Whose Word? How Team Gallegos Manages Its Moneymaker – November 12, 2010

Note: On Friday, local newspapers received an e-mailed “letter to the editor” by District Attorney Paul Gallegos, or signed by him, anyway.

But as seen below, Gallegos was a minor player in crafting the epistle. The candidate’s handlers actually initiated the letter and carried it through to completion, with him signing off on their handiwork. That’s probably because he’s gotten into trouble when trying to write things on his own, opinion pieces which famously turned out to have been plagiarized by our District Attorney, the self-described HSU “professor” who never was.

Team Gallegos managed to submit a letter for publication with all previous drafts of the collaborative writing project still appended. The letter’s progression offers insight into how our DA’s braintrust manages their figurehead, and validates that he’s their bimbo/cash cow exactly as alleged by opponents during the campaign. The first e-mail message that got the ball rolling isn’t even addressed to Gallegos, who is a secondary figure to the political operators who are really at the wheel of the enterprise.

Note how Gallegos’ puppetmaster, the omnipresent Richard Salzman, spoonfeeds him reminders and guidance like a patient mother trying to cajole a child into eating his broccoli. Now we’ll all know that when Gallegos’ next “My Word” column comes out, it will have been ghosted by the non-elected “Evenson” under Salzman’s direction. At least the plagiarism will be consensual next time.

Why was the final letter – a political document which Salzman says is intended to help with fundraising – sent from a taxpayer-provided County of Humboldt e-mail address? Gallegos’ skeptics have long objected to the deep politicization of the DA’s Office. How much time and resources are taken up with these and other purely political tasks, including the photo shoots of staff that were used in the campaign?

The final product, which has six people's fingerprints on it yet is presented as Gallegos’ thoughts, was rushed out to help Salzman replenish the machine’s campaign coffers. That, plus Gallegos’ trademark inattentive half-involvement in everything he does, explains the sloppy inclusion of the earlier drafts. The naked gold rush behind the letter also gives the lie to all the usual high-minded ideals invoked by our Surfin’ DA in the final release.

It’s impossible not to observe the Gallegos/Salzman machine and wonder, again and again, why so many individuals who – ostensibly, anyway – aspire to idealism and social progress would sign on with such a manifestly incapable personage. Especially when there have been other genuinely competent and diligent professionals to choose from.

(Even his inner circle has to be exasperated with the incompetent boob they’re trying to shepherd through life. They polished up the high-flown prose for him to ship out, and he bungled even that. You can almost hear Salzman now: “Paul, you were supposed to delete all those drafts before you gave it to Michele!” That’s kind of funny. What isn’t funny is that this is the great legal mind responsible for public safety in Humboldt.)

But remember that there are any number of people whose livelihoods have come to depend not only on their proximity to and influence over our malleable Distrct Attorney, but on his well-documented asleep-at-the-wheel criminal prosecution style as well.

We’ve edited the text string that was sent us in three ways:

• Reversed the message sequence to put it back in chronological order (so you don’t have to read up from the bottom).

• Redacted private e-mail addresses.

• Added a headline to each successive e-mail message. – Ed.

A letter is born

Begin forwarded message:

From: Elizabeth Conner <*****@humboldt1.com>

Date: November 9, 2010 7:28:43 PM PST

To: Natalynne Delapp <*****@gmail.com>

Cc: Richard Salzman <*****@gmail.com>, Alison Sterling Nichols <*****@gmail.com>, John Regan <*****@smartcampaignsca.com>, Michael Evenson <*****@igc.org>

Subject: letter to editor


Just thinking that it would be great for Paul to write a letter to editor ASAP, along the lines of:

[VERY ROUGH OUTLINE, PLEASE EDIT AND REFINE, though it should be kept short and not refer to outcome of the race]

“Although the final election results are not yet known for certain, I want to thank all my campaign volunteers, supporters and staff for their hard work and belief in the concept that everyone is equal before the law and that both the accused and accusers have rights. Most of all, thank you to those who voted for me and expressed your confidence in me and our team [OR A VALUE]. (and to all who voted???) Thank you, Paul Gallegos, DA, Humco”

It should be sent to all local print and web media.

After the election results are known, Paul could write a more substantive My Word.



“Don’t mourn, organize!”  - Mother Jones

‘Make it easier for me to raise money’

From: Richard Salzman <*****@gmail.com>

Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 15:30:37 -0800

To: Paul Gallegos<*****@yahoo.com>; Natalynne DeLapp<*****@gmail.com>

Subject: Fwd: letter to editor

Can we please get this letter submitted in by Friday morning, so that it will be in next week’s weeklies?

Remember that this is just the BEFORE, final results letter and that Evenson is going to work with you on a Guest Editorial / My Word, to follow the final results.  But getting this out now will make it easier for me to raise money.



This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This communication may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communications. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender by return electronic mail and delete all copies of this communication.

Paul’s ideas (for others to write up for him)

Humboldt's Top Cop – The Writin' DA... or not.

On Nov 12, 2010, at 7:50 AM, Paul V. Gallegos wrote:

Team should be Humboldt District Attorneys Office. And then it can go out thank you all for your work. It would be nice to add that while politics tend to polarize now it is time to get back our shared values and continue our work of making humboldt county safe, secure and prosperous for all people.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Whatever, Paul – c’mon, let’s go!

