Breakfast With Dikeman
The Humboldt County District Attorney's race continues. Today's Eureka Reporter produced some doozies from challenger Dikeman:
ER: What about the [Cheri Moore] investigation’s importance to the campaign?
WD: I don’t know. I know that Paul is trying to make it a political issue, and I think that’s unfortunate, because I think he clearly has a conflict, and anything he says or does about the case has its roots in apparent bias.
Hummmm, and the support from the law enforcement has intensified since Cheri Moore's killing by the Eureka Police Department because...the EPD wants someone fair and impartial in the DA's office who, if the facts warrant it, will prosecute all law enforcement officers involved in misconduct, and keep on prosecuting up the chain of command until all have been dealt justice?
ER: But you’ve got a conflict, too. You’ve talked at length about receiving the endorsements of numerous law enforcement associations. But with the Eureka Police Department now the subject of scrutiny in the Moore homicide investigation, don’t you think those endorsements cut both ways?
WD: No. Ordinarily that wouldn’t be a problem, any more than it would be a problem for Paul to review the conduct of anyone whose endorsement he sought. Paul has made it a political issue, and he has made the endorsements I’ve received a political issue. And in that situation, I think it gives rise to the appearance of bias on my part, and if I were in a position where I was asked to review the Cheri Moore case, I would refer it to the attorney general’s office.
ER: Both your campaign manager and assistant campaign manager are officers of the Eureka Police Department. Do you think the community could have confidence in the impartiality of any conclusions you, as district attorney, might reach in an investigation involving that department?
WD: Yes. Some of the people who are working on my campaign are involved with police agencies. Their involvement and their commitment is in part due to their dissatisfaction with the job Paul has done. They’re giving of their time and energy, because they want the job done better.
Now here's where a sharp reporter would grill Dikeman on day-to-day life if he is elected. One does not have to have experience as a criminal defense attorney to know that it is common for law enforcement officers, who have roughed a person up, to turn around and charge that person with Resisting Arrest, Battery On A Law Enforcement Officer, etc. etc. . By doing so, they "justify" what they have done--especially if their victim has bruises or worse. Given the strong support of law enforcement, could Dikeman *really* impartially assess *any* such case that came before him? Would Dikeman, given his obvious conflict-of-interest, automatically refer every such case to the Attorney General's office?
Unfortunately, the ER let the issue drop at this point. In fairness, they dropped the ball in their interview with Gallegos as well on some of his answers that merited follow-up.
ER: Curious to some observers is that you have not been arbitrarily terminated.
WD: If I were to speculate as to why I would say, 1) there’s the remote possibility that I could file a civil action against Paul, 2) I think it would be politically disadvantageous for him to fire me because it would look like he was firing me for the wrong reason, and 3) I’m a great asset to that office. I don’t call in sick. I do what I’m told. I don’t complain. And I do what I do well. I’d be difficult to replace.
Hummm, he's been complaining since shortly after Gallegos took office. I hope he's got a Prop 215 Card for whatever he's smoking. Not much of a follower, obviously.
Indeed, complaining is what Dikeman seems to do best. During the Recall, Dikeman was largely silent on the propriety of Maxxam Corporation bankrolling an effort to throw out the person who was prosecuting it. (And note that Dikeman now refuses to take a position on Measure T, not wanting to bite the hand that bankrolled the "Recall" campaign that he hoped would put him in office). So much for leadership. As the saying goes, "Lead, follow, or get out of the way". Well, Dikeman has failed on the first two, that only leaves the third option...
One thing Gallegos doesn't get enough credit for is his tolerance of all the snakes in the grass that have been slithering about the DA's office since he was elected in 2002. Were Gallegos the political animal his detractors try to make him out to be, he would have cleaned house several years ago, and Dikeman would in that event now be in private practice or, better yet, another County...
ER: The current campaign has been characterized by harsh criticisms from both sides. Would you be able to go back to work for Gallegos if you lose the election?
WD: The answer is yes, and the reason I say that is because I love my job, and you don’t have to love your boss to love your job. It helps, but it’s not necessary.
The honorable thing would have been for Dikeman to resign following the failed insurrection, er, "Recall" attempt, of 2004. Obviously, "honor" is an antiquated concept in some quarters...
