◼ link
11/11/04
Article on private e-mail sparks debate
by Glenn Franco Simmons
The Eureka Reporter
An executive of Rob Arkley’s said he is disappointed in the Times-Standard for publishing a private e-mail that Arkley sent to local political consultant Richard Salzman.
Fred Griffith, senior vice president of acquisitions/development at Security National Properties, spoke to The Eureka Reporter and Times-Standard Tuesday in Eureka because Arkley was out of town on business.
Arkley’s business, Security National, owns The Eureka Reporter.
“(The article) was intended to inflame,” Griffith said. “I think it diminishes the Times-Standard to print that sort of thing.”
He also objected to the large headline the Times-Standard used on the story, which was above the fold in the most-prominent location in the newspaper.
James Tressler, the reporter who wrote the article, said that he was unable to reach Arkley. Griffith responded by saying that Arkley was out of town on business and was unable to return his phone call.
“We are in the business of making money,” Griffith said, in reference to Arkley’s unavailability. “We work very, very hard. We’re very, very busy and these … e-mails and stuff like that have to be prioritized.”
Griffith asked Tressler if it was ethical to print the e-mail.
“I pulled some quotes about ethical journalists and it says a journalist should show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage,” Griffith said. “… It seems to me that what you’ve done here is you have gotten the Salzman e-mails and you used private information in private communication between two people with differing views and brought it out to sell newspapers. I just feel that is wrong. … If you are a journalist, this is unethical in my view.”
Griffith was referencing the Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics (www.spj.org/ethics_code.asp).
Later in the interview, Tressler said, “Well, you guys stick to making money and we’ll stick to putting out the newspapers. I’ve been trained in journalism, have you?”
“I know ethics when I hear ethics,” Griffith said. “If I send you a bunch of e-mails and you and I are having a disagreement, for either one of us to run and take them to the press and having the press print all of those things, that is unethical in my view because you and I have a private disagreement. We agree to disagree.” Griffith said.
He said he would rather see the community focusing on solving problems.
“Let’s make this place a better place,” he said. “Let’s get out of the ‘he said, she said.’ If you start blaming people, there is no end to the blame. All of this good, healthy energy gets wasted. It’s negative energy. It’s bad.
“… The Times-Standard has an opportunity, as does The Eureka Reporter, to take partisan politics and throw it in the garbage, and we all can sit down … and make this the greatest city ever and the greatest county ever.”
When contacted by The Eureka Reporter and asked about the community working together, Salzman said in an e-mailed response, “We have to be able to come together and find common ground. That is the only way we will maintain a healthy community. That is why the tone and threats of Rob Arkley’s e-mails were both alarming and disappointing. Once an election is over, we need to set aside our differences and work for the common good. But we need to start by having an honest conversation. …
“When all is said and done, the 60/40 mandate that was delivered to Chris Kerrigan is a reflection of the changing demographics of Eureka. Not so much my influence or Rob’s influence as a financier but that the new residents providing the very growth that has fueled our economy is (bringing) a younger and more progressive electorate not interested in playing ball with the good old boys.”
In relation to the e-mail he received from Arkley, Salzman said, “I feel disappointed. Not so much that Rob, a former ally, no longer likes me, but disappointed that an opportunity to open a dialogue has been trashed and trashed on poor intelligence. I’m frustrated that Rob knows so little that is accurate about me and my work, and my history in California.”
Salzman (salzint.com) represents commercial illustrators who are commissioned by art directors and graphic designers in advertising, publishing and corporate communications.
He moved to the North Coast because he said he loves the weather, the lifestyle and fishing. He relocated here in 2000 after spending the previous 10 years living and working in San Francisco.
He has worked on the local campaigns of Paul Gallegos, to which Arkley gave financial support, Jill Geist and Chris Kerrigan.
Showing posts with label Eureka Reporter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Eureka Reporter. Show all posts
9.27.2008
ER - Recall Proponent Makes More Accusations
“Tim’s a stud,” he said. “He really is; anyone would be stoked to have him.”
☛ ER Recall Proponent Makes More Accusations 1/29/04
by Christine Bensen
Tom Cookman, a vocal member of Recall Paul, the committee to recall Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos, and regular commentator on KINS News and Information’s Community Comment, made on-air accusations against Gallegos, Jan. 13.
Cookman, who publicly identifies himself as a “concerned citizen,” is also the co-owner of Mendes Supply in Eureka. Mendes specializes in the sale of janitorial and packaging supplies, fine paper and lumber-packaging materials, including lumber-wrapping materials as well as steel-and plastic-strapping tools.
According to Cookman’s commentary, “… Gallegos, the leading law-enforcement agent in our county, changed the parameters on medical marijuana growing. (A) person with a 215 card (can) now grow 99 plants instead of 10 plants.”
After much debate from community residents during the Jan. 20 meeting of the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, the board created a task force to further examine the issue. Headed by 2nd District Supervisor Roger Rodoni and 3rd District Supervisor John Woolley and made up of school and law-enforcement officials, the task force must report back to the board within 90 days.
Pending this report, the board will decide if it wants to keep the medical marijuana growing guidelines set by Gallegos or set new guidelines.
The guidelines currently in effect allow 215 cardholders or their caregivers to grow 99 plants in a 100-square-foot space, under 1,500 watts of light and possess up to 3 pounds of dried cannabis.
In May 2001, Sonoma County District Attorney J. Michael Mullins and Sonoma County law-enforcement Chiefs’ Association adopted the identical guidelines Gallegos adopted in January 2003.
“(Gallegos) hired Tim Stoen as our assistant district attorney. This position was vacant for 13 years. This position costs taxpayers over $100,000 per year,” Cookman said.
Mike Robinson served as assistant district attorney under former Humboldt County District Attorney Terry Farmer from 1986 through 1993.
He said he chose to leave in 1993 because he wanted to pursue a private practice and is now a defense attorney in Eureka.
Gallegos said the position remained vacant for 11 years and when he decided to hire Tim Stoen he had to have it approved by the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors.
“The position has been budgeted since Mike was gone,” Gallegos said.
In fact, Gallegos said the board voted unanimously to hire Stoen.
“Tim’s a stud,” he said. “He really is; anyone would be stoked to have him.”
Gallegos said Humboldt County employs a district attorney, an assistant district attorney and 13 deputy district attorneys. The 2000 U.S. Census lists Humboldt County’s population at 126,518.
In Mendocino County, which has a population of 86,265, the district attorney’s office employs two deputy district attorneys in its Willits office, two in its Fort Bragg office and a district attorney, one assistant and 14 deputies in its Ukiah office, which is 20 employees compared to Humboldt County’s 15.
“…Stoen filed a lawsuit against PALCO (The Pacific Lumber Co.) shortly after taking office. This lawsuit is loaded with the same information as an EPIC lawsuit that was dismissed in court,” Cookman alleged.
Gallegos said the lawsuit does not have the same information as the lawsuit filed by the Garberville-based Environmental Protection Information Center. He said if it had the same information, under the rule of “resjudicada” the same case cannot be tried again.
“(We are) bound by that rule,” he said.
In an interview with The Eureka Reporter, Cookman said he has read both of the lawsuits and said that parts of the lawsuit filed by the District Attorney’s Office are “verbatim” to the EPIC lawsuit.
“It legally could not be (the same) nor is it,” Gallegos said.
He said if it were the same lawsuit the defendants would have mentioned that in a demurrer, which is a claim by a defendant in a legal action that the plaintiff does not have sufficient grounds to proceed.
“Nothing in the PL lawsuit is taken from the EPIC lawsuit,” Stoen said.
He said this lawsuit is against The Pacific Lumber Co. for its alleged wrongdoing, while the EPIC lawsuit was focused on the state and federal government’s wrongdoing.
“He lied to his office about going home sick (and went surfing instead),” Cookman alleged.
In a previous interview with The Eureka Reporter, Gallegos said he had appointments later that day and would have made them if he hadn’t had his surfing accident.
“I’m an elected official; I have no vacation time or holiday time,” he said. “I squeeze time in when I get it. I don’t have a 40-hour work week. I don’t get overtime either.”
As for the accusation of telling his staff he was sick, Gallegos said he does not have to make excuses to his staff when he leaves the office.
“Who would I tell? That’s ridiculous,” he said.
“Well I’d like to know if the relationship between our DA and his surfing partner, an EPIC attorney, is personal or professional,” Cookman said.
“(The) rumor mill is that it is his (alleged) girlfriend,” Cookman told The Eureka Reporter.
He said although he has not been able to confirm that Gallegos’ surfing partner was a female, he intentionally puts “digs” in his commentary about Gallegos.
“I put that in there on purpose,” Cookman said.
“I was surfing with a friend who is a male,” Gallegos said, adding that his friend was the one who called 911.
Officers from the Trinidad Police Department were some of the first to arrive on the scene after Gallegos’ accident in April. Trinidad Chief of Police Ken Thrailkill told The Eureka Reporter Gallegos was surfing with a male at the time.
“How do you fine a tree-sitter only $10 for their crime?”
In a previous interview with The Eureka Reporter, Gallegos said that is the fine allowed by law. He said this fine has been in place since former Humboldt County District Attorney Terry Farmer was in office.
“…Gallegos has a strained relationship with our law-enforcement personnel,” Cookman alleges.
“I don’t know that I would call it a strained relationship,” said Fortuna Police Chief Kent Bradshaw. “It’s a working relationship.”
Bradshaw said he and Gallegos do not always see eye-to-eye on all issues, including the marijuana guidelines, which he said is no secret. He said Gallegos has always been receptive to his phone calls and pleasant to deal with.
“We have a working relationship,” said Humboldt County Sheriff Gary Philp.
Philp said he would not describe the relationship as “strained.” He said they do not necessarily agree on everything: “We agree to disagree.”
“My issues are one-on-one with the district attorney, as they were with Mr. Farmer,” said Eureka Police Chief David Douglas.
He said some of his officers and personnel may have different opinions, but he deals with Gallegos issue by issue.
Arcata Police Chief Randy Mendosa said he has had no problems working with Gallegos.
“He certainly has no strained relations with me,” Mendosa said.
“He set up a meeting with the heads of our local law-enforcement officials and he missed the meeting … because he had a tree-climber help him climb a tree to see what it was like to be a tree-sitter,” Cookman alleges.
Gallegos said the meeting “simply had not been (written on his calendar).”
He said the meeting attendees, including Bradshaw, Mendosa and Steve Pudinski, captain of the Arcata branch of the California Highway Patrol.
“They were not upset and understood the oversight,” Gallegos said.
Eric Schatz, owner of Schatz Tree Service, is hired by PALCO to remove trespassing tree-sitters from trees on PALCO property.
“I was with Eric Schatz climbing trees because he wanted me to understand how dangerous it is for him to climb up and pull trespassers out of the trees, so we could understand how their resistance to his efforts puts him and the trespasser in danger,” Gallegos said. “He offered and I accepted. It was all done with PALCO’s permission and with them present.”
He said he climbed one tree, and according to Schatz went a little more than 200 feet up.
“It gave me a better understanding on the risks inherent in pulling trespassers out of trees and how even minor acts of resistance can result in catastrophic injury to the climber and the trespasser,” Gallegos said.
“After his tree-climbing experience our district attorney called the tree-climber (hired by PALCO) at home on two separate occasions and told this law-abiding citizen that if any of the tree-sitters were hurt when he took them out of the tree that he would be prosecuted. Our DA threatened a citizen doing his job,” Cookman alleged.
“I told him if he broke the law he would be prosecuted,” Gallegos said.
Attempts by The Eureka Reporter to contact Schatz were unsuccessful.
“A deputy sheriff had his nose busted by an individual who was arrested on several felony charges. This person was arrested with six ounces of meth; he forged thousands of dollars in false checks. He vandalized the police car. He was on probation during the altercation and he only received a few months in jail,” Cookman alleged.
Cookman said the case he was referring to was prosecuted against Troy Miller.
The minutes of the case show that Miller pled guilty to misdemeanor violations of resisting an executive officer, false representation of self to a peace officer, vandalism, possession of methamphetamine as well as admitting to three violations of felony probation.
In what is called an “open plea,” no sentence was negotiated between the two sides, so it was up to the judge after hearing the arguments from both sides and reviewing the probation report.
One ounce is equal to approximately 28.34 grams and Miller was in possession of 5.9 grams gross weight of methamphetamine, meaning the total weight included the packaging it was contained in.
The fraudulent checks he wrote were his parents’ and they did not press charges.
Miller was sentenced by Judge Christopher Wilson on Aug. 13. He was sentenced to 4 years and 4 months in the California Rehabilitation Center which is part of the state prison system, but specifically designed for people who are considered to be in immediate danger of becoming addicted to drugs.
Related:
When Stoen talks about the PL suit, his complete confidence in its success is disarming. "I will win this case," he says. "If Paul's not recalled, I am guaranteeing you that we will win this case. I don't know what the penalties will be, but this case is as solid as a rock."
☛ ER Recall Proponent Makes More Accusations 1/29/04
by Christine Bensen
Tom Cookman, a vocal member of Recall Paul, the committee to recall Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos, and regular commentator on KINS News and Information’s Community Comment, made on-air accusations against Gallegos, Jan. 13.
Cookman, who publicly identifies himself as a “concerned citizen,” is also the co-owner of Mendes Supply in Eureka. Mendes specializes in the sale of janitorial and packaging supplies, fine paper and lumber-packaging materials, including lumber-wrapping materials as well as steel-and plastic-strapping tools.
According to Cookman’s commentary, “… Gallegos, the leading law-enforcement agent in our county, changed the parameters on medical marijuana growing. (A) person with a 215 card (can) now grow 99 plants instead of 10 plants.”
After much debate from community residents during the Jan. 20 meeting of the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, the board created a task force to further examine the issue. Headed by 2nd District Supervisor Roger Rodoni and 3rd District Supervisor John Woolley and made up of school and law-enforcement officials, the task force must report back to the board within 90 days.
Pending this report, the board will decide if it wants to keep the medical marijuana growing guidelines set by Gallegos or set new guidelines.
The guidelines currently in effect allow 215 cardholders or their caregivers to grow 99 plants in a 100-square-foot space, under 1,500 watts of light and possess up to 3 pounds of dried cannabis.
In May 2001, Sonoma County District Attorney J. Michael Mullins and Sonoma County law-enforcement Chiefs’ Association adopted the identical guidelines Gallegos adopted in January 2003.
