On the first day of the Kerrigan For Mayor Campaign.
Because.
Somebody is hoping there's a basket of votes that will turn up in somebody's car trunk, that are mysteriously heavily weighted towards Kerrigan. ◼ Kerrigan's Got a Slim, Slim Chance - The Journal
Showing posts with label Salzman's Plan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Salzman's Plan. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 04, 2014
Saturday, January 03, 2009
The Fox is applying for the Henhouse Manager position...
click on image to enlargeDon't say I didn't warn ya.
***
In case you can't read it, it is a ficticious business name statement from the Ferndale Enterprise. Mitch Trachtenberg and Richard Salzman going into the voting santification business.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Thanksgiving Week
Jack has an amazing sunset posted at ramblingjackslaboratory. In fact, if you want to see some of the most amazing photos of our area, spend some time going through his backposts.
***
I've mentioned before that on any blog, if you want to find out what jumpstarted it, check out the earliest posts. That's true here, and, for new readers, some of the early posts may explain watchpaul...
Like Stoen/Salzman's Plan
And Gallegos' attempt to implement Salzman's Plan
This was a plan to solicit, accept and use special interest money to privately fund a public perse - I mean prosecution. A move that would alter our public judicial system forever, for the worse.
and like Stoen's asking the FPPC if he - the prosecutor - could contribute PERSONALLY to fund the lawsuit...
and the emails that show the activist Ken Miller in the DA's Office helping Stoen draft the suit in question...
Those are just some of the reasons that this blog exists. Sometimes that gets lost in the day to day posts.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
The cost of advertising w/update
Reading about MoveOn.org's huge discount on their New York Times ad makes me wonder if Shellenberger had access to that kind of discount...
According to Abbe Serphos, director of public relations for the Times, "the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692."
A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed to The Post that the liberal activist group had paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.
A Post reporter who called the Times advertising department yesterday without identifying himself was quoted a price of $167,000 for a full-page black-and-white ad on a Monday.
Serphos declined to confirm the price and refused to offer any inkling for why the paper would give MoveOn.org such a discounted price.
I've always wondered where the money was going to come from to pay for Salzman, Stoen and Gallegos' proposed full page ads in the LA Times and San Francisco Chronicle.
When I talked to the ad rep for the LA Times, he sure wasn't offering any more than an ordinary frequency discount, and surprisingly, he hadn't heard of Michael Shellenberger or Lumina Strategies.
If you remember - The plan was for Paul Gallegos, the District Attorney (the chief law enforcement officer of Humboldt County) to solicit special interest money to fund the Palco lawsuit by placing "full page ads in the Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle."
At the time the cost of a full page ad in the Los Angeles Times, at open rate was $103,200.00. ($800.00 per inch) $129,000.00 if the ad ran on Sunday ($1,000.00 per inch) and the cost of a full page ad in the San Francisco Chronicle, at open rate was $73,788.00. ($572.00 per inch) $77,529.00 if the ad ran on Sunday ($601.00 per inch), the cost of an ad in the local paper, The Times Standard was $30.50 per inch, or $3,934.50.
So who was going to be placing the ads, I wonder? Fenton Communications? Or some newly created group? And how much were they actually going to pay? And who was going to pay for it? How much were they going to spend? Where was all these hundreds of thousands of dollars going to come from? How much did they expect to make? And how was Gallegos going to account for all this money? And how was it going to be spent? Was this all for Cotchett? Is that how he gets paid? By corrupting the judicial system? Ends justify the means?
All these questions remain unanswered.
There's alot of talk about bringing the Attorney General up here now for the Glass/Arkley debacle. While he's here, maybe he can look into some of this.
***
Related:
New York Post - MOVEON'S SMEAR: A VILE NEW LOW - September 11, 2007
New York Times THE PUBLIC EDITOR Betraying Its Own Best Interests
FOR nearly two weeks, The New York Times has been defending a political advertisement that critics say was an unfair shot at the American commander in Iraq.
But I think the ad violated The Times’s own written standards, and the paper now says that the advertiser got a price break it was not entitled to...
New York Times Public Editor Rebukes MoveOn.org's Petraeus Ad Sunday, September 23, 2007
The New York Times acknowledged Sunday that a controversial advertisement attacking Gen. David Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq, was sold to a liberal activist group at a discount rate the organization was not entitled to receive, and that the paper violated its own advertising policies when it published the ad...
According to Abbe Serphos, director of public relations for the Times, "the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692."
A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed to The Post that the liberal activist group had paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.
A Post reporter who called the Times advertising department yesterday without identifying himself was quoted a price of $167,000 for a full-page black-and-white ad on a Monday.
Serphos declined to confirm the price and refused to offer any inkling for why the paper would give MoveOn.org such a discounted price.
I've always wondered where the money was going to come from to pay for Salzman, Stoen and Gallegos' proposed full page ads in the LA Times and San Francisco Chronicle.
When I talked to the ad rep for the LA Times, he sure wasn't offering any more than an ordinary frequency discount, and surprisingly, he hadn't heard of Michael Shellenberger or Lumina Strategies.
If you remember - The plan was for Paul Gallegos, the District Attorney (the chief law enforcement officer of Humboldt County) to solicit special interest money to fund the Palco lawsuit by placing "full page ads in the Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle."
At the time the cost of a full page ad in the Los Angeles Times, at open rate was $103,200.00. ($800.00 per inch) $129,000.00 if the ad ran on Sunday ($1,000.00 per inch) and the cost of a full page ad in the San Francisco Chronicle, at open rate was $73,788.00. ($572.00 per inch) $77,529.00 if the ad ran on Sunday ($601.00 per inch), the cost of an ad in the local paper, The Times Standard was $30.50 per inch, or $3,934.50.
So who was going to be placing the ads, I wonder? Fenton Communications? Or some newly created group? And how much were they actually going to pay? And who was going to pay for it? How much were they going to spend? Where was all these hundreds of thousands of dollars going to come from? How much did they expect to make? And how was Gallegos going to account for all this money? And how was it going to be spent? Was this all for Cotchett? Is that how he gets paid? By corrupting the judicial system? Ends justify the means?
All these questions remain unanswered.
There's alot of talk about bringing the Attorney General up here now for the Glass/Arkley debacle. While he's here, maybe he can look into some of this.
***
Related:
New York Post - MOVEON'S SMEAR: A VILE NEW LOW - September 11, 2007
New York Times THE PUBLIC EDITOR Betraying Its Own Best Interests
FOR nearly two weeks, The New York Times has been defending a political advertisement that critics say was an unfair shot at the American commander in Iraq.
But I think the ad violated The Times’s own written standards, and the paper now says that the advertiser got a price break it was not entitled to...
New York Times Public Editor Rebukes MoveOn.org's Petraeus Ad Sunday, September 23, 2007
The New York Times acknowledged Sunday that a controversial advertisement attacking Gen. David Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq, was sold to a liberal activist group at a discount rate the organization was not entitled to receive, and that the paper violated its own advertising policies when it published the ad...
Friday, August 17, 2007
Flashback to 2004
And I quote: "As Humboldt’s progressive community looks ahead, Salzman and other campaign leaders are fleshing out a Humboldt-specific strategy for sustainable economic development and crime prevention—the intellectual ground on which Gallegos and other politicians can stand to articulate a new politics grounded in old values."
Monday, June 04, 2007
Dear Ms. Ackerman,
Regarding this article in Forbes magazine:
Hurwitz Hands Off At Maxxam
In a message dated 6/4/2007 11:43:21 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, aeb@inreach.com (aka Richard Salzman) writes:
(Ms. Ackerman could use to be better educated on the notion that the Headwaters' deal "settled the dispute" as to the logging of PL's remaining 200,000 acres. I spoke to her this morning and she said she would welcome any emails that would further her knowledge on this subject. Send them to: rackerman at forbes.net and while you are at it, please thank her for covering this story in the first place )
Thanks for the tip, Richard.