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Richard Salzman <*****@gmail.com> wrote:

that would be fine, but it really should go out today.  do you need more help getting it finalized?



This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This communication may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communications. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender by return electronic mail and delete all copies of this communication.

One hour, three minutes later

From: Natalynne DeLapp <*****@gmail.com>

Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 10:25:57 -0800

To: Richard Salzman<*****@gmail.com>

Cc: <*****@yahoo.com>; Michael Evenson<*****@igc.org>; Conrad Gregory<*****@gmail.com>; Alison Sterling Nichols<*****@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: letter to editor

Here is my version. Any suggestions comments, tweaks?

To the People of Humboldt County,

Although the final election results are not yet known for certain, I want to say thank you to those who voted for me and to those who gave so much of their time, energy and resources to this election season including the Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office, my campaign volunteers, supporters and staff for their hard work and belief in the concept that everyone is equal before the law. I appreciate all the support I have received from around the county.

While politics tend to polarize now it is time to get back our shared values and continue our work of making Humboldt County safe, secure and prosperous for all people.

Thank you for you your confidence in me and our District Attorney’s Office, and I look forward to continuing to serve the People of this county.


Paul V. Gallegos,

District Attorney Humboldt County

Mikey likes it!

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Paul V. Gallegos <*****@yahoo.com> wrote:

Thank you. It is great.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

‘Our shared values’ – my campaign debt

From: “Shoshani, Michele” <[email protected]>

Date: November 12, 2010 11:10:28 AM PST

To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>

Cc: “Gallegos, Paul” <[email protected]>

Subject: FW: letter to editor

To the People of Humboldt County,

I want to say thank you to those who voted for me and to those who gave so much of their time, energy and resources to this election season, including the Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office, my campaign volunteers, supporters and staff for their hard work and dedication.  I appreciate all the support I have received from around the county.

While politics tend to polarize, now it is time to get back our shared values, and continue making Humboldt County safe, secure and prosperous for All people.

Thank you for you your confidence in me and our District Attorney’s Office, and I look forward to continuing to serve the People of this county.


Paul V. Gallegos,

District Attorney Humboldt County


Related posts


  1. kevpod said:

    The whim of politicians – straw man. Few to no whims went into the cannabis ordinance. There was, over a period of months, participation by dozens of citizens, who, in an interactive process with city staff and elected leaders, crafted a law to protect medical cannabis while discouraging the industrialization of neighborhoods and the conversion of the downtown into a cannabis monoculture.

  2. Mark Sailors said:

    I don’t wish for lawsuits, they are coming. The ordinance limits the number of dispensing collectives too four, with that number lowering too two if any close. That is a violation of the guarantee of equal protection. The judge specifically said it is unconstitutional to “zone away” someones rights. That’s exactly what the local ordinance does. Not that I am a fan of “corporate person-hood” but since business’ enjoy the same basic rights as people we can just say no more than “x” number are allowed any more than we can say only “x” number of African American,Latino, or Asians.

    The fact that the local law enforcement respects the law and enforces it as it is written is a testimony to just how good our Police Dept. is in Arcata.

    Read the judges ruling and you will see every issue that he used to invalidate the LA law, the community made the Planning commission and the City Council aware of BEFORE they passed the law in the first place.

    Personally I would like to see the city, and county stop wasting time trying to write a local ordinance that is only going to be tossed out, and start supporting passage of a statewide law that is within the scope of Prop 215 and the MMPA.

    How many dispensing collectives or co-operatives we have should be determined by demand, not the whim of politicians.

    Just my opinion.

  3. kevpod said:

    “Many of the same issues exist with the Arcata ordinance. All it is going to take is someone with legal standing to sue Arcata. The limit on the number of collectives is as the judge ruled ” a violation” of the right to equal protection and to due process.”

    Is there someone in Arcata who can’t obtain cannabis, either by growing their own, buying it at a center, on the street or through friends? Getting a 215 is as easy as buying postage stamps, the City and police don’t care about 215 grows and the four cannabis centers compete to serve thousands of people.

    Why in the world do we wish for lawsuits to suck up tax dollars that could be used for constructive things when there is not a problem?

  4. Mark Sailors said:

    I just want people to obey the law as it stand and for the community to get along. As it stands the law does not allow for the local jurisdictions to regulate medical cannabis. The city does not have the authority to limit the number of shops, nor how they do business. I know many people think it sucks, but it is the way the law is written.
    As sad as this sounds, I left my original home because the laws did not agree with me, maybe some folks will have to have to move away from Arcata, and California in general if they dislike our laws so much.

    Prop 215 and the MMPA do not allow for the regulations that have been put in place. I understand that the powers that be want to put the genie back into the bottle, but that is not going to happen, so we must all learn to live with the law, AS WRITTEN.

  5. kevpod said:

    Did you know that there are Arcata residents who aren’t interested in cannabis, for use or for personal profit? Some of these people don’t particularly want drug factories metastasizing throughout their neighborhoods and pot shops doing the same downtown. Obviously we need to call in the lawyers to sue anything that doesn’t service the cannabis industry into oblivion.

