLICIT these "gifts" (call it what it is, special interest money) to fund ONE case, and one case only, not, as they imply "particular cases," plural. From paragraph 3 Pg 7 of attachment to Humboldt Co. Interoffice Memo "...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."
What's more, the District Attorney (the chief law enforcement officer of Humboldt County) intends to go out of his way to solicit these "gifts" by placing "full page ads in the Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle."
(Note that while the cost of a full page ad in the Los Angeles Times, at open rate is $103,200.00. ($800.00 per inch) $129,000.00 if the ad runs on Sunday ($1,000.00 per inch) and the cost of a full page ad in the San Francisco Chronicle, at open rate is $73,788.00. ($572.00 per inch) $77,529.00 if the ad runs on Sunday ($601.00 per inch), the cost of an ad in the local paper, The Times Standard is $30.50 per inch, or $3,934.50.
But an ad in the local paper would not "attract powerful allies to contribute significantly to the cause." To pretend that "significant monetary donations" would be coming in from members of the "general public" is therefore false and misleading.
IV. UNDUE INFLUENCE: Pg 2 section II paragraph 1 of the request in front of you states "In our situation, it appears there would be even less possibility of undue influence when the financial assistance comes from members of the general public who will not be direct victims in the earmarked case." (Note that this remark appears to have abandoned the pretense of several cases benefiting from the "Trust Fund")
What's more, Pg 2 section II paragraph 1 of the request in front of you mentions the test as whether the financial assistance is of "...a nature and magnitude likely to put the prosecutor's discretionary decision making within the influence or control of an interested party..." as being an important part of the question before you.
Again, this is deceptive and seeks to hide the true source and magnitude of the funds Gallegos intends to solicit accept and use. In their own words, (paragraph 4, pg 7 of attachment to Humboldt Co. Interoffice Memo) citing "... 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."
In fact, though some degree of small "donations" from the "general public" will be solicited and accepted, the intent of this "Trust Fund" is outlined in Salzman's document. The intent is to solicit large "gifts" from "environmentally involved celebrities" such as Woody Harrelson and Bonnie Raitt. The potential also exists for "significant budgetary supplementation" to come from the likes of George Soros, as Gallegos' lead campaign consultant (see Exhibit C, below), besides being intensely involved in anti-Pacific Lumber Company activities for an extended period of time has links to Soros. Salzman's document also mentions "significant budgetary supplementation" to come from outside sources such as "Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and the Wilderness Society Planning and Conservation League."
Even Salzman's document is deceptive in that it chooses the "respectable" members of the environmental activist community in order to elevate the nature of their intent. Left out are Earth First!, E.P.I.C., Salmon Forever and Humboldt Watershed Council, less respectable, more controversial, and significantly more vested in the ongoing attack on Pacific Lumber Company, and, in at least one case, specifically instrumental in the filing of the specific case in question.
The "financial assistance" or "significant budgetary supplementation" in this case can be expected to run into the millions. And it most definitely is of "a nature and magnitude likely to put the prosecutor's discretionary decision making within the influence or control of an interested party"
Based on the statement that the planned full page ads would be designed to "...attract powerful allies to contribute significantly to the cause." I believe the facts and an investigation will prove that this District Attorney and his Assistant District Attorney are already acting under "undue influence." acting on behalf campaign backers and contributors representing the extreme arm of the environmental activist community - interested parties with a political agenda, who have secured in Paul Gallegos and Tim Stoen a vehicle allowing them to pursue their specific goals.
Specifically, interested parties are represented by Ken Miller of Humboldt Watershed Council, Salmon Forever, and BACH (Bay Area Coalition for Headwaters) who, evidence will show, helped Stoen draft the Pacific Lumber Company lawsuit; Michael Shellenberger of Lumina Strategies, Gallegos' lead campaign consultant, and public relations activist (see exhibit C below for his many a.k.a.'s, links to Earth First!, Salmon Forever, Ken Miller, and Richard Salzman and the "Alliance for Ethical Business").
The extent to which these and other politically motivated special interest groups are involved should be the subject of a full-scale investigation by the Attorney General's Office. The longevity and extent of the ongoing attack on Pacific Lumber Company by these interested parties should be part of this investigation and should be considered when rendering an opinion in this matter.
V. INTERESTED PARTIES: In the Conclusion of the Request before you, the District Attorney stipulates that "... To make sure there could be no possible "interested party" issue, we would propose that such an ordinance prohibit earmarked gifts from any direct competitors of the persons being prosecuted."
In other words, in an attempt to pretend that this office will not be corrupted by these "donations" they will not accept money from other timber companies (The District Attorney sees competitors as "interested parties"), but they are free to solicit "significant budgetary supplementation" from interested parties he chooses not to mention; Earth First! E.P.I.C. Humboldt Watershed Council, Sierra Club, political entities with a political agenda, the very entities who have been hell-bent on destroying the company, and overturning the Headwaters Agreement. These are the "interested parties" which must be considered in the context of this Request and that Gallegos hopes you will not be aware of as you formulate your Opinion.
Do not be deceived. It is not the competitors of Pacific Lumber Company who are to fear, for they are next on the activists' agenda, and allowing this "Trust Fund" to be established will set legal precedent.
To grant this request - or to register an Opinion in the affirmative - has the effect of turning the District Attorney's office over to the special interest groups which have increasingly come to use the Court system as a weapon, through numerous civil lawsuits that they themselves have instigated. Now, they're seeking to add an even more powerful weapon to their arsenal, the ability to use the public prosecutorial system when they are successful in placing their sympathizers in publicly elected positions.
This situation is somewhat unique. At this time, no other industry is under such dedicated and concerted attack as the timber industry. Gallegos' backers have been involved in the ongoing efforts against Pacific Lumber Company as well as Boise Cascade, and other timber interests. Yet other politically motivated activist groups stand waiting in the wings, hoping to see legal precedent set in this case. Groups such as ELF (Earth Liberation Front), ALF, (Animal Liberation Front) and others, probably including many of Michael Shellenberger's groups, Rainforest Action Network for example.
VI. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: A full investigation of the gross conflict of interest between the "Alliance for Ethical Business" and District Attorney Paul Gallegos and Assistant District Attorney Tim Stoen is necessary to fully determine the extent of corruption this request represents. Specifically, examining the money trail between the "Alliance for Ethical Business" and Public Relations activist/lead campaign consultant Michael Shellenberger and his firm Lumina Strategies, and the many entities he manages and under which he co-exists, and the relationship with Gallegos and Stoen should be very revealing. (see exhibit B and C below)
VII. IN CLOSING: While there is no doubt that a Board of Supervisors can establish a Trust Fund to allow people to contribute funds to build a neighborhood playground, or improve a road, for example, there can also be no doubt that this Request cannot and should not be equated with that.
Nor should the Board of Supervisors be put in a position whereby they are forced to allow Gallegos to establish this "Trust Fund," when it is designed to contradict and circumvent their expressed wishes.
Paul Gallegos stated numerous times in the course of the recent 'Recall Paul' campaign that the District Attorney's office belongs to the people, and that the District Attorney's office is not for sale - in fact, the memo below, the request before you, and the facts indicate that he does not understand what those statements mean - and does not care.
The District Attorney's Office must treat all people, and all entities equally. If this request is approved, and this "Trust Fund" is established there will no longer be equitable treatment for all; undue resources and energy will be spent on one case above all others. This "Trust Fund" violates Equal protection statutes, and should be considered unconstitutional.
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.
I thank you for your time and consideration. I have included supporting documents and relevant supportive information. Hopefully, this will aid you in making your determination, and in your investigations.
****************
RELATED:
Read second - GALLEGOS' REQUEST FOR OPINION
The complete text of Paul Gallegos' REQUEST FOR OPINION, which he submitted to the Attorney General's Office
TIM STOEN'S LETTER TO THE FPPC
Paul Gallegos' and Tim Stoen's efforts to privately fund the PL lawsuit took many forms.
THE FPPC RESPONSE TO STOEN
The full text of the FPPC's response to Tim Stoen's letter regarding "Raising Funds for prosecution of District Attorney Lawsuit Against Pacific Lumber Company."
SUBMISSION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS DEPARTMENT regarding Gallegos' Request for Opinion and Salzman's Plan
Sunday, April 16, 2006
UNTOLD STORIES: What was Ken Miller's role in the drafting of the PL Lawsuit?
Part of the answer is found here.
The filing of the PL lawsuit has been the hallmark of Gallegos' tenure as DA. He claimed to have "discovered" evidence of fraud. Based on this story in the North Coast Journal, it appears to me that the case sat in a box because it lacked merit, much to Ken Miller's frustration. In Paul Gallegos and Tim Stoen, it appears he found someone who was willing to resurrect it, and pursue it.
During the Recall a furor erupted over e-mails alternately described as "leaked" or "stolen"* from the DA's office. The e-mails dealt with Ken Miller's involvement in the PL lawsuit and though the papers reported the existence of the e-mails, none reported on the significant content.
Specifically,
1.) That others in the DA's office had questioned Ken Miller's presence in the office, with regard to the PL lawsuit... that it is quite clear Ken Miller was actively involved in the drafting of the Palco suit... stating that " We (WE - emphasis added) have the docs if you want to include this kind of thing in your complaint..." ...the same Ken Miller who professed to be stunned that the lawsuit was filed, and later had to fess up and admit his involvement.
2.) That Tim Stoen at one point says that he is going to have to give Ken Miller the bad news, that there is no way the suit will fly, and that
3.) A few days later, Stoen comes back and says that he has found a way to make it fly.
That is only part of the untold story of Paul Gallegos and the Recall. For those who are interested, the text of those e-mails are included below.
It is important to understand that in the 90s, Ken Miller was a co-founder of BACH, (Bay Area Coalition for Headwaters), and that his efforts to "get Palco" encompass a decade long effort. ( http://www.treesfoundation.org/affiliates/update-77 ) BACH claims that "More recently, we have generated media interest in the tree-sits and litigation against Maxxam/Pacific Lumber."
Other significant documents include Richard Salzman, Gallegos' chief fundraiser turned Campaign Manager's procuring a paralegal's read as to how Gallegos and Stoen can establish a "Trust Fund" to solicit, accept and use special interest money to fund the PL lawsuit. ( see Read First: Salzman's Plan post on this blog.
This is followed by Gallegos' taking that proposal to the Attorney General's office, stating that they will not be "influenced" by such funding, and further contending that, since they would not accept donations from any competitors of Pacific Lumber, it would not be corruption.
But they were free to accept "donations" from EPIC, Earth First!, and Ken Miller's Humboldt Watershed Council, Ken Miller's BACH (Bay Area Coalition for Headwaters), Ken Miller's Salmon Forever, and other organizations who are part of an ongoing and longstanding effort to destroy Pacific Lumber Company.
The private funding of a public lawsuit, special interest groups using the public judicial system to further their agenda, turning the DA's office over to the activists - that's what is really wrong with the DA's office.
And it's not what people who voted against the Recall thought they were getting.
Richard "R Trent Williams" Salzman calling it a conspiracy theory does not negate the facts.