"Dear Ms. Ackerman,
Apparently you have been contacted by Richard Salzman regarding the Pacific Lumber Company/Maxxam.
Perhaps you should know a bit more about the illustrious Mr. Salzman - read the award winning cover story of the North Coast Journal titled "Web of Lies, Richard Salzman and other email phonies.".
Once you have an idea who you are hearing from..."
Whaddya think?
7/3/07 Never did hear back from her.
Hurwitz Hands Off At Maxxam
In a message dated 6/4/2007 11:43:21 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, aeb@inreach.com (aka Richard Salzman) writes:
(Ms. Ackerman could use to be better educated on the notion that the Headwaters' deal "settled the dispute" as to the logging of PL's remaining 200,000 acres. I spoke to her this morning and she said she would welcome any emails that would further her knowledge on this subject. Send them to: rackerman at forbes.net and while you are at it, please thank her for covering this story in the first place )
Thanks for the tip, Richard.
"Dear Ms. Ackerman,
Apparently you have been contacted by Richard Salzman regarding the Pacific Lumber Company/Maxxam.
Perhaps you should know a bit more about the illustrious Mr. Salzman - read the award winning cover story of the North Coast Journal titled "Web of Lies, Richard Salzman and other email phonies.".
Once you have an idea who you are hearing from..."
Whaddya think?
7/3/07 Never did hear back from her.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Let's hear both sides
Why do you do this, Rose? Why don't you just drop this?
It's a good question, and one I get all the time. Along with, why did you even start doing this?
The answer to that last question is really the answer to the first one. I have already described my conversation with Richard Salzman, and his statement that this was bigger than I could possibly imagine. From things I learned from him, I had a different perspective on events that unfolded - Stoen's lawsuit, the bizarre dog and pony show, the involvement of the activist community, links to much larger groups with phenomenal sources of funding and support, Gallegos' - sorry, but no other way to say it but - dishonesty - the Recall, the enormous effort to keep Gallegos in office and the reasons for it, all the way to now, the destruction of the office, the loss of valuable talent, the decimation of important programs...
In the beginning, with my post-Watergate mentality, I believed in the press. I believed in the press almost as an arm of law enforcement... that if there was wrongdoing, they would expose it... if there was another side to the story, they would be happy to tell it. I was sadly mistaken.
The press, here and elsewhere, were sucked up into the great Gallegos fairy-tale. The gallant David against Goliath, the courageous young upstart against the evil corporation.
The press bought the story spun by the master PR team hook line and sinker.
In the beginning, I asked my friends in journalism why they didn't ask the questions, why the very words used by Salzman and his crew didn't make the hairs on the backs of their necks rise up. "Timber Yes, Fraud NO" Look behind the words and there is an empty vacuum. "Justice for all" - the picture of the statue of liberty on Paul's election materials... all a facade.
I began my own inquiries, and along the way, I have gotten to know the people involved. Whenever the opportunity arose to talk to the people actually affected by what was going on, I took it.
And as people began to bring me information, and documents that backed up what they had to say, and the media continued to ignore it, I learned about Gallegos' entry into the DAs office from the other side - from those who were told in a meeting that any perceived act of disloyalty would result in their termination, the side who received the infamous "gag order" memo telling them that they were not allowed to talk to the media. And I came to know the atmosphere that pervaded the DAs office. I have watched as the prosecutors have left, til only those who are unable to leave remain.
I learned about People's Temple, and Stoen's role. And I talked to people who were involved way back then, in various capacities.
I have talked to watchdog groups all across the country about "Salzman's Plan" and many watched to see if any further attempts were made to implement it.
More importantly, I came to see the extent of the activist network, the inter-relationships, the funding opportunities and connections. As I began to put pieces of the puzzle together, clearer and clearer pictures emerged.
Every morning I would wake up and say to myself "This is crazy."
And by the end of the day, I would have talked to two more people, gotten another piece of the puzzle and knew that there was an important story here to be told.
But I watched as day after day, Salzman's spin was written across the front pages of the paper, and I knew people had gone and talked to the reporters, and gotten nowhere.
So they stopped coming forward. they lost faith in the reporters. And I did, too. This ensured that Salzman's view prevailed, as now no one even tried to get the other side out.
Well, the old saying that "you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time " held true in this case - eventually, Gallegos' failings began to show, little by little, culminating in the plagiarism coming to light, but too late.
Eventually the media did begin to ask questions, and Hank Sims took the first step forward with his exposure of Richard Salzman and his tactics.
Little by little the media came to see that the shiny facade was at least a little tarnished, if not completely hollow.
So - I am a little hyper-sensitive to things like John Driscoll's sitting with Mark Lovelace and covering the Palco proceedings. I see it from a completely different perspective.
The perspective of looking at Ken Miller professing to be "stunned" when the Gallegos' (Stoen's) PL case was first announced, and finding that he was involved long before, and was in fact actually instrumental in the drafting of the suit (which he ultimately had to 'fess up to, try as he did to hide it), to finding out just how long he had been involved in the effort.
The perspective of knowing who and what Michael Shellenberger was, and knowing that the national press coverage that Gallegos was receiving was well orchestrated, knowing that the spin machine was in full force. That they were indeed "structuring the debate."
The perspective of knowing when lies were being told, such as when Salzman acted as a defacto spokesperson for the DAs office during the Martinez-Hernandez case.
Everyone has had their say about the Lovelace/Driscoll thing - unethical practices, just a volley in the newspaper war, nothing at all compared to Arkley...
Well, none of that answered the questions about the incident and Lovelace's response only told us who paid for the calls, not how many days of shared coverage... How many people in the room... Who they were... Whether or not there was discussion about key points, whether Lovelace expounded on his version of the events...
But more importantly - who is Mark Lovelace, who has such an effect on so many issues with his testimony to the Water Board, with his being the go-to source whenever anything remotely involving Palco comes up - what is Humboldt Watershed Council? How many people are on the "council"? When do they meet? Who votes? What are its origins? What is its source of funding? Who pays Mark Lovelace's salary? Does he even have a salary? Does it come out of Ken Miller's pocket? What's the relationship with Michael Shellenberger? Why the full court press, the appearances on every radio talk show, the cultivation of reporters? Where does Mark Lovelace come by his sudden "expertise" in the intricacies of the Stock market, big business and bankruptcy procedure? Where do the talking points come from?
The story has already been told as if they are the ragtag underdogs, like the Merry Men against the King, the idealistic young college students who give up their lives to come sit in the trees -
Now let's hear the other side - about the activist networks which ensure protestors arrive on cue - and disappear during a contentious election - about the people who manipulate behind the scenes.
What could it hurt?
(For more articles and documents relating to Humboldt Watershed Council, check watchpaul ARTICLES)
It's a good question, and one I get all the time. Along with, why did you even start doing this?
The answer to that last question is really the answer to the first one. I have already described my conversation with Richard Salzman, and his statement that this was bigger than I could possibly imagine. From things I learned from him, I had a different perspective on events that unfolded - Stoen's lawsuit, the bizarre dog and pony show, the involvement of the activist community, links to much larger groups with phenomenal sources of funding and support, Gallegos' - sorry, but no other way to say it but - dishonesty - the Recall, the enormous effort to keep Gallegos in office and the reasons for it, all the way to now, the destruction of the office, the loss of valuable talent, the decimation of important programs...
