Lies and Facts About the Gallegos Recall

Lie: ”Gallegos has lost the confidence of the public in the office of the DA”

Fact: The ‘loss of confidence’ has been manufactured by the recall campaign.

The recall talk began immediately after newly-elected DA, Paul Gallegos, filed a business fraud lawsuit against the Pacific Lumber Company. He had been in office less than 2 months, hardly enough time to establish a record of his performance, much less have it evaluated. Recall proponents have spent the past year second-guessing every decision he has made, hampering his ability to do the job he was elected to do. They are now choosing to distort a few of the nearly 7500 cases his office has prosecuted

Lie: “Gallegos is soft on crime.”

Fact: Since Gallegos took office, felony filings have gone up nearly 15%, the office has been modernized, and Gallegos himself has won convictions in 5 out of 5 cases he has personally handled; All of this while working under substantial budget cuts.

In 1986, when Terry Farmer was up for his first re-election bid, he was accused of being soft on crime, using excessive plea bargaining, botching important cases, and of re-filing felonies as misdemeanors. He went on to effectively lead his office for 20 years.

Lie: “If the police are all against the DA, then he must be pretty bad.”

Fact: In spite of the endorsements of their organizations, many police officers do not support the recall. The DA’s office must sometimes police the police, and therefore maintain its independence from law enforcement.

In Terry Farmer’s 1986 re-election bid, the Sheriffs Officers, Eureka Police, Fortuna Police, and HSU Police officers’ associations were all opposed to him, and endorsed his opponent. In the 2002 race between Farmer and Gallegos, the officers’ associations chose not to endorse Farmer, even after 20 years in office.

Lie: ”Gallegos has horribly mishandled cases”

Fact: His record is as good, or better, than his predecessors’

In the cases which Gallegos has been publicly criticized for, he achieved stronger convictions than either of his opponents did in very similar cases:

·In the drive-by shooting, the defendants received the maximum sentence of 7 years for a crime in which no one was injured.

· Under Terry Farmer, Worth Dikeman obtained a sentence of only 3 years for a similar shooting in Redway, which narrowly missed children in a day care.

· Gloria Albin-Sheets obtained a sentence of only 4 years for a vehicular manslaughter case, in which the victim was killed.

Lie: “That child molester should have been put away for 100 years.”

Fact: Certain features of the Martinez-Hernandez case made it risky to take to trial for multiple counts.

The family in this case are illegal aliens and a flight concern. Without witnesses, there would be no case. Language difficulties, and emotional tolerance of the child for repeated appearances in court also had to be considered. The willingness of the defendant to accept the charge of a single, continuous act, rather than multiple individual acts produced the most certain conviction.

Deputy District Attorney Wes Keat, a former police officer, who filed the case, has said there is much disinformation being spread about this case, and that public perceptions will be very hard to clear up.

In other molestation and child abuse cases, Gallegos has obtained the maximum possible sentences, including 168 years for a molester, and 10 years for a man who shook his baby.

Lie: “Gallegos lets tree-sitters go with a $10 fine.”

Fact: Under Gallegos, tree-sitters have been fined as much as $500, and received sentences of up to 40 days in jail, up to 2 years’ probation, and up to 100 hours of community service.

Each case has special features and charges which determine applicable punishments. Recall proponents have chosen only to point to one case where a tree-sitter was fined $10. It must be noted that Julia Butterfly trespassed for 2 years during Terry Farmer’s tenure, and was never prosecuted.

Lie: “Gallegos’ marijuana guidelines are too lenient.”

Fact: Gallegos’ medical marijuana guidelines were and are consistent with Federal, State, and neighboring local ordinances.

When Gallegos took office, there were no State guidelines, so he established an interim policy similar to those in Sonoma and Del Norte Counties, creating consistency for both patients and law enforcement.

In January, the State Legislature enacted SB 420 which, for the first time, established State guidelines for medical marijuana. Gallegos immediately adopted these new State guidelines, leaving authority in the hands of the County Board of Supervisors.

