Robo Arrested On Concealed Weapon Charge – April 20, 2011

Kevin L. Hoover

Eye Editor

HUMBOLDT – Activist Jason Robo was arrested last week on two outstanding warrants over an incident at his home last year.

Robo was participating in the Wednesday, April 13 protest over state budget cuts to the California State University system. At about 1:25 p.m., the picketers with whom he was marching happened to pass through the lobby of the Student and Business Services Building where the University Police Department is located. There, officers spotted Robo, confirmed that the warrants were still in effect and arrested him without incident.

The warrants stem from a June 10, 2010 incident at Robo’s McKinleyville residence. Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office spokesperson Brenda Godsey said Robo had called 911 for unknown reasons, and a deputy responded.

[Editor's note: contrary to the erroneous initial reporting, this encounter took place not at a residence, but on U.S. Highway 101, where Jason Robo was bicycling. We regret the error. – Ed.]

According to HCSO records, Robo answered the door drunk and and yelled at the deputy, “I’m the one who called you!” The deputy said he believed Robo and asked him not to put his hands in his pockets.

Robo continued to state that he called the deputy and to reach into his pockets, and the deputy continued to say that he believed Robo and asked that he keep his hands out of his pockets.

At some point, Robo reportedly stated, “My knife is...” and reached for something. The deputy then took Robo into custody, searched him and found a concealed fix-blade knife.

Jason Robo interrogates a tired but patient Bill Ayers at Northtown Books last year. KLH | Eye

He was arrested on a felony concealed weapon charge and taken to the Humboldt County Correctional Facility for booking. There, he refused to allow officers to collect a DNA sample as is mandatory for in felony arrests, and a midemeanor charge was added for that.

When he failed to appear for a court date, Judge Tim Cissna on Feb. 17 issued a pair of $25,000 arrest warrants.

Robo was released on bail Friday, April 15.

Robo has a colorful history as an activist and media personality. A participant in the “9/11 Truth” movement, ardent cannabis reform advocate and HSU student activist, Robo describes himself as “a hyper-activist and scholarly revolutionary,” and a Taurus.

He presents his observations and theories on an Internet video program called Unstacking the Deck.

In 2009, Robo organized a short-lived boycott of the Arcata Eye based on what he said was the paper’s distorted and untruthful coverage of “cannaculture,” or cannabis culture.

Another of Robo’s avocations is crafting parts for hookkahs.

In 2007, Robo was elected as an HSU student representative, then impeached and ruled ineligible to re-run due to failing to meet academic standards. He blamed political persecution by the administration.

Robo’s previous brush with the law occurred July 30, 2008 at Boston’s Logan Airport. After boarding a Delta flight for Salt Lake City and using a restroom, a crewmember found a hand-lettered sticker on a mirror that said “9/11 was an inside job.”

According to a flight attendant, he then stated, “I have to get off this plane right now,” and charged off the plane. He was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct, interference with aircraft operation and disorderly conduct on a public conveyance.

Robo denied the charges, and was placed on six-month pre-trial probation. The charges were dismissed on July 9, 2009.

Not even former Weather Underground revolutionary William Ayers escaped Robo’s withering scrutiny. After a  book signing and talk at Northtown Books last year, Robo aggressively questioned Ayers about his father, Thomas G. Ayers’ service on the boards of defense contractor General Dynamics Corp. and G.D. Searle & Company.

After patiently enduring a somewhat antagonistic barrage of questions, Ayers told Robo that he couldn’t vouch for or endorse all of his father’s business dealings, but that he was his dad and he loved him.



Related posts


  1. Mark Sailors said:

    Just another example of why you should NEVER take the plea. It seems like they only offer a plea if they know they can not win at trial, or that a judge would dismiss the charges.

  2. kevpod said:

    Oh, Jason. We do the best we can with the information that we have.

    Speaking of which, I heard your charges were dismissed, but am awaiting your reply to my e-mail asking for your info. Maybe you didn’t get it. Please call or write for a chat! Thanks.

  3. Jason Robo said:

    Did you report this in your paper and on your radio broadcasts? I would appreciate a legitimate apology in person for this slanderous and libelous coverage you provided under the guise of serving the community. What a joke that you retort to my super-late published response you’d rather publish content that contains “pictures of kids restoring creeks, or basically anything to do with people making positive contributions in the real world.” You went out of your way to print a bunch of garbage, it is no wonder you are folding your paper.

    Is that in some way a victory of the Boycott efforts, however trivial you try to portray them? It is just one layer I suppose in your continual history of disseminating you own personal “self-serving misapprehensions and Internet-flavored bile” which you accuse me of when I am just attempting to defend my name.

    Your farticle (aka an article full of crap under the guise of news) is far shy of the appropriate corrections, just like you are a few hotels short of a Monopoly set.