In the beginning, with my post-Watergate mentality, I believed in the press. I believed in the press almost as an arm of law enforcement... that if there was wrongdoing, they would expose it... if there was another side to the story, they would be happy to tell it. I was sadly mistaken.
The press, here and elsewhere, were sucked up into the great Gallegos fairy-tale. The gallant David against Goliath, the courageous young upstart against the evil corporation.
The press bought the story spun by the master PR team hook line and sinker.
In the beginning, I asked my friends in journalism why they didn't ask the questions, why the very words used by Salzman and his crew didn't make the hairs on the backs of their necks rise up. "Timber Yes, Fraud NO" Look behind the words and there is an empty vacuum. "Justice for all" - the picture of the statue of liberty on Paul's election materials... all a facade.
I began my own inquiries, and along the way, I have gotten to know the people involved. Whenever the opportunity arose to talk to the people actually affected by what was going on, I took it.
And as people began to bring me information, and documents that backed up what they had to say, and the media continued to ignore it, I learned about Gallegos' entry into the DAs office from the other side - from those who were told in a meeting that any perceived act of disloyalty would result in their termination, the side who received the infamous "gag order" memo telling them that they were not allowed to talk to the media. And I came to know the atmosphere that pervaded the DAs office. I have watched as the prosecutors have left, til only those who are unable to leave remain.
I learned about People's Temple, and Stoen's role. And I talked to people who were involved way back then, in various capacities.
I have talked to watchdog groups all across the country about "Salzman's Plan" and many watched to see if any further attempts were made to implement it.
More importantly, I came to see the extent of the activist network, the inter-relationships, the funding opportunities and connections. As I began to put pieces of the puzzle together, clearer and clearer pictures emerged.
Every morning I would wake up and say to myself "This is crazy."
And by the end of the day, I would have talked to two more people, gotten another piece of the puzzle and knew that there was an important story here to be told.
But I watched as day after day, Salzman's spin was written across the front pages of the paper, and I knew people had gone and talked to the reporters, and gotten nowhere.
So they stopped coming forward. they lost faith in the reporters. And I did, too. This ensured that Salzman's view prevailed, as now no one even tried to get the other side out.
Well, the old saying that "you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time " held true in this case - eventually, Gallegos' failings began to show, little by little, culminating in the plagiarism coming to light, but too late.
Eventually the media did begin to ask questions, and Hank Sims took the first step forward with his exposure of Richard Salzman and his tactics.
Little by little the media came to see that the shiny facade was at least a little tarnished, if not completely hollow.
So - I am a little hyper-sensitive to things like John Driscoll's sitting with Mark Lovelace and covering the Palco proceedings. I see it from a completely different perspective.
The perspective of looking at Ken Miller professing to be "stunned" when the Gallegos' (Stoen's) PL case was first announced, and finding that he was involved long before, and was in fact actually instrumental in the drafting of the suit (which he ultimately had to 'fess up to, try as he did to hide it), to finding out just how long he had been involved in the effort.
The perspective of knowing who and what Michael Shellenberger was, and knowing that the national press coverage that Gallegos was receiving was well orchestrated, knowing that the spin machine was in full force. That they were indeed "structuring the debate."
The perspective of knowing when lies were being told, such as when Salzman acted as a defacto spokesperson for the DAs office during the Martinez-Hernandez case.
Everyone has had their say about the Lovelace/Driscoll thing - unethical practices, just a volley in the newspaper war, nothing at all compared to Arkley...
Well, none of that answered the questions about the incident and Lovelace's response only told us who paid for the calls, not how many days of shared coverage... How many people in the room... Who they were... Whether or not there was discussion about key points, whether Lovelace expounded on his version of the events...
But more importantly - who is Mark Lovelace, who has such an effect on so many issues with his testimony to the Water Board, with his being the go-to source whenever anything remotely involving Palco comes up - what is Humboldt Watershed Council? How many people are on the "council"? When do they meet? Who votes? What are its origins? What is its source of funding? Who pays Mark Lovelace's salary? Does he even have a salary? Does it come out of Ken Miller's pocket? What's the relationship with Michael Shellenberger? Why the full court press, the appearances on every radio talk show, the cultivation of reporters? Where does Mark Lovelace come by his sudden "expertise" in the intricacies of the Stock market, big business and bankruptcy procedure? Where do the talking points come from?
The story has already been told as if they are the ragtag underdogs, like the Merry Men against the King, the idealistic young college students who give up their lives to come sit in the trees -
Now let's hear the other side - about the activist networks which ensure protestors arrive on cue - and disappear during a contentious election - about the people who manipulate behind the scenes.
What could it hurt?
(For more articles and documents relating to Humboldt Watershed Council, check watchpaul ARTICLES)
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Gallegos v. Palco - Here we go again w/update
Wonder why all the bad guys have been getting plea bargained? The DA has been too busy.
County appeals Palco fraud suit
John Driscoll/The Times-Standard
11/11/2006 04:32:49 AM PST
Palco APPEAL Timeline: (After the judge threw his case out)
Date.............Description/Notes
11/18/2005 Exempt filing fee.
11/18/2005 Notice of appeal lodged/received. People of the State of California filed 7-26-05
11/18/2005 Notified parties of local rules and procedures.
11/18/2005 Received: Designation of Record (CRC, rule 5) filed 9-29-05
12/12/2005 Default letter sent; no case information statement filed.
12/29/2005 Civil case information statement filed. Judgment/order needed & ** is here **
12/29/2005 Letter to counsel - 15 days to file case information statement. judgment/order needed
01/31/2006 Filed document entitled: Judgment/order needed to attach to DKT filed 12/29/05.
07/11/2006 Record on appeal filed. c-7 r-2
08/04/2006 Requested - extension of time.
08/04/2006 Granted - extension of time.
09/06/2006 Telephone conversation with: Belinda from the Humboldt County District Attorney's Office stating that an eot for the aob is on its way.
09/11/2006 Requested - extension of time.
09/13/2006 Granted - extension of time.
For more information:
The People v. Pacific Lumber Co. et al. Division 3 Case Number A112028
Case summary
Sign up for email notification of any progress in this case:
E-mail Notification 1st Appellate District
UPDATE
Case Number Case Activity Date Registered
A112028 Brief Filed 11/12/2006
A112028 Record on Appeal Filed 11/12/2006
A112028 Remittitur Issued 11/12/2006
A112028 Disposition 11/12/2006
A112028 Calendar Notice 11/12/2006
11/13/06 the following transaction has occurred in:
The People v. Pacific Lumber Co. et al.
Case: A112028 1st District, Division 3
2006-11-13 Event Description: Appellant's opening brief.
Notes: 40.1
County appeals Palco fraud suit
John Driscoll/The Times-Standard
11/11/2006 04:32:49 AM PST
Palco APPEAL Timeline: (After the judge threw his case out)
Date.............Description/Notes
11/18/2005 Exempt filing fee.
11/18/2005 Notice of appeal lodged/received. People of the State of California filed 7-26-05
11/18/2005 Notified parties of local rules and procedures.
11/18/2005 Received: Designation of Record (CRC, rule 5) filed 9-29-05
12/12/2005 Default letter sent; no case information statement filed.
12/29/2005 Civil case information statement filed. Judgment/order needed & ** is here **
12/29/2005 Letter to counsel - 15 days to file case information statement. judgment/order needed
01/31/2006 Filed document entitled: Judgment/order needed to attach to DKT filed 12/29/05.
07/11/2006 Record on appeal filed. c-7 r-2
08/04/2006 Requested - extension of time.
08/04/2006 Granted - extension of time.