“(Gallegos) hired Tim Stoen as our assistant district attorney. This position was vacant for 13 years. This position costs taxpayers over $100,000 per year,” Cookman said.
Mike Robinson served as assistant district attorney under former Humboldt County District Attorney Terry Farmer from 1986 through 1993.
He said he chose to leave in 1993 because he wanted to pursue a private practice and is now a defense attorney in Eureka.
Gallegos said the position remained vacant for 11 years and when he decided to hire Tim Stoen he had to have it approved by the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors.
“The position has been budgeted since Mike was gone,” Gallegos said.
In fact, Gallegos said the board voted unanimously to hire Stoen.
“Tim’s a stud,” he said. “He really is; anyone would be stoked to have him.”
Gallegos said Humboldt County employs a district attorney, an assistant district attorney and 13 deputy district attorneys. The 2000 U.S. Census lists Humboldt County’s population at 126,518.
In Mendocino County, which has a population of 86,265, the district attorney’s office employs two deputy district attorneys in its Willits office, two in its Fort Bragg office and a district attorney, one assistant and 14 deputies in its Ukiah office, which is 20 employees compared to Humboldt County’s 15.
“…Stoen filed a lawsuit against PALCO (The Pacific Lumber Co.) shortly after taking office. This lawsuit is loaded with the same information as an EPIC lawsuit that was dismissed in court,” Cookman alleged.
Gallegos said the lawsuit does not have the same information as the lawsuit filed by the Garberville-based Environmental Protection Information Center. He said if it had the same information, under the rule of “resjudicada” the same case cannot be tried again.
“(We are) bound by that rule,” he said.
In an interview with The Eureka Reporter, Cookman said he has read both of the lawsuits and said that parts of the lawsuit filed by the District Attorney’s Office are “verbatim” to the EPIC lawsuit.
“It legally could not be (the same) nor is it,” Gallegos said.
He said if it were the same lawsuit the defendants would have mentioned that in a demurrer, which is a claim by a defendant in a legal action that the plaintiff does not have sufficient grounds to proceed.
“Nothing in the PL lawsuit is taken from the EPIC lawsuit,” Stoen said.
He said this lawsuit is against The Pacific Lumber Co. for its alleged wrongdoing, while the EPIC lawsuit was focused on the state and federal government’s wrongdoing.
“He lied to his office about going home sick (and went surfing instead),” Cookman alleged.
In a previous interview with The Eureka Reporter, Gallegos said he had appointments later that day and would have made them if he hadn’t had his surfing accident.
“I’m an elected official; I have no vacation time or holiday time,” he said. “I squeeze time in when I get it. I don’t have a 40-hour work week. I don’t get overtime either.”
As for the accusation of telling his staff he was sick, Gallegos said he does not have to make excuses to his staff when he leaves the office.
“Who would I tell? That’s ridiculous,” he said.
“Well I’d like to know if the relationship between our DA and his surfing partner, an EPIC attorney, is personal or professional,” Cookman said.
“(The) rumor mill is that it is his (alleged) girlfriend,” Cookman told The Eureka Reporter.
He said although he has not been able to confirm that Gallegos’ surfing partner was a female, he intentionally puts “digs” in his commentary about Gallegos.
“I put that in there on purpose,” Cookman said.
“I was surfing with a friend who is a male,” Gallegos said, adding that his friend was the one who called 911.
Officers from the Trinidad Police Department were some of the first to arrive on the scene after Gallegos’ accident in April. Trinidad Chief of Police Ken Thrailkill told The Eureka Reporter Gallegos was surfing with a male at the time.
“How do you fine a tree-sitter only $10 for their crime?”
In a previous interview with The Eureka Reporter, Gallegos said that is the fine allowed by law. He said this fine has been in place since former Humboldt County District Attorney Terry Farmer was in office.
“…Gallegos has a strained relationship with our law-enforcement personnel,” Cookman alleges.
“I don’t know that I would call it a strained relationship,” said Fortuna Police Chief Kent Bradshaw. “It’s a working relationship.”
Bradshaw said he and Gallegos do not always see eye-to-eye on all issues, including the marijuana guidelines, which he said is no secret. He said Gallegos has always been receptive to his phone calls and pleasant to deal with.
“We have a working relationship,” said Humboldt County Sheriff Gary Philp.
Philp said he would not describe the relationship as “strained.” He said they do not necessarily agree on everything: “We agree to disagree.”
“My issues are one-on-one with the district attorney, as they were with Mr. Farmer,” said Eureka Police Chief David Douglas.
He said some of his officers and personnel may have different opinions, but he deals with Gallegos issue by issue.
Arcata Police Chief Randy Mendosa said he has had no problems working with Gallegos.
“He certainly has no strained relations with me,” Mendosa said.
“He set up a meeting with the heads of our local law-enforcement officials and he missed the meeting … because he had a tree-climber help him climb a tree to see what it was like to be a tree-sitter,” Cookman alleges.
Gallegos said the meeting “simply had not been (written on his calendar).”
He said the meeting attendees, including Bradshaw, Mendosa and Steve Pudinski, captain of the Arcata branch of the California Highway Patrol.
“They were not upset and understood the oversight,” Gallegos said.
Eric Schatz, owner of Schatz Tree Service, is hired by PALCO to remove trespassing tree-sitters from trees on PALCO property.
“I was with Eric Schatz climbing trees because he wanted me to understand how dangerous it is for him to climb up and pull trespassers out of the trees, so we could understand how their resistance to his efforts puts him and the trespasser in danger,” Gallegos said. “He offered and I accepted. It was all done with PALCO’s permission and with them present.”
He said he climbed one tree, and according to Schatz went a little more than 200 feet up.
“It gave me a better understanding on the risks inherent in pulling trespassers out of trees and how even minor acts of resistance can result in catastrophic injury to the climber and the trespasser,” Gallegos said.
“After his tree-climbing experience our district attorney called the tree-climber (hired by PALCO) at home on two separate occasions and told this law-abiding citizen that if any of the tree-sitters were hurt when he took them out of the tree that he would be prosecuted. Our DA threatened a citizen doing his job,” Cookman alleged.
“I told him if he broke the law he would be prosecuted,” Gallegos said.
Attempts by The Eureka Reporter to contact Schatz were unsuccessful.
“A deputy sheriff had his nose busted by an individual who was arrested on several felony charges. This person was arrested with six ounces of meth; he forged thousands of dollars in false checks. He vandalized the police car. He was on probation during the altercation and he only received a few months in jail,” Cookman alleged.
Cookman said the case he was referring to was prosecuted against Troy Miller.
The minutes of the case show that Miller pled guilty to misdemeanor violations of resisting an executive officer, false representation of self to a peace officer, vandalism, possession of methamphetamine as well as admitting to three violations of felony probation.
In what is called an “open plea,” no sentence was negotiated between the two sides, so it was up to the judge after hearing the arguments from both sides and reviewing the probation report.
One ounce is equal to approximately 28.34 grams and Miller was in possession of 5.9 grams gross weight of methamphetamine, meaning the total weight included the packaging it was contained in.
The fraudulent checks he wrote were his parents’ and they did not press charges.
Miller was sentenced by Judge Christopher Wilson on Aug. 13. He was sentenced to 4 years and 4 months in the California Rehabilitation Center which is part of the state prison system, but specifically designed for people who are considered to be in immediate danger of becoming addicted to drugs.
Related:
When Stoen talks about the PL suit, his complete confidence in its success is disarming. "I will win this case," he says. "If Paul's not recalled, I am guaranteeing you that we will win this case. I don't know what the penalties will be, but this case is as solid as a rock."
8.26.2008
ER - Douglas/Zanotti case DISMISSED
Humboldt County Superior Court Judge John Feeney granted a defense attorney's motion to dismiss the pending case against former Eureka Police Department Chief David Douglas and Lt. Tony Zanotti in regards to the death of Cheri Lynn Moore.
Moore, 48, was shot and killed April 14, 2006, by EPD officers after brandishing a flare gun during a standoff that lasted approximately 2 1/2 hours.
After hearing the arguments presented by Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos and those of the defense attorneys, Feeney found no criminal conduct by either defendant.
The courtroom was packed with law enforcement officials and they burst into applause after the decision was rendered.
Published: Aug 26 2008, 4:34 PM · Updated: Aug 26 2008, 4:44 PM
Category: Local News
Moore, 48, was shot and killed April 14, 2006, by EPD officers after brandishing a flare gun during a standoff that lasted approximately 2 1/2 hours.
After hearing the arguments presented by Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos and those of the defense attorneys, Feeney found no criminal conduct by either defendant.
The courtroom was packed with law enforcement officials and they burst into applause after the decision was rendered.
Published: Aug 26 2008, 4:34 PM · Updated: Aug 26 2008, 4:44 PM
Category: Local News
8.15.2008
ER - DA grills alleged victim on stand
Aug 14 2008 - During a tense day of testimony Thursday at David Gundersen’s trial, wife Darcie Seal recanted almost all of her previous statements she made that referred to wrongdoing by her husband.
Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos continually questioned Seal about precise statements she made to investigators and during the preliminary hearing, only to find that she said all those past statements were false.
Seal, who asked The Eureka Reporter to use her real name instead of the “Jane Doe” court designation, requested the court to do the same during the proceedings.
Gundersen is charged with 24 counts of alleged spousal rape with an intoxicant, along with five other charges, including two related to illegal firearms.
The battery of questions by Gallegos directed at Seal focused on specific details about alleged rape by Gundersen she had brought up in the past, but which she now testified were false, at times “sarcastic” and a result of misunderstandings.
Those misunderstandings included conversations with her attorney during the preliminary hearing, Michael Crowley, where he told her she had to stick with her past statements despite her telling him the allegations were false, she testified.
She also testified that she kept being told “over and over” again by investigators that if Gundersen had sex with her while she was asleep and taking Lunesta, that it constituted rape.
“I was under the belief, black-and-white, that if I was under the influence of Lunesta it constituted rape,” she testified.
Seal recanted a long list of allegations she made against Gundersen, including that he raped her and that he was more aroused sexually when she was sleeping.
Intermixed in all this, Gallegos called up previous statements, and when Seal denied them, Gallegos asked if she lied.
Although Seal testified that she lied in many of those instances, she said she had tried to tell investigators, her attorney and Gallegos that she wanted to recant her allegations, but all her pleas were apparently ignored..
At one point, Gallegos asked her to name specific times when she told him or other investigators that the allegations were untrue, to which Seal testified that she talked to him on the phone and also District Attorney’s Office Investigator Wayne Cox.
Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office Detective Troy Garey had testified several days earlier that Seal denied a rape (SART) examination on Feb. 8, because she changed her story to say the sex with Gundersen the previous day had been consensual and not otherwise as earlier stated.
Gallegos asked Seal if she thought investigators would take her allegations as a joke, as she testified that she tried to tell everyone she was being sarcastic.
Seal testified that she didn’t expect the investigators, who were Gundersen’s ex-wife’s friends, to take her statements seriously and arrest him.
“What part of the joke made you cry?” Gallegos pressed her about the taped interview.
“I wanted to leave,” Seal said. “I was confused.”
Seal testified that when she walked into the Feb. 8 interview with investigators, she wasn’t in the “right state of mind” and felt emotional as she had just come back from her psychiatrist.
During the taped interview with investigators, although she made allegations against her husband, she did not want to prosecute him and felt the process was moving too fast.
“You chose to testify falsely against your husband?” Gallegos said.
“Yes,” Seal said.
“In your mind, is it OK to lie?” he said.
“No, it’s not OK,” she said. “Like I said, I was under a great deal of stress and I felt badgered.”
(John C. Osborn can be reached at josborn@eurekareporter.com, or at 707-269-7445.)
☛ ER DA grills alleged victim on stand
By JOHN C. OSBORN , The Eureka Reporter
Published: Aug 14 2008, 10:19 PM · Updated: Aug 14 2008, 10:21 PM
Categories: Local news, Local News
Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos continually questioned Seal about precise statements she made to investigators and during the preliminary hearing, only to find that she said all those past statements were false.
Seal, who asked The Eureka Reporter to use her real name instead of the “Jane Doe” court designation, requested the court to do the same during the proceedings.
Gundersen is charged with 24 counts of alleged spousal rape with an intoxicant, along with five other charges, including two related to illegal firearms.
The battery of questions by Gallegos directed at Seal focused on specific details about alleged rape by Gundersen she had brought up in the past, but which she now testified were false, at times “sarcastic” and a result of misunderstandings.
Those misunderstandings included conversations with her attorney during the preliminary hearing, Michael Crowley, where he told her she had to stick with her past statements despite her telling him the allegations were false, she testified.
She also testified that she kept being told “over and over” again by investigators that if Gundersen had sex with her while she was asleep and taking Lunesta, that it constituted rape.
“I was under the belief, black-and-white, that if I was under the influence of Lunesta it constituted rape,” she testified.
Seal recanted a long list of allegations she made against Gundersen, including that he raped her and that he was more aroused sexually when she was sleeping.
Intermixed in all this, Gallegos called up previous statements, and when Seal denied them, Gallegos asked if she lied.
Although Seal testified that she lied in many of those instances, she said she had tried to tell investigators, her attorney and Gallegos that she wanted to recant her allegations, but all her pleas were apparently ignored..
At one point, Gallegos asked her to name specific times when she told him or other investigators that the allegations were untrue, to which Seal testified that she talked to him on the phone and also District Attorney’s Office Investigator Wayne Cox.
Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office Detective Troy Garey had testified several days earlier that Seal denied a rape (SART) examination on Feb. 8, because she changed her story to say the sex with Gundersen the previous day had been consensual and not otherwise as earlier stated.
Gallegos asked Seal if she thought investigators would take her allegations as a joke, as she testified that she tried to tell everyone she was being sarcastic.
Seal testified that she didn’t expect the investigators, who were Gundersen’s ex-wife’s friends, to take her statements seriously and arrest him.
“What part of the joke made you cry?” Gallegos pressed her about the taped interview.
“I wanted to leave,” Seal said. “I was confused.”
Seal testified that when she walked into the Feb. 8 interview with investigators, she wasn’t in the “right state of mind” and felt emotional as she had just come back from her psychiatrist.
During the taped interview with investigators, although she made allegations against her husband, she did not want to prosecute him and felt the process was moving too fast.
“You chose to testify falsely against your husband?” Gallegos said.
“Yes,” Seal said.
“In your mind, is it OK to lie?” he said.
“No, it’s not OK,” she said. “Like I said, I was under a great deal of stress and I felt badgered.”