  6. Mark Sailors said:

    Many of the same issues exist with the Arcata ordinance. All it is going to take is someone with legal standing to sue Arcata. The limit on the number of collectives is as the judge ruled ” a violation” of the right to equal protection and to due process. It also illegally disallows private collectives that have no “store front”, and prohibits private persons from collectively gardening in their homes. It also “zones away” certain peoples rights into specific areas. Every one of those things exists in the Arcata law. None of it is legal, and judges are starting to rule and issue injunctions.

    This is why I am glad we got Paul G again.

    By the next time we should have statewide LEGAL guidelines that everyone can and will have to live with, patients and law enforcement both.

  7. Mark Sailors said:

    Judge issues injunction against L.A.’s medical marijuana law
    The ruling finds the law’s provision outlawing all dispensaries except those that registered under the moratorium unconstitutional. It leaves the city with little power to control pot shops. City officials vow to quickly address the concerns.

    By John Hoeffel, Los Angeles Times

    December 11, 2010

    A judge handed Los Angeles a setback in its faltering drive to limit the number of medical marijuana dispensaries, granting a preliminary injunction on Friday that bars the city from enforcing key provisions in its controversial six-month-old ordinance.

    The decision, issued by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Anthony J. Mohr, leaves the city with limited power to control pot stores, which opened by the hundreds, angering neighborhood activists when city officials failed to enforce a 2007 moratorium.

    Near the end of his 40-page ruling, Mohr acknowledged “there is a good chance that a large number of collectives could open once this injunction takes effect,” but said his order was warranted because the dispensaries that sued the city are highly likely to prevail in a trial.

    The City Council first discussed regulating dispensaries 5 1/2 years ago. At the time, the Los Angeles Police Department could find just four of them. It was five years before the city’s ordinance, one of the most complex and convoluted in the state, took effect.

    More than 100 dispensaries have filed at least 42 lawsuits challenging the ordinance. “We’re singing ‘Happy Days Are Here Again,'” said Stewart Richlin, an attorney who represents nine dispensaries, while David Welch, an attorney who represents more than five dozen, described his clients as “ecstatic.” He said Mohr’s decision would curtail city enforcement efforts. “It means they can’t use strong-arm tactics, such as arresting my clients,” Welch said.

    But Jane Usher, a special assistant city attorney, said, “I suspect that their exuberance will be short-lived.” She noted that Mohr, in ruling against some provisions, also suggested ways to fix the ordinance. “He left 90% of it intact and gave us methods for quickly correcting the remaining provisions. I think we’ll be gracious and accept,” she said.

    Councilman Ed Reyes, who led the City Council’s drive to draft the ordinance, said he hoped to have a proposal to address the judge’s ruling by Monday. “My sense of urgency is that great,” he said. “I’ve already learned from the past that, if you open up the window a little, people just crash through. We have to close that window as quick as possible.”

    Mohr enjoined a crucial provision of the ordinance that outlawed all dispensaries in Los Angeles except those that registered with the city under the moratorium the council placed on new stores. He ruled that the provision is unconstitutional because the ban was not properly extended and expired almost two months before the Nov. 13, 2007, registration deadline for dispensaries.

    “The justification for using that date as a bright line was compromised, if not confounded, by the fact that it was unnecessary to register,” he wrote.

    His decision throws into disarray the city’s ongoing process for identifying which dispensaries are qualified to stay open. The council has already delayed by six months enforcement of the ordinance’s restrictions, such as requiring dispensaries to be at least 1,000 feet from schools.

    The judge, however, offered the council a quick remedy. He said the council could simply allow all dispensaries that existed before a certain date and ban the others. He noted that the documents that dispensaries filed with the city in 2007 when they registered could be used as proof they were operating at the time. “Amending the ordinance accordingly would most likely be the easiest way to avoid another equal protection challenge,” he said.

    Usher said the city attorney’s office would probably recommend the council do that.

    Michael Larsen, president of the Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council, said, “I think what Judge Mohr has said is that the city attorney and City Council have written a flawed ordinance, and they need to go back to the drawing board very quickly to get it fixed.”

    Mohr’s decision came after the fast-multiplying lawsuits were routed to his courtroom. The judge delved deeply into the state’s medical marijuana laws in a series of hearings that stretched out over more than half the year.

    Defending the ordinance has cost the city many hours of legal time. At some hearings, half a dozen city lawyers showed up. Usher said the city would probably appeal some of the ruling.

    The judge also decided the ordinance violated the due-process rights of the dispensaries because it shut them down without a hearing, and the privacy rights of patients because it required dispensaries to make records on members available to the police.

    The judge concluded state law preempts a provision that makes violations of the ordinance subject to criminal penalties under the municipal code and a provision that sunsets the ordinance after two years, which he said is “a blanket ban” on collectives and “goes too far.”

    [email protected]

  8. Robert Benson said:

    White Yarrow Tea (the flowers) is an incredible all-around anti-viral. Yarrow will induce a pleasant fever, which kills the heat sensitive virus. It is a stimulant; so, maybe, morning or day is the best time to drink it. Yarrow is bitter, beware or sweeten with honey.

    Conflict of Interest is the only cause for Attorney General intervention; blanket conflict of interest claims seem rather unprecedented. I have not researched the subject, though. When I get time, I would like to challenge federal Cannabis legislation in a Ninth and Tenth Amendment declaratory action.

    “While sovereign powers are delegated to … the government, sovereignty itself remains with the people” –Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, page 370.

