GALLEGOS RECALL PETITION APPROVED

The committee that seeks to oust District Attorney Paul Gallegos can start
circulating recall petitions, as its proposed signature form has been
approved by the county's Election Department.

Elections Manager Lindsay McWilliams said the Committee to Recall Paul
Gallegos submitted its petition form last week, but had to make corrections
on it. A revised form was handed in on May 15 and approved the next day.

Now the recall proponents are working under a deadline - they must gather
11,138 valid signatures representing 15 percent of the county's registered
voters and submit them to the elections office by 5 p.m. on October 22.

McWilliams said that submission of the forms by that date would trigger a
special election after the March presidential primaries. He said that would
be "fairly awkward timing" for the county.

"I'm not trying to take a side, but it would be most economical for the
county if [a recall election] coincided with the March election,"
McWilliams continued.

That could happen if forms are returned by October 1. It's also possible
that the recall vote could be done during this November's election, but
recall supporters would have to work quickly to accomplish that.

It's not an easy task under any timeframe - McWilliams called it "the
largest petition drive in our collective elections memory" and ventured
that "the recall proponents have a difficult task before them."

A special election would cost the county at least $100,000, said
McWilliams, and Gallegos supporters are calling attention to that. But
county costs would be negligible if a recall vote is held during a regular
election cycle.

'Unfit To Serve'

The recall petition includes a statement outlining the reasons for seeking
Gallegos' removal and the D.A.'s response.

Riding a political upswell triggered by Gallegos' filing of a fraud lawsuit
against Pacific Lumber Company (PL) last February, recall supporters
mention the suit but focus on crime in their petition argument.

"Humboldt County Citizens deserve safe communities," the statement begins.
"District Attorney Paul Gallegos, however, doesn't seem to agree."

Gallegos' failure to "file all appropriate charges" and accepting a
one-count plea bargain in a high-profile Eureka drive-by shooting case is
cited as proof. Recall advocates also say that Gallegos "initially offered
probation in a sexual assault case until outraged police officials forced
him to file felony charges."

An "astonishing 1,000 percent" increase in the county's medical marijuana
cultivation limits is also presented as evidence of the D.A.'s looseness.
The statement frames the word "medical" in quotation marks.

Finally, the PL suit is portrayed as a "specious" effort that will flop in
court.

"State and federal resource agencies have informed [Gallegos] that he
doesn't have his facts straight, and California's Attorney General is
defending the state's approval of the very document Gallegos is attacking."

The recall argument also criticizes Gallegos' attempt to gain county
approval to contract with an outside law firm for the case's prosecution.

Finally, it characterizes Gallegos as incompetent. "Paul Gallegos is unfit
to serve our community," the statement concludes. "Law enforcement
officials lack confidence in him. His unprofessional conduct will hurt
Humboldt County and fully justifies his removal from office."

'Truly Frightening'

In his response, Gallegos highlights the recall effort's lever - the PL
lawsuit.

"Nobody is above the law," he proclaims in his retort's single-sentence opener.

The D.A. insists that the real reason he's being targeted is because he's
applying the law to previously-untouchable white collar quarters.

"Shady political operatives are attacking me because I am tough on crime,"
he insists. "They want a D.A. who is soft on crime - especially corporate
crime. It is truly frightening to see a tiny group telling lies in a recall
campaign designed to thwart our prosecution of Pacific Lumber."

Using language economically, Gallegos asserts that the outside firm he
sought would have cost the county nothing and that he wanted a seven-year
prison sentence for the man charged in the Eureka shooting case (in which
shots were fired at houses), "a tough sentence by any measurement."

The D.A. also insists that he demanded the juvenile accused in the sexual
assault case be tried as an adult. On the medical limits, Gallegos claims
that former D.A. Terry Farmer's 10-plant limit would have allowed a patient
to have as many fully-grown plants and his own guidelines wouldn't.

Gallegos increased the plant limit to 99 but also set forth a growing space
limit of 100 square feet, or a 10- by 10-foot area.

He concludes his response by portraying himself as a people's district
attorney.

"I wasn't the candidate predicted to win the election. I didn't have nearly
as much money as my opponent had. I wasn't 'connected' like my opponent
was. And yet you, the people of Humboldt County elected me."

Gallegos asks for support from the same source, "because nobody is above
the law."