(John C. Osborn can be reached at josborn@eurekareporter.com, or at 707-269-7445.)
☛ ER DA grills alleged victim on stand
By JOHN C. OSBORN , The Eureka Reporter
Published: Aug 14 2008, 10:19 PM · Updated: Aug 14 2008, 10:21 PM
Categories: Local news, Local News
7.31.2008
ER - Doe 1 speaks out, files complaint
Doe 1 speaks out, files complaint
One of the Jane Does involved in the trial of former Blue Lake Police Chief David Gundersen filed a citizen complaint against the Humboldt County Sheriff’s and District Attorney’s offices Wednesday.
The complaint, authored by Gundersen’s wife (Doe 1), alleges that the HCSO and District Attorney’s Office violated her civil rights, falsely imprisoned her on Feb. 8, coerced a statement out of her that day and conspired to imprison Gundersen.
“There’s a whole other side to this story,” Doe 1 said in an interview Wednesday. “I just thought I need to get this out.”
Gundersen faces two trials for allegations pertaining to two Jane Does. In all, he faces 31 charges, including 24 counts of spousal rape.
He pleaded not guilty to all charges and sits in the Humboldt County jail on a $1.25 million bail.
As a result of Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Bruce Watson’s decision to allow testimony from Gundersen’s ex-wife Monday, and other compounding events since Feb. 8, Doe 1 said she felt the truth needed to be told.
“I’m the only person who can do that,” she said, “because David can’t be heard.”
In the four-page complaint sent to the Humboldt County Grand Jury and both the California and U.S. Attorney General’s Office, Doe 1 wrote how a custody battle turned into a conspiracy against her husband.
“I felt I was entrapped and coerced,” she said. “I think someone else should review this.”
Gundersen’s ex-wife couldn’t be reached for comment before deadline.
Much of the complaint described in detail what Doe 1 had testified during Gundersen’s preliminary hearing in April, which included how she “felt coerced” into giving statements about non-consensual sex by her husband during a seven-hour interview on Feb. 8 that she couldn’t walk away from.
The District Attorney’s Office had to subpoena Doe 1 to the stand, as she had no intention on testifying.
Doe 1 added in the complaint that she answered questions “sarcastically,” such as telling the three HCSO investigators interviewing her that Gundersen had non-consensual sex with her 365 times when asked if he ever did.
During the preliminary hearing, Doe 1 testified that Gundersen had non-consensual sex with her at least once a month between 2005 and 2007.
As Doe 1 testified before, she had no intention on pressing any charges against Gundersen and merely wanted to talk about police assistance if anything got out of control between the two.
Doe 1 also wrote about events leading up to that encounter with law enforcement.
Sometime in December 2001, Doe 1 wrote that Gundersen’s ex-wife told her that he had raped her and it would happen to her as well.
Events happened in the summer of 2007, Doe 1 wrote, moved Gundersen to file for full custody of his children. At that point, Gundersen’s ex-wife hired Joan Gallegos, wife of Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos, to represent her in the family matter.
By the time Jan. 28 rolled around, Doe 1 wrote she wanted a separation with Gundersen.
On that day, Doe 1 wrote that Gundersen’s ex-wife told her she could use Paul Gallegos’ willingness to prosecute Gundersen for allegedly raping her in the past as a way to get rid of Gundersen — this after Joan Gallegos allegedly talked with him about it.
“I believe this was a conspiracy between (Paul Gallegos), his wife and (Gundersen’s ex-wife) in an attempt for (Gundersen’s ex-wife) to gain full custody of the kids,” she wrote. “Her plan worked.”
When contacted, Paul Gallegos said he wouldn’t comment on the contents of the complaint, because he felt it would be inappropriate to do so at this point.
Joan Gallegos, who stopped representing Gundersen’s ex-wife after he was arrested, said she had nothing to gain from asking her husband to prosecute Gundersen and in the process lose a client.
“I would never make those kinds of assertions to a client, period,” she said. “I avoid conflicts, I don’t look for them.”
Complaint aside, Doe 1 said it’s been emotionally difficult these past few months since Gundersen’s arrest.
“It’s been really hard on our family,” she said.
After being placed on administrative leave from the Blue Lake Police Department, she resigned following the conclusion of a lawsuit settlement. Gundersen’s contract was terminated, along with the entire department.
An emergency protective order has also prevented her from talking to Gundersen, especially about their homes in foreclosure, which she said is cruel.
With the jury selection process moving forward in Gundersen’s trial and this complaint in the mail, Doe 1 said she doesn’t know what the next step is.
“I have faith that this is all going to work out,” she said.
(John C. Osborn can be reached at josborn@eurekareporter.com, or at 707-269-7445.)
By JOHN C. OSBORN , The Eureka Reporter
Published: Jul 30 2008, 11:39 PM
One of the Jane Does involved in the trial of former Blue Lake Police Chief David Gundersen filed a citizen complaint against the Humboldt County Sheriff’s and District Attorney’s offices Wednesday.
The complaint, authored by Gundersen’s wife (Doe 1), alleges that the HCSO and District Attorney’s Office violated her civil rights, falsely imprisoned her on Feb. 8, coerced a statement out of her that day and conspired to imprison Gundersen.
“There’s a whole other side to this story,” Doe 1 said in an interview Wednesday. “I just thought I need to get this out.”
Gundersen faces two trials for allegations pertaining to two Jane Does. In all, he faces 31 charges, including 24 counts of spousal rape.
He pleaded not guilty to all charges and sits in the Humboldt County jail on a $1.25 million bail.
As a result of Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Bruce Watson’s decision to allow testimony from Gundersen’s ex-wife Monday, and other compounding events since Feb. 8, Doe 1 said she felt the truth needed to be told.
“I’m the only person who can do that,” she said, “because David can’t be heard.”
In the four-page complaint sent to the Humboldt County Grand Jury and both the California and U.S. Attorney General’s Office, Doe 1 wrote how a custody battle turned into a conspiracy against her husband.
“I felt I was entrapped and coerced,” she said. “I think someone else should review this.”
Gundersen’s ex-wife couldn’t be reached for comment before deadline.
Much of the complaint described in detail what Doe 1 had testified during Gundersen’s preliminary hearing in April, which included how she “felt coerced” into giving statements about non-consensual sex by her husband during a seven-hour interview on Feb. 8 that she couldn’t walk away from.
The District Attorney’s Office had to subpoena Doe 1 to the stand, as she had no intention on testifying.
Doe 1 added in the complaint that she answered questions “sarcastically,” such as telling the three HCSO investigators interviewing her that Gundersen had non-consensual sex with her 365 times when asked if he ever did.
During the preliminary hearing, Doe 1 testified that Gundersen had non-consensual sex with her at least once a month between 2005 and 2007.
As Doe 1 testified before, she had no intention on pressing any charges against Gundersen and merely wanted to talk about police assistance if anything got out of control between the two.
Doe 1 also wrote about events leading up to that encounter with law enforcement.
Sometime in December 2001, Doe 1 wrote that Gundersen’s ex-wife told her that he had raped her and it would happen to her as well.
Events happened in the summer of 2007, Doe 1 wrote, moved Gundersen to file for full custody of his children. At that point, Gundersen’s ex-wife hired Joan Gallegos, wife of Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos, to represent her in the family matter.
By the time Jan. 28 rolled around, Doe 1 wrote she wanted a separation with Gundersen.
On that day, Doe 1 wrote that Gundersen’s ex-wife told her she could use Paul Gallegos’ willingness to prosecute Gundersen for allegedly raping her in the past as a way to get rid of Gundersen — this after Joan Gallegos allegedly talked with him about it.
“I believe this was a conspiracy between (Paul Gallegos), his wife and (Gundersen’s ex-wife) in an attempt for (Gundersen’s ex-wife) to gain full custody of the kids,” she wrote. “Her plan worked.”
When contacted, Paul Gallegos said he wouldn’t comment on the contents of the complaint, because he felt it would be inappropriate to do so at this point.
Joan Gallegos, who stopped representing Gundersen’s ex-wife after he was arrested, said she had nothing to gain from asking her husband to prosecute Gundersen and in the process lose a client.
“I would never make those kinds of assertions to a client, period,” she said. “I avoid conflicts, I don’t look for them.”
Complaint aside, Doe 1 said it’s been emotionally difficult these past few months since Gundersen’s arrest.
“It’s been really hard on our family,” she said.
After being placed on administrative leave from the Blue Lake Police Department, she resigned following the conclusion of a lawsuit settlement. Gundersen’s contract was terminated, along with the entire department.
An emergency protective order has also prevented her from talking to Gundersen, especially about their homes in foreclosure, which she said is cruel.
With the jury selection process moving forward in Gundersen’s trial and this complaint in the mail, Doe 1 said she doesn’t know what the next step is.
“I have faith that this is all going to work out,” she said.
(John C. Osborn can be reached at josborn@eurekareporter.com, or at 707-269-7445.)
By JOHN C. OSBORN , The Eureka Reporter
Published: Jul 30 2008, 11:39 PM
7.15.2008
ER - Two charges against Gundersen dismissed
ER Two charges against Gundersen dismissed
The Humboldt County Superior Court dismissed two of the 26 counts of spousal rape charged against former Blue Lake Police Chief David Gundersen in a ruling filed Monday.
The court also upheld a ruling from Gundersen’s preliminary hearing that reduced a kidnapping to commit rape charge, with a firearm enhancement, to forcible rape with said enhancement — one of two charges that involve Jane Doe 2.
The ruling came in response to a motion filed by Russell Clanton, Gundersen’s defense attorney, to dismiss all the charges against his client during a hearing on July 9.
News of the ruling came Monday morning at the start of Gundersen’s trial, with two motions awaiting a decision by the new presiding judge, Superior Court Judge W. Bruce Watson, and the expectation that the jury selection process will be a long one.
The charges against Gundersen have varied over the months, as the Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office tacked on more and as judges reduced or dismissed some.
Gundersen is now being charged with 24 counts of alleged spousal rape with an intoxicant, along with seven other charges, including two related to firearms, for a total of 31 charges.
Superior Court Judge Marilyn Miles, who originally presided over the case, dismissed two counts of spousal rape with an intoxicant charged against Gundersen after reviewing transcripts from his preliminary hearing in April.
Miles said in her ruling that the time period discussed by both the prosecution and defense went as far as 2007.
During the preliminary hearing, Jane Doe 1 testified that Gundersen had non-consensual sex with her about once a month between 2005 and 2007.
Since two of the counts of alleged spousal rape against Gundersen occurred in January 2008 and February 2008, she dismissed both of them.
As for the charge against Gundersen of kidnapping to commit rape, Miles agreed with Superior Court Judge John T. Feeney’s ruling that there was insufficient evidence to hold him to that charge.
“While the evidence shows that Jane Doe was forcibly moved from the front room to the bedroom ... the evidence does not show that this movement substantially increased the risk of physical harm (over and above that) necessarily present in the commission of rape,” Miles wrote in her ruling.
Although Clanton thought Miles’ decision was accurate, he believed there were other counts that could have been dismissed.
He said he still has two pending motions for the court to consider: one requesting a change of venue and another asking to try the charges pertaining to Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 separately.
Due to the expected length of time of the trial, the availability of courtrooms and Superior Court Judge Paul Cissna being disqualified, Watson will now preside over the trial.
The jury selection process, which District Attorney Paul Gallegos said could take three to four weeks, begins this morning.
He said he would like a pool of at least 70 jurors, 12 of whom would eventually hear the case.
A pool of jurors will be asked if they have any hardships that may interfere with the trial, which is expected to last about a month.
Those that move on will be individually questioned to determine if there are any pre-established biases to the case. The possible corruption of the juror pool due to extensive media coverage was among the reasons Clanton requested the trial be conducted elsewhere.
***
Same day TS Judge dismisses three charges facing Gundersen
Related coverage, with links to all stories
The Humboldt County Superior Court dismissed two of the 26 counts of spousal rape charged against former Blue Lake Police Chief David Gundersen in a ruling filed Monday.
The court also upheld a ruling from Gundersen’s preliminary hearing that reduced a kidnapping to commit rape charge, with a firearm enhancement, to forcible rape with said enhancement — one of two charges that involve Jane Doe 2.
The ruling came in response to a motion filed by Russell Clanton, Gundersen’s defense attorney, to dismiss all the charges against his client during a hearing on July 9.
News of the ruling came Monday morning at the start of Gundersen’s trial, with two motions awaiting a decision by the new presiding judge, Superior Court Judge W. Bruce Watson, and the expectation that the jury selection process will be a long one.
The charges against Gundersen have varied over the months, as the Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office tacked on more and as judges reduced or dismissed some.
Gundersen is now being charged with 24 counts of alleged spousal rape with an intoxicant, along with seven other charges, including two related to firearms, for a total of 31 charges.
Superior Court Judge Marilyn Miles, who originally presided over the case, dismissed two counts of spousal rape with an intoxicant charged against Gundersen after reviewing transcripts from his preliminary hearing in April.
Miles said in her ruling that the time period discussed by both the prosecution and defense went as far as 2007.
During the preliminary hearing, Jane Doe 1 testified that Gundersen had non-consensual sex with her about once a month between 2005 and 2007.
Since two of the counts of alleged spousal rape against Gundersen occurred in January 2008 and February 2008, she dismissed both of them.
As for the charge against Gundersen of kidnapping to commit rape, Miles agreed with Superior Court Judge John T. Feeney’s ruling that there was insufficient evidence to hold him to that charge.
“While the evidence shows that Jane Doe was forcibly moved from the front room to the bedroom ... the evidence does not show that this movement substantially increased the risk of physical harm (over and above that) necessarily present in the commission of rape,” Miles wrote in her ruling.
Although Clanton thought Miles’ decision was accurate, he believed there were other counts that could have been dismissed.
He said he still has two pending motions for the court to consider: one requesting a change of venue and another asking to try the charges pertaining to Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 separately.
Due to the expected length of time of the trial, the availability of courtrooms and Superior Court Judge Paul Cissna being disqualified, Watson will now preside over the trial.
The jury selection process, which District Attorney Paul Gallegos said could take three to four weeks, begins this morning.
He said he would like a pool of at least 70 jurors, 12 of whom would eventually hear the case.
A pool of jurors will be asked if they have any hardships that may interfere with the trial, which is expected to last about a month.
Those that move on will be individually questioned to determine if there are any pre-established biases to the case. The possible corruption of the juror pool due to extensive media coverage was among the reasons Clanton requested the trial be conducted elsewhere.