Note: * Many people believe it was Tim Stoen himself who "leaked" these documents, and a reading of his history in the People's Temple certainly backs up this theory. I find it difficult to believe he would do so based on the fact that the content here that so clearly shows his and Ken Miller's actions, but perhaps from his perspective it shows him gallantly pursuing the demon, charging ahead "for the cause." And in his zeal, perhaps he couldn't perceive it as being a negative, couldn't imagine that anyone would see it as wrongdoing. It certainly provided for a distraction from the issues, and garnered sympathy for his beleaguered Paul.
***
From: Stoen, Tim
Sent: Monday February 10, 2003 7:33 AM
To: 'Ken Miller'
Subject: RE: PL rate of harvest
Yes, Ken, I want it.
Thanks,
Tim
-----Original message-----
From: Ken Miller (mail to salmonhood@redwoods.quik.com)
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 7:32 AM
To: Stoen, Tim
Subject: PL rate of harvest
Hello, Tim,
I am relieved that you are still on this, it is more important than ever, as PL struggles to defeat the only agency which has had the guts and integrity to try and protect our community from the nuisances related to PL's liquidation logging agenda.
I have a document that might be useful to your argument that the 176 is a big deal. It's PL's appeal to the State Water Board of the Regional Water Board's attempt to impose restrictions in freshwater. It is a 50 page petition. The central argument is the breach of contract. PL argues, ad nauseum, that the 176mmbf/yr is central to the Headwaters Agreement, that PL would never have entered into this agreement absent this assurance, etc.
"... the central purpose of the Headwaters Agreement for PALCO was to provide regulatory certainty that it would be able to harvest a minimum of 176.2mmbf/yr in the first 10 years of the Agreement." PL added minimum to the assurance, I believe the actual arrangement was =/- 10%.
PL has argued this repeatedly.
Fraud vitiates contractual assurances, I am told.
I can bring it by if you want it. Ken
___________
-------------------
From: Stoen, Tim
Sent: Tuesday February 18, 2003 8:40 AM
To: 'Ken Miller'
Cc: Gallegos, Paul; Vadas, Nandor; Wade, Robert
Subject: RE: meeting re PL suit
Ken,
Paul Gallegos and I can meet with you Thursday, February 20th (this week) at 11 a.m. in our office.
I have the majority of a complaint prepared, and will be working on it all week. I do this to force myself to think out the implications of the elements we must prove for fraudulent concealment, including proximate causation. I still have not made a decision to file, but because of the importance of the case, want to make sure I have considered the proof problems as fully as possible before making a final decision.
Please advise if Thursday at 11 works for you.
Tim
-----Original message-----
From: Ken Miller (mail to salmonhood@redwoods.quik.com)
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 9:10 AM
To: Stoen, Tim
Subject: meeting
Hi Tim, I wd like to meet with you to go over the potential filing, in case I can help with any questions. I am pretty available, let me know a good time, Ken.
--
Ken Miller
(home address deleted)
(note: phone numbers will not be included in this post )
___________
-------------------
From: Stoen, Tim
Sent: Tuesday February 18, 2003 5:23 PM
To: 'Ken Miller'
Subject: meeting
Ken,
Paul Gallegos is going to have Worth Dikeman also review the complaint from a very conservative point of view.
I have almost reached the cause of action section. As you can see from the introduction, there are only two causes we can allege at this late date" (1) fraudulent non disclosure for the purpose of avoiding EIR recirculation. (2) fraudulent concealment to FWS and others in lobbying for Option 25.
Please look over all of the factual materials and make corrections or suggestions. I have probably made a number of factual errors because I have not yet gone back to check references.
As you can see I have used alot of your work verbatim.
Tomorrow I will add the recirculation and lobbying elements, and then the three causes of action and send them to you.
Please know we have not yet made a final decision.
Thanks for your great help.
Tim
PAUL V. GALLEGOS
District Attorney of Humboldt County
TIMOTHY O. STOEN
Assistant District Attorney
NANDOR VADAS
Deputy District Attorney
825 Fifth Street, 4th Floor
Eureka, CA 95501
707 445-7416
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT
______
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES, INJUNCTION, RESTITUTION vs
this is page one of a multi page email. the other pages are not included here
___________
-------------------
From: Stoen, Tim
Sent: Wednesday February 19, 2003 4:19 PM
To: Gallegos, Paul
Cc: Vadas, Nandor; Dikeman, Worth; Dawson, James
Subject: Palco Jordan Creek suit
Paul,
I regret to inform you that after researching every angle, there is no way we can avoid the statute of limitations defense on the PALCO Jordan Creek scam. CCP 338 gives a 3-year period for fraud. The only way to get around this is to charge conspiracy with a crime and an overt act occurring within four years.
A corporation cannot be in conspiracy with its own employees or subsidiaries. Therefore the only possible co-conspirator is the consultant, William Weaver. But we have to show he conspired to do the specific violation that occurred within the 4 year statute (and is also an overt act within the statute.)
That violation was getting Richard Wilson, Head of CDF, not to recirculate the EIR under 14 CCR 15088.5, which was violated February 25, 1999. We have absolutely no evidence Weaver personally so conspired, or that he even had knowledge of that EIR recirculation. As a matter of ethics, therefore, we cannot proceed.
I have given Ken Miller the bad news, and I have canceled out appointment for tomorrow at 11.
I encouraged him to send us every other case he comes across so we have the opportunity to act in a timely manner. He is very happy with your willingness to prosecute let the chips fall where they may.
Tim
___________
-------------------
From: Stoen, Tim
Sent: Wednesday February 19, 2003 8:05 AM
To: 'Ken Miller'
Subject: Re: SoLs
Ken,
Here is my memo to Paul Gallegos spelling out the reasons. There is one last minute gambit I am pursuing. If it develops, I will advise you immediately.
MEMO TO PAUL GALLEGOS
Paul,
I regret to inform you that after researching every angle, there is no way we can avoid the statute of limitations defense on the PALCO Jordan Creek scam. CCP 338 gives a 3-year period for fraud. The only way to get around this is to charge conspiracy with a crime and an overt act occurring within four years.
A corporation cannot be in conspiracy with its own employees or subsidiaries. Therefore the only possible co-conspirator is the consultant, William Weaver. But we have to show he conspired to do the specific violation that occurred within the 4 year statute (and is also an overt act within the statute.)
That violation was getting Richard Wilson, Head of CDF, not to recirculate the EIR under 14 CCR 15088.5, which was violated February 25, 1999. We have absolutely no evidence Weaver personally so conspired, or that he even had knowledge of that EIR recirculation. As a matter of ethics, therefore, we cannot proceed.
I have given Ken Miller the bad news, and I have canceled out appointment for tomorrow at 11.
I encouraged him to send us every other case he comes across so we have the opportunity to act in a timely manner. He is very happy with your willingness to prosecute let the chips fall where they may.
Tim
-----Original message-----
From: Ken Miller (mail to salmonhood@redwoods.quik.com)
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 11:29 AM
To: Stoen, Tim
Subject: SoLs
Tim, If you would spell out for me the reasons why this case cannot be brought, I would very much appreciate it. I do not yet understand.
I was excited about the prospects of the $250,000,000, which would sure help the County, even tho it is a small fraction of what Hurwitz has extracted, and an even smaller fraction of the costs of the damages he has left in his wake.
Your proto-petition is succinct and impressive.
Thanks, Ken
--
Ken Miller
(end of this page)
___________
-------------------
From: Stoen, Tim
Sent: Thursday February 20, 2003 1:57 PM
To: Gallegos, Paul
Cc: Vadas, Nandor; Dikeman, Worth
Subject: Re: Revival of Palco Jordan Creek suit - meeting Friday at 3 p,m,
Gentlemen,
I think we can save the PALCO suit by suing for "unfair" business practice rather than "fraudulent." for there is no competing statute of limitations for unfair. I have asked Ken Miller to come to the office tomorrow to discuss it. I will have a draft complaint ready to be reviewed beforehand. Would appreciate all of your showing up - Paul's office - if you are free.
Tim Stoen
___________
-------------------
From: Stoen, Tim
Sent: Thursday February 20, 2003 6:22 PM
To: "Ken Miller"
Subject: Re: New draft, new meeting time of 2:30 p,m,
Ken,
Here is the revised draft. Still have not finished. Please, if you have time, double check all the facts I have lifted from your work, including verbatim quotes and exact dates.
Tomorrow, I will e-mail to you the remainder before 11 a.m.
PAUL V. GALLEGOS
District Attorney of Humboldt County
TIMOTHY O. STOEN
Assistant District Attorney
NANDOR VADAS
Deputy District Attorney
825 Fifth Street, 4th Floor
Eureka, CA 95501
707 445-7416
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT
______
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff NO. CV-
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES, INJUNCTION, AND RESTITUTION vs
(Business & Professions Code)
THE PACIFIC LUMBER COMPANY Section 17200, in re: Headwaters Forest Project
and DOES 1 through 10
Defendants
Unfair Business Acts
this is page one of a multi page email. the other pages are not included here.
___________
-------------------
From: Stoen, Tim
Sent: Thursday February 21, 2003 11:43 AM
To: 'Ken Miller'
Subject: Re: Intimidation
Ken,
YES. GET ME AS MANY FACTS AND DATES OF THE INTIMIDATION ASP.
I will create a separate cause of action entitled Unfair Personal Attack on Opposing Scientist.
Tim
-----Original message-----
From: Ken Miller (mail to salmonhood@redwoods.quik.com)
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2003 9:49 AM
To: Stoen, Tim
Subject: intimidation
PL orchestrated a campaign to intimidate and impeach Dr. Reid, including calling her "almost irresponsible" in the Times Standard, fueling a sign-on letter by extremist Congresspeople including Richard Pombo, Dooley, Helen Chennoweth, one of the Alaska boyz, et al to her than boss at the USFS in DC trying to get her hands off private lands, a letter from Jared carter to Directors of CDF and DFG admonished them to avoid "creating a paper trail" in their deliberations and to abide by the "Mutual Defense Pact" of the Headwaters Agreement (para 7) related to rate of cut in Freshwater and Elk, an outgrowth (sic) of the Jordan scam...
We have the docs if you want to include this kind of thing in your complaint...Ken
--
Ken Miller
(home address deleted)
(phone number deleted)
___________
-------------------
From: Stoen, Tim
Sent: Thursday February 25, 2003 11:22 PM
To: Dawson, James
Cc: Gallegos, Paul
Subject: Re: Use of consultants/percipient witnesses
Jim,
Paul indicated that you were wondering about Ken Miller being in the office yesterday reading the complaint.
Ken was reading the complaint for the purpose of making sure the documentary information he had provided me was accurately summarized in the complaint.
I also used him as an eyewitness on what William Weaver's responses had been to accusations of a scam. Had I not had this benefit, I would have been forced, having circumstantial evidence only, to charge Weaver with intentional misrepresentation, not reckless misrepresentation. So justice towards Mr. Weaver was, hopefully, accomplished.
Ken Miller had nothing to do with my decision to file, my choice of theories, or such other aspects of the complaint.
The only way environmental torts can be litigated is to rely on both eyewitnesses and consultants in the private sector, all of who obviously have some ax to grind. My job is to separate the chaff from the wheat.
The duty of restricting disclosure of our investigation still applies, but only with respect to people who do not have a legitimate interest. Consultants helping us to understand the administrative data do have a legitimate interest.
Please advise if you have questions or wish to discuss this further.