Lie: “Gallegos didn’t even charge a man who was illegally growing marijuana in a school zone.”

Fact: The person involved was growing and using medical marijuana legally, so there was no crime to charge him with. This marijuana bust had also been turned down for prosecution by Terry Farmer in 2003, for the same reason.

Lie: “Gallegos associates with criminals like Chompers Cook, who is a felon with a rap sheet 7 pages long ”

Fact: Pacific Lumber Company, has a rap sheet that would impress Al Capone.

PL has racked up more than 600 violations of the Forest Practice Rules, 220 Water Quality violations, and has been convicted of fraud in the past. In court, PL claimed that their lying is “protected free speech,” and that it is the responsibility of regulatory agencies and the public to correct them.

PL paid out millions of dollars in damages for the landslide the buried Stafford, and the death of forest activist David Chain.

Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky both served time in prison due in part to their roles in the MAXXAM takeover of PL.

The Committee to Recall Paul Gallegos (now “Safety Yes! Recall Gallegos”), is the subject of multiple Fair Political Practices Commission investigations, for possible violations of signature gathering rules, and for campaign disclosure rules.

Safety Yes, Worth Dikeman, and Gloria Albin-Sheets have all used information from confidential documents stolen from the DA’s office, and Safety Yes is known to have received and distributed the stolen documents.

By comparison, “Chompers” Cook, who appeared in one anti-recall commercial, is behind on child support, has bounced 2 checks, and paid fines for a small number of logging violations

Lie: “Gallegos is in the pocket of radical environmentalists, who handed him the PL lawsuit.”

Fact: Providing law-enforcement with information and evidence relevant to a crime is the responsibility of all good citizens.

In response to Gallegos' campaign promise of "equal justice for all", and his institution of a white-collar crime division, Humboldt Watershed Council submitted information which led to the lawsuit. This took place less than 2 months after he took office, but because of the serious nature of the fraud and the imminent closure of statutes of limitations, the case had to be filed immediately.

Lie: “The recall has nothing to do with PL.”

Fact: The recall would not exist if not for the PL lawsuit, PL’s signature drive, and PL’s money.

Talk of a recall started when Gallegos had been in office less than 2 months, and within a week of filing charges against PL. When the recall signature drive was faltering, PL paid more than $40,000 to buy 5,000 signatures at $8 apiece. Without that money, there would probably be no recall. Since October 1st, PL has put nearly $230,000 into the recall so far, and is expected to reach as high as $500,000.

The recall was a response to the DA’s lawsuit against PL, pure and simple, and all of the recall’s main proponents have admitted this:

· Rick Brazeau, in commenting about Steven Schectman’s insistence that he would continue the PL lawsuit, asked why he would want to “carry on the traditions that got (Gallegos) recalled in the first place?” (Times-Standard, December 13, 2003)

· The Committee to Recall Paul Gallegos, in a press release titled “Reasons for the Recall”, lists “In March, he accused a major business of a $400,000,000 fraud and filed a civil case.”

· Robert Manne, Pacific Lumber CEO, referring to the DA’s fraud lawsuit against PL: “…are we to sit back and allow that to happen?” (letter to PL employees, October 24, 2003)

· Rob Flanigan, the recall’s campaign manager, has been known to operate directly out of PL’s offices in Scotia.

Lie: "The PL lawsuit is baseless.”

Fact: The Director of the California Department of Forestry filed a declaration in court supporting the central charges of the lawsuit against Pacific Lumber.

Richard Wilson, head of the lead permitting agency at the time of the alleged fraud, stated that his agency’s approval of PL’s current rate of harvest would have been withheld, if it had come to his attention that the information submitted by PL was false.

Vote NO on Measure F, Tuesday, March 2nd

Pass along this information

This election will be extremely close

Call your friends and remind them to vote

Call the Friends of Paul Gallegos 444-6220 and volunteer to help Get Out The Vote on Monday and Tuesday