    A comeback jabbing back at me for my LinkedIn profile is a pathetic attempt at justifying your malevolent intentional lies. I’ve got better things to do than rant here all day long, but I will have to tailor an op-ed if you would have the nerve to print it. I noticed each time your paper comes my way it is full of people ragging on you for your far below sub-par abuse of the press. It wouldn’t necessarily break from op-eds about youth do-gooders.

  4. Shannon said:

    FYI – after repeatedly refusing numerous plea deals in favor of a jury trial, ALL charges against Jason Robo were DISMISSED today.

  5. Jonathan said:

    Prolly because kevin unspamed you so it keeps that record for future posts. “truth” … interesting use of quotes kevin.

  6. David Lawlor said:

    Kevin, I’m sure we do have a lot in common. We both have worked as journalists, we both lived in Arcata, we both like to spark a doobie on occasion, and we’re probably both baseball fans (Go Giants!). That said, we’ll have to agree to disagree about your competence or ethical nature as a journalist. I will not call you to converse, but if I see you around I will definitely make a point to apologize to you face-to-face about saying mean things online and maybe we can have a chat about journalism, Arcata, grow houses, etc.

  7. kevpod said:


    According to the HCSO, JR spoke with slurred speech, had trouble standing and was deemed incapable of caring for his own safety, especially in the dangerous area alongside the freeway. That’s just what they tell me; I wasn’t there, and Jason hasn’t been convicted of anything.

    Jason has made a name for himself with his hyper-activism near and far, and made startling claims about various issues and people. When a guy so stridently positioning himself with the angels of truth and casting himself as a perpetual victim of so many sinister oppressors gets arrested on a concealed weapon charge, it’s the stuff of news.

    Years back, one of the first things I experienced in writing stories about political zealots, particularly conspiracy theorists, is that as much as bankers and politicians, they do not like their negative news covered. So they try and disqualify the journalist by bringing that reporter into it personally and making it about them. It threw me for a loop the first or second time. Then, like all reporters, I became kind if inured to it and other unpleasant aspects of the job. It’s not just me; the True Believers project treachery on good reporters, like Hank Sims for example, all the time. I just read yesterday that he isn’t a journalist in any way, shape or form. He denies the aspersions on his shape and form.

    The always-humorless zealots’ accompanying tactic is to weigh you down by making you answer at length to their weird theories about you, which they can make up at a rate faster than you could ever effectively process. Now Jason wants to debate me; if I don’t take him up on it, well then clearly I’m afraid of being exposed by Captain Truth.

    Your perceptions of my character are real for you, but they seem based on flimsy fragments pieced together from the monster-making Internet. (Frankly it does seem to me that there is some of the usual blog-driven Internet poisoning going on here.) As for any audio of me Jason is using, I’m sure it’s as fair and balanced as the rest of his oeuvre.

    Your pattern, David, is to denounce me for rather contrived ethical lapses (one withering jeremiad of which I published, you’ll recall) while calling me meanie-pants names on various online fora. Now the charges have morphed and receded into character deficits. Now I am smug and jerkish, plus there are these armies of Kevin-dislkers whose actions I must explain to you.

    If it’s any comfort, the people who gush about my great work seem just as ill-advised. I don’t agree with them most of the time either, or at least I can’t take their praise to heart. But at least they’re friendly. One time someone brought me an apple pie. Maybe the Kev-likers could counsel their Hoover-hating counterparts, because I have so much work to do. If you could all sort this out amongst yourselves, I’d be mighty appreciative.

    Should you ever feel like dropping the crap and talking to me, I’ll do the same – give me a call at (707) 826-7000. I bet you will find that we have more in common than you know. But you would really have to be willing to loosen your grip on a lot of bizarre assumptions about me, and I don’t see any trends indicating that you are ready to do so.

    David, I am just trying to put out a small, quirky community newspaper every week while keeping body and soul together. I am simply not ambitious or diabolical enough to fulfill your bogeyman projections.

  8. David Lawlor said:

    A few points:

    Glad you ran a regular correction box in the newspaper. I have seen news websites update factually incorrect stories and then put an editor’s note atop the story indicating that the old incorrect version has been updated. I see very few newspapers running corrections with strike through lines. I have seen some blogs do it, so maybe that’s where it started.

    I disagree with you that we are discussing simple typos here. The factual errors in the story that I am referring to as slanderous are not the location of the incident but rather the allegation that Jason answered the door drunk and slurred something about his knife. That paints him in a very poor light and the problem with the statement is that it never happened! See what I’m getting at?

    Yes, in a forum I did say mean things about you and call you names. I later deleted the posts because I felt they were disrespectful and inappropriate. I let my anger get the best of me for a moment and I exercised bad judgment. I do not like you as a person, but I should respect you just as I would respect all people. So, since you still have it in your memory bank, I apologize for my mean comments about you, they were inappropriate.