Tim
The filing of the PL lawsuit has been the hallmark of Gallegos' tenure as DA. He claimed to have "discovered" evidence of fraud. Based on this story in the North Coast Journal, it appears to me that the case sat in a box because it lacked merit, much to Ken Miller's frustration. In Paul Gallegos and Tim Stoen, it appears he found someone who was willing to resurrect it, and pursue it.
During the Recall a furor erupted over e-mails alternately described as "leaked" or "stolen"* from the DA's office. The e-mails dealt with Ken Miller's involvement in the PL lawsuit and though the papers reported the existence of the e-mails, none reported on the significant content.
Specifically,
1.) That others in the DA's office had questioned Ken Miller's presence in the office, with regard to the PL lawsuit... that it is quite clear Ken Miller was actively involved in the drafting of the Palco suit... stating that " We (WE - emphasis added) have the docs if you want to include this kind of thing in your complaint..." ...the same Ken Miller who professed to be stunned that the lawsuit was filed, and later had to fess up and admit his involvement.
2.) That Tim Stoen at one point says that he is going to have to give Ken Miller the bad news, that there is no way the suit will fly, and that
3.) A few days later, Stoen comes back and says that he has found a way to make it fly.
That is only part of the untold story of Paul Gallegos and the Recall. For those who are interested, the text of those e-mails are included below.
It is important to understand that in the 90s, Ken Miller was a co-founder of BACH, (Bay Area Coalition for Headwaters), and that his efforts to "get Palco" encompass a decade long effort. ( http://www.treesfoundation.org/affiliates/update-77 ) BACH claims that "More recently, we have generated media interest in the tree-sits and litigation against Maxxam/Pacific Lumber."
Other significant documents include Richard Salzman, Gallegos' chief fundraiser turned Campaign Manager's procuring a paralegal's read as to how Gallegos and Stoen can establish a "Trust Fund" to solicit, accept and use special interest money to fund the PL lawsuit. ( see Read First: Salzman's Plan post on this blog.
This is followed by Gallegos' taking that proposal to the Attorney General's office, stating that they will not be "influenced" by such funding, and further contending that, since they would not accept donations from any competitors of Pacific Lumber, it would not be corruption.
But they were free to accept "donations" from EPIC, Earth First!, and Ken Miller's Humboldt Watershed Council, Ken Miller's BACH (Bay Area Coalition for Headwaters), Ken Miller's Salmon Forever, and other organizations who are part of an ongoing and longstanding effort to destroy Pacific Lumber Company.
The private funding of a public lawsuit, special interest groups using the public judicial system to further their agenda, turning the DA's office over to the activists - that's what is really wrong with the DA's office.
And it's not what people who voted against the Recall thought they were getting.
Richard "R Trent Williams" Salzman calling it a conspiracy theory does not negate the facts.
Note: * Many people believe it was Tim Stoen himself who "leaked" these documents, and a reading of his history in the People's Temple certainly backs up this theory. I find it difficult to believe he would do so based on the fact that the content here that so clearly shows his and Ken Miller's actions, but perhaps from his perspective it shows him gallantly pursuing the demon, charging ahead "for the cause." And in his zeal, perhaps he couldn't perceive it as being a negative, couldn't imagine that anyone would see it as wrongdoing. It certainly provided for a distraction from the issues, and garnered sympathy for his beleaguered Paul.
***
From: Stoen, Tim
Sent: Monday February 10, 2003 7:33 AM
To: 'Ken Miller'
Subject: RE: PL rate of harvest
Yes, Ken, I want it.
Thanks,
Tim
-----Original message-----
From: Ken Miller (mail to salmonhood@redwoods.quik.com)
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 7:32 AM
To: Stoen, Tim
Subject: PL rate of harvest
Hello, Tim,
I am relieved that you are still on this, it is more important than ever, as PL struggles to defeat the only agency which has had the guts and integrity to try and protect our community from the nuisances related to PL's liquidation logging agenda.
I have a document that might be useful to your argument that the 176 is a big deal. It's PL's appeal to the State Water Board of the Regional Water Board's attempt to impose restrictions in freshwater. It is a 50 page petition. The central argument is the breach of contract. PL argues, ad nauseum, that the 176mmbf/yr is central to the Headwaters Agreement, that PL would never have entered into this agreement absent this assurance, etc.
"... the central purpose of the Headwaters Agreement for PALCO was to provide regulatory certainty that it would be able to harvest a minimum of 176.2mmbf/yr in the first 10 years of the Agreement." PL added minimum to the assurance, I believe the actual arrangement was =/- 10%.
PL has argued this repeatedly.
Fraud vitiates contractual assurances, I am told.
I can bring it by if you want it. Ken
___________
-------------------
From: Stoen, Tim
Sent: Tuesday February 18, 2003 8:40 AM
To: 'Ken Miller'
Cc: Gallegos, Paul; Vadas, Nandor; Wade, Robert
Subject: RE: meeting re PL suit
Ken,
Paul Gallegos and I can meet with you Thursday, February 20th (this week) at 11 a.m. in our office.
I have the majority of a complaint prepared, and will be working on it all week. I do this to force myself to think out the implications of the elements we must prove for fraudulent concealment, including proximate causation. I still have not made a decision to file, but because of the importance of the case, want to make sure I have considered the proof problems as fully as possible before making a final decision.
Please advise if Thursday at 11 works for you.
Tim
-----Original message-----
From: Ken Miller (mail to salmonhood@redwoods.quik.com)
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 9:10 AM
To: Stoen, Tim
Subject: meeting
Hi Tim, I wd like to meet with you to go over the potential filing, in case I can help with any questions. I am pretty available, let me know a good time, Ken.
--
Ken Miller
(home address deleted)
(note: phone numbers will not be included in this post )
___________
-------------------
From: Stoen, Tim
Sent: Tuesday February 18, 2003 5:23 PM
To: 'Ken Miller'
Subject: meeting
Ken,
Paul Gallegos is going to have Worth Dikeman also review the complaint from a very conservative point of view.
I have almost reached the cause of action section. As you can see from the introduction, there are only two causes we can allege at this late date" (1) fraudulent non disclosure for the purpose of avoiding EIR recirculation. (2) fraudulent concealment to FWS and others in lobbying for Option 25.
Please look over all of the factual materials and make corrections or suggestions. I have probably made a number of factual errors because I have not yet gone back to check references.
As you can see I have used alot of your work verbatim.
Tomorrow I will add the recirculation and lobbying elements, and then the three causes of action and send them to you.
Please know we have not yet made a final decision.
Thanks for your great help.
Tim
PAUL V. GALLEGOS
District Attorney of Humboldt County
TIMOTHY O. STOEN
Assistant District Attorney
NANDOR VADAS
Deputy District Attorney
825 Fifth Street, 4th Floor
Eureka, CA 95501
707 445-7416
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT
______
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES, INJUNCTION, RESTITUTION vs
this is page one of a multi page email. the other pages are not included here
___________
-------------------
From: Stoen, Tim
Sent: Wednesday February 19, 2003 4:19 PM
To: Gallegos, Paul
Cc: Vadas, Nandor; Dikeman, Worth; Dawson, James
Subject: Palco Jordan Creek suit
Paul,
I regret to inform you that after researching every angle, there is no way we can avoid the statute of limitations defense on the PALCO Jordan Creek scam. CCP 338 gives a 3-year period for fraud. The only way to get around this is to charge conspiracy with a crime and an overt act occurring within four years.
A corporation cannot be in conspiracy with its own employees or subsidiaries. Therefore the only possible co-conspirator is the consultant, William Weaver. But we have to show he conspired to do the specific violation that occurred within the 4 year statute (and is also an overt act within the statute.)
That violation was getting Richard Wilson, Head of CDF, not to recirculate the EIR under 14 CCR 15088.5, which was violated February 25, 1999. We have absolutely no evidence Weaver personally so conspired, or that he even had knowledge of that EIR recirculation. As a matter of ethics, therefore, we cannot proceed.
I have given Ken Miller the bad news, and I have canceled out appointment for tomorrow at 11.
I encouraged him to send us every other case he comes across so we have the opportunity to act in a timely manner. He is very happy with your willingness to prosecute let the chips fall where they may.
Tim
___________
-------------------
From: Stoen, Tim
Sent: Wednesday February 19, 2003 8:05 AM
To: 'Ken Miller'
Subject: Re: SoLs
Ken,
Here is my memo to Paul Gallegos spelling out the reasons. There is one last minute gambit I am pursuing. If it develops, I will advise you immediately.
MEMO TO PAUL GALLEGOS
Paul,
I regret to inform you that after researching every angle, there is no way we can avoid the statute of limitations defense on the PALCO Jordan Creek scam. CCP 338 gives a 3-year period for fraud. The only way to get around this is to charge conspiracy with a crime and an overt act occurring within four years.
A corporation cannot be in conspiracy with its own employees or subsidiaries. Therefore the only possible co-conspirator is the consultant, William Weaver. But we have to show he conspired to do the specific violation that occurred within the 4 year statute (and is also an overt act within the statute.)
That violation was getting Richard Wilson, Head of CDF, not to recirculate the EIR under 14 CCR 15088.5, which was violated February 25, 1999. We have absolutely no evidence Weaver personally so conspired, or that he even had knowledge of that EIR recirculation. As a matter of ethics, therefore, we cannot proceed.
I have given Ken Miller the bad news, and I have canceled out appointment for tomorrow at 11.
I encouraged him to send us every other case he comes across so we have the opportunity to act in a timely manner. He is very happy with your willingness to prosecute let the chips fall where they may.
Tim
-----Original message-----
From: Ken Miller (mail to salmonhood@redwoods.quik.com)
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 11:29 AM
To: Stoen, Tim
Subject: SoLs
Tim, If you would spell out for me the reasons why this case cannot be brought, I would very much appreciate it. I do not yet understand.
I was excited about the prospects of the $250,000,000, which would sure help the County, even tho it is a small fraction of what Hurwitz has extracted, and an even smaller fraction of the costs of the damages he has left in his wake.
Your proto-petition is succinct and impressive.
Thanks, Ken
--
Ken Miller
(end of this page)
___________
-------------------
From: Stoen, Tim
Sent: Thursday February 20, 2003 1:57 PM
To: Gallegos, Paul
Cc: Vadas, Nandor; Dikeman, Worth
Subject: Re: Revival of Palco Jordan Creek suit - meeting Friday at 3 p,m,
Gentlemen,
I think we can save the PALCO suit by suing for "unfair" business practice rather than "fraudulent." for there is no competing statute of limitations for unfair. I have asked Ken Miller to come to the office tomorrow to discuss it. I will have a draft complaint ready to be reviewed beforehand. Would appreciate all of your showing up - Paul's office - if you are free.
Tim Stoen
___________
-------------------
From: Stoen, Tim
Sent: Thursday February 20, 2003 6:22 PM
To: "Ken Miller"
Subject: Re: New draft, new meeting time of 2:30 p,m,
Ken,
Here is the revised draft. Still have not finished. Please, if you have time, double check all the facts I have lifted from your work, including verbatim quotes and exact dates.
Tomorrow, I will e-mail to you the remainder before 11 a.m.