    “The word `person’ in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings.,
    –Church of Scientology v. US Department of Justice 612 F2d 417, 425 (1979).

    “The people, or sovereign are not bound by general words in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign … It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King (or the People) he shall not be bound.” — The People v. Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825)

  9. Mark Sailors said:

    No problem my friend.

    This was in the Sca-bee today, so I am not the only one that is worried about how things are shaping up in the DA, and SA races.

    “Medical pot industry closely watches California attorney general ballot count
    By Peter Hecht
    [email protected]
    Published: Thursday, Nov. 18, 2010 – 12:00 am | Page 1A
    Last Modified: Thursday, Nov. 18, 2010 – 9:25 am

    As Steve Cooley and Kamala Harris sweat out the ballot counting to determine California’s next attorney general, perhaps no one is more anxious than advocates for medical marijuana shops.

    Within the state medical marijuana industry, Cooley, the Los Angeles County district attorney, is widely perceived as pot persona non grata.

    It isn’t just Cooley’s aggressive prosecutions of alleged abuses in Los Angeles dispensaries that stir medical marijuana activists. There are also his persistent declarations that he considers medical pot dispensaries to be illegal retail sales outlets.

    Harris, San Francisco’s district attorney, held a slim lead Wednesday in an ongoing ballot count that has been flip-flopping since election night.

    The outcome – due by Dec. 3 – could determine how the state prosecutes medical marijuana cases and how the next attorney general will interpret guidelines for medical marijuana transactions approved by the Legislature in 2003.

    “It certainly does make a difference,” said Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen.

    Should Cooley win, Uelman said, “I think (marijuana) prosecutions are likely to be mounted by the attorney general’s office rather than local prosecutors, especially in counties that are friendly to medical marijuana.”

    Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/18/3194316/medical-pot-industry-closely-watches.html#ixzz15mlKL2Th

  10. Robert Benson said:

    I apologize for any assumptions about your loyalty. As I always have, I respect your opinions; though, I may question them from time to time. Thank you, for taking the time to clarify and for your general good will. Enjoy!

  11. kevpod said:

    Yes, I just had a writer with whom I was planning a major project quit and tell me off (by e-mail) over that.

  12. Paul Hooker said:

    Kevin, thanks for publishing the Gallegos money trail email. I was wondering if any paper would publish it. Other so called news media seem to be somewhat biased. Don’t say anything negative, or truthful about Gallegos, you might get in trouble.

  13. Mark Sailors said:

    Well I personally know people that were legitimate patients, that were raided and either had the cases tossed out, or been pressured by family to beg for a plea bargain even though they possessed valid 215’s. Not that these folks were necessarily in Arcata, but they were in the county. The DA is in charge of the entire county including the more conservative areas. Most Eureka police for years disregarded prop 215 entirely. A lot of Police still do not know that concentrated cannabis is perfectly legal for medical cannabis patients. I personally know that at least one employee of a local respected collective in Arcata was arrested by EPD for possession of concentrated cannabis only to have it dropped by the DA’s office. The DA’s job is to make sure that you are not charged with non crimes as if they WERE crimes. I could name at least 20 cases that were brought by the police only to be dropped by the DA because they accused were not in violation of the law. The bitterness and blatant targeting of Cannabis users by A.J. while at the same time Steve Cooley was running for States Attorney was downright chilling to the medical cannabis community.
    You know I have nothing but the utmost respect for APD.

  14. kevpod said:

    APD, quite demonstrably (see last week’s news) would never pursue or forward a case against a legitimate medical patient, nor likely even one that’s in a gray area. I’d be surprised to learn that any other agency would waste its time on such a foolish thing either. Has that happened in Humboldt?

  15. Mark Sailors said:

    I don’t feel picked on at all. Thanks for caring. I buy the smears about A.J. because I got her mailing with pictures of a burned out building and a 1 light garden. To me that implies she is going to target small medical cannabis patients. She did nothing to make anyone feel comfortable that SHE WAS NOT GOING TO TARGET LEGITIMATE PATIENTS. Paul G at the very least, makes it clear that if you are a legitimate patient with a garden that is for your personal use he wont prosecute you.
    A.J. failed in that, regardless of how she may have acted if she had won.

    My eyes are wide open, and they can clearly see why Paul won.

  16. John Ford said:

    I usually don’t read these comment strings because they usually espouse(sp)hate or innuendo in favor of one person over next and is a total waste of time. But this one actually had a meaningful conversation between two people who agree to disagree. I did vote for Paul for several reasons. I was able to “hopefully” persuade others to vote for him as well. I believe in what he has done in the office over the last few years and I believe in his Deputies and Office Staff. They are hard working people with families and are some of the best in the state. Imagine trying to juggle a recall, and another campaign while trying to run an office and trying cases. I don’t wish that hell on anyone.
    The hate that was coming from the other side was unnecessary and most of it was utterly and completely false. I didn’t just blindly believe everything that was coming from the Gallegos camp. I asked questions. I asked Paul, I asked some of the people who actually work for him. I even asked a couple of the people who used to work for him. I asked the people who worked in the office when Jackson was there. They will definitely not be happy IF she becomes their boss. Because of this “research” I am confident in my choice to help re-elect Paul Gallegos. I know I will be chastised and made fun of in this string. But I really don’t care. It’s not going to change my opinion. I’m happy to see that Paul can spend more time with his family now that this is over, no matter how the pendulum swings.