    Kevin, I do not know you well, but I feel like you are a mean spirited person. On Jason’s website there is a recording of your phone conversation with him; you sound so arrogant, flippant and jerkish. What’s the deal? Is it just your personality or do you really hate Jason and the homeless and growers and etc.? A lot of people dislike you and I do not think it is solely because you are an investigative journalist uncovering everyone’s dirty laundry and just doing your job of exposing evil and corruption. So, what gives, why the smug attitude?

  9. kevpod said:

    Hi David.

    That’s our system for correcting error while leaving a record that there had been one. It lets people who read the comments and are curious go back and see the original error(s) in the story; erasing the error would invalidate the comments and frankly, it would feel kind of cheesy wiping away mistakes as though they had never happened.

    This method seems to be an emerging convention for online news corrections. We ran the traditional style of correction in a box in the physical paper.

    So in a way this method makes the online version more like the physical paper, in that the errors aren’t retroactively expunged. Maximum disclosure. I like it.

    I remember once during J-Ro’s Eye boycott, someone on one of his online anti-Eye forums called me a “punk ass snitch” and other things, then deleted the comments as though they had never happened. I thought at the time that was a sneaky way of evading responsibility for the nasty blurtage.

    Fortunately, in newspaper world, we have both standards and mechanisms for handling errors. We have to, as we know full well they are going to happen. The mistakes don’t necessarily signify lying, libel, or as you put it, slander. Most of them are simple typos regarding dates, or bad punctuation. In this case, it was a minor factual error – the fairly mundane detail of the location of JR’s arrest (erroneously reported as being at home vs. on the freeway shoulder). It’s not clear to me why one would be more dishonorable than the other; it doesn’t seem like a particularly effective way of smearing someone.

  10. David Lawlor said:

    Oh Kevin Hoover, where did you go to journalism school? Instead of removing the incorrect information in your story and replacing it with the correct information as any newspaper would do, you chose to just put a line through the lies you published and leave them for everyone to view. I guess slander doesn’t count when you put a line through the slanderous statement. Dude you would be awesome as the editor of a vitriolic, whining, immature high school newspa…oh, you already are.

  11. Robert Benson said:

    Thank you for the suggestion, however, I am enjoying my new bodhilinux kernal – especially, since I have, finally, gotten a linux distro to work with my Atheros wireless card – so much, that I must delay it’s implementation. As to my failure to “do basic fact-finding”, considering the negligent reporting of the instant article, above, George Orwell would be impressed. Please, try to answer questions, with answers, not accusations; and, maybe, just, maybe, you will submit a report for public consideration, instead of, mere politically biased propaganda; and, maybe, just, maybe, the public will, then, consider the Arcata Eye to be a “newspaper” and not, just a colorful “tabloid”.

  12. kevpod said:

    You’re perplexed because you don’t do basic fact-finding, then you plug what measly shards of knowledge you’ve randomly observed into your ever-percolating hostility machine and out comes more pointless suspicion. Try getting out from behind the computer and DOING something for a change.

  13. Robert Benson said:

    You are welcome. The link, above, raises my more questions, than it answers. Who would delay a Bat N Rogue prize (party) for 7+ months? I am perplexed.

  14. Bob said:

    Once again I find myself needing to defend myself against the clear violation of my 21st Amendment rights. I would like the two alleged news sources and the alleged law enforcement agency that is being debated to cease-and-desist in their outrageous lies.

    I am not your uncle and I have never deliberately been in McKinleyville.

  15. kevpod said:

    Robert, having just spoken to another intrepid newspaper reporter about the Eye’s ownership, I think I’ll wait for that factual presentation to come out – it should explain everything. BTW, thanks for the nice things you said earlier.

  16. Robert Benson said:

    In response to, “I don’t think that it is that substantial of an error; basically it is just about location. The underlying facts of the charges remain unchanged, do they not?”;
    I got the impression that Jason had called the police, over some unknown calamity, and was, incoherently, drunk, when the officer responded to arrest him for having a concealed weapon – which provides the negative image of someone who gets too drunk and, recklessly, carries a large concealed knife, while yelling at officers (threat to society).
    It seems like more than location, to me; though, I, admittedly, do not have all the facts.
    So what about the Arcata Eye, has is been bought, recently? Who bought it? Come on, tell me. I’ll be your best friend!! Oh, come on! We are going to find out, eventually. Tell me!!!

  17. kevpod said:

    Thanks Shannon.

    Yes, well, that was a factual error, no doubt. We’ll run corrections etc. Newspapers make mistakes; we don’t like it, but, and as much as folks who don’t like their news reported want to make us out as “The Media,” we are humans and goof-ups are going to happen. However, I don’t think that it is that substantial of an error; basically it is just about location. The underlying facts of the charges remain unchanged, do they not?