TLC
ER: What about the [Cheri Moore] investigation’s importance to the campaign?
WD: I don’t know. I know that Paul is trying to make it a political issue, and I think that’s unfortunate, because I think he clearly has a conflict, and anything he says or does about the case has its roots in apparent bias.
Hummmm, and the support from the law enforcement has intensified since Cheri Moore's killing by the Eureka Police Department because...the EPD wants someone fair and impartial in the DA's office who, if the facts warrant it, will prosecute all law enforcement officers involved in misconduct, and keep on prosecuting up the chain of command until all have been dealt justice?
ER: But you’ve got a conflict, too. You’ve talked at length about receiving the endorsements of numerous law enforcement associations. But with the Eureka Police Department now the subject of scrutiny in the Moore homicide investigation, don’t you think those endorsements cut both ways?
WD: No. Ordinarily that wouldn’t be a problem, any more than it would be a problem for Paul to review the conduct of anyone whose endorsement he sought. Paul has made it a political issue, and he has made the endorsements I’ve received a political issue. And in that situation, I think it gives rise to the appearance of bias on my part, and if I were in a position where I was asked to review the Cheri Moore case, I would refer it to the attorney general’s office.
ER: Both your campaign manager and assistant campaign manager are officers of the Eureka Police Department. Do you think the community could have confidence in the impartiality of any conclusions you, as district attorney, might reach in an investigation involving that department?
WD: Yes. Some of the people who are working on my campaign are involved with police agencies. Their involvement and their commitment is in part due to their dissatisfaction with the job Paul has done. They’re giving of their time and energy, because they want the job done better.
Now here's where a sharp reporter would grill Dikeman on day-to-day life if he is elected. One does not have to have experience as a criminal defense attorney to know that it is common for law enforcement officers, who have roughed a person up, to turn around and charge that person with Resisting Arrest, Battery On A Law Enforcement Officer, etc. etc. . By doing so, they "justify" what they have done--especially if their victim has bruises or worse. Given the strong support of law enforcement, could Dikeman *really* impartially assess *any* such case that came before him? Would Dikeman, given his obvious conflict-of-interest, automatically refer every such case to the Attorney General's office?
Unfortunately, the ER let the issue drop at this point. In fairness, they dropped the ball in their interview with Gallegos as well on some of his answers that merited follow-up.
ER: Curious to some observers is that you have not been arbitrarily terminated.
WD: If I were to speculate as to why I would say, 1) there’s the remote possibility that I could file a civil action against Paul, 2) I think it would be politically disadvantageous for him to fire me because it would look like he was firing me for the wrong reason, and 3) I’m a great asset to that office. I don’t call in sick. I do what I’m told. I don’t complain. And I do what I do well. I’d be difficult to replace.
Hummm, he's been complaining since shortly after Gallegos took office. I hope he's got a Prop 215 Card for whatever he's smoking. Not much of a follower, obviously.
Indeed, complaining is what Dikeman seems to do best. During the Recall, Dikeman was largely silent on the propriety of Maxxam Corporation bankrolling an effort to throw out the person who was prosecuting it. (And note that Dikeman now refuses to take a position on Measure T, not wanting to bite the hand that bankrolled the "Recall" campaign that he hoped would put him in office). So much for leadership. As the saying goes, "Lead, follow, or get out of the way". Well, Dikeman has failed on the first two, that only leaves the third option...
One thing Gallegos doesn't get enough credit for is his tolerance of all the snakes in the grass that have been slithering about the DA's office since he was elected in 2002. Were Gallegos the political animal his detractors try to make him out to be, he would have cleaned house several years ago, and Dikeman would in that event now be in private practice or, better yet, another County...
ER: The current campaign has been characterized by harsh criticisms from both sides. Would you be able to go back to work for Gallegos if you lose the election?
WD: The answer is yes, and the reason I say that is because I love my job, and you don’t have to love your boss to love your job. It helps, but it’s not necessary.
The honorable thing would have been for Dikeman to resign following the failed insurrection, er, "Recall" attempt, of 2004. Obviously, "honor" is an antiquated concept in some quarters...
TLC
posted by TLC's Place at 9:12 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home