PAUL V. GALLEGOS
District Attorney of Humboldt County
TIMOTHY O. STOEN
Assistant District Attorney
NANDOR VADAS
Deputy District Attorney
825 Fifth Street, 4th Floor
Eureka, CA 95501
707 445-7416
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT
______
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff NO. CV-
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES, INJUNCTION, AND RESTITUTION vs
(Business & Professions Code)
THE PACIFIC LUMBER COMPANY Section 17200, in re: Headwaters Forest Project
and DOES 1 through 10
Defendants
Unfair Business Acts
this is page one of a multi page email. the other pages are not included here.
___________
-------------------
From: Stoen, Tim
Sent: Thursday February 21, 2003 11:43 AM
To: 'Ken Miller'
Subject: Re: Intimidation
Ken,
YES. GET ME AS MANY FACTS AND DATES OF THE INTIMIDATION ASP.
I will create a separate cause of action entitled Unfair Personal Attack on Opposing Scientist.
Tim
-----Original message-----
From: Ken Miller (mail to salmonhood@redwoods.quik.com)
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2003 9:49 AM
To: Stoen, Tim
Subject: intimidation
PL orchestrated a campaign to intimidate and impeach Dr. Reid, including calling her "almost irresponsible" in the Times Standard, fueling a sign-on letter by extremist Congresspeople including Richard Pombo, Dooley, Helen Chennoweth, one of the Alaska boyz, et al to her than boss at the USFS in DC trying to get her hands off private lands, a letter from Jared carter to Directors of CDF and DFG admonished them to avoid "creating a paper trail" in their deliberations and to abide by the "Mutual Defense Pact" of the Headwaters Agreement (para 7) related to rate of cut in Freshwater and Elk, an outgrowth (sic) of the Jordan scam...
We have the docs if you want to include this kind of thing in your complaint...Ken
--
Ken Miller
(home address deleted)
(phone number deleted)
___________
-------------------
From: Stoen, Tim
Sent: Thursday February 25, 2003 11:22 PM
To: Dawson, James
Cc: Gallegos, Paul
Subject: Re: Use of consultants/percipient witnesses
Jim,
Paul indicated that you were wondering about Ken Miller being in the office yesterday reading the complaint.
Ken was reading the complaint for the purpose of making sure the documentary information he had provided me was accurately summarized in the complaint.
I also used him as an eyewitness on what William Weaver's responses had been to accusations of a scam. Had I not had this benefit, I would have been forced, having circumstantial evidence only, to charge Weaver with intentional misrepresentation, not reckless misrepresentation. So justice towards Mr. Weaver was, hopefully, accomplished.
Ken Miller had nothing to do with my decision to file, my choice of theories, or such other aspects of the complaint.
The only way environmental torts can be litigated is to rely on both eyewitnesses and consultants in the private sector, all of who obviously have some ax to grind. My job is to separate the chaff from the wheat.
The duty of restricting disclosure of our investigation still applies, but only with respect to people who do not have a legitimate interest. Consultants helping us to understand the administrative data do have a legitimate interest.
Please advise if you have questions or wish to discuss this further.
Tim
Friday, April 07, 2006
THE FPPC RESPONSE TO STOEN
The full text of the FPPC's response to Tim Stoen's letter regarding "Raising Funds for prosecution of District Attorney Lawsuit Against Pacific Lumber Company." is included here as the first comment on this post.
While you read this, and the other posts detailing Gallegos and Stoen's efforts to fund the PL lawsuit, think about the important programs in Gallegos' office that have gone begging. Think about the services that have been lost. Think about the people who have lost their jobs in the Victim Witness Unit. Think about the jobs that could have been saved if one iota of this effort went into seeking grant funding for those positions and programs.
Think about Gallegos' claim to be "doing more with less."
Think about that as you see Gallegos planning concerts to raise funds to go after one business, see Stoen asking if he can contribute personally to fund a lawsuit he is prosecuting.
Maybe you'll agree with me that Gallegos claims of impartiality are patently false.
*****************
RELATED:
Read second - GALLEGOS' REQUEST FOR OPINION
The complete text of Paul Gallegos' REQUEST FOR OPINION, which he submitted to the Attorney General's Office
TIM STOEN'S LETTER TO THE FPPC
Paul Gallegos' and Tim Stoen's efforts to privately fund the PL lawsuit took many forms.
THE FPPC RESPONSE TO STOEN
The full text of the FPPC's response to Tim Stoen's letter regarding "Raising Funds for prosecution of District Attorney Lawsuit Against Pacific Lumber Company."
SUBMISSION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS DEPARTMENT regarding Gallegos' Request for Opinion and Salzman's Plan
While you read this, and the other posts detailing Gallegos and Stoen's efforts to fund the PL lawsuit, think about the important programs in Gallegos' office that have gone begging. Think about the services that have been lost. Think about the people who have lost their jobs in the Victim Witness Unit. Think about the jobs that could have been saved if one iota of this effort went into seeking grant funding for those positions and programs.
Think about Gallegos' claim to be "doing more with less."
Think about that as you see Gallegos planning concerts to raise funds to go after one business, see Stoen asking if he can contribute personally to fund a lawsuit he is prosecuting.
Maybe you'll agree with me that Gallegos claims of impartiality are patently false.
*****************
RELATED:
Read second - GALLEGOS' REQUEST FOR OPINION
The complete text of Paul Gallegos' REQUEST FOR OPINION, which he submitted to the Attorney General's Office
TIM STOEN'S LETTER TO THE FPPC
Paul Gallegos' and Tim Stoen's efforts to privately fund the PL lawsuit took many forms.
THE FPPC RESPONSE TO STOEN
The full text of the FPPC's response to Tim Stoen's letter regarding "Raising Funds for prosecution of District Attorney Lawsuit Against Pacific Lumber Company."
SUBMISSION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS DEPARTMENT regarding Gallegos' Request for Opinion and Salzman's Plan
TIM STOEN'S LETTER TO THE FPPC
Paul Gallegos' and Tim Stoen's efforts to privately fund the PL lawsuit took many forms.
In this letter to the FPPC regarding Raising Funds for prosecution of District Attorney Lawsuit Against Pacific Lumber Company, Stoen actually asks:
"5. If necessary, could I make a contribution from my personal funds to pay for deposition costs even though I am the attorney prosecuting the case?"
The full text of that letter will be posted as the first comment in this post.
The next post is the FPPC's response.
Do you think it is OK for the prosecuting attorney to be so vested in the lawsuit he is prosecuting against you that he will put his own money in to fund it?
What else will Stoen and Gallegos do "for the cause"?
*****************
RELATED:
Read second - GALLEGOS' REQUEST FOR OPINION
The complete text of Paul Gallegos' REQUEST FOR OPINION, which he submitted to the Attorney General's Office
TIM STOEN'S LETTER TO THE FPPC
Paul Gallegos' and Tim Stoen's efforts to privately fund the PL lawsuit took many forms.
THE FPPC RESPONSE TO STOEN
The full text of the FPPC's response to Tim Stoen's letter regarding "Raising Funds for prosecution of District Attorney Lawsuit Against Pacific Lumber Company."
SUBMISSION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS DEPARTMENT regarding Gallegos' Request for Opinion and Salzman's Plan
In this letter to the FPPC regarding Raising Funds for prosecution of District Attorney Lawsuit Against Pacific Lumber Company, Stoen actually asks:
"5. If necessary, could I make a contribution from my personal funds to pay for deposition costs even though I am the attorney prosecuting the case?"
The full text of that letter will be posted as the first comment in this post.
The next post is the FPPC's response.
Do you think it is OK for the prosecuting attorney to be so vested in the lawsuit he is prosecuting against you that he will put his own money in to fund it?
What else will Stoen and Gallegos do "for the cause"?
*****************
RELATED:
Read second - GALLEGOS' REQUEST FOR OPINION
The complete text of Paul Gallegos' REQUEST FOR OPINION, which he submitted to the Attorney General's Office
TIM STOEN'S LETTER TO THE FPPC
Paul Gallegos' and Tim Stoen's efforts to privately fund the PL lawsuit took many forms.
THE FPPC RESPONSE TO STOEN
The full text of the FPPC's response to Tim Stoen's letter regarding "Raising Funds for prosecution of District Attorney Lawsuit Against Pacific Lumber Company."
SUBMISSION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS DEPARTMENT regarding Gallegos' Request for Opinion and Salzman's Plan
Read second - GALLEGOS' REQUEST FOR OPINION
The complete text of Paul Gallegos' REQUEST FOR OPINION, which he submitted to the Attorney General's Office, is included below
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.
****************************************
The Request for Opinion:
Off ice of the District Attorney of Humboldt County letterhead
pg. 1 of 3
To:
Honorable Bill Lockyer Date: March 29, 2004
Attorney General of California
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Re: Request for Formal Opinion - Authority of a board of supervisors to establish a trust fund to receive gifts from the public earmarked for the district attorney to use in the prosecution of particular cases.
Dear Mr. Attorney general:
Our office is considering the making of a request to the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors to establish a Trust Fund under Government Code section 23555 for the purpose of receiving donations from the public to subsidize district attorney operations. In addition to general gifts, that section authorizes a board to dispose of such property "for those lawful uses and purposes as are prescribed in the terms of the gift, bequest, or devise."
Because we anticipate that some members of the public will be making gifts earmarked for the district attorney to use in the prosecution of particular cases, including both criminal actions and Unfair Competition Law civil actions, we are requesting a formal opinion from you as to whether this is acceptable.
I.
Question presented
Does a board of supervisors have the authority to establish a Trust Fund to receive gifts from the public earmarked for the district attorney to use in the prosecution of particular criminal and civil cases?
pg.2 of 3
Honorable Bill Lockyer
March 29, 2004
Re: Trust Fund
Page 2
II.
Discussion
Our reading of the law is that such earmarked gifts would be upheld under the leading case of Hambarian v. Superior Court (2002) 27 Cal.4th 826. In that case the California Supreme Court refused to recuse a district attorney from a case where it received $450,000 worth of forensic accounting services from a victim city. In our situation, it appears there would be even less possibility of undue influence when the financial assistance comes from members of the general public who will not be direct victims in the earmarked case.
In Hambarian the Supreme Court adopted, as the test for recual, the same as it had used in People v. Eubanks (1996) 14 Cal.4th 580: whether the financial assistance if of "a nature and magnitude likely to put the prosecutor's discretionary decisionmaking within the influence or control of an interested party" (Hambarian, at p. 835) In doing so, it distinguished its holding from Eubanks, in which it had ordered recusal:
Our decision in Eubanks did not purport to fix a limit on the financial assistance that may be provided by an aggrieved victim. Rather we stated that the trial court would have been within its discretion to find a likelihood of unfairness where the crime victim, Borland International (Borland), was asked to pay for substantial investigative expenses already incurred by the prosecutor. The problem was not the 'fact' of the investigatory assistance itself, but the 'potential bias arising out of the district attorney's sense of obligation to Borland...."