    “However, is it unreasonable to ask a “news story” be covered in a professional manner, regardless of personal history? ”

    No, that’s not unreasonable at all. In fact, it’s what we attempt to do around here, with varying success. I’ve been reporting about all kinds of colorful characters in Arcata for 20 years now, ranging from people I personally could easily live out my days never seeing again to those I deeply love and respect (there are far more of the latter). It’s virtually impossible for for a reporter in Arcata to write about anything in our small town that there isn’t some history with. At this point, people know I am going to write about their DUI, their employee that embezzled their money, or the toxic waste on their grounds, or whatever. They know it isn’t personal.

    So I would challenge one assumption you seem to be making, Shannon, with regard to the “bad blood.” Our friend Jason comes nowhere near being any kind of big-league annoyance to me. His ill-conceived boycott, borne of ignorance, only brought forth abundant expressions of love and support, and more ads and subscriptions from the readers with whom we have developed a very strong bond over the years. They’re very protective of their small-town newspaper.

    I don’t dislike Jason at all. Why would I? To me just seems like one more humorless ideologue, albeit one who adds a little more color to the town. It’s easy to forget that when, for example, we’ve had City Council candidate fora, Jason has tabled with his causes, etc. It’s good to have a local rep for the 9/11 Truth movement, etc. Lets the folks see that up close and personal. It is my impression that the personal enmity comes from Jason. Me, I’m just not feeling it.

    If I spent my time managing ire against people in Arcata for their silly escapades, it would be a full-time job, and I already have one of those. I’m far more pissed at the self-centered people who let their dogs poop on the Plaza where kids play.

  18. anon.r.mous said:

    My guess is it has to do with too many “quote”

  19. Shannon said:

    Sorry, I can’t be of more help, but I now officially have no clue why/which comments are being filtered… the above post displayed instantly.

  20. Shannon said:

    This is just a test of my web addy theory, for posterity.

    Let’s see where this goes.

    If it’s posted instantly, your guess on the issue is as good as mine.
    IF it ends up in WordPress’s Spam Filter, then Bob’s your uncle.

  21. Shannon said:

    Hi Kevin:

    I figured you’d find my post in the spam filter, eventually.

    While I’m not sure why my post was initially marked as spam along with Jason’s, I can only speculate as to the reason being “links.” From what I can tell, WordPress seems to throw comments with web addresses into the spam filters on many local blogs.

    Again, just speculation; certainly no evidence of “conspiracy” here.

    Sincere thanks for displaying my post once located.

    I’m not sure if the following comment was directed at me, but I would like to address it briefly, if I may.

    Kevpod: So, J-Ro’s Eye boycott immunizes him against any negative news. Hmmm… not buying.

    I don’t buy that either. I never made any such suggestion, but was simply replying to the poster who implied your article coulda/shoulda been worse because it was Robo who organized a boycott of your advertisers.

    However, is it unreasonable to ask a “news story” be covered in a professional manner, regardless of personal history? Errors from another outlet based on failure to fact-check would also be “shabby reporting” in my book. Because there does appear to be bad blood in this case, your reporting just seems to be shabby with a back-story.

    To be transparent, the reason I KNOW Jason was NOT arrested at his residence is because he was otherwise engaged in a personal favor for me, house-sitting/caring for our pets in McKinleyville on June 10, 2010, while my husband and I traveled to attend a wedding. THAT’s where the McKinleyville location came into play as far as I can tell. Jason was biking on the 101 to MY HOME to honor his commitment, as I have cats who strangely like to be fed and watered on a daily basis!

    Furthermore, I lived in an apartment with extremely “involved” neighbors who we’d asked to keep an eye/ear out and check-in on Jason while we were away. IF he’d been arrested at my home (about 10 feet from my neighbor’s front door) precipitated by Robo’s “yelling” at a deputy while “drunk,” I’d have undoubtedly heard about it upon my return.

    Finally, there is the matter of that oh so pesky official report, which I actually bothered to read. I’m sorry, but when your trip is interrupted due to your house-sitter’s arrest and subsequent inability to complete the job, you tend to take an interest in the circumstances.

  22. Robert Benson said:

    I apologize for not waiting, longer, for a response, but the suspense is overwhelming me.
    So, assuming the Arcata Eye has been bought, is the new owner, now, liable to a libel suit, say, in connection with the negligent reporting showcased, above? or, perhaps, the deal has not gone through, yet, and they would, only, be liable for damages produced after the closing of the deal.
    After giving notice to a number of local officials and public employees of my intent to sue them, I received a restraining order to stay away from the public law library (based on perjury), so I am unable to discover the applicable law on the subject. Any readers know the answer to my inquiry?