09/06/2006 Telephone conversation with: Belinda from the Humboldt County District Attorney's Office stating that an eot for the aob is on its way.
09/11/2006 Requested - extension of time.
09/13/2006 Granted - extension of time.
For more information:
The People v. Pacific Lumber Co. et al. Division 3 Case Number A112028
Case summary
Sign up for email notification of any progress in this case:
E-mail Notification 1st Appellate District
UPDATE
Case Number Case Activity Date Registered
A112028 Brief Filed 11/12/2006
A112028 Record on Appeal Filed 11/12/2006
A112028 Remittitur Issued 11/12/2006
A112028 Disposition 11/12/2006
A112028 Calendar Notice 11/12/2006
11/13/06 the following transaction has occurred in:
The People v. Pacific Lumber Co. et al.
Case: A112028 1st District, Division 3
2006-11-13 Event Description: Appellant's opening brief.
Notes: 40.1
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Gallegos' latest attempt to IMPLEMENT SALZMAN'S PLAN
This week, in Daniel Mintz's article in the Arcata Eye, McKinleyville Press and The Independent, Gallegos announces that he is planning to put together an "environmental crimes unit".
"The idea is that we would be a leader, a hub in northern California for top prosecutors,” said Gallegos.
Staffing would be modest at first, he continued, possibly beginning with a prosecutor that he would hire and the CDAA would pay for. As the unit progresses, fines culled from successful prosecutions might allow further staffing.
“If someone is ripping people off or engaged in unfair business practices, they can expect to be prosecuted as criminals, or sued civilly, or both,” Gallegos said. “And if they’re creating a dangerous work environment – same thing.”
More code words that say, in no uncertain terms, that Gallegos continues to try to implement Salzman's Plan. Using taxpayer's money to fulfill the activist's agenda at the expense of the People's business.
The purpose of the so-called "Alliance for Ethical Business" was "to promote corporate responsibility and to ensure that fraud and illegal business practices are prosecuted in a court of law."
Code words for "get Palco."
read the full article at
http://arcataeye.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1
New DA unit to take up Hagen's work
Also posted the FIRST COMMENT on this post.
"The idea is that we would be a leader, a hub in northern California for top prosecutors,” said Gallegos.
Staffing would be modest at first, he continued, possibly beginning with a prosecutor that he would hire and the CDAA would pay for. As the unit progresses, fines culled from successful prosecutions might allow further staffing.
“If someone is ripping people off or engaged in unfair business practices, they can expect to be prosecuted as criminals, or sued civilly, or both,” Gallegos said. “And if they’re creating a dangerous work environment – same thing.”
More code words that say, in no uncertain terms, that Gallegos continues to try to implement Salzman's Plan. Using taxpayer's money to fulfill the activist's agenda at the expense of the People's business.
The purpose of the so-called "Alliance for Ethical Business" was "to promote corporate responsibility and to ensure that fraud and illegal business practices are prosecuted in a court of law."
Code words for "get Palco."
read the full article at
http://arcataeye.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1
New DA unit to take up Hagen's work
Also posted the FIRST COMMENT on this post.
Friday, August 25, 2006
Seeking more outside funding
This is Ken Miller seeking outside funding to support the lawsuit he helped draft and force through.
You should know that Ken Miller is listed as co-founder of BACH (Bay Area Coalition for Headwaters).
His other groups include Salmon Forever and Humboldt Watershed Council. Like Shellenberger, he cross-pollinates his groups, attempting to imply the widespread support of a "growing" coalition.
The same Ken Miller who professed to be stunned when Gallegos and Stoen announced the filing of the PL lawsuit, and who was later revealed to be in Stoen's office helping draft the suit.
***
Google search:
Challenge to Pacific Lumber's recall campaign needs support
... This alert was originally sent by Ken Miller, who is with the Humboldt Watershed
Council and Salmon Forever on the north coast. ...
www.headwaterspreserve.org/html/updates_update_3.html - 19k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.headwaterspreserve.org ]
SEE THE FIRST COMMENT ON THIS POST FOR THE FULL TEXT.
You should know that Ken Miller is listed as co-founder of BACH (Bay Area Coalition for Headwaters).
His other groups include Salmon Forever and Humboldt Watershed Council. Like Shellenberger, he cross-pollinates his groups, attempting to imply the widespread support of a "growing" coalition.
The same Ken Miller who professed to be stunned when Gallegos and Stoen announced the filing of the PL lawsuit, and who was later revealed to be in Stoen's office helping draft the suit.
***
Google search:
Challenge to Pacific Lumber's recall campaign needs support
... This alert was originally sent by Ken Miller, who is with the Humboldt Watershed
Council and Salmon Forever on the north coast. ...
www.headwaterspreserve.org/html/updates_update_3.html - 19k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.headwaterspreserve.org ]
SEE THE FIRST COMMENT ON THIS POST FOR THE FULL TEXT.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Read second - GALLEGOS' REQUEST FOR OPINION
GALLEGOS' REQUEST FOR OPINION
In this document you see Paul Gallegos attempting to implement Salzman/Stoen's plan. And while he was busy seeking creative financing in the form of special interest money for his Palco suit, he was neglecting his office, neglecting to apply for grants for his office's programs.
The complete text of Paul Gallegos' REQUEST FOR OPINION, which he submitted to the Attorney General's Office, will be posted as the first comment on this post.
As you read it, consider this: THE REAL QUESTION. No matter how carefully couched in legalese, the real question is whether or not the Humboldt County District Attorney can SOLICIT and accept SPECIAL INTEREST MONEY to fund the public prosecution of Pacific Lumber Company.
It is my contention that allowing politically motivated activist groups to hijack the public judicial system, using similarly inclined public officials to act on their behalf in pursuit of their political agendas should never be permitted. Allowing a District Attorney to pursue a specific case above all others, funded by special interest groups, in pursuit of fulfillment of campaign backer's political agendas should never be permitted. The detrimental effects on society and on the public judicial system are immeasurable.
Note: While Gallegos withdrew his Request on September 23, 2004. I am told that this may be because he was given a heads up that the Opinion to be rendered would not be in his favor. Nevertheless, if you read Salzman's Plan (complete text on previous post) you will see that Gallegos continued to set about implementing portions of that plan, specifically the plan to bring in "pro-bono" attorneys to work on the PL case.
In this document you see Paul Gallegos attempting to implement Salzman/Stoen's plan. And while he was busy seeking creative financing in the form of special interest money for his Palco suit, he was neglecting his office, neglecting to apply for grants for his office's programs.
The complete text of Paul Gallegos' REQUEST FOR OPINION, which he submitted to the Attorney General's Office, will be posted as the first comment on this post.
As you read it, consider this: THE REAL QUESTION. No matter how carefully couched in legalese, the real question is whether or not the Humboldt County District Attorney can SOLICIT and accept SPECIAL INTEREST MONEY to fund the public prosecution of Pacific Lumber Company.
It is my contention that allowing politically motivated activist groups to hijack the public judicial system, using similarly inclined public officials to act on their behalf in pursuit of their political agendas should never be permitted. Allowing a District Attorney to pursue a specific case above all others, funded by special interest groups, in pursuit of fulfillment of campaign backer's political agendas should never be permitted. The detrimental effects on society and on the public judicial system are immeasurable.
Note: While Gallegos withdrew his Request on September 23, 2004. I am told that this may be because he was given a heads up that the Opinion to be rendered would not be in his favor. Nevertheless, if you read Salzman's Plan (complete text on previous post) you will see that Gallegos continued to set about implementing portions of that plan, specifically the plan to bring in "pro-bono" attorneys to work on the PL case.
