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

Friday, 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

Hey,

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.

Cheers,

Elizabeth

“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.

——

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:

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?

——

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:

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.

Sincerely,

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” <MShoshani@co.humboldt.ca.us>

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

To: <letters@times-standard.com>, <letters@northcoastjournal.com>, <editor@arcataeye.com>, <news@humboldtbeacon.com>, <editor@redwoodtimes.com>, <indie@wavecable.com>, <thejack@humboldt.edu>, <news@mckinleyvillepress.com>

Cc: “Gallegos, Paul” <PGallegos@co.humboldt.ca.us>

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.

Sincerely,

Paul V. Gallegos,

District Attorney Humboldt County

Tags: ,

63 Responses to “Whose Word? How Team Gallegos Manages Its Moneymaker – November 12, 2010”

  1. Mark,
    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!

    #16854
  2. Robert,
    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
    Share
    By Peter Hecht
    phecht@sacbee.com
    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

    #16880
  3. Pardon me, AG, not SA. I have a cold.

    #16881
  4. Mark,
    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)

    #17131
  5. 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.”

    john.hoeffel@latimes.com

    #19961
  6. And the point of this is…?

    #20351
  7. 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.

    #20885
  8. 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.

    #20891
  9. 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.

    #21095
  10. “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?

    #21527
  11. 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.

    #21662
  12. 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.

    #22288
  13. I typed out a long reply to you comments,Kev, and hit enter. They then disappeared. Freaking interwebs.

    #22640

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.