  23. Robert Benson said:

    Thank you for the reminder that Jason was not arrested for DIP 647(f); once you get an impression, it is hard to dislodge it.
    I, inadvertently, received a message that someone has bought the Arcata Eye. Is that true? Now, I must admit, though you seem to side with the local establishment, without waver; I expect this from media and would be greatly disappointed, if they supplanted you with someone with less tolerance for public debate. I enjoy bickering with you and responding to your, often, clever and creative statements and challenges. You may not always get it right, but you seem to take criticism well, and that goes a long way with me. Enjoy!

  24. Robert Benson said:

    Excellent video link, above. I especially like the third or fourth part, where the lawyer admits that, often, the officers arrest subjects for Drunk in Public who have ANGERED the officer, and not caused by their inability to care for themselves. This is what I have witnessed time and time, again, in Arcata; and nowhere else in my travels, since 1992 – when I hit the open road.
    Additionally, I regret to inform you that APD has a history, including being cited by the Grand Jury, for issuing too many DIP 647(f). Now, Arcata is getting restraining orders, or equivalents, to ban the Homeless, whom they target with these unevidenced accusations, from the Plaza, permanently. Of course, the fact that there was no evidence to prove the 647(f) is immaterial, when the judge issues an order for the homeless victims to stay away from the “White Folks'” Plaza. Arrest, without evidence or probable cause, enough times; and they get a stay away order from the judge, which is what they really want – Homeless Hippies to stay away from the Plaza – only this is discrimination, and conspiracy to.

  25. kevpod said:

    Yo Jason and/or Shannon, or anyone else: If you want a letter in the next edition, send it to [email protected] by 5 p.m. Or post it here – I’ll even check the Spam file. Thanks, Kevin

  26. Mark Sailors said:

    I was just pointing out that I don’t think that HCSO, nor APD would waste time or money arresting someone as prominent and vocal as J-Ro on a DIP, unless they could prove he was wasted, AND a danger to himself or the public, or was somehow making a road or walkway unusable…..No idea why Robert brought up a DIP charge, but I thought I should point out what it takes to convict some one of that charge.

  27. Mark Sailors said:

    Let’s consider some examples:

    Frank is outside a Los Angeles nightclub at 2 am trying to hail down a cab. An LAPD officer approaches and questions him. Frank reeks of alcohol and his face is flushed. Yet he’s coherent and able to walk and answers the officer’s questions. Although he may be drunk, Frank should not be arrested for a Los Angeles “drunk in public” charge.

    Take the same facts. But suppose Frank is so disoriented that he’s stumbling and falling on the sidewalk. He yells obscenities at some passers-by, almost starting a fight. Fearing that Frank may be so drunk that he will harm himself or others, the LAPD may appropriately arrest him for violating California’s “drunk in public” law under Penal code 647(f).

  28. Robert Benson said:

    Slander – –noun 1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander. 2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name. 3. Law . defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.

    “expect to be slandered”, really!? Slander, I believe, is a civil cause of action and by condoning such, you may be liable yourself. Anyway, it seems to me that libel would be more appropriate.
    Perhaps, you meant criticized; good faith criticism, I opine, is healthy. However, slander and libel are actionable and one could stand to lose a substantial amount of resources, if found liable for either.

    While police are, reportedly, taught how to lie in their training, no physical evidence is required to arrest for “drunk in public” (647(f)), and no breathalyzer is provided upon demand by arrestee; I consider the, apparent, local practice of arresting political dissidents, without evidence or a warrant, upon testimony that their eyes were watery and their speech was slurred, is outrageous and violates 18 USC 241 & 242 (both felonies); you know they (police) have audio recorders, yet will not produce the exculpatory evidence that would, likely, prove the innocence of the arrest victim and the conspiracy of local law enforcement.

  29. kevpod said:

    The critics don’t need to “give Kevin a break.” If there are flaws in the reporting, they have every right to detail them so that the correct information can come out.

    Having just spoken with HCSO PIO Brenda Godsey, it turns out that there is an error. The arrest did NOT take place at Robo’s home in McKinleyville as erroneously reported, but on U.S. 101 as he states.

    However, Godsey affirms that the original arrest as well as the re-arrest were for a felony concealed weapon charge, not a misdemeanor as Jason claims. Further, the arresting deputy did note Jason’s watery eyes and slurred speech, and considered him not capable of caring for himself due to intoxication.

  30. Snuffleupagus said:

    Jeesh people, give Kevin a friggin’ break for crying out loud! He’s just doing his job as a reporter. You don’t like the news he presents in his paper, well guess what? You don’t have to read it! Seriously though, you peeps are getting your panties in a bind over something that really is rather benign. As for Mr. Robo, being a student myself, I thought how you handled the situation with the AS was poorly conducted. With respect to said published article, personally I could care less whether your side of the story is justified or not, or whether Kevpod’s is. Welcome to Journalism: You put yourself out there, expect to be slandered. Also, it helps to not keep your panties in a bind 😉

  31. Mr. Zack said:

    Benson, based on the brief nature of police reports and press releases that constitute crime coverage in papers these days, even the SF Chron if you look for it, I feel that “blurb” describes just that. Until you pulled out a dictionary. I am looking for my dictionary, I’ll get back to you when I find it.