Read First - SALZMAN'S PLAN
Do you think it is ok to PRIVATELY fund a PUBLIC prosecution? More than that - to SOLICIT, accept and use SPECIAL INTEREST MONEY to privately fund a public prosecution?
"There have been rumors Gallegos supporters are launching a community fund-raising effort to fund the Palco suit. Gallegos and his staff say while they are open to such a proposal, they're not aware such a fund exists." ..."Salzman says he's heard some talk of a community fund, but he's not involved in that effort." April 30, 2004 Times Standard Front page story by James Tressler
Rumors? Open to such a proposal? How about orchestrating such a Fund.
On March 29, 2004, exactly one month before he made that statement, Paul Gallegos submitted a formal 'Request for Opinion' to the Attorney General's office to pave the way for Richard Salzman and Tim Stoen's plan to solicit special interest money to privately fund a public prosecution.
That plan is detailed below.
Before you read it, ask yourself this question: If Stoen and Gallegos were prosecuting Kobe Bryant, and Gallegos' backers and handlers were the Aryan Brotherhood, who were contributing money to fund the prosecution of Kobe Bryant - to "get that black man" - would that be ok? I contend that no same person would say yes.
And should District Attorney Paul Gallegos be acting at the behest of his Campaign Manager to use his public office in the name of a cause?
***
The memo included below, dated April 14, 2003, references an attached document given to County CAO Loretta Nickolaus by Tim Stoen. The document, included here is a Memorandum to Richard Salzman dated March 31, 2003. It is available as a public records act request.
In this document RICHARD SALZMAN, GALLEGOS' CHIEF CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISER (March primary 2002) and then CAMPAIGN MANAGER (Recall election, March 2004) and acting head of the so-called "Alliance for Ethical Business" (one of many groups targeting Pacific Lumber Company) is soliciting an opinion for Stoen/Gallegos.
****
Cover page:
Interoffice Memo
Date: April 14, 2003
To: Tim Stoen, Assistant District Attorney
CC: Paul Gallegos, District Attorney
Board of Supervisors
Tammy Falor, County Counsel
From: Loretta Nickolaus, CAO
Re: Request for establishment of a Trust Fund expenditure anticipated in the Pacific Lumber Company (Palco) lawsuit.
Last week you stopped by my office to give a "heads up" stating that you were planning to prepare an item for Board approval. You referred to a memo (copy attached) that outlined a proposal. The proposal would include a recommendation to establish a trust fund that would supplement the DAs budget for costs associated with the fraud case you have recently filed against Palco. The memo suggests calling the new trust the Headwaters Litigation Fund.
The memo also points out that the Board has established other trust funds for special purposes and needs. Examples would include a trust fund to widen the Buckhorn Grade or the DAs environmental trust fund used to clean up contaminated properties. The Board has also accepted private donations to cover the cost of buying library books and a gift of funds to study the housing needs in the community.
I am not in a position to weigh in on the Palco case and cannot support establishing this trust fund any more than I could recommend that the Board accept Donations from Palco for the sole purpose of prosecuting tree sitters (for example). However, given these tough budget times and the probability that it is going to get a lot worse before it gets better, why don't you explore (with the assistance of the Attorney General's Office and County Counsel) the creation of a more flexible fund called the DAs Prosecution Fund to be used to supplement the DAs budget not only for fraud cases but also drug, abuse and homicide cases.
I hope this feedback is helpful.
***********************
ATTACHED DOCUMENT
***********************
Page 1 of 7:
MEMORANDUM
To: Richard Salzman "Alliance for Ethical Business"
From: Gail Holder
Re: Legal guidelines for possible fundraising to supplement the District
Attorney's budget for anticipated costs involved in the PL lawsuit
Date: March 31, 2003
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
I. Whether a District Attorney, as a sitting elected official can solicit for, and accept donations to supplement his Agency's budget for anticipated costs associated with the public purpose of prosecution, and if so, what legal guidelines regulate the solicitation, acceptance, and disbursement of such contributions?
II. Whether the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) created by the Political Reform Act of 1974 (Proposition 9) exerts authority or jurisdiction over fundraising not associated with pre-election candidate, campaign fundraising, but rather for expenditures for public purposes, as designated by a sitting public official in executing his legal duties?
III. Whether a District Attorney's acceptance of pro bono legal assistance tendered by attorneys, law firms, or paralegals constitutes the acceptance of "gifts" or "bequests" by a sitting elected official and if so, what legal authority, if any may regulate, limit, or prohibit acceptance of such pro bono assistance by the District attorney in the instant matter of the PL lawsuit?
BRIEF ANSWERS
I. Yes. Contributions designated for the public purpose of proceeding with the PL lawsuit may be accepted by the District Attorney's office, via establishment of an Agency-fun approved by the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, which Board is empowered to approve or deny the District Attorney's proposal. If denied, an alternative plan for acceptance of contributions will be the formulation of an Agency fund held in trust through an Escrow account.
II. Probably not. The FPPC is a bipartisan, independent body which administers and enforces the Political Reform Act's rules on conflicts of interest, campaign contributions and expenditures, and lobbying disclosure, while the commission exerts...
Pg. 2 of 7:
...jurisdiction over *Conflicts of interests *Mass mailing violations *Campaign disclosure violations *State lobbying violations *Personal use campaign funds and *Money laundering, all but the latter have relevance exclusively to issues related to candidates for office, and campaign fundraising issues. California Government Code _82015 addressing payments made "at the behest " of an elected official to be used for legislative or governmental purposes may be an FPPC issue and will be discussed below.
III. No. Pro bono assistance presents no conflicts of interest, as such assistance constitutes a benefit to the county, and to the people, rather than to the elected official personally. Pro bono assistance does not constitiute a "gift," "bequest," or "devise," within the meaning of FPPC rules.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On February 24, 2003, Paul V. Gallegos, District Attorney of Humboldt County (DA) acting to protect the general public from unfair business practices, filed a complaint for civil penalties, injunction and restitution against THE PACIFIC LUMBER COMPANY (PL), and its subsidiaries, in the Superior Court of California, County of Humboldt. Complaint: People v. Pacific Lumber Company on behalf of The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, pursuant to sections 17204 and 17206 of the Business and Professions Code.
District Attorney Gallegos and Assistant District Attorney Tim Stoen subsequently appeared before the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors (March 12, 2003) for the purpose of requesting permission of the Board for the DA's office to retain outside counsel to assist with the PL litigation. The Board opposed the allocation of any County monies to the PL lawsuit. Standing alone, Third District Supervisor, John Wooley put forth a motion to allow the District Attorney to present a finalized proposal supporting his request, but the rest of the Board voted the motion down. Although the Board rejected the DA's request for special counsel, Mr. Gallegos stands by his decsion to proceed with the lawsuit, and now seeks to supplement his budget for anticipated costs of the suit, inclusive of witness fees, travel expenditures, depositions, et cetera. Presently, the District Attorney's office is engaged in pursuing a lawful course by which to solicit, accept, and utilize contributions so crucial to supplementation to the Agency's budget, and to the success of the PL litigation. The District Attorney's office seeks now to delineate and resolve all of the issues involved in establishing a lawful procedure for accepting, reporting, depositing, and disbursing monetary contributions to support the PL lawsuit.
pg 3 of 7:
DISCUSSION:
I. Whether a District Attorney, as a sitting elected official can solicit for, and accept donations to supplement his Agency's budget for anticipated costs associated with the public purpose of prosecution, and if so, what legal guidelines regulate the solicitation, acceptance and disbursement of such contributions?
As an elected official, acting within the scope of his official duties, and to satisfy a public purpose such as proceeding with the Pacific Lumber Company Lawsuit, the District Attorney may accept contributions from both individual and organizational donors. the preferred method is the establishment of a Trust Fund through the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors.