  17. Mark Sailors said:

    Allison just came off as mean in the debates to me. Like I said, that’s just a personal opinion.

    I have no loyalty to Paul G.,ZERO. As a matter of fact I think I spoke to him for about 2 minutes during the recall campaign. I just believe that as far as MEDICAL cannabis is concerned he is the only DA that is going to be fair to patients and at the same time prosecute those that are damaging the environment with their diesel grows, and tearing up residential rental units with large scale industrial production.

    Maybe one day I wont have to be a single issue voter.

    I do feel your frustration with how you were treated, but PAUL didn’t threaten, you his overzealous supporters did. That is unacceptable, but it is hard to control the action of SUPPORTERS. As a politician you must take responsibility for the actions people take on your behalf. If you were threatened, you are due an apology at minimum.

    I condemn any use of threats, in politics, or anywhere else.

  18. Robert Benson said:

    Mark Sailors,
    Granted, I voted for you -as, I opine, you have a competent legal mind for politics; that said, your loyalty for Gallegos appears to skew your opinions. You condemn “name calling” and, without asserting relevant facts, bestow the name of “MEAN” to Ms. Jackson. What, exactly, is the difference between asserting unsupported opinion and “name calling”? Considering the common local practice of seriously offending someone and rebuking their reaction, I estimate that any hostility from Ms. Jackson stems from her dedicated diligent work for abuse victims being thrown in the trash and replaced by willful systematic incompetence.
    Maybe your family’s lives, and your life, should be, repeatedly, threatened by Gallegos supporters and, when he acquiesces, perhaps, you will understand the malice and insidiousness of his modus operandi. How do my shoes feel?

  19. Rose said:

    Salzman may have played the “Oh she is too close to law enforcement card.” and you may have bought it – but you didn’t even notice him buddying up to law enforcement with Glass and Cleary. Somehow it is ok for them, all three legitimately had the respect of law enforcement, but only one gets smeared for it. Why? More importantly, why do you buy it?

    And you must have missed Gallegos trying to PLAY tough cop guy, and you must have missed his zenith moment, setting up his own assault team. With asset forfeiture money, no less, so he ostensibly could go out and gather MORE asset forfeiture funds – who gets their assets seized?

    Eyes! OPEN! SEE! It’s all right there – but it’s invisible. WHY?

    I’m not picking on you, Mark. I am speaking generically, the generic you encompassing many. I appreciate what you have said here. More than you know.

  20. Mark Sailors said:

    The reason that a candidate would need to raise money after the election in a close race is that a recount must be paid for by the candidate or citizen that initiates the recount. This race is so close I almost guarantee a recount. Not sure if that was addressed.
    To Richard
    You must be really computer illiterate to think that the owner of the site wouldn’t know that you were posting under multiple names, or you are just plain dumb.

    Just Sayin’

  21. kevpod said:

    I’m all posted out, but a few final weekend comments. Mark, let’s meet and chat this week. I want to know more about your objections to the cannabis ordinance. Stirring up a legal fight on that is the one that makes me wonder why we can’t all “just get along.” It’s not clear to me that anyone at all in Arcata is cannabis-deprived. But I’m sure I’ll learn something when we talk.

    Also with regard to Gallegos, this will never happen, but my wish for him would be to cut the crap. Man up, clean house, lose the layers of handlers, stop with the contemptuous Hallmark Card platitudes and relate to your constituents like adults. In other words, be what you pretend to be. Fewer and fewer people are buying it. You just skated in under the wire before the lines cross on this election.

  22. Mark Sailors said:

    I really want to make it very clear that calling names and claiming the EYE is not a “real newspaper” is just freaking PATHETIC.

    If Paul G. can take anything from this discussion it would be: ” If you lie with dogs, you get fleas.”.

    Pick a better class of person to write for you…….

  23. Mark Sailors said:

    You know i don’t agree with Paul H.. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our facts. Even after being shown the facts, and I brought the actual law, and cite-able court decisions to the commission, they found a way to “work around the law”, by addressing it as bogus “land use” codes. That’s not what I want in a DA. I don’t want anyone that will manipulate the law that way and think that that makes them clever. Now we have a defacto “Jim Crowe” medical cannabis laws in Arcata, that are being challenged by ASA and CANORML lawyers that are actively seeking people to be plaintiffs in the lawsuits. Now we are going to have to spend millions defending it in court only to have it overturned by any competent judge that can read the precedents.

    I don’t think Paul H. is mean, I think he was playing for votes in his run.

    Now Allison J., I just find to be a mean, bitter person with an ax to grind. That’s just a personal opinion.

  24. kevpod said:

    Just a question: are you certain that your perception of Paul Hagen (mean, poor grasp) isn’t just that you don’t agree with him?

  25. Mark Sailors said:

    “So, Mark – it is not that the others who offered themselves up were “shamefully inadequate” – it is that you were unable to see the truth about them.”

    I sat for hours on end listening to the planning commission. After seeing what was put forward by them I could never vote for any lawyer that had anything to do with writing the ordinance they concocted. I am positive that we need a DA with a better grasp of the law than Paul H.
    Allison J. is just plain MEAN.

  26. Jack Durham said:

    I have to correct an earlier comment I made. Salzman was investigated by the Trinidad Police, but not actually arrested. My apologies.