***
Same day TS Judge dismisses three charges facing Gundersen
Related coverage, with links to all stories
7.12.2008
ER District attorney frustrated about lack of authority over code enforcement officers
District attorney frustrated about lack of authority over code enforcement officers
Unless the Code Enforcement Unit packs up and moves to Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos’ office, he won’t be deputizing Code Enforcement Unit officers anytime soon.
During testimony at the code enforcement task force meeting Friday, Gallegos shared his frustrations about a “mutant” structure where he has no authority over code officers, yet all the responsibility for their actions in the field.
“The problem I’ve had, no matter where (code enforcement officers) go,” he said, “is that the existing structure is something I personally don’t want to operate under.”
Whether code enforcement officers even need the police powers given to them by the District Attorney’s Office was brought up during the meeting, as well. Those powers don’t exist for code enforcement officers in other rural counties in the state.
Who has authority?
One of the problems with the Code Enforcement Unit’s procedures identified by the task force so far revolves around just who has authority over code enforcement officers at any given time.
Interim County Counsel Wendy Chaitin said at a previous meeting that when officers investigate cases, they fall under her authority, but when they enter the field, they’re under the capacity of the District Attorney’s Office.
The problem: Gallegos said he has no direct authority over the officers in the field, even though he deputizes them. Until he does, he said he won’t deputize code enforcement officers, whose police powers he rescinded in April.
“They would have to be my employees,” he said.
Mike Hislop, who also attended the task force meeting, said that when he took over as chief investigator for the District Attorney’s Office two years ago, he noticed a “lack of law enforcement supervision” over code enforcement officers in the field.
As a way to exert more oversight over code enforcement officers after hearing complaints about what was happening in the field, Gallegos said his office set up a review process in which code enforcement officers had to get their operational plans approved before serving a warrant.
“We wanted to make sure not only the officers were safe,” Gallegos said, “but that they were acting in a way that was safe for everyone.”
Those operational plans include the personnel involved in executing a warrant.
Hislop reviewed, and approved, the operational plans for the series of warrants executed in the Wood Ranch Road area earlier this year, but not the inspection warrants.
In fact, nobody reviewed those no-notice inspection warrants, and testimony at the meeting revealed they were obtained without the knowledge of the county counsel.
Those inspection warrants were written, and executed, by former Code Enforcement Unit Officer John Desadier.
He since voluntarily transferred back to the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office on June 1 for pay reasons, he told The Eureka Reporter in a past interview.
Gallegos was open to the idea of bringing the Code Enforcement Unit under his authority, but warned that he would need more staffing to adequately run the program. Otherwise, his office would only be able to handle the most “extreme” cases.
“We would like the resources to do it,” he said, “so it’s not an empty assignment.”
On deputizing code enforcement officers
Some members of the task force have debated the issue of deputizing code enforcement officers and, as a result, arming them.
Code enforcement officers can request assistance from other law enforcement agencies, such as the HCSO, which usually occurs when officers execute inspection warrants in the field.
Task force member Bonnie Blackberry questioned why code enforcement officers needed to carry guns in the first place if they still bring backup from other law enforcement agencies.
“We need guns here because why?” she asked.
She also wondered why building and environmental inspectors don’t carry guns in the field if code enforcement officers do.
Task force member and former code enforcement officer Jack Bernstein said that code enforcement officers need those police powers to ensure their safety in the field.
“I don’t think you’d be able to adequately complete the tasks necessary (otherwise),” he said. “It’s better safe than sorry.”
According to a survey conducted by the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers, 46.5 percent of officers have police powers, 6 percent carry a weapon and 11 percent wear a bullet-proof vest.
On the issue of officer safety, 63 percent experienced an incident that involved their safety in the field.
Not all code enforcement units in rural California counties deputize their officers.
Del Norte Code Enforcement Officer Dave Mason said in an interview that Del Norte County code enforcement officers are not sworn in and don’t carry firearms, but it would be nice.
“I would feel better if I was armed, so I wouldn’t have to hide behind people,” he said.
About three times a year, Del Norte County code enforcement officers call in the assistance of the Del Norte County Sheriff’s Office.
Del Norte County code enforcement officers face problems similar to those dealt with by their counterparts in Humboldt County, such as illegal dumping, abandoned vehicles and substandard housing. They also deal with methamphetamine labs in trailers.
When the Del Norte County unit was first formed, the county decided that the officers shouldn’t be deputized, Mason said. That could change at some point, as there are still people who want officers to be armed, he said.
Madera County, a rural county of similar size to Humboldt County, doesn’t deputize its code enforcement officers either.
“It’s basically that the county decided at this point not to do it,” said Madera County Code Enforcement Officer Eric Yancy.
Also facing problems with junk and abandoned vehicles, the Madera County unit, which has a 90 percent compliance rate, has never issued a no-notice inspection warrant.
Code enforcement officers in Humboldt County, who use inspection warrants for only 8 percent of their cases, give no notice 65 percent of the time in those cases.
When backup is needed, the Madera County unit coordinates with the sheriff’s office. Yancy said the operation can be shut down at anytime.
“We do what they say,” he said. “They’re the ones that are going to save us.”
By JOHN C. OSBORN , The Eureka Reporter
Published: Jul 12 2008, 12:09 AM · Updated: Jul 12 2008, 4:39 AM
Category: Local News
Unless the Code Enforcement Unit packs up and moves to Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos’ office, he won’t be deputizing Code Enforcement Unit officers anytime soon.
During testimony at the code enforcement task force meeting Friday, Gallegos shared his frustrations about a “mutant” structure where he has no authority over code officers, yet all the responsibility for their actions in the field.
“The problem I’ve had, no matter where (code enforcement officers) go,” he said, “is that the existing structure is something I personally don’t want to operate under.”
Whether code enforcement officers even need the police powers given to them by the District Attorney’s Office was brought up during the meeting, as well. Those powers don’t exist for code enforcement officers in other rural counties in the state.
Who has authority?
One of the problems with the Code Enforcement Unit’s procedures identified by the task force so far revolves around just who has authority over code enforcement officers at any given time.
Interim County Counsel Wendy Chaitin said at a previous meeting that when officers investigate cases, they fall under her authority, but when they enter the field, they’re under the capacity of the District Attorney’s Office.
The problem: Gallegos said he has no direct authority over the officers in the field, even though he deputizes them. Until he does, he said he won’t deputize code enforcement officers, whose police powers he rescinded in April.
“They would have to be my employees,” he said.
Mike Hislop, who also attended the task force meeting, said that when he took over as chief investigator for the District Attorney’s Office two years ago, he noticed a “lack of law enforcement supervision” over code enforcement officers in the field.
As a way to exert more oversight over code enforcement officers after hearing complaints about what was happening in the field, Gallegos said his office set up a review process in which code enforcement officers had to get their operational plans approved before serving a warrant.
“We wanted to make sure not only the officers were safe,” Gallegos said, “but that they were acting in a way that was safe for everyone.”
Those operational plans include the personnel involved in executing a warrant.
Hislop reviewed, and approved, the operational plans for the series of warrants executed in the Wood Ranch Road area earlier this year, but not the inspection warrants.
In fact, nobody reviewed those no-notice inspection warrants, and testimony at the meeting revealed they were obtained without the knowledge of the county counsel.
Those inspection warrants were written, and executed, by former Code Enforcement Unit Officer John Desadier.
He since voluntarily transferred back to the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office on June 1 for pay reasons, he told The Eureka Reporter in a past interview.
Gallegos was open to the idea of bringing the Code Enforcement Unit under his authority, but warned that he would need more staffing to adequately run the program. Otherwise, his office would only be able to handle the most “extreme” cases.
“We would like the resources to do it,” he said, “so it’s not an empty assignment.”
On deputizing code enforcement officers
Some members of the task force have debated the issue of deputizing code enforcement officers and, as a result, arming them.
Code enforcement officers can request assistance from other law enforcement agencies, such as the HCSO, which usually occurs when officers execute inspection warrants in the field.
Task force member Bonnie Blackberry questioned why code enforcement officers needed to carry guns in the first place if they still bring backup from other law enforcement agencies.
“We need guns here because why?” she asked.
She also wondered why building and environmental inspectors don’t carry guns in the field if code enforcement officers do.
Task force member and former code enforcement officer Jack Bernstein said that code enforcement officers need those police powers to ensure their safety in the field.
“I don’t think you’d be able to adequately complete the tasks necessary (otherwise),” he said. “It’s better safe than sorry.”
According to a survey conducted by the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers, 46.5 percent of officers have police powers, 6 percent carry a weapon and 11 percent wear a bullet-proof vest.
On the issue of officer safety, 63 percent experienced an incident that involved their safety in the field.
Not all code enforcement units in rural California counties deputize their officers.
Del Norte Code Enforcement Officer Dave Mason said in an interview that Del Norte County code enforcement officers are not sworn in and don’t carry firearms, but it would be nice.
“I would feel better if I was armed, so I wouldn’t have to hide behind people,” he said.
About three times a year, Del Norte County code enforcement officers call in the assistance of the Del Norte County Sheriff’s Office.
Del Norte County code enforcement officers face problems similar to those dealt with by their counterparts in Humboldt County, such as illegal dumping, abandoned vehicles and substandard housing. They also deal with methamphetamine labs in trailers.
When the Del Norte County unit was first formed, the county decided that the officers shouldn’t be deputized, Mason said. That could change at some point, as there are still people who want officers to be armed, he said.
Madera County, a rural county of similar size to Humboldt County, doesn’t deputize its code enforcement officers either.
“It’s basically that the county decided at this point not to do it,” said Madera County Code Enforcement Officer Eric Yancy.
Also facing problems with junk and abandoned vehicles, the Madera County unit, which has a 90 percent compliance rate, has never issued a no-notice inspection warrant.
Code enforcement officers in Humboldt County, who use inspection warrants for only 8 percent of their cases, give no notice 65 percent of the time in those cases.
When backup is needed, the Madera County unit coordinates with the sheriff’s office. Yancy said the operation can be shut down at anytime.
“We do what they say,” he said. “They’re the ones that are going to save us.”
By JOHN C. OSBORN , The Eureka Reporter
Published: Jul 12 2008, 12:09 AM · Updated: Jul 12 2008, 4:39 AM
Category: Local News
5.01.2008
ER - Gallegos sidesteps questions about possible conflict of interest in Bowman charges
Gallegos sidesteps questions about possible conflict of interest in Bowman charges
A large contribution to the successful 2006 re-election campaign of Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos has raised questions the DA has so far declined to answer, after it was learned that the son of the man chiefly responsible for the contribution subsequently escaped punishment on numerous criminal charges, including one alleging the statutory rape of a 14-year-old girl.
According to Fair Political Practices Commission filings, the donation, in the amount of $10,000, was the single largest monetary contribution received by the campaign of the incumbent DA from any contributor whose last name was not Gallegos.
FPPC documents indicate that the contribution was recorded April 29, and attributed to the Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria, which is chaired by Leonard Bowman, father of Derek Bowman, 25, both of Loleta.
The younger Bowman’s association with law enforcement spans two states and 11 years, and includes as many as 40 criminal charges ranging from assault with a deadly weapon as a juvenile to three charges alleging violence against one adult and two juvenile females in 2006.
But on July 19, less than six weeks after Gallegos was re-elected, the DA’s Office gathered nine felonies and a handful of misdemeanors pending against Derek, and dismissed or suspended sentence on all of them in a single day.
According to publicly available court documents, recent charges against Derek included felony statutory rape, five counts of felony check fraud against local businesses, felony burglary, felony threats, felony battery, misdemeanor battery and misdemeanor resisting arrest.
Restitution orders for the check fraud cases were part of the July 19 deals, but the documents show that no jail time for any of the alleged offenses was requested by the DA’s Office.
For violation of probation on a previous charge, Derek was sentenced in July to 180 days, less time served, in the Humboldt County jail.
FOLLOWING THE MONEY
In a declaration in support of an arrest warrant on one of the charges against Derek, Humboldt County Sheriff’s Deputy Troy Garey wrote on June 26 that Cheree Bowie, the mother of Derek’s 17-year-old wife, told him that Derek had “been bragging that even if he was arrested, his dad would get him out of jail.”
In his report, Garey stated that he asked Bowie how she knew this.
“Bowie said the suspect’s father, Leonard Bowman, is the tribal chairperson on the Bear River reservation,” Garey wrote, “and he and the tribe and the Bear River Casino gave District Attorney Paul Gallegos $10,000 in his recent re-election campaign for DA. Bowie then hung up the phone.”
When The Eureka Reporter attempted to contact Bowman at the tribal office, a woman who answered the phone said that Bowman had no comment when he was told the call was regarding campaign contributions.
In all, the Bowmans, the tribe and an attorney employed by the casino contributed $11,100 to Gallegos’ campaign coffers, just under 10 percent of the total of all funds raised by the incumbent during the campaign, according to FPPC filings.
In addition to the $10,000 contribution in the name of the Rancheria, Leonard and his wife personally contributed $100, the FPPC documents show.
The same documents indicate Bear River attorney Michael Acosta contributed $1,000.
Contained in the court records is a letter to the Humboldt County Probation Department, dated Aug. 7 and written on Bear River Gaming Agency letterhead, in which Acosta requested that Derek be granted probation in lieu of the 180-day sentence.
Acosta stated in the letter that he would recommend reinstatement of Derek’s employment in the casino’s surveillance department should probation be granted.
Court documents state that Derek has been charged with violating the terms of his probation seven times in the past nine years.
FOLLOWING THE RULES
While there is no direct evidence that indicates Derek was treated differently because of the contributions, neither did Gallegos exercise any of the options available to him to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.
The simple explanation may be that he was not legally required to do so.
According to Del Norte County District Attorney Mike Riese, there is no rule requiring the removal or “recusal” of a DA from cases in which a possible conflict of interest is perceived.
Riese, who has no involvement in the Bowman cases and spoke only in general terms about recusal, said, “District attorneys have unfettered discretion under the government code. If we choose, we can recuse ourselves, we can ask the attorney general to come in or we can appoint a special prosecutor.”
But Riese reiterated that no district attorney in California would be under any legal obligation to choose any of those alternatives.
It is not known if Gallegos attempted to recuse himself from Derek’s criminal cases, but none of the 232 pages of court documents contained in the court files makes reference to a recusal.