***
"In discussing the existence of the disabling conflict, we did not rely merely on 'the fact of investigatory assistance itself" and consequently declined to hold that a victim's financial assistance of any amount 'necessarily subjects the defendant to unfair prosecutorial treatment.' [Citation] We required the defendant instead to show that the financial assistance is of a "nature and magnitude likely to put the prosecutor's discretionary decisionmaking within the influence or control of an interested party." [Citation] That likelihood existed in Eubanks from 'the...
pg. 3 of 3
Honorable Bill Lockyer
March 29, 2004
Re: Trust Fund
Page 3
... possible sense of obligation the district attorney would feel for Borland's payment of a debt owed by the district attorney's office,' an obligation derived from the fact that the district attorney had asked Borland to discharged a sizable debt the office had already incurred. [Citation]
***
In Eubanks, the victim, Borland, was a competitor of the Symantec Corporation, whose president and chief executive officer was one of the defendants in the criminal prosecution. [Citation] One risk of Borland's involvement in the district attorney's prosecution was that the prosecution itself could be used as a strategic weapon to disrupt and distract competitor fro reasons wholly unrelated to the public administration of justice."
(Hambarian, 27 Cal4th at pp. 834, 835, 837, italics as in the opinion.)
III.
Conclusion
Based on Hambarian, it appears that our board of supervisors could establish a trust account able to accept earmarked funds for particular cases from members of the general public, who would not, either under that case or Eubanks, be deemed "an interested party," To make sure there could be no possible "interested party" issue, we would propose that such an ordinance prohibit earmarked gifts from any direct competitors of the persons being prosecuted.
We would greatly appreciate your being willing to provide us a formal opinion at your earliest convenience.
Very truly yours,
Paul V. Gallegos
District Attorney
*******
RELATED:
Read second - GALLEGOS' REQUEST FOR OPINION
The complete text of Paul Gallegos' REQUEST FOR OPINION, which he submitted to the Attorney General's Office
TIM STOEN'S LETTER TO THE FPPC
Paul Gallegos' and Tim Stoen's efforts to privately fund the PL lawsuit took many forms.
THE FPPC RESPONSE TO STOEN
The full text of the FPPC's response to Tim Stoen's letter regarding "Raising Funds for prosecution of District Attorney Lawsuit Against Pacific Lumber Company."
SUBMISSION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS DEPARTMENT regarding Gallegos' Request for Opinion and Salzman's Plan
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.
****************************************
The Request for Opinion:
Off ice of the District Attorney of Humboldt County letterhead
pg. 1 of 3
To:
Honorable Bill Lockyer Date: March 29, 2004
Attorney General of California
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Re: Request for Formal Opinion - Authority of a board of supervisors to establish a trust fund to receive gifts from the public earmarked for the district attorney to use in the prosecution of particular cases.
Dear Mr. Attorney general:
Our office is considering the making of a request to the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors to establish a Trust Fund under Government Code section 23555 for the purpose of receiving donations from the public to subsidize district attorney operations. In addition to general gifts, that section authorizes a board to dispose of such property "for those lawful uses and purposes as are prescribed in the terms of the gift, bequest, or devise."
Because we anticipate that some members of the public will be making gifts earmarked for the district attorney to use in the prosecution of particular cases, including both criminal actions and Unfair Competition Law civil actions, we are requesting a formal opinion from you as to whether this is acceptable.
I.
Question presented
Does a board of supervisors have the authority to establish a Trust Fund to receive gifts from the public earmarked for the district attorney to use in the prosecution of particular criminal and civil cases?
pg.2 of 3
Honorable Bill Lockyer
March 29, 2004
Re: Trust Fund
Page 2
II.
Discussion
Our reading of the law is that such earmarked gifts would be upheld under the leading case of Hambarian v. Superior Court (2002) 27 Cal.4th 826. In that case the California Supreme Court refused to recuse a district attorney from a case where it received $450,000 worth of forensic accounting services from a victim city. In our situation, it appears there would be even less possibility of undue influence when the financial assistance comes from members of the general public who will not be direct victims in the earmarked case.
In Hambarian the Supreme Court adopted, as the test for recual, the same as it had used in People v. Eubanks (1996) 14 Cal.4th 580: whether the financial assistance if of "a nature and magnitude likely to put the prosecutor's discretionary decisionmaking within the influence or control of an interested party" (Hambarian, at p. 835) In doing so, it distinguished its holding from Eubanks, in which it had ordered recusal:
Our decision in Eubanks did not purport to fix a limit on the financial assistance that may be provided by an aggrieved victim. Rather we stated that the trial court would have been within its discretion to find a likelihood of unfairness where the crime victim, Borland International (Borland), was asked to pay for substantial investigative expenses already incurred by the prosecutor. The problem was not the 'fact' of the investigatory assistance itself, but the 'potential bias arising out of the district attorney's sense of obligation to Borland...."
***
"In discussing the existence of the disabling conflict, we did not rely merely on 'the fact of investigatory assistance itself" and consequently declined to hold that a victim's financial assistance of any amount 'necessarily subjects the defendant to unfair prosecutorial treatment.' [Citation] We required the defendant instead to show that the financial assistance is of a "nature and magnitude likely to put the prosecutor's discretionary decisionmaking within the influence or control of an interested party." [Citation] That likelihood existed in Eubanks from 'the...
pg. 3 of 3
Honorable Bill Lockyer
March 29, 2004
Re: Trust Fund
Page 3
... possible sense of obligation the district attorney would feel for Borland's payment of a debt owed by the district attorney's office,' an obligation derived from the fact that the district attorney had asked Borland to discharged a sizable debt the office had already incurred. [Citation]
***
In Eubanks, the victim, Borland, was a competitor of the Symantec Corporation, whose president and chief executive officer was one of the defendants in the criminal prosecution. [Citation] One risk of Borland's involvement in the district attorney's prosecution was that the prosecution itself could be used as a strategic weapon to disrupt and distract competitor fro reasons wholly unrelated to the public administration of justice."
(Hambarian, 27 Cal4th at pp. 834, 835, 837, italics as in the opinion.)
III.
Conclusion
Based on Hambarian, it appears that our board of supervisors could establish a trust account able to accept earmarked funds for particular cases from members of the general public, who would not, either under that case or Eubanks, be deemed "an interested party," To make sure there could be no possible "interested party" issue, we would propose that such an ordinance prohibit earmarked gifts from any direct competitors of the persons being prosecuted.
We would greatly appreciate your being willing to provide us a formal opinion at your earliest convenience.
Very truly yours,
Paul V. Gallegos
District Attorney
*******
RELATED:
Read second - GALLEGOS' REQUEST FOR OPINION
The complete text of Paul Gallegos' REQUEST FOR OPINION, which he submitted to the Attorney General's Office
TIM STOEN'S LETTER TO THE FPPC
Paul Gallegos' and Tim Stoen's efforts to privately fund the PL lawsuit took many forms.
THE FPPC RESPONSE TO STOEN
The full text of the FPPC's response to Tim Stoen's letter regarding "Raising Funds for prosecution of District Attorney Lawsuit Against Pacific Lumber Company."
SUBMISSION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS DEPARTMENT regarding Gallegos' Request for Opinion and Salzman's Plan
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 shown 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
****
RELATED:
Read second - GALLEGOS' REQUEST FOR OPINION
The complete text of Paul Gallegos' REQUEST FOR OPINION, which he submitted to the Attorney General's Office
TIM STOEN'S LETTER TO THE FPPC
Paul Gallegos' and Tim Stoen's efforts to privately fund the PL lawsuit took many forms.
THE FPPC RESPONSE TO STOEN
The full text of the FPPC's response to Tim Stoen's letter regarding "Raising Funds for prosecution of District Attorney Lawsuit Against Pacific Lumber Company."
SUBMISSION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS DEPARTMENT regarding Gallegos' Request for Opinion and Salzman's Plan
"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 shown 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
****
RELATED:
Read second - GALLEGOS' REQUEST FOR OPINION
The complete text of Paul Gallegos' REQUEST FOR OPINION, which he submitted to the Attorney General's Office
TIM STOEN'S LETTER TO THE FPPC
Paul Gallegos' and Tim Stoen's efforts to privately fund the PL lawsuit took many forms.
THE FPPC RESPONSE TO STOEN
The full text of the FPPC's response to Tim Stoen's letter regarding "Raising Funds for prosecution of District Attorney Lawsuit Against Pacific Lumber Company."
SUBMISSION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS DEPARTMENT regarding Gallegos' Request for Opinion and Salzman's Plan
Monday, March 27, 2006
Gallegos' campaign defends use of polling; calls it 'standard practice'
◼ Gallegos' campaign defends use of polling; calls it 'standard practice' - James Faulk The Times-Standard (Saved, scrapbook style, for the record) Note: Eureka Reporter Articles relating to this same subject disappeared when the paper closed and shut down their online site.
EUREKA -- The campaign to re-elect District Attorney Paul Gallegos is defending a decision to spend $5,000 of its campaign money on polling.
One local critic has claimed that the polls actually asked about prominent local businessman Rob Arkley.
But when asked about the polling, and the questions that were included, Gallegos' campaign manager, Allison Sterling Nichols, said the poll has underscored Gallegos' good position in the campaign.
”Our poll confirmed that a majority of Humboldt residents think Paul is doing a great job and are impressed with his success of taking violent criminals off our streets and reducing violent crime rates in Humboldt County,” she said. “People agree with Paul's priorities of public safety, integrity in office, and equal justice for all.”
Polling is part of the political landscape, she said.
”Polling is standard practice for campaigns, and including the names of other prominent community leaders or politicians is also standard practice -- it gives a benchmark to compare other results to,” she said.
Dave Parris, campaign manager for Gallegos' opponent, Worth Dikeman, said polling is a legitimate campaign strategy, but that push polling -- designed to sway public opinion rather than gauge it -- is inappropriate.
He also said using a local person's name in the poll without their permission -- such as Rob Arkley -- is also problematic.
”What does that have to do with running your campaign?”
Jerry Partain, whose daughter received a polling phone call, said the call came from outside the area.
”It's interesting that the same people who don't want corporation outside the county to have anything to do with local elections hire people outside the area to make these calls,” he said.
Partain, a prominent local conservative, also said that he believes the polls were not seeking the public's opinion, but were rather trying to push the public into supporting Gallegos.
According to his financial disclosures, Gallegos paid Julie Francis of Bellavia Research for the surveys. Partain said the call to his daughter came from out of the area.
”If we're going to keep it local, hire local people to do the surveys,” he said.
****
Gallegos Poll Accusations Way Off Base
Rocky Drill, MY WORD for the Times-Standard
April 7, 2006
In a recent Times-Standard article by James Faulk (March 27), Jerry Partain (local conservative opinion maker) and Dave Parris (Worth Dikeman's campaign manager) both accused Paul Gallegos' campaign of conducting a negative telephone poll called a "push poll" that is used to sway public opinion. They also accused the Gallegos campaign of belittling Rob Arkley's name in the telephone poll and of being disingenuous because they hired an out-of-town firm to conduct the poll. Wrong on all counts! Let's get the facts straight.
1) James Faulk of the T-S first interviewed Alison Sterling Nichols (Paul Gallegos' campaign manager). He asked a lot of questions about the poll and got a lot of answers but there were no questions about whether the poll was a "push poll."
2) James Faulk then interviewed Jerry Partain and Dave Parris concerning the same poll. Both of them suggested this was a "push poll" but they gave no reasons to support their assertion.