  32. kevpod said:

    So, J-Ro’s Eye boycott immunizes him against any negative news. Hmmm… not buying.

  33. kevpod said:

    Yes, it did. Your most recent comment, as well as Jason’s, went into the Spam file. Why would that be?

  34. Shannon said:

    “Seems pretty fair, CONSIDERING???”

    So, because Jason organized a boycott against Kevin’s business, retaliation with false facts is kinda okay. Good to know.

    Since Mr. Robo’s case is still pending, I truly hope this erroneous article still affords him a “pretty-fair” trial, CONSIDERING.

    Sure, this story is exactly like any number of other crime blurbs – with the exception of unbiased reporting and fact-checking in this case.

    I’m not certain what more could have possibly been done to ensure the story be reported correctly, since Kevin himself admitted he did NOT review any police report because “it’s in Eureka” and he “didn’t drive down there.” (Kevin’s quotes taken directly from Audio of Robo’s conversation with Kevin regarding this debacle posted at

    Perhaps Kev should have hopped on a bike to adhere to Journalism 101’s most basic standard for sourcing; surely Hoover could have reached the County Seat to grab the HSCO report, with all his backpedaling.

    Now, onto Mr. Hoover’s actual source, Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office spokesperson Brenda Godsey. Any current theories (conspiratorial or otherwise) as to why the information she apparently provided to The Eye included blatantly FALSE details completely unsupported by her agency’s own official incident/crime report?

    Should the public now aim to guess whether or not this is the ONLY case of local Law Enforcement Officials “embellishing” the “facts” for the media? Maybe she only lies about alleged incidents involving the area’s most “colorful characters.”

    To be fair, I really should hold myself to a similar standard I’m asking of Mr. Hoover and double-check the facts before dragging Ms. Godsey’s through the mud in a public forum.

    Kevin, Brenda Godsey was indeed your official source for a portion of this story relating to “facts” from Jason Robo’s June 10th arrest, correct? That is – the details you printed regarding Jason being at his residence in McKinleyville and answering the door, “drunk” were verbally provided directly to you by Ms. Godsey, as you said during your recently recorded conversation with Jason Robo?

    I want to eliminate any possible misunderstanding before plainly calling the Sheriff’s Office Spokesperson a downright LIAR.

  35. Robert Benson said:

    Mr. Zack, Blurb –noun 1. a brief advertisement or announcement, especially a laudatory one: She wrote a good blurb for her friend’s novel. –verb (used with object) 2. to advertise or praise in the manner of a blurb.

    I fail to discover the laudatory element of Mr. Hoover’s article(s). The element of “defamatory” is more apparent to me. Of coarse, I am just a “Homeless Hippie”, what do I know?

  36. Mr. Zack said:

    Newspapers publish “crime blurbs.” At least the ones that I read do.

  37. Mr. Zack said:

    Seems to me like a pretty fair and even-handed account considering the boycott that Robo tried to pull against the very newspaper that wrote this. It’s a lot like any number of other crime blurbs, except this one involves a very colorful character.

  38. Ben said:

    Well, this article certainly seems unbiased enough!

  39. Robert Benson said:

    I have to admit my opinion of the ACLU, stated above, may be subjective and based solely on my experience with attempting to get assistance from them, maybe I did not try hard enough. Hopefully, this will be an opportunity to clarify the law on the Fourth Amendment and the right to not be brought out into public scrutiny without probable cause. Who is the damaged party, again?

  40. kevpod said:

    Jason’s submission went into the spam file, but has been retrieved. Quoth the WordPress interface:

    “5 hours ago – Akismet caught this comment as spam”

    But I’m sure we can build a conspiracy around it.

  41. Jason Robo said:

    I have tried to post this six times in four different browsers so far, here goes another one…

    Well it seems like this incident is an excuse for Hoover to blow his wad on the highly inaccurate “intelligence” he has gathered on me.

    Hoover, I don’t know where you received your reports but the ones I have clearly contradict this printed filth.

    First off, I wasn’t at my home nor did I call 911 for an unknown reason. I was on my bike and was attacked by a hitchhiker, one would think with your disdain towards homeless that would be a detail you wouldn’t miss. Obviously I couldn’t have answered my front door drunk. I was simply trying to prevent the danger I felt this individual posed to others.

    Secondly, you state as fact that I was drunk and that I had a concealed knife. You might want to incorporate the word “allegedly” into your loony lexicon. So much for not regurgitating the police state’s press releases as you claimed to not do in the LEye in our short boycott debate on John Matthews.