Neither does Gallegos appear to have referred Derek’s cases for prosecution by the California State Attorney General’s Office, which retains concurrent jurisdiction in all cases prosecuted by California district attorneys and their deputies.
FOLLOWING COURT PRECEDENT
There is no evidence in any of the files that Gallegos was personally involved in Derek’s prosecution. However, according to numerous legal precedents, in cases in which there exists a possible conflict of interest, an entire DA’s Office is commonly recused.
In a recent example that presented a possible conflict for the Los Angeles County District Attorney, Deputy DA Matthew Monforton wrote a memorandum to county officials demanding recusal of all L.A. County prosecutors and referral of the case to the attorney general.
When a district attorney suffers from a conflict of interest, Monforton wrote, “appellate courts have imputed the conflict to all deputy district attorneys in the same county.”
Monforton cited People v. Lepe, a 1985 Imperial County case in which a conflict was perceived between District Attorney Thomas Storey and a defendant he had once represented as a defense attorney. The California Court of Appeals disqualified Storey, but didn’t stop there.
“As the deputies are hired by Storey, promoted by Storey and fired by Storey,” the court concluded, “we cannot say the office can be sanitized such to assume the deputy who prosecutes the case will not be influenced by the considerations that bar Storey himself from participation in the case.”
Again, in People v. Choi, Monforton wrote, San Francisco County District Attorney Terrence Hallinan recused himself to avoid a potential conflict, but the California Court of Appeals went further, stating that Hallinan’s entire office should have been recused because prosecutors are “hired, evaluated and promoted by the district attorney.”
The court documents indicate that Derek was at various times defended by what is called “conflict counsel,” meaning an alternative defense attorney was assigned to a particular case after the original public defender disclosed a possible conflict in handling the case.
But the same documents show that similar steps were not taken by prosecutors. Derek’s charges were handled by several prosecutors in the DA’s Office, including Assistant District Attorney Wes Keat, Deputy District Attorneys Maggie Fleming and Max Cardoza and former Deputy District Attorneys Nicole Hansen and Heather Gimle.
Gallegos declined to return repeated phone calls requesting comment for this report, and also declined to answer questions about the matter by e-mail.
In response to several specific inquiries regarding the $10,000 campaign contribution and the subsequent handling of Derek’s criminal cases, Gallegos stated in an e-mail only the following: “This office operates without fear or favor.”
FOLLOWING UP
During the 2006 DA campaign, former Deputy District Attorney Worth Dikeman, Gallegos’ opponent, called on the incumbent to recuse the DA’s Office in the Cheri Moore homicide and refer the case to the attorney general, accusing Gallegos of “making political hay” of the investigation.
“(Gallegos) has a history of rewarding his allies and punishing those who oppose him,” Dikeman said at a May 25 press conference.
“His history of questionable practices, his failure to expeditiously resolve this matter and his strained relationship with the rest of the law enforcement community, including the Eureka Police Officers Association, make this an appropriate case for the attorney general to exercise his discretion under the government code and take full charge of the investigation,” Dikeman said.
Dikeman has acknowledged that one possible factor in his most recent defeat by Gallegos was the extended protest in front of the Courthouse staged by Ellie Bowman, who is Derek’s mother and Leonard’s wife.
“It certainly isn’t helping,” Dikeman said in June.
Ellie was protesting comments Dikeman had made about prospective Native American jurors in the now infamous 1992 murder case against former Fortuna resident Richard Kesser.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found Sept. 11 in a six-to-five vote that some of Dikeman’s statements contained racial bias, and Kesser’s conviction could be headed for retrial as a result.
But Dikeman said at the time that Ellie had another reason to protest his candidacy. The deputy DA successfully prosecuted Ellie’s other son, Jeffrey Bowman, for the 1999 murder of Trinidad Rancheria member Julius Aubrey.
Jeffrey is currently serving a prison term of 25 years to life.
Jail officials said Friday that Derek was no longer in custody. Technically still booked, he was released Sept. 11 to serve the balance of his 180-day sentence in the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Work Alternative Program.
(Diane M. Batley, Rebecca S. Bender and Megan McCulloch contributed to this report.)
By Heather Muller, The Eureka Reporter
Published: Sep 26 2006, 12:19 AM · Updated: Sep 26 2006, 9:38 AM
Related stories:
ER - Bear River members seek chairperson's recall
ER - Gallegos sidesteps questions about possible conflict of interest in Bowman charges
ER - Questions without answers hinder our newsgathering
ER - Bowman story not accurate
ER - Contribution made because Gallegos was the better of the two
ER - Questions remain in DA's handling of Bowman charges
ER - Bear River official discusses financial contributions from tribe
ER - Tribe's contribution to DA's campaign was made by the Tribal Council, not Bowman
ER - Gallegos is 'public servant,' not Legal Spiegel
ER - It's telling that Gallegos witch hunt didn't start until firing of Dikeman
ER - Writer appreciates editor's note that identifies writers
ER - Residents deserve answers to questions asked of DA's Office
ER - Bitter? You bet!
TS - Donations not improper, says Bear River Band
TS - DA's office: State OK'd handling of plea deal
A large contribution to the successful 2006 re-election campaign of Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos has raised questions the DA has so far declined to answer, after it was learned that the son of the man chiefly responsible for the contribution subsequently escaped punishment on numerous criminal charges, including one alleging the statutory rape of a 14-year-old girl.
According to Fair Political Practices Commission filings, the donation, in the amount of $10,000, was the single largest monetary contribution received by the campaign of the incumbent DA from any contributor whose last name was not Gallegos.
FPPC documents indicate that the contribution was recorded April 29, and attributed to the Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria, which is chaired by Leonard Bowman, father of Derek Bowman, 25, both of Loleta.
The younger Bowman’s association with law enforcement spans two states and 11 years, and includes as many as 40 criminal charges ranging from assault with a deadly weapon as a juvenile to three charges alleging violence against one adult and two juvenile females in 2006.
But on July 19, less than six weeks after Gallegos was re-elected, the DA’s Office gathered nine felonies and a handful of misdemeanors pending against Derek, and dismissed or suspended sentence on all of them in a single day.
According to publicly available court documents, recent charges against Derek included felony statutory rape, five counts of felony check fraud against local businesses, felony burglary, felony threats, felony battery, misdemeanor battery and misdemeanor resisting arrest.
Restitution orders for the check fraud cases were part of the July 19 deals, but the documents show that no jail time for any of the alleged offenses was requested by the DA’s Office.
For violation of probation on a previous charge, Derek was sentenced in July to 180 days, less time served, in the Humboldt County jail.
FOLLOWING THE MONEY
In a declaration in support of an arrest warrant on one of the charges against Derek, Humboldt County Sheriff’s Deputy Troy Garey wrote on June 26 that Cheree Bowie, the mother of Derek’s 17-year-old wife, told him that Derek had “been bragging that even if he was arrested, his dad would get him out of jail.”
In his report, Garey stated that he asked Bowie how she knew this.
“Bowie said the suspect’s father, Leonard Bowman, is the tribal chairperson on the Bear River reservation,” Garey wrote, “and he and the tribe and the Bear River Casino gave District Attorney Paul Gallegos $10,000 in his recent re-election campaign for DA. Bowie then hung up the phone.”
When The Eureka Reporter attempted to contact Bowman at the tribal office, a woman who answered the phone said that Bowman had no comment when he was told the call was regarding campaign contributions.
In all, the Bowmans, the tribe and an attorney employed by the casino contributed $11,100 to Gallegos’ campaign coffers, just under 10 percent of the total of all funds raised by the incumbent during the campaign, according to FPPC filings.
In addition to the $10,000 contribution in the name of the Rancheria, Leonard and his wife personally contributed $100, the FPPC documents show.
The same documents indicate Bear River attorney Michael Acosta contributed $1,000.
Contained in the court records is a letter to the Humboldt County Probation Department, dated Aug. 7 and written on Bear River Gaming Agency letterhead, in which Acosta requested that Derek be granted probation in lieu of the 180-day sentence.
Acosta stated in the letter that he would recommend reinstatement of Derek’s employment in the casino’s surveillance department should probation be granted.
Court documents state that Derek has been charged with violating the terms of his probation seven times in the past nine years.
FOLLOWING THE RULES
While there is no direct evidence that indicates Derek was treated differently because of the contributions, neither did Gallegos exercise any of the options available to him to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.
The simple explanation may be that he was not legally required to do so.
According to Del Norte County District Attorney Mike Riese, there is no rule requiring the removal or “recusal” of a DA from cases in which a possible conflict of interest is perceived.
Riese, who has no involvement in the Bowman cases and spoke only in general terms about recusal, said, “District attorneys have unfettered discretion under the government code. If we choose, we can recuse ourselves, we can ask the attorney general to come in or we can appoint a special prosecutor.”
But Riese reiterated that no district attorney in California would be under any legal obligation to choose any of those alternatives.
It is not known if Gallegos attempted to recuse himself from Derek’s criminal cases, but none of the 232 pages of court documents contained in the court files makes reference to a recusal.
Neither does Gallegos appear to have referred Derek’s cases for prosecution by the California State Attorney General’s Office, which retains concurrent jurisdiction in all cases prosecuted by California district attorneys and their deputies.
FOLLOWING COURT PRECEDENT
There is no evidence in any of the files that Gallegos was personally involved in Derek’s prosecution. However, according to numerous legal precedents, in cases in which there exists a possible conflict of interest, an entire DA’s Office is commonly recused.
In a recent example that presented a possible conflict for the Los Angeles County District Attorney, Deputy DA Matthew Monforton wrote a memorandum to county officials demanding recusal of all L.A. County prosecutors and referral of the case to the attorney general.
When a district attorney suffers from a conflict of interest, Monforton wrote, “appellate courts have imputed the conflict to all deputy district attorneys in the same county.”
Monforton cited People v. Lepe, a 1985 Imperial County case in which a conflict was perceived between District Attorney Thomas Storey and a defendant he had once represented as a defense attorney. The California Court of Appeals disqualified Storey, but didn’t stop there.
“As the deputies are hired by Storey, promoted by Storey and fired by Storey,” the court concluded, “we cannot say the office can be sanitized such to assume the deputy who prosecutes the case will not be influenced by the considerations that bar Storey himself from participation in the case.”
Again, in People v. Choi, Monforton wrote, San Francisco County District Attorney Terrence Hallinan recused himself to avoid a potential conflict, but the California Court of Appeals went further, stating that Hallinan’s entire office should have been recused because prosecutors are “hired, evaluated and promoted by the district attorney.”
The court documents indicate that Derek was at various times defended by what is called “conflict counsel,” meaning an alternative defense attorney was assigned to a particular case after the original public defender disclosed a possible conflict in handling the case.
But the same documents show that similar steps were not taken by prosecutors. Derek’s charges were handled by several prosecutors in the DA’s Office, including Assistant District Attorney Wes Keat, Deputy District Attorneys Maggie Fleming and Max Cardoza and former Deputy District Attorneys Nicole Hansen and Heather Gimle.
Gallegos declined to return repeated phone calls requesting comment for this report, and also declined to answer questions about the matter by e-mail.
In response to several specific inquiries regarding the $10,000 campaign contribution and the subsequent handling of Derek’s criminal cases, Gallegos stated in an e-mail only the following: “This office operates without fear or favor.”
FOLLOWING UP
During the 2006 DA campaign, former Deputy District Attorney Worth Dikeman, Gallegos’ opponent, called on the incumbent to recuse the DA’s Office in the Cheri Moore homicide and refer the case to the attorney general, accusing Gallegos of “making political hay” of the investigation.
“(Gallegos) has a history of rewarding his allies and punishing those who oppose him,” Dikeman said at a May 25 press conference.
“His history of questionable practices, his failure to expeditiously resolve this matter and his strained relationship with the rest of the law enforcement community, including the Eureka Police Officers Association, make this an appropriate case for the attorney general to exercise his discretion under the government code and take full charge of the investigation,” Dikeman said.
Dikeman has acknowledged that one possible factor in his most recent defeat by Gallegos was the extended protest in front of the Courthouse staged by Ellie Bowman, who is Derek’s mother and Leonard’s wife.
“It certainly isn’t helping,” Dikeman said in June.
Ellie was protesting comments Dikeman had made about prospective Native American jurors in the now infamous 1992 murder case against former Fortuna resident Richard Kesser.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found Sept. 11 in a six-to-five vote that some of Dikeman’s statements contained racial bias, and Kesser’s conviction could be headed for retrial as a result.
But Dikeman said at the time that Ellie had another reason to protest his candidacy. The deputy DA successfully prosecuted Ellie’s other son, Jeffrey Bowman, for the 1999 murder of Trinidad Rancheria member Julius Aubrey.
Jeffrey is currently serving a prison term of 25 years to life.
Jail officials said Friday that Derek was no longer in custody. Technically still booked, he was released Sept. 11 to serve the balance of his 180-day sentence in the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Work Alternative Program.
(Diane M. Batley, Rebecca S. Bender and Megan McCulloch contributed to this report.)
By Heather Muller, The Eureka Reporter
Published: Sep 26 2006, 12:19 AM · Updated: Sep 26 2006, 9:38 AM
Related stories:
ER - Bear River members seek chairperson's recall
ER - Gallegos sidesteps questions about possible conflict of interest in Bowman charges
ER - Questions without answers hinder our newsgathering
ER - Bowman story not accurate
ER - Contribution made because Gallegos was the better of the two
ER - Questions remain in DA's handling of Bowman charges
ER - Bear River official discusses financial contributions from tribe
ER - Tribe's contribution to DA's campaign was made by the Tribal Council, not Bowman
ER - Gallegos is 'public servant,' not Legal Spiegel
ER - It's telling that Gallegos witch hunt didn't start until firing of Dikeman
ER - Writer appreciates editor's note that identifies writers
ER - Residents deserve answers to questions asked of DA's Office
ER - Bitter? You bet!
TS - Donations not improper, says Bear River Band
TS - DA's office: State OK'd handling of plea deal
4.26.2008
ER - Doe 1: ‘I don’t think I would have ever come forward’
Four witnesses testified today at David Gundersen’s preliminary hearing, where topics ranged from seized prescription drugs to what happened at the Eureka Police Department on March 26, 1999.
“Jane Doe 1” finished testimony today, clarifying why she didn’t report the alleged non-consensual sex by Gundersen.
Law enforcement also officials took the stand to talk about the results of a search warrant on Gundersen’s home and of contact between him and Doe 1 while in jail.