    That said, he absolutely wrote all those letters. There’s no question about that.

  27. Mark Sailors said:

    The outright hostility I was talking about was coming directly from former planning commissioner Paul Hagen. I just want a DA that prosecutes real crime and leaves legitimate patients alone. I wouldn’t think that would be too much to ask for.
    You are correct that no two people can agree on everything, but i do think we can all agree that name calling, and the trashing of newspapers and editors is PATHETIC and does not serve the greater good of our community.

    The EYE is a real newspaper.
    Paul Gallegos is a REAL DA.
    In the words of the immortal Rodney King…
    Can’t we all just get along?

  28. Jim Ferguson said:

    Rose – The only reason we won’t have Paul for the next 20 years is because Joan would kill him in his sleep; you only have to look at her election night comment to know this to be true.

    Worth was a weak candidate. And while Paul is not Mister Personality, compared to Worth, he was a rockstar.

    Anyone who saw them together could attest that Allison was easily Paul’s equal in this category and that her qualifications were impressive compared to “the professor’s”. However, there is still a wariness in our community about any candidate who has the unqualified and total support of law enforcement. When Salzman played this card, and it was the only effective card he held, it was enough to cause people to hesitate and one of the first precepts of politics is that when people are uncertain, they vote for what they know – they never take a chance on something or someone new.

    If Allison had been able to offset this uncertainty and given reassurance that voting for her would not be a return to the bad old days, she would have cleaned Paul’s clock, but she didn’t. And while I still hold out hope for Allison winning, there will be a next time and if history is any guide, I am confident Paul will continue to screw up and people will finally see him for what he truly is.

  29. kevpod said:

    Mark, I’m good with all that and I strongly appreciate the contributions you make both to Arcata and the dialogue. No two people agree on everything though.

    “Maybe we could do better, maybe we need some other than the reactionary right to run for DA.”

    Well, yeah. But we had better choices than the incumbent in the last two elections. No one is going to accuse Paul Hagen of being a right-wing reactionary. The Gallegos/Salzman operation did manage to tar Allison Jackson, a lifelong Democrat, as some sort of drunken oppressor. They’ve become experts at that sort of thing, all the while preaching progressivism. In fact they say they basically embody progressivism. That falsity and naked ambition is at the core of my objections, along with the DA’s lackadaisical job performance of course.

  30. Rose said:

    Did you know that when the CAST Team was established – as a multidisciplinary team – a great deal of thought went into its planning. How to avoid the McMartin Preschool nightmare, for example. How to avoid contaminating and inadvertently influencing the testimony of the child victims. How to lessen the degree of trauma to the victim and the victim’s families who had suddenly found themselves trying to navigate in the unfriendly court system. How to implement training – for the interviewers, for the investigators and first responders… Allison Jackson was part of that.

    Did you know that went SART – the Sexual Assault Response Team was established – a great deal of thought went into its planning. And that high in that planning process was how to treat the victim as a human being? Did you know that, for example, that included having a change of clothes available at the hospital, where the victims come into the ER and often have to leave their clothes as evidence?

    I keep hearing that Jackson was not a good alternative – words spoken by people who have no clue, and by people who, unbeknownst to themselves, while they see SOME of what is wrong with Salzman and Gallegos, still do not realize that their opinion has been influenced BY SALZMAN and his poisonous dishonest insertions into the debate. he paints the “scary” meme – he tried the “drunk” meme – he tried the she is in bed with the cops meme – and you fall for it. You repeat it, without knowing anything.

    Serious questions were never asked. If you had asked Paul Gallegos about his claims about creating the CAST, DV and Sexual Assault units, he would not have been able to tell you about the considerations that went into it. Not about how it was set up to make it a more humane process, and not about how it was designed to help ensure proper evidence was gathered, and that the process was not tainted, and even more, that it was designed to ensure that an INNOCENT man would not be charged. It was designed to weed out false accusations just as much as it was to ensure strong cases.

    The very people you have been taught to vilify – Terry Farmer, Worth Dikeman, Allison Jackson – were involved in setting it up. As were Andrew Isaac, Rob Wade, Dave Parris, and countless others both in and out of the DA’s Office.

    It is so offensive to have Gallegos on the one hand vilifying those people, and simultaneously trying to claim credit for all the good that they have done. And make no mistake, though he did not mouth the words himself – he has done this. He and Salzman, Pete Nichols and the others whose names appear in this email chain.

    So, Mark – it is not that the others who offered themselves up were “shamefully inadequate” – it is that you were unable to see the truth about them.

    Sadly – we may be looking at 4 more years of this disgrace. Maybe worse. Maybe 20 years. Who will have the guts to run next time? Who will be willing to put themselves up to be ripped to shreds? And what horrible things will you say and believe the next time? How long can you avert your eyes and ignore what Gallegos is and has done?

  31. Mark Sailors said:

    You know me well enough to know I am not blind to the short comings of our DA. That being said, I feel that the alternatives we have been offered are shamefully inadequate, and some of them downright hostile to certain segments of our community. That leaves us with the choice we have made and that would be Paul. Maybe we could do better, maybe we need some other than the reactionary right to run for DA.

    Now to make disparaging remarks about the “realness” of the EYE is just juvenile and ADULTS should be above that kind of thing, especially those that represent us or represent those that represent us.