3) James Faulk did not talk to Alison Sterling Nichols again and ask her to respond to these unsupported accusations of "push polling." If he had he would have learned that the Gallegos poll was not a "push poll." "Push polls" call thousands of people and each telephone conversation is only about 1 minute long. Compare this to the Gallegos poll where only 300 people were interviewed and the average telephone polling time was 18-20 minutes. A "push poll" mostly focuses on only one person and happens so fast you don't have time to think. The Gallegos campaign's poll was about as long as any poll ever gets and asked questions on many topics.
4) Dave Parris also suggested that using a local person's name in the poll (e.g. Rob Arkley) without their permission is problematic. That's garbage! Rob Arkley and other prominent conservatives (e.g. Jerry Partain) are major opinion makers in the county. As public figures they should expect that their names will be used in public discussions. The intent of the Gallegos campaign's poll was to gauge other people's opinions, not to create those opinions. Questions were asked about Gallegos and other politicians and prominent citizens in Humboldt County. If a poll, for example, asked the public what they thought about product A, I would expect the pollster to also ask for their opinions of competing products B and C. Whether polling about a product, an issue, or a politician, why not get as much information as possible?
5) Jerry Partain suggested that the Gallegos campaign hired an out-of-the-area company to conduct their poll. Wrong again! They hired Julie Francis, a local pollster who runs Bellavia Research. Since her company is small, she does not have an in-house call center (a centralized location with many phones and the trained pollsters to use those phones) so she contracted with a call center in the Bay Area. Actually, it is important that the call center not be located in the area that is being surveyed because the poll needs to be as unbiased as possible to be accurate. If the call center was staffed with local people, a caller might know someone who they're calling or might be involved in the local politics they are asking questions about and could influence their responses.
6) Jerry Partain also tried to connect the Gallegos' campaign to Measure T, but in a negative manner. He suggested that the Gallegos campaign is backing Measure T at the polls but is not living up to its intent, since it is sending money out of the area to hire a non-local corporation (the pollster that is actually local) for political purposes. Wrong again! The purpose of Measure T is just the exact opposite. Measure T wants to stop non-local corporations from sending money into Humboldt County for political purposes, not out of the county.
It's too bad that in politics it doesn't matter if what you say is true or not, only that you say it. It isn't illegal to accuse someone of something even if it's just an opinion that can't be backed up with proof. People will remember the accusation, not the reasons for the accusation. That's what Jerry Partain and Dave Parris are doing. Their comments are all just innuendo, with no proof, nothing more. Don't let them sway you. Think!
Rocky Drill, who has an engineering degree from Humboldt State University, tutors math part-time and sings in the Arcata Interfaith Gospel Choir. He lives in Arcata.
The opinions expressed in My Word pieces do not necessarily reflect the editorial viewpoint of the Times-Standard.
EUREKA -- The campaign to re-elect District Attorney Paul Gallegos is defending a decision to spend $5,000 of its campaign money on polling.
One local critic has claimed that the polls actually asked about prominent local businessman Rob Arkley.
But when asked about the polling, and the questions that were included, Gallegos' campaign manager, Allison Sterling Nichols, said the poll has underscored Gallegos' good position in the campaign.
”Our poll confirmed that a majority of Humboldt residents think Paul is doing a great job and are impressed with his success of taking violent criminals off our streets and reducing violent crime rates in Humboldt County,” she said. “People agree with Paul's priorities of public safety, integrity in office, and equal justice for all.”
Polling is part of the political landscape, she said.
”Polling is standard practice for campaigns, and including the names of other prominent community leaders or politicians is also standard practice -- it gives a benchmark to compare other results to,” she said.
Dave Parris, campaign manager for Gallegos' opponent, Worth Dikeman, said polling is a legitimate campaign strategy, but that push polling -- designed to sway public opinion rather than gauge it -- is inappropriate.
He also said using a local person's name in the poll without their permission -- such as Rob Arkley -- is also problematic.
”What does that have to do with running your campaign?”
Jerry Partain, whose daughter received a polling phone call, said the call came from outside the area.
”It's interesting that the same people who don't want corporation outside the county to have anything to do with local elections hire people outside the area to make these calls,” he said.
Partain, a prominent local conservative, also said that he believes the polls were not seeking the public's opinion, but were rather trying to push the public into supporting Gallegos.
According to his financial disclosures, Gallegos paid Julie Francis of Bellavia Research for the surveys. Partain said the call to his daughter came from out of the area.
”If we're going to keep it local, hire local people to do the surveys,” he said.
****
Gallegos Poll Accusations Way Off Base
Rocky Drill, MY WORD for the Times-Standard
April 7, 2006
In a recent Times-Standard article by James Faulk (March 27), Jerry Partain (local conservative opinion maker) and Dave Parris (Worth Dikeman's campaign manager) both accused Paul Gallegos' campaign of conducting a negative telephone poll called a "push poll" that is used to sway public opinion. They also accused the Gallegos campaign of belittling Rob Arkley's name in the telephone poll and of being disingenuous because they hired an out-of-town firm to conduct the poll. Wrong on all counts! Let's get the facts straight.
1) James Faulk of the T-S first interviewed Alison Sterling Nichols (Paul Gallegos' campaign manager). He asked a lot of questions about the poll and got a lot of answers but there were no questions about whether the poll was a "push poll."
2) James Faulk then interviewed Jerry Partain and Dave Parris concerning the same poll. Both of them suggested this was a "push poll" but they gave no reasons to support their assertion.
3) James Faulk did not talk to Alison Sterling Nichols again and ask her to respond to these unsupported accusations of "push polling." If he had he would have learned that the Gallegos poll was not a "push poll." "Push polls" call thousands of people and each telephone conversation is only about 1 minute long. Compare this to the Gallegos poll where only 300 people were interviewed and the average telephone polling time was 18-20 minutes. A "push poll" mostly focuses on only one person and happens so fast you don't have time to think. The Gallegos campaign's poll was about as long as any poll ever gets and asked questions on many topics.
4) Dave Parris also suggested that using a local person's name in the poll (e.g. Rob Arkley) without their permission is problematic. That's garbage! Rob Arkley and other prominent conservatives (e.g. Jerry Partain) are major opinion makers in the county. As public figures they should expect that their names will be used in public discussions. The intent of the Gallegos campaign's poll was to gauge other people's opinions, not to create those opinions. Questions were asked about Gallegos and other politicians and prominent citizens in Humboldt County. If a poll, for example, asked the public what they thought about product A, I would expect the pollster to also ask for their opinions of competing products B and C. Whether polling about a product, an issue, or a politician, why not get as much information as possible?
5) Jerry Partain suggested that the Gallegos campaign hired an out-of-the-area company to conduct their poll. Wrong again! They hired Julie Francis, a local pollster who runs Bellavia Research. Since her company is small, she does not have an in-house call center (a centralized location with many phones and the trained pollsters to use those phones) so she contracted with a call center in the Bay Area. Actually, it is important that the call center not be located in the area that is being surveyed because the poll needs to be as unbiased as possible to be accurate. If the call center was staffed with local people, a caller might know someone who they're calling or might be involved in the local politics they are asking questions about and could influence their responses.
6) Jerry Partain also tried to connect the Gallegos' campaign to Measure T, but in a negative manner. He suggested that the Gallegos campaign is backing Measure T at the polls but is not living up to its intent, since it is sending money out of the area to hire a non-local corporation (the pollster that is actually local) for political purposes. Wrong again! The purpose of Measure T is just the exact opposite. Measure T wants to stop non-local corporations from sending money into Humboldt County for political purposes, not out of the county.
It's too bad that in politics it doesn't matter if what you say is true or not, only that you say it. It isn't illegal to accuse someone of something even if it's just an opinion that can't be backed up with proof. People will remember the accusation, not the reasons for the accusation. That's what Jerry Partain and Dave Parris are doing. Their comments are all just innuendo, with no proof, nothing more. Don't let them sway you. Think!
Rocky Drill, who has an engineering degree from Humboldt State University, tutors math part-time and sings in the Arcata Interfaith Gospel Choir. He lives in Arcata.
The opinions expressed in My Word pieces do not necessarily reflect the editorial viewpoint of the Times-Standard.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
The Big Money Backs...
◼ The Big Money Backs... - Fred's Humboldt Blog THURSDAY, MARCH 23, 2006 (including comments, which are an important part of the record)
Paul Gallegos, at least so far, in the race for District Attorney. Interesting indeed, according to this story in the Eureka Reporter, that Gallegos has outraised Dikeman in the first reporting period with Gallegos bringing in $32,258 in monetary contributions to Dikeman's $13,505.
Even more interesting is where Paul "Vote Local Control" Gallegos' largest contributions came from: $10,000 from some "retired NEW MEXICO resident"(???) and $5000 from some "retired BERKELEY resident"(???). Oh, I guess that's ok. Those are people, not corporations, right?
Worth Dikeman's largest contributions were local.
************
Jerry Partain had a commentary that dealt a little with the Gallegos campaign in today's ER. He tells of his daughter getting a phone call. The caller was from out of the area doing one of those "push polls" on behalf of the Gallegos campaign. Push polls are those polls where they ask loaded questions to set you up for their sales pitch.
While the phone calls from outside the area for a local campaign seemed to raise concerns with Jerry Partain, I was more interested in why they would ask his daughter how she felt about Rob Arkley. Hmm... I mentioned before I wondered if the Arkleys would be backing Gallegos again as they did last time around. So far I haven't heard anything in regards to that.
So what were they going to ask her that involved Arkley? Too bad she hung up on the caller. I can't help but wonder if they had it set up with two possible answers:
If the girl said she felt ok with the Arkleys, the caller could then say how the Arkleys supported Gallegos' last run for the D.A.'s office. If she said she thought the Arkleys were greedy, rich people, the caller could then say that Gallegos opposes the Arkley's Marina Center proposal, or some such. I could be wrong on that. That's just my guess.
I never hang up on those political push poll type calls. There's often interesting info that can be gleaned from them. Again, it's too bad Jerry's daughter ended the phone call prematurely. Anyone else get one of those calls from the Gallegos campaign? If so, please do tell us how it went and what exactly the questions about Arkley were about.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 8:06 AM
52 Comments:
At 10:27 AM, Rose said...
No, Pacific Crest Research did the polling.
At 10:18 PM, Anonymous said...
Paul Gallegos, at least so far, in the race for District Attorney. Interesting indeed, according to this story in the Eureka Reporter, that Gallegos has outraised Dikeman in the first reporting period with Gallegos bringing in $32,258 in monetary contributions to Dikeman's $13,505.
Even more interesting is where Paul "Vote Local Control" Gallegos' largest contributions came from: $10,000 from some "retired NEW MEXICO resident"(???) and $5000 from some "retired BERKELEY resident"(???). Oh, I guess that's ok. Those are people, not corporations, right?
Worth Dikeman's largest contributions were local.
************
Jerry Partain had a commentary that dealt a little with the Gallegos campaign in today's ER. He tells of his daughter getting a phone call. The caller was from out of the area doing one of those "push polls" on behalf of the Gallegos campaign. Push polls are those polls where they ask loaded questions to set you up for their sales pitch.
While the phone calls from outside the area for a local campaign seemed to raise concerns with Jerry Partain, I was more interested in why they would ask his daughter how she felt about Rob Arkley. Hmm... I mentioned before I wondered if the Arkleys would be backing Gallegos again as they did last time around. So far I haven't heard anything in regards to that.