AUTHORITY FOR LEGAL GUIDELINES:
AUTHORITY: SUBJECT:
Government Code Section 25355 Acceptance of gifts by the Board
Government Code Section 25356 Treatment of specified and unspecified donations
California Government Code Section 25355, West 2003,
"The Board may accept or reject any gift, bequest, or devise made to or in favor of the County, or to or in favor of the Board in trust for any public purpose. The Board may delegate to any County officer or employee the power to accept any gift, bequest, or devise made to or in favor of the County. The officer or employee shall file with the Board each quarter a report that describes the source and value of each gift valued in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or any other amount as determined by the Board. The Board may hold and dispose of the property and the income and increase thereof for those lawful uses and purposes as are prescribed in the terms of the gift, bequest or devise. In accounting for or inventorying gifts, bequests, or devises, the officer or employee shall follow the appropriate procedures contained in the State Controller's manual entitled "Accounting Standards and Procedures for Counties.:
California Government Code Section 25356, West 2003,
"If any gift, bequest or devise is unaccompanied by any provision prescribing or limiting the uses and purposes to which the property is received, or the income or increase
pg 4 of 7:
Page four is missing. No one seems to have a copy of this except perhaps Tim Stoen, Salzman or Holder
pg 5 of 7
...first step to be undertaken by the DA's office is to formalize a request to the Board of Supervisors for the establishment of a Trust Fund for expenditures anticipated in the PL lawsuit.
PROCEDURE TO BE USED BY DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN REQUESTING TRUST FUND.
As per instructions of County Treasurer, Steve Stawn (sp) offered via phone conference March 20, 2003, the following process must be followed: Initially, three (3) weeks before the proposal is made before the Board, the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors must be notified of intent of DA's office to present a proposal for establishment of agency/trust fund to be used for the PL lawsuit. the clerk will make this request a future Agenda Item.
Secondly, the DA appears before the Board with a formalized, written proposal delineating the necessity of a Trust Fund to supplement anticipated costs associated with the Pl lawsuit. A working title of the Trust Fund might be Headwaters Litigation Fund (HLF). The DA requests approval of the Board for the proposed HLF.
Thirdly, after consideration of the proposal, the Board will do a status report which is a recommendation for approval or denial of the proposal; (see attached documents (A) Agenda Item No. E-5; and (B) Agenda Item No. C-3) In both cases, the Board approved. Also see Times Standard article, Trust Fund to Widen Buckhorn Grade Backed March 26, 2003 for clarification of Trust Funds.
Lastly, after approval (1) the Trust Fund is set up, and (2) the Agency is oriented on how funds will be accessed. Mr Strawn stated that the Auditor/Controller's office oversees the disbursement of all County monies, and as such, will monitor the disbursement of the HLF. (3) the DA's office will be advised on budgeting matters, and of how to access the HLF Funds. Generally, after approval and establishment of the Trust Fund, expenditures are accessed via presentation of a budget.
In the event that the Board of supervisors denies the District Attorney's proposal for a trust fund to be established as per Government Code _ 25355, for the public purpose of the PL litigation, the alternative plan will be a trust fund set up as an Escrow account. Escrow law is contained in Division California Finance Code commencing with the regulations, are contained in Subchapter 9, title 10 of the California Code of Regulations with section 1700 (10 C.C.R. _1700 et seq).
!!. Whether the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) created by the Political Reform Act of 1974 (Proposition 9) exerts authority or jurisdiction over fundraising not associated with pre-election candidate, campaign fundraising, but rather for expenditures for public purposes, as designated by a sitting public official in executing his official duties?
According to FPPC spokesperson and researcher, "Trish," via phone conference on April 1, 2003, the FPPC, the FPPC almost exclusively oversees fundraising issues associated with candidates, and pre-election fundraising. Trish's response to an inquiry regarding...
pg 6 of 7
...Government Code _ 82015 (B) (iii), was that this section is a "relatively new" and "gray area" of the law, which "should not be a problem or an issue in the instant matter."
Government Code _ 82015 (B) (iii), reads
"A payment not covered by clause (i), made principally for legislative, governmental or charitable purposes, in which case it is neither a gift nor a contribution. However, payments of this type that are made at the behest of a candidate who is an elected officer shall be reported within 30 days following the date on which the payment or payments equal or exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000) in the aggregate from the same source in the calendar year in which they are made..." (see attached document marked "C" to review section 82015.)
FPPC spokesperson Trish conjectures that if the HLF is set up through the County' Government Code 82015 regulations may be negated by the stringent County trust fund regulations. This further research on Government Code 82015 (B) (iii) is forthcoming. Trish will determine whether or not, once the HLF is set up, the District Attorney himself, may lawfully solicit for funding via phone calls and personal letters to perspective (sp) donors. According to the FPPC representative, however, it si established that others in the Agency may solicit for funding on behalf of a public purpose (HLF), which solicitation is outside the scope of the FPPC authority.
III. Whether a District Attorney''s acceptance of pro bono legal assistance tendered by attorney's, law firms, or paralegals constitutes the acceptance of "gifts" or "bequests" by a sitting elected official and if so, what legal authority, if any may regulate, limit, or prohibit acceptance of such pro bono assistance by the District Attorney in the instant matter of the Pl lawsuit?
A phone conference with FPPC representative Adrian on March 28, 2003 revealed that pro bono assistance offered to a sitting elected official for a public purpose, benefit the County and the people of the County, but not the official personally. Such assistance does not constitute a "gift" or "bequest" within the meaning of FPPC regulations, and may, therefore, be accepted without reservation, by the sitting District Attorney in the instant matter. Adrian stated that such acceptance by the Da of pro bono assistance does not constitute a "conflict of interest" within the meaning of FPPC regulations.
CONCLUSION:
Although the District Attorney's prior bid for County approval for the hiring of outside counsel to assist in the PL lawsuit, was rejected by the Board of Supervisors it is herein suggested that the Da go before the Board with a proposal which constitutes an offer the...
pg 7 of 7
...Board 'cannot refuse.' Emphasis should be placed upon the fact that the District Attorney's Office seeks no money, either directly, or indirectly, from the General Fund, but rather requests the establishment of a trust fund whose coffers will abound with contributions from individuals and organizations some of whom have already come forward with spontaneous offers of monetary donations.
It is prudent to make the HLF proposal clear, and comprehensible to the Board, and to render the process of approving and setting up the trust fund as simple as possible. In the improbable event that the Board denies the proposal, the backup plan of the Escrow account should be implemented.
It is concluded that the District Attorney of Humboldt County may lawfully accept contributions for the public purpose of budget supplementation to proceed with the PL lawsuit. The rule of law is California Government Code Sections 25355 and 23556 addressing acceptance of gifts by the Board of Supervisors and treatment of specified and unspecified donations. FPPC Regulations, California Government Code 82015 addressing "behested payments" in excess of five thousand dollars ($5,000) from a single source, are satisfied by simply filling out a form and filing that form with the County Clerk. Applying the relevant rules of law to the facts contained therein, the District Attorney, after lawfully establishing the trust fund, may solicit, accept and utilize unlimited contributions for the public purpose of the PL litigation.
Once the trust fund is established, fundraising plans could include calls and letters to environmentally involved celebrities, and to organizations such as the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and the Wilderness Society Planning and Conservation League. Full page ads in the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle could attract powerful allies to contribute significantly to the cause. Although local radio, television and newspaper releases might serve to clarify the DA's position on the lawsuit, and perhaps win some measure of support, a controversial, even hostile local environment and the facts appear to indicate that significant budgetary supplementation will likely come from out of the immediate area.