    “p.s. Paul and Michael work well together as writer and editor and the editorial will be submitted right after the election is certified, to all legitimate newspaper as well as to the Arcata Eye.”

    Seriously pathetic.

  32. Jack Durham said:

    Salzman told me he did it. This is not in dispute. Oddly enough, Gallegos supporters don’t see any irony in having Salzman in charge of letters to the editor. Funny stuff.

  33. Jim Ferguson said:

    There is a difference between acquittal and not being charged.

    Salzman admitted to the crime. If there is a decision not to move forward criminally, that does not suddenly make him innocent of that crime.

  34. kevpod said:

    Mark, this pretty well exemplifies the phenomenon I mentioned before. That no matter what sub-wonderful antics Gallegos and his crew do, are caught doing or admit to doing, his supporters find a way to make it into something other than what it is. The Salzman/Dick Morris types just become ensnared in their own web of lies sometimes. Not that it makes any difference to our DA, aka Captain Integrity.

  35. Mark Sailors said:

    As far as i am concerned acquitted is acquitted.
    Claiming someone is guilty of a crime they are acquitted of is wrong. Sometimes people admit to things they don’t understand they are admitting to.

  36. Jim Ferguson said:

    You raise an interesting point, Kevin.

    What price Paul Gallegos?

  37. Jack Durham said:

    Salzman confessed to the crime that he was alleged to have committed. So, yeah, he’s not guilty in a court of law. But he did it. There’s no question about that.

  38. Mark Sailors said:

    You are only guilty if you are convicted, claiming anything else is slanderous.

    To kevpod,

    ANYTHING but another recall please.

  39. Jack Durham said:

    Salzman was also in charge of organizing letters to newspapers for the campaign. It’s rather ironic, being that Salzman may be the only person in California history to be arrested in connection to fraudalent letters.( By the way, even though he wasn’t convicted, he was guilty. He confessed.)

  40. Pingback: The perils of email in a contentious campaign « Sohum Parlance II

  41. kevpod said:

    Richard Salzman is trying to collect on a debt for services rendered. He needs that money, and all he has to trade on now is the fading glory of wet-noodle Gallegos.

    Any pretense of idealism or principled comportment lasts only as long as it serves cash acquisition.

  42. Jack Durham said:

    My recent interactions with Salzman were unpleasant. He’s a humorless douche and reminds me of those Dubya “you’re either for us or against us” goons. Looks like four more years of sleazy bullshit to me. (Hey, did he come up with that nonsense about weaning the DA’s office from grant funding, or was that Paul?)

  43. kevpod said:

    That’s a strong point, Jim, one I’d like to elaborate on.

    Had Gallegos really implemented progressive values with aggressive prosecution of all forms of criminal misbehavior, I would have remained the full-on supporter that I was during the heinous recall attempt. But his lassitude and duplicity eroded my confidence in this individual. The man just isn’t interested and has allowed a coterie of dubious lieutenants run the show. It stung me, because I really put myself out there for him. I thought he was one of the good guys, fighting the power.

    I saw this same thing years ago at Humboldt State, when nice man Alistair McCrone lost interest in his work and allowed self-interested journeymen VPs to run the place. HSU drifted and got into all kinds of trouble with things like the BSS Building, refusing to pay stormwater drainage fees and incurring ill will with citizens and legal entanglements with the City. It’s still recovering.

    In the end, this kind of thing is more the fault of the passive executives than that of the opportunists who are only doing what they do. And what they are doing now is nakedly pleading for your cash.

    I wonder what the motivation for Gallegos’ patrons is to pay more for something that they’ve already successfully purchased – him. What if they don’t throw down another $50K? What’s he going to do, start walking the walk of a crime-bustin’ DA? That would require something unprecedented – applying himself. It’s just not in the cards. Any further donors are buying a pig in a poke. A half-asleep pig at that.

    A friend of mine has an e-mail tag that says “Esse quam videri.” I had to look it up. It means “To be, rather than to seem to be.” This describes Gallegos to a T, but in reverse. Has he ever cared enough to be, rather than to commission operatives to create the impression of being a serious district attorney? I’m not seeing it. I wonder if he has ever known the difference.

    It would be fascinating to know when the last time Gallegos’ enthusiasts ever seriously considered the criticisms that come at him from so many quarters, rather than just react defensively. If you object, you are the enemy. You are an alcoholic, an incompetent, an illegitimate newspaper, crushing progressivism, defying the Bible, etc. etc. I’ve heard it all, or maybe not. They keep coming up with new insults for critics. Apparently it’s part of the job description for membership in Team Gallegos.

    Four years ago, when I enumerated Gallegos’ shortcomings and switched “sides,” I was denounced as a sellout, a bought man, a hack and la la la. But that doesn’t really work any more. People from all walks are on to the reality of Gallegos, including many of those who held their nose and voted for him. His support is weak and weakening, and it’s all his doing.

    Gallegos is clinging to the most slender of majorities; it’s shaky and he’s deep in debt. A few more of the regularly scheduled Gallegos debacles and it may be time for another recall, a grassroots version.

    It’s fair to wonder how his campaign’s financial desperation is affecting his prosecutorial choices. The five-figure debt and loose-cannon Salzman’s escapades must be on his mind all the time. That creates a huge opportunity for some criminal suspect who might be facing time for this or that. Everyone now knows his pressure point: money. Salzman even pleads for dollars in this unfriendly forum.