So what were they going to ask her that involved Arkley? Too bad she hung up on the caller. I can't help but wonder if they had it set up with two possible answers:
If the girl said she felt ok with the Arkleys, the caller could then say how the Arkleys supported Gallegos' last run for the D.A.'s office. If she said she thought the Arkleys were greedy, rich people, the caller could then say that Gallegos opposes the Arkley's Marina Center proposal, or some such. I could be wrong on that. That's just my guess.
I never hang up on those political push poll type calls. There's often interesting info that can be gleaned from them. Again, it's too bad Jerry's daughter ended the phone call prematurely. Anyone else get one of those calls from the Gallegos campaign? If so, please do tell us how it went and what exactly the questions about Arkley were about.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 8:06 AM
52 Comments:
At 10:27 AM, Rose said...
So-o-o-o-o-o - I am just wondering - - - -How can you be AGAINST outside CORPORATE influence, and then PAY BIG BUCKS for a push poll by AN OUTSIDE CORPORATION?At 10:37 AM, Anonymous said...
That push poll is being conducted by a large non-local corporation, Pacific Crest Research.
Pacific Crest Research has a record of doing exactly what you said, Fred - using Push Polls to attempt to influence, not measure, public opinion. A Push Poll is a particularly nasty little tool.
In this particular poll, they ask several times throughout the approximately 35 minute session - "if the election were held today, who would you vote for - Paul or Dikeman?" Then several times they say "OK - I'm giving you a second chance - if the election were held today..." - then "Last Chance, if the election were held today..."
They also define "Progressive" as "mainstream."
Here are some links to give you more information about Pacific Crest Research. (Paul's campaign disclosure, according to a story in the ER today lists payment to Bellavia Research (could that be these guys? Bellavia Research Institute on Addictions), not Pacific Crest Research.
Here's one piece of info on Pacific Crest Research... http://www.morankikerbrown.com/CM/Articles/EVIDENCE%20ELIMINATOR%20CASE.pdf#search='Pacific%20Crest%20Research'
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 (PDF)
... Pacific Crest Research Corporation, which is named as a co-defendant ...
www.morankikerbrown.com/CM/Articles/EVIDENCE ELIMINATOR CASE.pdf - 114k - View as html - More from this site - Save
Matthew Hewitt, incorporated and operates PACIFIC CREST RESEARCH CORPORATION
Essentially - When being sued in Federal Court, the guy destroyed evidence when ordered to produce his original hard drive, he erased it - they caught him at it, and struck his statement, and entered a default judgment against him...
Here's another where Pacifc Crest is working for a big developer:
http://www.brooklynpapers.com/html/issues/_vol28/28_13/28_13nets1.html
Pollsters push Ratner arena
"...Hagan, who has spoken out against Atlantic Yards since she first heard of Ratner’s plans for the mega-development just blocks from her home, said several of the questions featured “leading” or inaccurate and biased language, a key feature of “push polling.” Push polling attempts to influence — rather than measure — public opinion — by using questions worded in a manner intended to spread information that is often incorrect about people and positions that run counter to the position of the poll’s client."
The push poller identified himself as being from Pacific Crest Research out of Oakland. Non-local Corporation!At 10:43 AM, Anonymous said...
check them out there are articles about them
or just google them.
The questions were very inaccurate and biased The poller seemed to be trying to influence " rather than measure my opinion. The questions had misinformation and seemed intended to spread misinformation about Gallegos's poor record. They also were designed to spread misinformation to malign Mr. Dikeman.
Generally, anyone with ethics would never stoop so low. Guess that is why Gallegos and Salzman chose them.
And yes Fred - I have ALL OF THE QUESTIONS.
If Gallegos were in touch with the local community, he would not need to hire pollsters to find out how they feel.At 10:56 AM, Rose said...
This is not about finding out how people feel about him, its about misinforming and misleading people---but hey, isn't that what the past grand jury foreperson (Marlow) accused him of in a letter to a judge. At least that is what was in the Times Standard article I read.
Fred, I just sent you a list of the question. While quickly scribbled it is a pretty accurate rendition of the session.At 11:05 AM, Anonymous said...
In the questions you can see what Gallegos hopes people will get out of it - particularly interesting is the notion that he has brought innovative new programs (new focus) to the DA's office, and that this appears to mean 'Homeless Court' and 'Drug Treatment on Demand.'
While it may be that he wants to take credit for it - to my knowledge Paul did not think up Homeless Court; it is something that is done in other parts of the state, and a defense attorney in the Alternate Conflict Counsel Office had more to do with it than anyone else locally.
Regarding Drug Treatment on Demand - The voters passed "Prop. 36," which requires drug treatment for possessory offenses, absent limited other circumstances. So, by law defendants must receive drug treatment in many instances.
The way I see it - Paul's handlers are weaving a fairy tale around him, wrapping him in the flag and making claims like these.
"Local Control"?At 11:06 AM, Rose said...
Gallegos hires out of area corporation for polling and takes out of area contributions. How surprising that once again Gallegos is speaking out of both side of his arse.
Here are the questions: (note scribbled during the call, caught the gist of it)At 11:27 AM, Fred said...
Regarding Paul
Rank: Strongly agree, somewhat agree, Somewhat disagree, Strongly disagree
1. Violent crime has gone down while Paul is in office.
2. Politics have become unnecessarily negative
3 Non-local corporations should be prohibited from contributing to political races
4. As top law enforcement official the DA should be independent from the cops
5. We should protect the environment
6. Recall wrong?
7. Community is safer today than it was 4 years ago
8. Do you believe that crime can be prevented through drug treatment?
9. Humboldt County is too Progressive? (he defined it as mainstream when questioned)
10. DAs job to manage the office but also to prosecute
11. Regarding people and associations (positive or negative)
DDA Dikeman
Eureka Police Department
DA Paul Gallegos
Palco
Rob Arkley
Terry Farmer
12. Rate how the DA is doing his job - excellent good fair poor
13. Who do you support in the DAs race
14. How did you vote in the Recall for or against?
15. Paul has done his job since then - agree or not?
16. Statements Paul makes in the DAs race:
Leadership of the Da
No one is above the Law (Palco or tree-sitters equal)
Paul prosecutes cases unlike his predecessor
Paul brings a fresh perspective
As father of 3 young kids, Paul cares about quality of life
Under budget cuts, does more with less
More criminals going to jail now
New focus - drug court and drug treatment on demand
Taking old index cards and computerizing the information, modernizing the office
AG stats, lowest crime rate under Paul
If election held today, Dikeman or Gallegos (second chance)
Statements against Paul by Dikeman
Victim Witness
Salzman tarnished his image
Paul has a poor relationship with law enforcement
PL lawsuit a waste of time?
Grand Jury report hurt him, yes or no?
Fraud lawsuit proved Paul had an environmentalist's agenda?
Too much time in court, not enough managing the office
Unprecedented # of DAs left the office
Statements supporting Dikeman
Dikeman knows what the office needs (because he has had three years under Paul)
Dikeman work for restoration and stability in the office
Bring back experienced prosecutors
Restoration of stability seen under Farmer
Dikeman likely to be endorsed by EPD and other law enforcement
Leadership necessary to manage the office
More aggressive at prosecuting pot than Gallegos
Focus on violent crime, not white collar crime
Statements against Dikeman
showed unethical behavior by playing tape at press conference
if elected he will direct resources away from violent crime prosecution
to aggressively going after small medical marijuana grows
incorrect crime statistics released by Dikeman - is that a negative?
same people backing Dikeman that backed the Recall
Dikeman's poor prosecution record high number of trials lost
Dikeman elected, office will stop innovative new programs developed under Paul
Dikeman elected return to good old boy network
# of years you have lived in Humboldt Co?
Employed?
Political persuasion conservative, slightly conservative, progressive or liberal?
Thanks for the updates, all.At 11:35 AM, Anonymous said...
They asked,"Political persuasion conservative, slightly conservative, progressive or liberal?".
What...libertarian wasn't a choice?
Doesn't Libertarian encompass all, Fred?At 12:08 PM, Fred said...
I guess that depends how you look at it, 1135. I like to think libertarians are in their own separate category.At 12:33 PM, Rose said...
BTW, all; I still wonder why they brought up Arkley in their questionnaire? How are they planning to use that info in regards to Arkley?
Because Salzman is at war with Arkley.At 12:39 PM, Anonymous said...
How do you know it was a poll done by Gallegos?At 12:41 PM, Anonymous said...
There have been polls in the past that played this game of looking like one camp and actually being the other to create the controversy.At 12:47 PM, Anonymous said...
BTW - I don't believe there are any polling businesses in Humboldt.
For instance, there was a poll done during the Calpine / LNG saga that sounded like it was done by the anti-LNG folks and it was certainly not.At 1:00 PM, Fred said...
Just from the looks of the campaign finance reports, I wouldn't think Dikeman would have the money to pay for a poll.At 1:03 PM, Anonymous said...
Of course, it could always be some unknown benefactor that paid for his or her own poll.
Yes, and that happened in Kerrigan's campaign.At 1:13 PM, Anonymous said...
Gallegos' statement that the ER used for its article shows approximately 5000$ for polling to a place called "Bellavia Research". I checked the phone book and there is no such business listed.At 2:05 PM, Anonymous said...
My call on the Arkely question is if the person is anti arkley then the follow up would be "Paul is against the balloon tract" and if it pro-Arkley then the response is "Paul is supported by Arkley." This has got Salzman written all over it.
At 2:03 PM, Fred said...
That's what I was guessing, 1:13.
But, Rose, did you answer the question in regards to how you felt about Arkley? Did they follow up with a line, at least eventually during the conversation, as 1:13 and I were guessing they might?
If they didn't follow up on the answer, perhaps they're using the info for later action during the campaign?
I know I was watching some parts of the Democratic National Convention some years ago. They had a segment on how they did "focus groups".
They'd get Joe and Jill Sixpack, a whole bunch of them, in a room. They put biorythim(sic?) equipment on them and measured their response to how they'd react to certain political types saying things on a video. Then, they'd know what not to say, and what to say, and the way to say it, to get their message across in the most effective way.
I found that somewhat frightening, as it seemed akin to manipulation, but everyone does it. And, when you think about it, it makes sense.
If you want to sell something, find out the best way to present your sales pitch. That's what they were doing. Scary though it may seem to me.
I notice you left out the name of the person who gave the 10K to the DA. "...retired New Mexico resident Orlando Gallegos". Gee, why does that name sound so familiar? Good think you didn't include that FACT in your coverage or it might not have fit in with your "agenda".At 2:08 PM, Anonymous said...
Life must be great when you are not encumbered by the truth.
I think that "Paul" uses "Orlando" to launder his "dirty" money. Last time didn't he launder it thru you Richard?At 2:13 PM, Fred said...
Actually, 2:05, I missed that. I don't recall seeing the name. If I would have noticed it, I would have included it. Makes no difference to me.At 2:21 PM, Anonymous said...
Not encumbered by the truth? Nope, seems to me the fact remains that Gallegos claims to want local control of elections but he took his biggest contribution to date from someone who lives out of state.
I don't care if he's family, or not. And while I'm sympathetic to the idea of local control, this is exactly the point: He can take money from someone out of state, albeit family, but him and others are trying to make sure that certain others can't.