    Third, I was charged with a misdemeanor, not a felony which makes the DNA collection attempt inherently unjust and is used as a way that DNA databases of citizens are built with bunk charges. The ACLU is in litigation to revoke this absurd law which is a violation of a persons 4th amendment rights.

    Fourth, my ineligibility in the AS election, after my illegal impeachment, was said by the Redwood ACLU to be apparently illegal as well. It was not academic, but based on some CPU use policy violation used for the objective of keeping me out of the administration’s hair. The way you wrote this makes it seem like I couldn’t make grades. This was covered in the Lumberjack “Redwood ACLU calls for Associated Students election reform.”

    Fifth, I didn’t charge off the flight. Apparently you take pleasure in selecting lies and printing them as fact. Everyone was asked to exit the flight in orderly fashion.

    Sixth, the knife was not concealed but open-carried in accordance to law, unconcealed on a belt-mounted sheath.

    Seventh, my show Unstacking the Deck ( is a monthly chronicle of news, not just my observations and theories. I think you are incapable of sitting through one episode but if you did I would love to hear clarifications of this “theories and observations” theory. My co-host and I do give our opinions but based on mainstream news all sourced on the website.

    So what is your beef Hoover? You said to get a hobby once giving me grief over calling for others to not financially support your poor excuse for a “newspaper” (actually not too far off from the sad state of print media today). I believe I never have even mentioned you on my show. Now I have to spend my time and energy refuting the crap you have printed. Thanks for proving my point in my criticisms of your “newspaper” (see I can use quotations too). You wanna be a funny guy, how about you tell me what happened on 9/11/2001?

    I hope that you submit corrections in your paper and allow me the dignity to respond personally as Shannon suggested above.

    FYI you misspelled Hookah, it doesn’t have two Ks.

  42. kevpod said:

    Do you have evidence that Robo was operating a grow house? If you’re just making malign things up about people, yes, your posts will be “spiked.” Take that crap to the blogs; that’s what they thrive on.

    Also, we have received no submissions whatsoever from Jason Robo re: this story.

  43. Robert Benson said:

    Well, without any evidence to contradict Esq. Schwartz’s account, I must say the Arcata Lie appears to have reported with negligence and bias. If this turns out to be retaliation for First Amendment exercise, which I allege to be common around here, I pray that any violators of Title 18 USC Section 241 and 242 – conspiracy and deprivation of rights – are brought to justice. The local authorities are, and have been, so unaccountable for so long, that they do not even feel the need to cover their track anymore. The local ACLU is pathetic. The Human Rights Commission and the Grand Jury are a grand joke. I opine, the Citizenry needs to establish a civilian watchdog group to keep their public officials accountable.

  44. anon.r.mous said:

    “You say Robo was arrested at his residence, which was actually in ARCATA at the time of the alleged incident, not McKinleyville as indicated. You also state Jason answered the door, drunk”

    Ah, his grow house was in Arcata, he was crashing elsewhere, say his “real” home.

    If Kevin isn’t spiking my posts, I’m sure he can post and tell his side of the story.

  45. Jeffrey Schwartz said:

    I can tell you what the HCSO report says because I read it. He was lawfully riding his bicycle heading north on Highway 101 just past the Giuntoli offramp. A mentally unstable hitchhiker threatened him with knife. Jason fearing that the hitchhiker may be a danger to others, particularly a driver who might pickup the hitchhiker, called 911 from his bike while still riding northbound. The rest of the story will be played out in court.

  46. Shannon said:

    Kevin, not sure about Suzie, but I am using MY real name to inquire as to the whereabouts of Jason Robo’s own deconstruction of the article. His Facebook status currently questions whether or not he’s being censored, indicating he’s already submitted his rebuttal, twice.

    Like Robert, I have some serious concerns about the “facts” contained in HSCO’s reports, and thus your article.

    Mr. Robo claims to have been arrested while riding his bike IN PUBLIC, not at a residence – therefore a report indicating Jason answered a door in ANY state is strange. Furthermore, the subject claims to possess HSCO records containing contradictory details to those in your source material.

    While I understand and concede to your prior point about oft fragmented police reports, we’re now talking about a great deal more than an incorrect locale. IF Jason’s account of events holds true, there’s a SERIOUS problem with your source material.

    Why would a single incident reportedly generate multiple (not to mention contradictory) official agency reports?

    How could an incident occurring in a public area of town possibly include one answering a door, allegedly “drunk?”

    IF said incident indeed took place at a citizen’s private residence, how on earth could one legally be charged with Concealing a Weapon?

    With so much confusion, I hope “J-Ro’s” account of the situation be posted, for clarity.

    I also hope you can see the potential need for concern by all local residents, as the validity of Law Enforcement reporting is now arguably in question.

    Since these contentious reports are presumably public records, is it unreasonable to ask they be made viewable by either/both sides?