Gail Holder
****
"There have been rumors Gallegos supporters are launching a community fund-raising effort to fund the Palco suit. Gallegos and his staff say while they are open to such a proposal, they're not aware such a fund exists." ..."Salzman says he's heard some talk of a community fund, but he's not involved in that effort." April 30, 2004 Times Standard Front page story by James Tressler
Rumors? Open to such a proposal? How about orchestrating such a Fund.
On March 29, 2004, exactly one month before he made that statement, Paul Gallegos submitted a formal 'Request for Opinion' to the Attorney General's office to pave the way for Richard Salzman and Tim Stoen's plan to solicit special interest money to privately fund a public prosecution.
That plan is detailed below.
Before you read it, ask yourself this question: If Stoen and Gallegos were prosecuting Kobe Bryant, and Gallegos' backers and handlers were the Aryan Brotherhood, who were contributing money to fund the prosecution of Kobe Bryant - to "get that black man" - would that be ok? I contend that no same person would say yes.
And should District Attorney Paul Gallegos be acting at the behest of his Campaign Manager to use his public office in the name of a cause?
***
The memo included below, dated April 14, 2003, references an attached document given to County CAO Loretta Nickolaus by Tim Stoen. The document, included here is a Memorandum to Richard Salzman dated March 31, 2003. It is available as a public records act request.
In this document RICHARD SALZMAN, GALLEGOS' CHIEF CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISER (March primary 2002) and then CAMPAIGN MANAGER (Recall election, March 2004) and acting head of the so-called "Alliance for Ethical Business" (one of many groups targeting Pacific Lumber Company) is soliciting an opinion for Stoen/Gallegos.
****
Cover page:
Interoffice Memo
Date: April 14, 2003
To: Tim Stoen, Assistant District Attorney
CC: Paul Gallegos, District Attorney
Board of Supervisors
Tammy Falor, County Counsel
From: Loretta Nickolaus, CAO
Re: Request for establishment of a Trust Fund expenditure anticipated in the Pacific Lumber Company (Palco) lawsuit.
Last week you stopped by my office to give a "heads up" stating that you were planning to prepare an item for Board approval. You referred to a memo (copy attached) that outlined a proposal. The proposal would include a recommendation to establish a trust fund that would supplement the DAs budget for costs associated with the fraud case you have recently filed against Palco. The memo suggests calling the new trust the Headwaters Litigation Fund.
The memo also points out that the Board has established other trust funds for special purposes and needs. Examples would include a trust fund to widen the Buckhorn Grade or the DAs environmental trust fund used to clean up contaminated properties. The Board has also accepted private donations to cover the cost of buying library books and a gift of funds to study the housing needs in the community.
I am not in a position to weigh in on the Palco case and cannot support establishing this trust fund any more than I could recommend that the Board accept Donations from Palco for the sole purpose of prosecuting tree sitters (for example). However, given these tough budget times and the probability that it is going to get a lot worse before it gets better, why don't you explore (with the assistance of the Attorney General's Office and County Counsel) the creation of a more flexible fund called the DAs Prosecution Fund to be used to supplement the DAs budget not only for fraud cases but also drug, abuse and homicide cases.
I hope this feedback is helpful.
***********************
ATTACHED DOCUMENT
***********************
Page 1 of 7:
MEMORANDUM
To: Richard Salzman "Alliance for Ethical Business"
From: Gail Holder
Re: Legal guidelines for possible fundraising to supplement the District
Attorney's budget for anticipated costs involved in the PL lawsuit
Date: March 31, 2003
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
I. Whether a District Attorney, as a sitting elected official can solicit for, and accept donations to supplement his Agency's budget for anticipated costs associated with the public purpose of prosecution, and if so, what legal guidelines regulate the solicitation, acceptance, and disbursement of such contributions?
II. Whether the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) created by the Political Reform Act of 1974 (Proposition 9) exerts authority or jurisdiction over fundraising not associated with pre-election candidate, campaign fundraising, but rather for expenditures for public purposes, as designated by a sitting public official in executing his legal duties?
III. Whether a District Attorney's acceptance of pro bono legal assistance tendered by attorneys, law firms, or paralegals constitutes the acceptance of "gifts" or "bequests" by a sitting elected official and if so, what legal authority, if any may regulate, limit, or prohibit acceptance of such pro bono assistance by the District attorney in the instant matter of the PL lawsuit?
BRIEF ANSWERS
I. Yes. Contributions designated for the public purpose of proceeding with the PL lawsuit may be accepted by the District Attorney's office, via establishment of an Agency-fun approved by the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, which Board is empowered to approve or deny the District Attorney's proposal. If denied, an alternative plan for acceptance of contributions will be the formulation of an Agency fund held in trust through an Escrow account.
II. Probably not. The FPPC is a bipartisan, independent body which administers and enforces the Political Reform Act's rules on conflicts of interest, campaign contributions and expenditures, and lobbying disclosure, while the commission exerts...
Pg. 2 of 7:
...jurisdiction over *Conflicts of interests *Mass mailing violations *Campaign disclosure violations *State lobbying violations *Personal use campaign funds and *Money laundering, all but the latter have relevance exclusively to issues related to candidates for office, and campaign fundraising issues. California Government Code _82015 addressing payments made "at the behest " of an elected official to be used for legislative or governmental purposes may be an FPPC issue and will be discussed below.
III. No. Pro bono assistance presents no conflicts of interest, as such assistance constitutes a benefit to the county, and to the people, rather than to the elected official personally. Pro bono assistance does not constitiute a "gift," "bequest," or "devise," within the meaning of FPPC rules.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On February 24, 2003, Paul V. Gallegos, District Attorney of Humboldt County (DA) acting to protect the general public from unfair business practices, filed a complaint for civil penalties, injunction and restitution against THE PACIFIC LUMBER COMPANY (PL), and its subsidiaries, in the Superior Court of California, County of Humboldt. Complaint: People v. Pacific Lumber Company on behalf of The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, pursuant to sections 17204 and 17206 of the Business and Professions Code.
District Attorney Gallegos and Assistant District Attorney Tim Stoen subsequently appeared before the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors (March 12, 2003) for the purpose of requesting permission of the Board for the DA's office to retain outside counsel to assist with the PL litigation. The Board opposed the allocation of any County monies to the PL lawsuit. Standing alone, Third District Supervisor, John Wooley put forth a motion to allow the District Attorney to present a finalized proposal supporting his request, but the rest of the Board voted the motion down. Although the Board rejected the DA's request for special counsel, Mr. Gallegos stands by his decsion to proceed with the lawsuit, and now seeks to supplement his budget for anticipated costs of the suit, inclusive of witness fees, travel expenditures, depositions, et cetera. Presently, the District Attorney's office is engaged in pursuing a lawful course by which to solicit, accept, and utilize contributions so crucial to supplementation to the Agency's budget, and to the success of the PL litigation. The District Attorney's office seeks now to delineate and resolve all of the issues involved in establishing a lawful procedure for accepting, reporting, depositing, and disbursing monetary contributions to support the PL lawsuit.
pg 3 of 7:
DISCUSSION:
I. Whether a District Attorney, as a sitting elected official can solicit for, and accept donations to supplement his Agency's budget for anticipated costs associated with the public purpose of prosecution, and if so, what legal guidelines regulate the solicitation, acceptance and disbursement of such contributions?
As an elected official, acting within the scope of his official duties, and to satisfy a public purpose such as proceeding with the Pacific Lumber Company Lawsuit, the District Attorney may accept contributions from both individual and organizational donors. the preferred method is the establishment of a Trust Fund through the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors.