Gundersen, currently the police chief for the Blue Lake Police Department, may face trial on suspicion of 19 charges, including 12 counts of spousal rape with an intoxicant, one count of kidnapping to commit another crime and possession of a machine gun.
Gundersen is being held at the Humboldt County jail with a $1.25 million bail.
At the end of Wednesday’s session, Doe 1 made it clear that it was never her intention to press charges on Gundersen. She also said she “felt coerced” by the several people at Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office to make statements she would otherwise not have made during a seven-hour interview.
Doe 1 had fears about coming forward about alleged non-consensual sex that occurred while she and Gundersen dealt with marital problems, starting in late 2005.
“I don’t think I would have ever come forward,” she said, adding she didn’t want to be responsible for Gundersen losing his job, his kids and going to prison. She also didn’t want this in the press.
Because of their busy schedules, Doe 1 testified that she allowed Gundersen to have sex with her while she slept before they started having martial problems. At that point, she asked him to stop.
“He wasn’t being honest with me about some personal things,” she said.
Doe 1 testified that she feared for her safety when talking with HCSO, but her fears “became worse because of what was said to me during the interview.”
At one point, Doe 1 recalled being told that Gundersen would take her “fishing.”
Doe 1 said she interpreted it as “he was going to take me fishing and hurt me.”
During the second interview with investigators from the district attorney’s office, Doe 1 testified that they claimed she committed felonies that she hadn’t.
She said she feared prosecution and going to prison.
“You’d like to avoid going to prison wouldn’t you?” Gundersen’s attorney Russell Clanton said.
“Of course,” she said.
After the court excused Doe 1, Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos called three law enforcement officials to the stand for a variety of topics.
Investigator Wayne Cox of the district attorney’s office testified that 16 bottles of prescription drugs that were not in Gundersen or Doe 1’s name were found at their home after executing a search warrant.
Among them were drugs prescribed for Donna Chaffin, Ben Hoff and Elizabeth Pageant.
“There were so many bottles of pills seized,” Cox said.
On the topic of Chaffin, Cox testified that they investigated it further and found that when Chaffin died, Gundersen and Doe 1 were involved in a death investigation at her home. The pills disappeared from the home after that investigation.
HCSO Detective Troy Garey testified about contact between Gundersen and Doe 1 after an Emergency Protective Order was signed by Doe 1.
Doe 1 said in previous testimony that she didn’t realize what the order entailed until after she signed it, and wanted it reversed.
The order prohibited Gundersen from direct and third-party contact in any way with Doe 1, and is the source of two of the 19 charges against him.
Garey testified that on Feb. 9, Gundersen contacted Doe 1 and asked her not to testify and to contact Cox, Hislop and/or Gallegos to have the charges dropped.
Garey monitored phone conversations with Gundersen to make sure the EPO was enforced.
There were also three letters intercepted by Garey and jail staff in April.
Toward the end of the day, testimony by Chief DA Investigator Michael Hislop focused on why there wasn’t a report from EPD about Doe 2’s visit on March 26, 1999.
Hislop also located a private MySpace account under Gundersen’s name, called “Gundy Bros.,” which featured a picture of an assault rifle and “live, laugh … love, weapon systems/sales and services” on the main page.
Now, Lt. Len Johnson talked with Doe 2, according to court documents.
When interviewed by Hislop, Johnson vaguely recalled the encounter, but couldn’t remember specifics.
When asked what he would have done as a sergeant, Hislop, who was sergeant there at the time — testified that since it occurred outside EPD’s jurisdiction, he would file out a critical incident report and send it to EPD’s chief.
“I find it unusual that (Johnson) didn’t do that,” Hislop said of the strong allegations against a police chief.
Due to schedule conflicts, the hearing resumes April 29.
Doe 1: ‘I don’t think I would have ever come forward’
Karen Wilkinson contributed to this story.
By JOHN C. OSBORN , The Eureka Reporter
Published: Apr 24 2008, 10:38 PM
(For more coverage of David Gundersen’s hearing, along with more detailed testimony from witnesses, go to http://eurekareporter.com/article/080422-gundersens-hearing.)
Related coverage, with links
“Jane Doe 1” finished testimony today, clarifying why she didn’t report the alleged non-consensual sex by Gundersen.
Law enforcement also officials took the stand to talk about the results of a search warrant on Gundersen’s home and of contact between him and Doe 1 while in jail.
Gundersen, currently the police chief for the Blue Lake Police Department, may face trial on suspicion of 19 charges, including 12 counts of spousal rape with an intoxicant, one count of kidnapping to commit another crime and possession of a machine gun.
Gundersen is being held at the Humboldt County jail with a $1.25 million bail.
At the end of Wednesday’s session, Doe 1 made it clear that it was never her intention to press charges on Gundersen. She also said she “felt coerced” by the several people at Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office to make statements she would otherwise not have made during a seven-hour interview.
Doe 1 had fears about coming forward about alleged non-consensual sex that occurred while she and Gundersen dealt with marital problems, starting in late 2005.
“I don’t think I would have ever come forward,” she said, adding she didn’t want to be responsible for Gundersen losing his job, his kids and going to prison. She also didn’t want this in the press.
Because of their busy schedules, Doe 1 testified that she allowed Gundersen to have sex with her while she slept before they started having martial problems. At that point, she asked him to stop.
“He wasn’t being honest with me about some personal things,” she said.
Doe 1 testified that she feared for her safety when talking with HCSO, but her fears “became worse because of what was said to me during the interview.”
At one point, Doe 1 recalled being told that Gundersen would take her “fishing.”
Doe 1 said she interpreted it as “he was going to take me fishing and hurt me.”
During the second interview with investigators from the district attorney’s office, Doe 1 testified that they claimed she committed felonies that she hadn’t.
She said she feared prosecution and going to prison.
“You’d like to avoid going to prison wouldn’t you?” Gundersen’s attorney Russell Clanton said.
“Of course,” she said.
After the court excused Doe 1, Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos called three law enforcement officials to the stand for a variety of topics.
Investigator Wayne Cox of the district attorney’s office testified that 16 bottles of prescription drugs that were not in Gundersen or Doe 1’s name were found at their home after executing a search warrant.
Among them were drugs prescribed for Donna Chaffin, Ben Hoff and Elizabeth Pageant.
“There were so many bottles of pills seized,” Cox said.
On the topic of Chaffin, Cox testified that they investigated it further and found that when Chaffin died, Gundersen and Doe 1 were involved in a death investigation at her home. The pills disappeared from the home after that investigation.
HCSO Detective Troy Garey testified about contact between Gundersen and Doe 1 after an Emergency Protective Order was signed by Doe 1.
Doe 1 said in previous testimony that she didn’t realize what the order entailed until after she signed it, and wanted it reversed.
The order prohibited Gundersen from direct and third-party contact in any way with Doe 1, and is the source of two of the 19 charges against him.
Garey testified that on Feb. 9, Gundersen contacted Doe 1 and asked her not to testify and to contact Cox, Hislop and/or Gallegos to have the charges dropped.
Garey monitored phone conversations with Gundersen to make sure the EPO was enforced.
There were also three letters intercepted by Garey and jail staff in April.
Toward the end of the day, testimony by Chief DA Investigator Michael Hislop focused on why there wasn’t a report from EPD about Doe 2’s visit on March 26, 1999.
Hislop also located a private MySpace account under Gundersen’s name, called “Gundy Bros.,” which featured a picture of an assault rifle and “live, laugh … love, weapon systems/sales and services” on the main page.
Now, Lt. Len Johnson talked with Doe 2, according to court documents.
When interviewed by Hislop, Johnson vaguely recalled the encounter, but couldn’t remember specifics.
When asked what he would have done as a sergeant, Hislop, who was sergeant there at the time — testified that since it occurred outside EPD’s jurisdiction, he would file out a critical incident report and send it to EPD’s chief.
“I find it unusual that (Johnson) didn’t do that,” Hislop said of the strong allegations against a police chief.
Due to schedule conflicts, the hearing resumes April 29.
Doe 1: ‘I don’t think I would have ever come forward’
Karen Wilkinson contributed to this story.
By JOHN C. OSBORN , The Eureka Reporter
Published: Apr 24 2008, 10:38 PM
(For more coverage of David Gundersen’s hearing, along with more detailed testimony from witnesses, go to http://eurekareporter.com/article/080422-gundersens-hearing.)
Related coverage, with links
4.25.2008
ER - District Attorney Paul Gallegos' fraud lawsuit halted by California Supreme Court
Ending a five-year legal odyssey through the state’s court system, the California Supreme Court has refused to review Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos’ appeal of his fraud lawsuit against The Pacific Lumber Co.
The Supreme Court acted on Wednesday to deny the petition from Gallegos to review his appeal of the First District Court of Appeal’s ruling in January, which upheld a Humboldt County Superior Court ruling that tossed out his lawsuit.
The Supreme Court also denied his petition seeking depublication of the Appellate Court’s lengthy written ruling, which now becomes established case law.
With the high court’s ruling, Gallegos has no further ability to appeal.
Gallegos alleged in his original lawsuit filed in Humboldt County Superior Court in 2003 that PALCO intentionally committed fraud to increase timber harvesting when it manipulated reports during the environmental review phase of PALCO’s Sustained Yield Plan for the historic Headwaters Deal in 1999.
But in a 2005 decision, visiting Judge Richard Freeborn sustained a previous court ruling that Gallegos’ lawsuit had no legal basis and that PALCO’s submission of an allegedly erroneous report and the subsequent resubmission of corrected data were protected under California Civil Code “litigation privilege.”
Gallegos appealed Freeborn’s ruling to California’s First District Court of Appeals, which upheld the ruling that the fraud charges brought against PALCO under unfair competition laws weren’t legally sufficient to warrant a trial.
But going beyond just affirming the lower courts ruling, the appellate court justices published a rare and critical 23-page decision and opinion that stated Gallegos failed to prove that his case could be fixed to move forward and even if it did, the evidence presented “would not justify their prevailing at trial.”
Following that ruling, Gallegos held a news conference and adamantly defended his decision to pursue the lawsuit despite it being dismissed twice because the court found it had no legal merit.
Gallegos did not return a phone call to comment Thursday.
In a written statement Thursday, a PALCO official said Gallegos could not state a single valid legal claim even after the court gave him numerous opportunities to amend his complaint.
“The trial court, the appellate court and now the California Supreme Court have all recognized this case to be more an exercise in spite and sloganeering than an action of any substance or legal merit,” stated Frank Bacik, PALCO’s vice president and general counsel, who responded to the news in a statement Thursday.
“There’s nothing left now but to marvel at the truly irresponsible waste of public money, time and energy this case represents.”
District Attorney Paul Gallegos' fraud lawsuit halted by California Supreme Court
By NATHAN RUSHTON, The Eureka Reporter
Published: Apr 24 2008, 5:59 PM · Updated: Apr 25 2008, 12:31 AM
Last night Gallegos was on Channel 3 TV News saying that The Supreme Court didn't really reject his appeal, that they were just "too busy" to hear it. I'm not kidding.
The Supreme Court acted on Wednesday to deny the petition from Gallegos to review his appeal of the First District Court of Appeal’s ruling in January, which upheld a Humboldt County Superior Court ruling that tossed out his lawsuit.
The Supreme Court also denied his petition seeking depublication of the Appellate Court’s lengthy written ruling, which now becomes established case law.
With the high court’s ruling, Gallegos has no further ability to appeal.
Gallegos alleged in his original lawsuit filed in Humboldt County Superior Court in 2003 that PALCO intentionally committed fraud to increase timber harvesting when it manipulated reports during the environmental review phase of PALCO’s Sustained Yield Plan for the historic Headwaters Deal in 1999.
But in a 2005 decision, visiting Judge Richard Freeborn sustained a previous court ruling that Gallegos’ lawsuit had no legal basis and that PALCO’s submission of an allegedly erroneous report and the subsequent resubmission of corrected data were protected under California Civil Code “litigation privilege.”
Gallegos appealed Freeborn’s ruling to California’s First District Court of Appeals, which upheld the ruling that the fraud charges brought against PALCO under unfair competition laws weren’t legally sufficient to warrant a trial.
But going beyond just affirming the lower courts ruling, the appellate court justices published a rare and critical 23-page decision and opinion that stated Gallegos failed to prove that his case could be fixed to move forward and even if it did, the evidence presented “would not justify their prevailing at trial.”
Following that ruling, Gallegos held a news conference and adamantly defended his decision to pursue the lawsuit despite it being dismissed twice because the court found it had no legal merit.
Gallegos did not return a phone call to comment Thursday.
In a written statement Thursday, a PALCO official said Gallegos could not state a single valid legal claim even after the court gave him numerous opportunities to amend his complaint.
“The trial court, the appellate court and now the California Supreme Court have all recognized this case to be more an exercise in spite and sloganeering than an action of any substance or legal merit,” stated Frank Bacik, PALCO’s vice president and general counsel, who responded to the news in a statement Thursday.
“There’s nothing left now but to marvel at the truly irresponsible waste of public money, time and energy this case represents.”
District Attorney Paul Gallegos' fraud lawsuit halted by California Supreme Court
By NATHAN RUSHTON, The Eureka Reporter
Published: Apr 24 2008, 5:59 PM · Updated: Apr 25 2008, 12:31 AM
Last night Gallegos was on Channel 3 TV News saying that The Supreme Court didn't really reject his appeal, that they were just "too busy" to hear it. I'm not kidding.
4.24.2008
ER - Jane Doe “felt coerced” into making statements
What a mess.
Testimony during David Gundersen’s preliminary hearing Wednesday revealed a different view on evidence that led to his arrest for spousal rape.
“Jane Doe 1” testified that she “felt coerced” by officials working in the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office into making a statement about non-consensual sex with Gundersen.
Testimony of “Jane Doe 2” concluded Wednesday and the issue of immunity agreements came before the court again when Judge John T. Feeney granted Doe 1 immunity.
Gundersen, currently the police chief for the Blue Lake Police Department, may face trial on suspicion of 19 charges, including 12 counts of spousal rape with an intoxicant, one count of kidnapping to commit another crime and possession of a machine gun.
The city of Blue Lake has announced it will terminate its contract with Gundersen on May 5.
Gundersen is being held at the Humboldt County jail with a $1.25 million bail.
At the end of Tuesday’s session, Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos questioned Doe 1 about nude photographs found on Gundersen’s computer hard drive taken without her consent while sleeping.
During examination, Doe 1 testified that Gundersen had non-consensual sex with her around once a month between 2005 and 2007.
