 |
| Main Menu | |
| Tell Your Story! | |
| Email Newsletter | |
| Fun Stuff | |
| Donate Now! | |
| Old Articles | |
| Tuesday, March 02 | | · | Recall targets California prosecutor who took on lumber in Redwood Country [AP] |
| · | The Secret Policemen's Ball [Arcata Eye Editorial] |
| Sunday, February 29 | | · | Something's Cooking [Arcata Eye Editorial Cartoon] |
| · | Firm Sued by D.A. Funds Bid to Recall Him |
| · | Humboldt D.A. fights to keep job [San Francisco Chronicle] |
| Friday, February 27 | | · | Not for Sale - NO on F [North Coast Journal Editorial] |
| · | A House Divided [North Coast Journal Editorial] |
| Thursday, February 26 | | · | A legal and academic view of the DA recall [Times-Standard] |
| · | No on the recall, but DA needs to mend fences [Times-Standard Editorial] |
| Wednesday, February 25 | | · | THE DA recall's rotten roots are mired in money [Arcata Eye] |
| · | Brace Yourself [Arcata Eye Editorial] |
| · | Maxxam-Palco give another $75K to recall [Times-Standard] |
| · | Good Ol' Girls, Boys Oppose DA Change [Eureka Reporter Editorial] |
| Sunday, February 22 | | · | Palco pours another $85K into recall effort [Times-Standard] |
| Wednesday, February 18 | | · | The Pacific Lumber County [Arcata Eye Editorial] |
| · | DA’s Office Says PALCO’s Attorneys 'Are Petrified' [Eureka Reporte |
| Monday, February 16 | | · | Don't Miss BEYOND RECALL |
| · | Humboldt DA: Lumber firm's out to get me [Sacramento Bee] |
| Sunday, February 15 | | · | Pacific Lumber Co.’s Actions Are Shameful [Eureka Reporter Editorial] |
| · | PL Behind Recall, Make No Mistake [Eureka Reporter Editorial] |
Older Articles
| |
| Site Search | |
| |
 | PL Behind Recall, Make No Mistake [Eureka Reporter Editorial] |
The attempted recall of District Attorney Paul Gallegos is nothing other than a clumsily veiled attempt by a defendant in a court case to get rid of the man who is in charge of prosecuting that case.
Make no mistake about it, The Pacific Lumber Co. is the predominant force behind the recall. PALCO contributed the most money and PALCO paid for the lion's share of the cost that went to signature-gatherers at the eleventh hour to qualify the recall for the ballot.
This is not to say that there are not many people who feel Gallegos should be recalled, but how many of those people believe the half-truths, distortions and innuendos? The Eureka Reporter believes many of these people were duped into beliefs that are not founded on reality, yet trying to change their views at this point is nearly impossible. Sides have been chosen.
The case against Pacific Lumber should be tried in court, as would happen to any of us if we were sued. That is the American way. We believe PALCO is attempting to circumvent that process, despite its claims to the contrary.
PALCO now says it wants the case the DA filed against it to go to court, but are we supposed to take that claim at face value? Why wasn't that view promulgated much earlier? Does PALCO really want us to believe that Gallegos' criminal prosecution record is the motivation for its support of the recall?
If you believe PALCO favors the recall because of the soft-on-crime allegation, it is worth mentioning that the recall started three months after Gallegos took office, and interestingly enough, after Gallegos filed a civil fraud lawsuit against PALCO. Three months is not long enough to judge a district attorney.
We find it interesting that the man seemingly in charge of publicity for the recall, Rick Brazeau, is the same Rick Brazeau who was former district attorney Terry Farmer's campaign manager.
It is also interesting to note that an ad placed in the Times-Standard by recall proponents had numerous distortions in it. Through a three-part investigative series by The Eureka Reporter's Christine Bensen, we showed the fallacies behind recall proponents' arguments. The series presented both sides and for the first time, it was clear that recall proponents did not have their facts straight.
Vote to retain Paul Gallegos on March 2. He has not committed any malfeasance in office and he has excelled in his new job – winning four of four cases he prosecuted. Gallegos' office is tough on crime. His office is essentially the same one left behind by Farmer, and we believe it is functioning at as good a level or better than it did under Farmer.
|
|
|
|
| |
| Options | |
|
|
|