    Thanks for your consideration.

  47. Robert Benson said:

    Happy Easter, Mark! You know I love you, bro.

  48. Robert Benson said:

    What is it with the local authorities’ inability to get a simple police/incident report right? The situation is, both, suspicious and outrageous. Local authorities consistently – so much so, that is appears intentional – admit false information into their reports; completely omitting direct and unequivocal statements from said reports. I opine that this, apparently, deliberately inaccurate reporting causes crimes to go unprosecuted and, thus, undocumented, which gives the area the appearance of lower crime, which gives the appearance of competent policing, in order to attract People with money to the area, who, later, find out that the place is wildly corrupt, after they make the move; in other words, obfuscation of crime and corruption. Get it right or get righted, the People deserve more!

  49. kevpod said:

    Well, why don’t you deconstruct the “one-sided string of lies,” o all-knowing Creedence hit-named one?

    I guess everyone is allowed one lie, hence your false name. Is that how it works?

    How many is in a string, anyway? I assume more than two. Three? Five?

    Don’t let all these lies just hang there, Go ahead, take ’em one by one. Let’s see whatcha got.

  50. Suzie Q said:

    Your response only further proves my point. You admit you got all the “facts” for this article directly from the Sheriff’s Office and assert that Robo has every right to offer his account of the matter, yet you deny him the opportunity to have his side even taken into consideration in your article.

    “If Robo would like to offer his account, why I’m pretty sure he knows how to operate the Internet.”

    So you can just print a one sided string of lies about someone and then it’s their job to find a medium and an audience so they can clear their name?

    It’s one thing to do some investigative reporting, get differing opinions and then as a journalist form your own opinion and write an article, but when you don’t even attempt to obtain the facts from the main person mentioned in the story, how can you deny the questions of ethicality that arise from this manner of conduct? How can you call yourself a journalist when all you do is hear the “facts” from one source and regurgitate them into an article? Even if you don’t have a moral concern about the fact that you deliberately deny one side its voice in the matter, how can you even feel good about the “professional” “quality” of the “work” you do?

  51. Mark Sailors said:

    “If Robo would like to offer his account, why I’m pretty sure he knows how to operate the Internet.”

    Man, I needed a good laugh…..

  52. kevpod said:

    Police records are often surprisingly fragmented. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if the location was wrong. I do wonder why a Sheriff’s deputy would respond to a call for service in Arcata though. That’s fairly unusual unless APD was swamped with drunks downtown or something. Even then it would be odd, but not impossible I guess.

    Certainly J-Ro, like anyone else, has every right to offer his account of the situation.

  53. Shannon said:

    Thanks for your clarification, Kevin.

    Rumor has it the subject possesses HCSO reports containing different circumstances than you’ve described. Guess it’s hard to say unless/until seen directly, but I appreciate your source confirmation nonetheless.

    I, for one, would be quite interested in reading Robo’s rebuttal, should he be so inclined to offer it.

    OpEd perhaps?

  54. kevpod said:

    If Robo would like to offer his account, why I’m pretty sure he knows how to operate the Internet.

  55. Shannon said:

    Hey Kevin:

    Speaking of disputed “truth,” I have a question about the “details” contained in the following passage:

    “The warrants stem from a June 10, 2010 incident at Robo’s McKinleyville residence. Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office spokesperson Brenda Godsey said Robo had called 911 for unknown reasons, and a deputy responded.

    According to HCSO records, Robo answered the door drunk and and yelled at the deputy, “I’m the one who called you!” The deputy said he believed Robo and asked him not to put his hands in his pockets.”

    You say Robo was arrested at his residence, which was actually in ARCATA at the time of the alleged incident, not McKinleyville as indicated. You also state Jason answered the door, drunk.

    I’ve been privy to a different version of the incident in which Mr. Robo was arrested in PUBLIC (though in McKinleyville, I believe).

    My purpose in writing is simply to verify the details of the June 10th incident as you know them, and to confirm you indeed found said details in the County Sheriff’s public records.

  56. Suzie Q said:

    You seem to know so much about Robo, yet did you even think to get his side of the story? No, of course not, all you did (presumably) was copy alleged “facts” point blank from a press release from the Sheriff’s office. Where’s your investigative reporting? It should be pretty basic journalism to research both sides of an issue before publishing erroneous one-sided mis-information that only further perpetuates the myriad state sanctioned lies we’re exposed to daily. I guess you really do only have one eye and it’s clearly focused on eternalizing the endless lies presented to us by “our” government. Thanks.

  57. Jonathan said:

    Why do you put “” around 9/11 Truth movement?

  58. Robert Benson said:

    Activist man calls cops, tries to tell the responding officer that he has a knife, is cut off in attempt to disclose knife and arrested for concealed knife. Standard procedure or harassment due to First Amendment exercise?

Comments are closed.