She suspected that Gundersen had sex with her after she went to sleep, because she would wake up without her clothes on and would find semen in her genital area.
She testified that she used a light sleeping aid, Lunesta, to help fall asleep. She said she used it in the presence of her husband and would sometimes partially wake up to him having sex with her.
“I’d just be waiting for him to finish,” she said.
Before Gundersen’s arrest, she contacted HCSO because the two were having difficulties and she wanted to discuss a “proper police response” if something happened.
Jane 1 testified that she never filled out a report with the HCSO about the non-consensual sex, and felt “lured” by the HSCO to talk about it.
She said it was never her intention to have Gundersen prosecuted and the only reason she is testifying is because she is under subpoena by the District Attorney’s Office.
The meeting turned into a seven-hour interview with three officials from HCSO, she said, including Lt. Dave Morey, where Doe 1 testified they wanted to talk about the non-consensual sex, and that she felt coerced to do so.
Doe 1 also brought up Margaret Gundersen, David Gundersen’s former wife, who also works at the HCSO.
She felt Margaret Gundersen orchestrated the interview because of a custody battle she was engaged in with David Gundersen, and wanted the interview to end.
“I wasn’t comfortable,” Doe 1 said. “I wasn’t OK with it.”
Prior to their marital problems, Doe 1 testified that she allowed Gundersen to have sex with her if she was sleeping because an irregular work schedule caused difficulty in their sex life.
On the topic of photographs, Gundersen did take photos of her semi-nude but never completely nude, she testified. There were also videos of them engaging in sexual acts, but nothing graphic.
Asked if she confronted Gundersen about both the photographs and non-consensual sex, Doe 1 testified that he said “you’re my wife.” She also told him that the sex constituted rape.
Not long into Doe 1’s testimony, Gallegos asked her about firearms found in their home. After Doe 1 said she would plead the Fifth Amendment if asked about the firearms, Gallegos offered her immunity.
Gundersen’s attorney, Russell Clanton, objected to the use of immunity agreements during Tuesday’s session, and voiced similar concerns Wednesday.
An immunity agreement compels a witness to testify against other statements and not fear prosecution, he said.
Gallegos said immunity adds honesty since that fear of prosecution isn’t there.
“I believe the contrary,” Clanton replied.
Despite Clanton offering a case to argue his point, Judge Feeney said there was no evidence at this time to show that the witness is being compelled to testify a certain way.
Jane Doe 2 also finished her testimony, most of which revolved around her mental health prior to the alleged rape.
Doe 2 testified that her memory is “pretty much wiped” because of medication she took for post traumatic stress disorder following the alleged rape.
Prior to those events, she testified that she was admitted to the Sempervirens Psychiatric Health Facility in Eureka.
She added that she possibly may have been diagnosed with PTSD from a past relationship, but would have to look at records.
Gundersen’s hearing continues today.
(For more coverage of David Gundersen’s hearing, along with more detailed testimony from witnesses, go to http://eurekareporter.com/article/080422-gundersens-hearing.)
Jane Doe “felt coerced” into making statements
By JOHN C. OSBORN , The Eureka Reporter
Published: Apr 23 2008, 11:16 PM · Updated: Apr 24 2008, 12:08 AM
Complete Related Coverage, with links
Testimony during David Gundersen’s preliminary hearing Wednesday revealed a different view on evidence that led to his arrest for spousal rape.
“Jane Doe 1” testified that she “felt coerced” by officials working in the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office into making a statement about non-consensual sex with Gundersen.
Testimony of “Jane Doe 2” concluded Wednesday and the issue of immunity agreements came before the court again when Judge John T. Feeney granted Doe 1 immunity.
Gundersen, currently the police chief for the Blue Lake Police Department, may face trial on suspicion of 19 charges, including 12 counts of spousal rape with an intoxicant, one count of kidnapping to commit another crime and possession of a machine gun.
The city of Blue Lake has announced it will terminate its contract with Gundersen on May 5.
Gundersen is being held at the Humboldt County jail with a $1.25 million bail.
At the end of Tuesday’s session, Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos questioned Doe 1 about nude photographs found on Gundersen’s computer hard drive taken without her consent while sleeping.
During examination, Doe 1 testified that Gundersen had non-consensual sex with her around once a month between 2005 and 2007.
She suspected that Gundersen had sex with her after she went to sleep, because she would wake up without her clothes on and would find semen in her genital area.
She testified that she used a light sleeping aid, Lunesta, to help fall asleep. She said she used it in the presence of her husband and would sometimes partially wake up to him having sex with her.
“I’d just be waiting for him to finish,” she said.
Before Gundersen’s arrest, she contacted HCSO because the two were having difficulties and she wanted to discuss a “proper police response” if something happened.
Jane 1 testified that she never filled out a report with the HCSO about the non-consensual sex, and felt “lured” by the HSCO to talk about it.
She said it was never her intention to have Gundersen prosecuted and the only reason she is testifying is because she is under subpoena by the District Attorney’s Office.
The meeting turned into a seven-hour interview with three officials from HCSO, she said, including Lt. Dave Morey, where Doe 1 testified they wanted to talk about the non-consensual sex, and that she felt coerced to do so.
Doe 1 also brought up Margaret Gundersen, David Gundersen’s former wife, who also works at the HCSO.
She felt Margaret Gundersen orchestrated the interview because of a custody battle she was engaged in with David Gundersen, and wanted the interview to end.
“I wasn’t comfortable,” Doe 1 said. “I wasn’t OK with it.”
Prior to their marital problems, Doe 1 testified that she allowed Gundersen to have sex with her if she was sleeping because an irregular work schedule caused difficulty in their sex life.
On the topic of photographs, Gundersen did take photos of her semi-nude but never completely nude, she testified. There were also videos of them engaging in sexual acts, but nothing graphic.
Asked if she confronted Gundersen about both the photographs and non-consensual sex, Doe 1 testified that he said “you’re my wife.” She also told him that the sex constituted rape.
Not long into Doe 1’s testimony, Gallegos asked her about firearms found in their home. After Doe 1 said she would plead the Fifth Amendment if asked about the firearms, Gallegos offered her immunity.
Gundersen’s attorney, Russell Clanton, objected to the use of immunity agreements during Tuesday’s session, and voiced similar concerns Wednesday.
An immunity agreement compels a witness to testify against other statements and not fear prosecution, he said.
Gallegos said immunity adds honesty since that fear of prosecution isn’t there.
“I believe the contrary,” Clanton replied.
Despite Clanton offering a case to argue his point, Judge Feeney said there was no evidence at this time to show that the witness is being compelled to testify a certain way.
Jane Doe 2 also finished her testimony, most of which revolved around her mental health prior to the alleged rape.
Doe 2 testified that her memory is “pretty much wiped” because of medication she took for post traumatic stress disorder following the alleged rape.
Prior to those events, she testified that she was admitted to the Sempervirens Psychiatric Health Facility in Eureka.
She added that she possibly may have been diagnosed with PTSD from a past relationship, but would have to look at records.
Gundersen’s hearing continues today.
(For more coverage of David Gundersen’s hearing, along with more detailed testimony from witnesses, go to http://eurekareporter.com/article/080422-gundersens-hearing.)
Jane Doe “felt coerced” into making statements
By JOHN C. OSBORN , The Eureka Reporter
Published: Apr 23 2008, 11:16 PM · Updated: Apr 24 2008, 12:08 AM
Complete Related Coverage, with links
ER - DA rescinds code enforcement officers’ police powers
Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos said he has rescinded the Code Enforcement Unit officers’ police powers granted under his authority, but county staff said the move doesn’t stick.
The county’s Code Enforcement Unit controversy has been broiling publicly since April 4 when the Civil Liberties Monitoring Project held a town hall meeting in Garberville to hear rural residents’ allegations of excessive police force to remedy building code violations.
While it is not directly in response to that meeting, Gallegos said Wednesday that he doesn’t want the “life-and-death” responsibility to deputize those officers who could shoot someone or may be shot if he has no authority over them.
“To ask me to deputize someone with those responsibilities and to have no oversight over them is wrong,” Gallegos said. “I refuse to participate in that.”
As he told hundreds of angry residents at the CLMP meeting, Gallegos said he’s been concerned for a long time about the arrangement he inherited when elected and has been in discussions for months with the County Counsel’s Office to find a solution.
Interim County Counsel Wendy Chaitin, whose office oversees the Code Enforcement Unit’s two armed officers, said Wednesday that Gallegos’ action isn’t so simple.
She and other county administrators don’t believe the officers’ police powers have been stripped because of Gallegos’ action to rescind his authority.
However, because the DA doesn’t want to participate in the current structure where he deputizes her employees, Chaitin said she voluntarily agreed last week to disarm Code Enforcement officers Jeff Conner and John Desadier while everything is being sorted out.
“We are all in discussions and are working on ways to best structure the unit,” Chaitin said.
Also in agreement that the DA’s action doesn’t rescind the officer’s deputized status is County Administrative Officer Loretta Nickolaus, who said she learned of Gallegos’ announcement in an e-mail circulated Wednesday.
Nickolaus said the DA can’t direct personnel actions for employees not under his control.
That’s not how Gallegos sees it and he said the intent of his action was to remove the Code Enforcement Unit officers’ weapons and badges under his authority, which he said he believes he’s effectively done.
Despite the apparent inter-department conflict, Gallegos said he supports Chaitin, the Code Enforcement Unit and the work they are trying to do, although he might not necessarily support everything they have done.
While he listened to residents’ complaints during the CLMP meeting, Gallegos said his reversal has nothing to do with the officers.
“I am not saying they have done anything wrong,” Gallegos said.
Code Enforcement Unit activity is under a limited 45-day moratorium and its officers cannot engage in actions where search warrants are needed.
The Board of Supervisors ordered the moratorium and directed a Code Enforcement Unit Task Force to be formed to investigate the unit’s use-of-force policies and procedures following a meeting April 8 where hundreds of residents turned out to repeat the concerns raised during the Garberville meeting the previous week.
Reached Wednesday in Redding, Board of Supervisors Chairperson Jill Geist said she was learning about the DA’s decision from media.
“To the best of my knowledge, there has been no formal request from the District Attorney’s Office to the board or the CAO’s Office regarding the code enforcement officers,” Geist said.
Geist said these were the issues she hoped would be the topics discussed by the task force, of which she and Supervisor Roger Rodoni are both members.
During their meeting Tuesday, the supervisors picked three at-large members to complete the nine-member task force, although no meetings have yet been held.
The code enforcement officers are moving forward with the more routine nuisance and cleanup abatement cases, which county officials say represent the majority of the code enforcement workload and don’t require armed officers.
All the county officials reached for this article agree the Code Enforcement Unit’s current cross-deputization structure between the DA and the County Counsel’s Office needs to be examined, which is expected to be done both internally and in the parallel process under the task force.
Just how the issue will be resolved is uncertain, but Gallegos offered his preference for where the code enforcement officers should end up.
Because the officers are armed and due to the nature of their work, Gallegos said he believes code enforcement might better fall under his direction.
“It’s a natural fit in this office,” Gallegos said.
If they were assigned to work under him as investigators, Gallegos said he would deputize them.
“But as it stands right now, the arrangement isn’t good for anyone,” Gallegos said.
DA rescinds code enforcement officers’ police powers
By NATHAN RUSHTON, The Eureka Reporter
Published: Apr 23 2008, 11:21 PM
The county’s Code Enforcement Unit controversy has been broiling publicly since April 4 when the Civil Liberties Monitoring Project held a town hall meeting in Garberville to hear rural residents’ allegations of excessive police force to remedy building code violations.
While it is not directly in response to that meeting, Gallegos said Wednesday that he doesn’t want the “life-and-death” responsibility to deputize those officers who could shoot someone or may be shot if he has no authority over them.
“To ask me to deputize someone with those responsibilities and to have no oversight over them is wrong,” Gallegos said. “I refuse to participate in that.”
As he told hundreds of angry residents at the CLMP meeting, Gallegos said he’s been concerned for a long time about the arrangement he inherited when elected and has been in discussions for months with the County Counsel’s Office to find a solution.
Interim County Counsel Wendy Chaitin, whose office oversees the Code Enforcement Unit’s two armed officers, said Wednesday that Gallegos’ action isn’t so simple.
She and other county administrators don’t believe the officers’ police powers have been stripped because of Gallegos’ action to rescind his authority.
However, because the DA doesn’t want to participate in the current structure where he deputizes her employees, Chaitin said she voluntarily agreed last week to disarm Code Enforcement officers Jeff Conner and John Desadier while everything is being sorted out.
“We are all in discussions and are working on ways to best structure the unit,” Chaitin said.
Also in agreement that the DA’s action doesn’t rescind the officer’s deputized status is County Administrative Officer Loretta Nickolaus, who said she learned of Gallegos’ announcement in an e-mail circulated Wednesday.
Nickolaus said the DA can’t direct personnel actions for employees not under his control.
That’s not how Gallegos sees it and he said the intent of his action was to remove the Code Enforcement Unit officers’ weapons and badges under his authority, which he said he believes he’s effectively done.
Despite the apparent inter-department conflict, Gallegos said he supports Chaitin, the Code Enforcement Unit and the work they are trying to do, although he might not necessarily support everything they have done.
While he listened to residents’ complaints during the CLMP meeting, Gallegos said his reversal has nothing to do with the officers.
“I am not saying they have done anything wrong,” Gallegos said.
Code Enforcement Unit activity is under a limited 45-day moratorium and its officers cannot engage in actions where search warrants are needed.
The Board of Supervisors ordered the moratorium and directed a Code Enforcement Unit Task Force to be formed to investigate the unit’s use-of-force policies and procedures following a meeting April 8 where hundreds of residents turned out to repeat the concerns raised during the Garberville meeting the previous week.
Reached Wednesday in Redding, Board of Supervisors Chairperson Jill Geist said she was learning about the DA’s decision from media.
“To the best of my knowledge, there has been no formal request from the District Attorney’s Office to the board or the CAO’s Office regarding the code enforcement officers,” Geist said.
Geist said these were the issues she hoped would be the topics discussed by the task force, of which she and Supervisor Roger Rodoni are both members.
During their meeting Tuesday, the supervisors picked three at-large members to complete the nine-member task force, although no meetings have yet been held.
The code enforcement officers are moving forward with the more routine nuisance and cleanup abatement cases, which county officials say represent the majority of the code enforcement workload and don’t require armed officers.