AUTHORITY FOR LEGAL GUIDELINES:
AUTHORITY: SUBJECT:
Government Code Section 25355 Acceptance of gifts by the Board
Government Code Section 25356 Treatment of specified and unspecified donations
California Government Code Section 25355, West 2003,
"The Board may accept or reject any gift, bequest, or devise made to or in favor of the County, or to or in favor of the Board in trust for any public purpose. The Board may delegate to any County officer or employee the power to accept any gift, bequest, or devise made to or in favor of the County. The officer or employee shall file with the Board each quarter a report that describes the source and value of each gift valued in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or any other amount as determined by the Board. The Board may hold and dispose of the property and the income and increase thereof for those lawful uses and purposes as are prescribed in the terms of the gift, bequest or devise. In accounting for or inventorying gifts, bequests, or devises, the officer or employee shall follow the appropriate procedures contained in the State Controller's manual entitled "Accounting Standards and Procedures for Counties.:
California Government Code Section 25356, West 2003,
"If any gift, bequest or devise is unaccompanied by any provision prescribing or limiting the uses and purposes to which the property is received, or the income or increase
pg 4 of 7:
Page four is missing. No one seems to have a copy of this except perhaps Tim Stoen, Salzman or Holder
pg 5 of 7
...first step to be undertaken by the DA's office is to formalize a request to the Board of Supervisors for the establishment of a Trust Fund for expenditures anticipated in the PL lawsuit.
PROCEDURE TO BE USED BY DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN REQUESTING TRUST FUND.
As per instructions of County Treasurer, Steve Stawn (sp) offered via phone conference March 20, 2003, the following process must be followed: Initially, three (3) weeks before the proposal is made before the Board, the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors must be notified of intent of DA's office to present a proposal for establishment of agency/trust fund to be used for the PL lawsuit. the clerk will make this request a future Agenda Item.
Secondly, the DA appears before the Board with a formalized, written proposal delineating the necessity of a Trust Fund to supplement anticipated costs associated with the Pl lawsuit. A working title of the Trust Fund might be Headwaters Litigation Fund (HLF). The DA requests approval of the Board for the proposed HLF.
Thirdly, after consideration of the proposal, the Board will do a status report which is a recommendation for approval or denial of the proposal; (see attached documents (A) Agenda Item No. E-5; and (B) Agenda Item No. C-3) In both cases, the Board approved. Also see Times Standard article, Trust Fund to Widen Buckhorn Grade Backed March 26, 2003 for clarification of Trust Funds.
Lastly, after approval (1) the Trust Fund is set up, and (2) the Agency is oriented on how funds will be accessed. Mr Strawn stated that the Auditor/Controller's office oversees the disbursement of all County monies, and as such, will monitor the disbursement of the HLF. (3) the DA's office will be advised on budgeting matters, and of how to access the HLF Funds. Generally, after approval and establishment of the Trust Fund, expenditures are accessed via presentation of a budget.
In the event that the Board of supervisors denies the District Attorney's proposal for a trust fund to be established as per Government Code _ 25355, for the public purpose of the PL litigation, the alternative plan will be a trust fund set up as an Escrow account. Escrow law is contained in Division California Finance Code commencing with the regulations, are contained in Subchapter 9, title 10 of the California Code of Regulations with section 1700 (10 C.C.R. _1700 et seq).
!!. Whether the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) created by the Political Reform Act of 1974 (Proposition 9) exerts authority or jurisdiction over fundraising not associated with pre-election candidate, campaign fundraising, but rather for expenditures for public purposes, as designated by a sitting public official in executing his official duties?
According to FPPC spokesperson and researcher, "Trish," via phone conference on April 1, 2003, the FPPC, the FPPC almost exclusively oversees fundraising issues associated with candidates, and pre-election fundraising. Trish's response to an inquiry regarding...
pg 6 of 7
...Government Code _ 82015 (B) (iii), was that this section is a "relatively new" and "gray area" of the law, which "should not be a problem or an issue in the instant matter."
Government Code _ 82015 (B) (iii), reads
"A payment not covered by clause (i), made principally for legislative, governmental or charitable purposes, in which case it is neither a gift nor a contribution. However, payments of this type that are made at the behest of a candidate who is an elected officer shall be reported within 30 days following the date on which the payment or payments equal or exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000) in the aggregate from the same source in the calendar year in which they are made..." (see attached document marked "C" to review section 82015.)
FPPC spokesperson Trish conjectures that if the HLF is set up through the County' Government Code 82015 regulations may be negated by the stringent County trust fund regulations. This further research on Government Code 82015 (B) (iii) is forthcoming. Trish will determine whether or not, once the HLF is set up, the District Attorney himself, may lawfully solicit for funding via phone calls and personal letters to perspective (sp) donors. According to the FPPC representative, however, it si established that others in the Agency may solicit for funding on behalf of a public purpose (HLF), which solicitation is outside the scope of the FPPC authority.
III. Whether a District Attorney''s acceptance of pro bono legal assistance tendered by attorney's, law firms, or paralegals constitutes the acceptance of "gifts" or "bequests" by a sitting elected official and if so, what legal authority, if any may regulate, limit, or prohibit acceptance of such pro bono assistance by the District Attorney in the instant matter of the Pl lawsuit?
A phone conference with FPPC representative Adrian on March 28, 2003 revealed that pro bono assistance offered to a sitting elected official for a public purpose, benefit the County and the people of the County, but not the official personally. Such assistance does not constitute a "gift" or "bequest" within the meaning of FPPC regulations, and may, therefore, be accepted without reservation, by the sitting District Attorney in the instant matter. Adrian stated that such acceptance by the Da of pro bono assistance does not constitute a "conflict of interest" within the meaning of FPPC regulations.
CONCLUSION:
Although the District Attorney's prior bid for County approval for the hiring of outside counsel to assist in the PL lawsuit, was rejected by the Board of Supervisors it is herein suggested that the Da go before the Board with a proposal which constitutes an offer the...
pg 7 of 7
...Board 'cannot refuse.' Emphasis should be placed upon the fact that the District Attorney's Office seeks no money, either directly, or indirectly, from the General Fund, but rather requests the establishment of a trust fund whose coffers will abound with contributions from individuals and organizations some of whom have already come forward with spontaneous offers of monetary donations.
It is prudent to make the HLF proposal clear, and comprehensible to the Board, and to render the process of approving and setting up the trust fund as simple as possible. In the improbable event that the Board denies the proposal, the backup plan of the Escrow account should be implemented.
It is concluded that the District Attorney of Humboldt County may lawfully accept contributions for the public purpose of budget supplementation to proceed with the PL lawsuit. The rule of law is California Government Code Sections 25355 and 23556 addressing acceptance of gifts by the Board of Supervisors and treatment of specified and unspecified donations. FPPC Regulations, California Government Code 82015 addressing "behested payments" in excess of five thousand dollars ($5,000) from a single source, are satisfied by simply filling out a form and filing that form with the County Clerk. Applying the relevant rules of law to the facts contained therein, the District Attorney, after lawfully establishing the trust fund, may solicit, accept and utilize unlimited contributions for the public purpose of the PL litigation.
Once the trust fund is established, fundraising plans could include calls and letters to environmentally involved celebrities, and to organizations such as the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and the Wilderness Society Planning and Conservation League. Full page ads in the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle could attract powerful allies to contribute significantly to the cause. Although local radio, television and newspaper releases might serve to clarify the DA's position on the lawsuit, and perhaps win some measure of support, a controversial, even hostile local environment and the facts appear to indicate that significant budgetary supplementation will likely come from out of the immediate area.
Gail Holder
****
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)