    At this point my interest is in a strong executive in the position and clearing out the riff-raff that has come to encrust the DA’s office because of the leadership vacuum. It’s something Gallegos is unwilling or unable to do. He doesn’t appear strong enough to stand up to the Salzmans that ride him like a pony. How well will he resist a moneyed bad guy who offers to ease his financial woes? After all, all he has to do is be passive, and that’s something Paul Gallegos has practiced to a high art.

  44. Eric Kirk said:

    An aside from the discussion, but “Don’t mourn, organize” is generally attributed to Joe Hill rather than Mother Jones. But maybe they both said it. Or neither.

    How about them Raiders, huh?

  45. Jim Ferguson said:

    One telling fact about a candidate is how much money they raise. That Paul had to borrow or loan his campaign…what was it… $60,000, is a very telling number, showing the lack of community support, even from the growers. I mean, the best he was able to pull out of a SoHum fundraiser was $5,000? In past elections, he was able to take home grocery bags full of cash from down here.

    Also, the fact that even if he wins, nearly half the voters, for a second time, have said they want someone else in the DA’s office, that they have no confidence in his leadership. In most people, this would cause some introspection or re-evaluation of how things are done. Not by this puppet DA.

  46. kevpod said:

    That was you, Richard, again posting under a false (and not very imaginative) name from

    You also use the fake name Fact Check when you aren’t in a hurry.

    Commenting on your own posts once again as though you were someone else. This is exactly the same juvenile Internet mastutbation you have been busted for before. You have learned nothing.

    Paul Gallegos, are you so utterly bereft that you have to have a guy like this on the payroll? is there any limit to how low you are willing to take things?

  47. anonymous said:

    Why don’t you call Joyce and ask her?
    Or maybe one of you two on Jackson’s team knows someone who knows a journalist, and you could ask them to make the call?

  48. anonymous said:

    That sounded like the campaign taking.
    I think the DA’s office raises their money primarily through grants, not donations.

  49. kevpod said:

    And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the official voice of the Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office. Newspapers which are not compliant with its goals are deemed illegitimate.

    As we have pointed out all along, this is the true face of the Paul Gallegos campaign and its nominal leader.

  50. Richard said:

    The fact is that there are campaign debts to be paid off. It’s nice to thank people for the support they’ve already given before you go back and ask for more. Pretty much every campaign will be doing the same thing, but since this was in so many ways the most important race, we hope we’ll get first consideration.

    p.s. Paul and Michael work well together as writer and editor and the editorial will be submitted right after the election is certified, to all legitimate newspaper as well as to the Arcata Eye.

    Donations can be made online at: http://www.votepaul.org/donate

    or by check to:
    Paul Gallegos 2010
    P.O. Box 1236
    Eureka Ca 95502

  51. Jim Ferguson said:

    It will be interesting to see if ANY other media outlets even mention how this letter came into being.

    Kudos, Kevin.

  52. Rose said:

    I’m guessing we now know who slipped the propaganda into Joyce Moser’s “My Word” too…

    “…I established the Criminal Investigations Bureau, the Consumer and Environment Protection Unit, the Child Abuse and Adult Sex Crimes Unit, the Worker’s Compensation Fraud Unit, the Domestic Violence Unit and Bad Check Program….” and in his responses to candidate questionnaires he claims: “… I taught the United States Constitution when I was a professor at Humboldt State University,…”

    Here is the paragraph from his employee Joyce Moser’s My Word:

    “…The District Attorney Domestic Violence Vertical Prosecution Team was created under the leadership of District Attorney Paul Gallegos to reduce the amount of trauma that victims/survivors experience when navigating through the criminal justice system…”

    And here is the paragraph he tried to have slipped through in the Board proclamation:
    “WHEREAS., the Humboldt County District Attorney Domestic Violence Vertical Prosecution Team was created under the leadership of District Attorney Paul Gallegos to reduce the amount of trauma victims/survivors experience when navigating through the Criminal Justice System; and WHEREAS…”


    Gallegos praised for leadership on domestic violence

    District Attorney Paul Gallegos was officially commended today for his leadership in the fight against the epidemic of domestic violence. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution expressing their appreciation, noting that the District Attorney Domestic Violence Vertical Prosecution Team was created under Gallegos’ leadership.

    ONLY HE WASN’T COMMENDED. BECAUSE HE DIDN’T CREATE THE UNIT. Because everyone in the room KNEW it. But did she know that line had been slipped in to the “My Word”?

    Steve apparently doesn’t realize that using his office to send out campaign materials is not ok. Using County employees is not ok.

  53. Heather said:

    Important people receive help. Stupid people need it. It’s pretty obvious from this which he is.

    And you might fall into the same category. Gallegos hasn’t won the runoff election. 12,960 votes remain to be counted, including my own, and I assure you I didn’t vote for this shit.

  54. Steve said:

    Let me offer a suggested editorial change to this long mean-spirited screed:

    “The winner of the runoff election for the most important elected position in county government received help from his supporters in drafting a thank-you letter to voters.”

    Important people receive help in drafting letters. With snark and innuendo removed, its hard to see how this is very news-worthy.

Comments are closed.