I don't have a problem with Gallegos taking money from out of state, whether it be from family or some corporation. He just shouldn't advocate others not be able to do the same.
So there. I sure told you! :-)
Fred: you are the voice of reason. Thank you. Anon 2:05 didn't pay enough attention to what you wrote - guess he can't see past his own biases. Me, I got it and you are right. If you are on the "local control/local money" band wagon - best not get approximately 53% of your money from out of town and out of state.At 5:05 PM, Rose said...
Fred, I wasn't the one who got the call, but I will ask my friend who did. The only comment I had so far from my friend was that the pollsters reference to Arkley was negative as was the reference Terry Farmer. They didn't mention any follow up except "Now I'll give you a second chance - if the election were held today..." and that the overall tone was more as if they were trying ot lead you and persuade you than really ask what you think.At 9:34 AM, Anonymous said...
But I will follow up on your question and get back to you.
What was Partain trying to say? His first paragraph and final paragraph are opposing statements.At 10:27 AM, Anonymous said...
I guess Partain is saying that while he wants to be hopeful that sooner or later there’s going to be a clean and friendly political campaign - he admits that clean politics is just a pipe dream given that many of those who use it as a "chant" really don't mean it. That it is simply talk with most local democrats - I'd have to add the republicans and greens to this mix to be fair. The fact is that Dirty Politics and empty words are not confined to any one party.At 5:09 PM, Rose said...
"His father, Orlando Gallegos..." (North Coast Journal - Feb. 19, 2004) apparently lives in Santa Rosa, New Mexico. In other words he does not live in Humbodlt County.At 5:11 PM, Rose said...
Under Measure T - Local corporations are defined as those in which all employees live in the county, all stock shares are owned within the county and both corporate headquarters and the primary place of business are in the county.
Local labor and nonprofit organizations are also exempt under the measure. Only one union member is required to live in the county for it to qualify as local; nonprofit board members must all reside in the county.
So-o-o-o-o the champion of the anti non-local corporations hires a big non-local polling Corporation as the first order of business for his campaign and takes his largest contribution from non-local family members.
Interesting.
credit:At 6:09 PM, Anonymous said...
Under Measure T - Local corporations are defined as those in which all employees live in the county, all stock shares are owned within the county and both corporate headquarters and the primary place of business are in the county.
Local labor and nonprofit organizations are also exempt under the measure. Only one union member is required to live in the county for it to qualify as local; nonprofit board members must all reside in the county.
Eureka Reporter http://www.eurekareporter.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?ArticleID=8768
Why in hell would you have a problem with a canidate who accepts money from a family member? Do they really need to live in the area? Can't they simply support their relatives?At 6:28 PM, Bill G said...
Rose, you are unbelieveable! You can't resist can you?
Well, anonymous....if my brother and I owned a corporation and he was a salesman in Oregon and the rest of us worked here, our corp we then be non-local, wouldn't it.....I think that is the point.At 8:48 PM, Rose said...
That is the point. bill g has it right. 100%At 10:17 PM, Rose said...
The Push Poll "format, according to the book, “The Polling and The Public,” by Herbert Asher, is “a telemarketing technique in which telephone calls are used to canvas potential voters, feeding them false or misleading ‘information’about a candidate under the pretense of taking a poll to see how this ‘information’ affects voter preferences.At 10:56 PM, Rose said...
“The intent is to disseminate campaign propaganda under the guise of conducting a legitimate public opinion poll,” wrote Asher.
The National Council on Public Polls warns that such push polls are used not to collect information, but to “spread rumors and even outright lies about opponents.
“These efforts are not polls, but political manipulation trying to hide behind the smokescreen of a public opinion survey.”
“‘Push polls’ are unethical and have been condemned by professional polling organizations,” states the council on its Web site."
Pollsters Push Ratner Arena
by Jess Wisloski
March 26, 2005
The Brooklyn Papers
NCPP - National Council on Public PollsAt 11:27 PM, Rose said...
How to determine if poll results are honest and useful. From the National Council on Public Polls.
www.ncpp.org/qajsa.htm
20 Questions A Journalist Should Ask About Poll Results
http://www.ncpp.org/qajsa.htm
http://www.ncpp.org/qajsa.htm#16
16. What about "push polls?"
In recent years, some political campaigns and special-interest groups have used a technique called "push polls" to spread rumors and even outright lies about opponents. These efforts are not polls, but political manipulation trying to hide behind the smokescreen of a public opinion survey.
In a "push poll," a large number of people are called by telephone and asked to participate in a purported survey. The survey "questions" are really thinly-veiled accusations against an opponent or repetitions of rumors about a candidate’s personal or professional behavior. The focus here is on making certain the respondent hears and understands the accusation in the question, not in gathering the respondent’s opinions.
"Push polls" are unethical and have been condemned by professional polling organizations.
"Push polls" must be distinguished from some types of legitimate surveys done by political campaigns. At times, a campaign poll may ask a series of questions about contrasting issue positions of the candidates – or various things that could be said about a candidate, some of which are negative. These legitimate questions seek to gauge the public’s reaction to a candidate’s position or to a possible legitimate attack on a candidate’s record.
A legitimate poll can be distinguished from a "push poll" usually by:
The number of calls made – a push poll makes thousands and thousands of calls, instead of hundreds for most surveys; The identity of who is making the telephone calls – a polling firm for a scientific survey as opposed to a telemarketing house or the campaign itself for a "push poll;" The lack of any true gathering of results in a "push poll," which has as its only objective the dissemination of false or misleading information.
Or - Push pollAt 9:43 AM, robash141 said...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A push poll is a political campaign technique in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll. Push polls are generally viewed as a form of negative campaigning. ...Push polling has been condemned by the American Association of Political Consultants....
The main advantage of push polls is that they are an effective way of maligning an opponent ("pushing" voters away) while avoiding responsibility for the distorted or false information used in the push poll. They are risky for the same reason: if credible evidence emerges that the polls were ordered by a campaign, it would do serious damage to that campaign. ... push polls are most effective in elections with fewer voters, such as party primaries, or in close elections where a relatively small change in votes can mean victory or loss.
Why would anyonre believe third hand hearsay from the likes Jerry Partain anyway the guy is a straight-up partisan hack ..You got to love a guy rails against govenment spending but draws a fat pension from the state..At 10:14 AM, Anonymous said...
Hardly third-hand hearsay, robash, Gallegos paid for the poll.At 1:30 PM, robash141 said...
What proof do you have that Gallegos paid for the poll? It could just as easly be a reverse push poll in which Arkley is paying phone bankers to claim they are polling on behalf of Gallegos and being obnoxious All you got is some third hand gossip allegation by some contemptable old partisan hack like Jerry Partain.At 3:09 PM, Anonymous said...
Don't tell me Partain doesn't have an axe to grind...
Have you read the questions, robash?At 3:12 PM, Bill G said...
Also, "Gallegos has spent almost $5,000 on polling and survey research." From the TS Article.At 3:14 PM, Rose said...
"Nichols said the polling was done strictly for “research purposes.” Eureka Reporter 3/25/2006At 7:28 PM, Rose said...
Fred, my friend said there was no particular emphasis on Arkley, that he was grouped in with others that one would expect Gallegos' handlers to deem "negative." But that the long drawn out explanations were about Gallegos. And, again, that they offered "second chances" and "last chance" to see if they had changed her mind.At 10:16 PM, robash141 said...
I smell a rat! I think its a sleazy set up by anti Gallegos people. Im sure Arkely could afford spend to hire obnoxious push pollers top harrass unsuspecting citizens on "on behalf" of Paul Gallegos.At 5:37 AM, Fred said...
There is also the distinct possibility that Partains daughter and Rose's friend are exagerating
Furthermore, Jerry Partain can sling mud with the best of them. Ive seen Partain be totally insulting and demeaning to people who disagree with him So his whining about How he wishes there were civil campaigns is totally bogus He just wishes everyone would just knuckle under to his radical right wing agenda
This is straight out of the Karl Rove dirty politics handbook. and Arkey no doubt, admires Rove and I think ,Arkely is a much more likely suspect
Robash; Here's the relevant portion of a recent Eureka Reporter article dated 3/25:At 6:22 AM, Anonymous said...
"In the FOPG’s statement, the second-highest expenditure made since Jan. 1 was approximately $5,588 to Bellavia Research for polling and survey research and fundraising."
"Nichols said the polling was done strictly for “research purposes.”
“Our poll confirmed that a majority of Humboldt residents think Paul is doing a great job and are impressed with his success of taking violent criminals off our streets and reducing violent crime rates in Humboldt County,” she said. “The failed recall definitely taught us that there are special interests willing to spend potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars to try to overturn the will of the voters. We’re not going to let that happen.”
"While the address for Bellavia Research, Julie Francis was listed with a McKinleyville address, no listing for the agency appears in the SBC phone book."
"Nichols said she did not want to provide specifics about the polling, but said it was something the campaign is pleased it did and that it doesn’t plan to do again."
You can read the entire article at
http://www.eurekareporter.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?ArticleID=9457
Interesting that they gave a Mckinleyville address to Belavia Research to make the agency appear local. That might well be illegal.
And if you "google" that name Julie Francis, you'll find she is a strategy and website usability consultant, married to an attorney with offices in Eureka, and Berkeley...so who is Bellavia?At 6:28 AM, Fred said...
I believe Bellavia Research is the outfit that did the actual polling.At 7:07 AM, Fred said...
And this just in from the Times- Standard confirming the Eureka Reporter story, pretty much settles the issue, seems to me, as to who was responsible for the polling:
http://www.times-standard.com/local/ci_3643711
So; who was responsible for the polling, is no longer an issue.
At 4:59 PM, mresquan said...
Let's see 216 in an area code in Ohio.Why would team Gallegos care to bother with them?At 5:13 PM, Rose said...
No, Pacific Crest Research did the polling.
At 10:18 PM, Anonymous said...
Gallegos is caught with his pants down and robash141 wants to blame it on Partain. O-K then.At 7:23 AM, robash141 said...
IMO Partain is still a thoughoughly dishonest partisan stooge who would not hestitate to make up something in order to smear a political enemy. I couldn't care less what some sneaky person who doesn't have enough courage to put their name beside their opinion thinks..
At 4:59 PM, Anonymous said...
robash141: thank you for continuing to post so we all the vast number of your brain cells that you have killed.At 11:42 PM, risky said...
And the push polls are unethical and dishonest and so Gallegos.
i wouldn't act so surprised about a survey used to attack the opponent. didn't chris kerrigan have a pollster ask about his pipe incident and about rex bohn's role in a cocaine-linked bar in the 80's? salzman was still involved with chris back then.At 7:52 AM, Anonymous said...
what i really want to see is some apology from gallegos for selling his donor list to the corporation freaks pushing measure t. of course that's if it wasn't stolen in the first place by michael twombly.
It wasn't stolen, it was given to them because Gallegos can't run on his record so he is running on something that has nothing to do with the DA's office - that something is measure T. He needs it to be his "orwellian chant" in order to avoid the issues.At 4:41 PM, robash141 said...
Hey there was a commentary in the Eureka Reporter That said pretty much the same thing
That Partain is a crank and his word can't be trusted..
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)