All the county officials reached for this article agree the Code Enforcement Unit’s current cross-deputization structure between the DA and the County Counsel’s Office needs to be examined, which is expected to be done both internally and in the parallel process under the task force.
Just how the issue will be resolved is uncertain, but Gallegos offered his preference for where the code enforcement officers should end up.
Because the officers are armed and due to the nature of their work, Gallegos said he believes code enforcement might better fall under his direction.
“It’s a natural fit in this office,” Gallegos said.
If they were assigned to work under him as investigators, Gallegos said he would deputize them.
“But as it stands right now, the arrangement isn’t good for anyone,” Gallegos said.
DA rescinds code enforcement officers’ police powers
By NATHAN RUSHTON, The Eureka Reporter
Published: Apr 23 2008, 11:21 PM
4.22.2008
ER - Gundersen’s hearing
Below is ongoing coverage of testimony presented at the preliminary hearing for Blue Lake Police Chief David Gundersen. This log is meant to give readers more information about what witnesses are saying as the proceedings move forward.
The most recent testimony is at the top.
The Eureka Reporter will update the log after proceedings for the day are finished.
Day 1, Monday, April 21:
Witnesses: “Jane Doe No. 2”
Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos called Jane Doe No. 2 to the stand and began asking her some background questions.
Jane Doe No. 2 said she first met Gundersen through some friends around December 1997.
“I was looking for law enforcement work,” she said. “He offered to train me.”
Gundersen was the police chief of the Trinidad Police Department at the time.
She testified Gundersen offered her employment. She was to do any undercover work where a person known to people living in Trinidad would be spotted.
She said she believed she was not only employed by the Trinidad Police Department, but was also a sworn peace officer.
She testified that she signed lots of paperwork for the Department of Justice and already owned her own weapon.
When asked how long she worked at the department, she testified that she worked there in 1998.
Although Jane Doe No. 2 couldn’t remember the date, she testified that at some point she and Gundersen started dating and eventually moved in together.
When asked if Gundersen ever forced her to have sex, she testified he did in March 1999.
It took place at their home in McKinleyville, she testified. The two were having an argument about his marital status in the living room.
Jane Doe No. 2 had become aware of the fact that Gundersen was still married even though they were planning to marry, she testified.
Gallegos asked if there were children in the house on a regular basis, to which Jane Doe No. 2 testified there were three.
She had a child around 8 or 9 years old at the time and Gundersen had two children – one around 3 years old and the other around 6 or 7 years old.
When asked where she and Gundersen placed their guns in the house, Jane Doe No. 2 testified they were kept either in the gun safe located in one of the closets (she couldn’t remember which) and Gundersen occasionally put a firearm on top of the fireplace mantle near the entrance to the home.
Gallegos asked if she was concerned about Gundersen carrying a weapon at the time of the argument, to which Jane Doe No. 2 testified she was because of the anger he exhibited.
At some point, she testified, Gundersen forced her into the bedroom by grabbing her upper arms and moving her backward toward the bed.
The three children watched from their bedroom doorway across the way, she testified.
When asked if it seemed forceful and if it hurt, she testified yes.
“What happened?” Gallegos asked.
“Along with the loud conversation we were having,” Jane Doe No. 2 said, “he proceeded to attack me,” adding that he tore up her clothes.
When she turned her head to the right, she testified, she saw the three children watching and crying.
“I asked him if he could please close the door so the kids didn’t have to watch,” she said.
When asked if Gundersen raped her, she testified yes.
Gundersen then took his gun out of its holster and placed it on a pillow or table beside the bed, where it entered her field of vision, she testified.
Gallegos apologized and asked how Gundersen raped her. She testified it was vaginal.
Gallegos asked if the presence of the gun added any more fear to the situation, to which she testified yes, adding she was fearful that Gundersen would use it on her and/or the children.
When asked if she moved out of the residence, she testified yes.
Jane Doe No. 2 testified she contacted either a rape crisis or domestic violence organization on the phone. She then went to the Eureka Police Department to make a report.
When asked why she didn’t go to the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office to make the report, Jane Doe No. 2 testified that she didn’t know anybody there, but knew that Gundersen’s wife at the time worked there and was concerned that nobody would make a report.
At EPD, Jane Doe No. 2 testified she talked to a Sgt. Johnson, who told her that at the least their chief would talk to Gundersen, but said they would definitely investigate.
She testified that as far as she knew, nothing came of the report.
She also testified that Gundersen insisted that they go to counseling, but she didn’t want to talk with him.
When Gallegos asked if she authorized Gundersen to look her up on the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, which is used to check somebody’s background, Jane Doe No. 2 testified she didn’t.
Cross-examination of Jane Doe No. 2
Gundersen’s attorney, Russell Clanton, began his questioning by asking if Jane Doe No. 2 took any medications, to which she testified “hormones and whatnot.”
When asked for more information about her medications, she testified that she took something for panic attacks, as well as a pain reliever or muscle relaxer for neck problems.
When Clanton asked if she took any medication that morning, she testified she took an asthma pill and her hormones.
Clanton asked if she took a controlled substance or alcohol, to which she testified no.
“I’m just exhausted,” she said.
“Are you able to focus?” Clanton asked.
“Yes,” she replied.
Judge John T. Feeney told Jane Doe No. 2 that she could take a break if she needed it, but she said she didn’t need one.
Clanton asked Jane when she prepared her paperwork for the Department of Justice. She testified it was either before or after her first assignment.
She couldn’t remember what forms she signed, but said they were “standard forms.” She said she was a “newbie,” having worked for a short time in law enforcement in Fort Bragg, Calif., before being fired.
When Clanton asked why she was fired, Gallegos objected and asked for relevance. Clanton said the line of questioning might lead to something relevant. The objection was sustained.
When asked how long it was between her working in Fort Bragg and Trinidad, Jane Doe No. 2 testified that it was all a blur and wasn’t sure.
Clanton asked about how she came to meet Gundersen. Jane Doe No. 2 testified that friends she worked with in private security at the Bayshore Mall in Eureka introduced him to her.
When asked where they met, she testified at the mall.
Clanton asked her if she applied for the job. She testified that she had been filing paperwork for both the Trinidad Police Department and the Blue Lake Police Department.
She testified that she found out a position was available at Trinidad through Gundersen.
“The only thing I recall him saying is that they really need a second officer,” she said.
Jane Doe No. 2 was unsure if it was her first time at the TPD station when she talked to Gundersen about the job or whether there was anyone else in the room.
Clanton asked Jane Doe No. 2 to describe what the job entailed.
“I don’t recall him going into any great detail,” she said, adding that he wanted someone with a fresh face, somebody no one in Trinidad knew. She said the mayor at the time was aware of her working there.
Clanton asked if she knew her salary, which she didn’t, adding that as far as she knew, Gundersen was handling all of that.
Jane Doe No. 2 couldn’t recall how much time elapsed between working at the mall and the time she met with Gundersen at the TPD station. She also testified she couldn’t recall when they started dating.
At this point she was asked if she was OK, to which she replied, “It’s emotionally difficult.”
Clanton continued, asking her if she remembered the names of her friends at the mall. She testified that one guy’s name was Robert and someone’s name that started with a J. She said she had the names written down.
When Clanton asked if she gave the names to the Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office, she wasn’t sure.
Clanton asked if she was offered the job.
“Yes, I believe I was,” she said, adding that the mayor gave approval for her to go undercover. “I could do things that an officer in uniform cannot.”
Jane Doe No. 2 testified her first assignment was the weekend of the fish fry in Trinidad in 1998.
She couldn’t recall how long it was between the time she became an officer and when she had her first assignment.
Jane Doe No. 2 testified that she wasn’t given a uniform.
“That was the point of the job,” she said.
She couldn’t recall if she was given a badge number. She didn’t get a gun, but did own one.
When asked if she told anyone about the job, she testified that she might have told her mother.
Clanton then asked if she ever went out with Gundersen on calls. She said she went out for minor things, usually in a vehicle. She testified that she didn’t wear a uniform, and couldn’t recall if she carried a gun.
When Clanton asked if she made any arrests with Gundersen, Jane Doe No. 2 pleaded the Fifth Amendment.
Feeney then asked if she had legal representation, and when Jane Doe No. 2 said she didn’t, he said he would contact the public defender’s office to appoint her an attorney.
Gallegos said that he would offer Jane Doe No. 2 use immunity for anything she might say on the stand, and have the paperwork ready today.
The hearing ended for the day and will continue with Jane Doe No. 2 in the morning.
Gundersen’s hearing
By JOHN C. OSBORN , The Eureka Reporter
Published: Apr 22 2008, 12:40 AM · Updated: Apr 22 2008, 12:41 AM
The most recent testimony is at the top.
The Eureka Reporter will update the log after proceedings for the day are finished.
Day 1, Monday, April 21:
Witnesses: “Jane Doe No. 2”
Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos called Jane Doe No. 2 to the stand and began asking her some background questions.
Jane Doe No. 2 said she first met Gundersen through some friends around December 1997.
“I was looking for law enforcement work,” she said. “He offered to train me.”
Gundersen was the police chief of the Trinidad Police Department at the time.
She testified Gundersen offered her employment. She was to do any undercover work where a person known to people living in Trinidad would be spotted.
She said she believed she was not only employed by the Trinidad Police Department, but was also a sworn peace officer.
She testified that she signed lots of paperwork for the Department of Justice and already owned her own weapon.
When asked how long she worked at the department, she testified that she worked there in 1998.
Although Jane Doe No. 2 couldn’t remember the date, she testified that at some point she and Gundersen started dating and eventually moved in together.
When asked if Gundersen ever forced her to have sex, she testified he did in March 1999.
It took place at their home in McKinleyville, she testified. The two were having an argument about his marital status in the living room.
Jane Doe No. 2 had become aware of the fact that Gundersen was still married even though they were planning to marry, she testified.
Gallegos asked if there were children in the house on a regular basis, to which Jane Doe No. 2 testified there were three.
She had a child around 8 or 9 years old at the time and Gundersen had two children – one around 3 years old and the other around 6 or 7 years old.
When asked where she and Gundersen placed their guns in the house, Jane Doe No. 2 testified they were kept either in the gun safe located in one of the closets (she couldn’t remember which) and Gundersen occasionally put a firearm on top of the fireplace mantle near the entrance to the home.
Gallegos asked if she was concerned about Gundersen carrying a weapon at the time of the argument, to which Jane Doe No. 2 testified she was because of the anger he exhibited.
At some point, she testified, Gundersen forced her into the bedroom by grabbing her upper arms and moving her backward toward the bed.
The three children watched from their bedroom doorway across the way, she testified.
When asked if it seemed forceful and if it hurt, she testified yes.
“What happened?” Gallegos asked.
“Along with the loud conversation we were having,” Jane Doe No. 2 said, “he proceeded to attack me,” adding that he tore up her clothes.
When she turned her head to the right, she testified, she saw the three children watching and crying.
“I asked him if he could please close the door so the kids didn’t have to watch,” she said.
When asked if Gundersen raped her, she testified yes.
Gundersen then took his gun out of its holster and placed it on a pillow or table beside the bed, where it entered her field of vision, she testified.
Gallegos apologized and asked how Gundersen raped her. She testified it was vaginal.
Gallegos asked if the presence of the gun added any more fear to the situation, to which she testified yes, adding she was fearful that Gundersen would use it on her and/or the children.
When asked if she moved out of the residence, she testified yes.
Jane Doe No. 2 testified she contacted either a rape crisis or domestic violence organization on the phone. She then went to the Eureka Police Department to make a report.
When asked why she didn’t go to the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office to make the report, Jane Doe No. 2 testified that she didn’t know anybody there, but knew that Gundersen’s wife at the time worked there and was concerned that nobody would make a report.
At EPD, Jane Doe No. 2 testified she talked to a Sgt. Johnson, who told her that at the least their chief would talk to Gundersen, but said they would definitely investigate.
She testified that as far as she knew, nothing came of the report.
She also testified that Gundersen insisted that they go to counseling, but she didn’t want to talk with him.
When Gallegos asked if she authorized Gundersen to look her up on the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, which is used to check somebody’s background, Jane Doe No. 2 testified she didn’t.
Cross-examination of Jane Doe No. 2
Gundersen’s attorney, Russell Clanton, began his questioning by asking if Jane Doe No. 2 took any medications, to which she testified “hormones and whatnot.”
When asked for more information about her medications, she testified that she took something for panic attacks, as well as a pain reliever or muscle relaxer for neck problems.
When Clanton asked if she took any medication that morning, she testified she took an asthma pill and her hormones.
Clanton asked if she took a controlled substance or alcohol, to which she testified no.
“I’m just exhausted,” she said.
“Are you able to focus?” Clanton asked.
“Yes,” she replied.
Judge John T. Feeney told Jane Doe No. 2 that she could take a break if she needed it, but she said she didn’t need one.
Clanton asked Jane when she prepared her paperwork for the Department of Justice. She testified it was either before or after her first assignment.
She couldn’t remember what forms she signed, but said they were “standard forms.” She said she was a “newbie,” having worked for a short time in law enforcement in Fort Bragg, Calif., before being fired.
When Clanton asked why she was fired, Gallegos objected and asked for relevance. Clanton said the line of questioning might lead to something relevant. The objection was sustained.
When asked how long it was between her working in Fort Bragg and Trinidad, Jane Doe No. 2 testified that it was all a blur and wasn’t sure.
Clanton asked about how she came to meet Gundersen. Jane Doe No. 2 testified that friends she worked with in private security at the Bayshore Mall in Eureka introduced him to her.
When asked where they met, she testified at the mall.
Clanton asked her if she applied for the job. She testified that she had been filing paperwork for both the Trinidad Police Department and the Blue Lake Police Department.
She testified that she found out a position was available at Trinidad through Gundersen.
“The only thing I recall him saying is that they really need a second officer,” she said.
Jane Doe No. 2 was unsure if it was her first time at the TPD station when she talked to Gundersen about the job or whether there was anyone else in the room.
Clanton asked Jane Doe No. 2 to describe what the job entailed.
“I don’t recall him going into any great detail,” she said, adding that he wanted someone with a fresh face, somebody no one in Trinidad knew. She said the mayor at the time was aware of her working there.
Clanton asked if she knew her salary, which she didn’t, adding that as far as she knew, Gundersen was handling all of that.
Jane Doe No. 2 couldn’t recall how much time elapsed between working at the mall and the time she met with Gundersen at the TPD station. She also testified she couldn’t recall when they started dating.
At this point she was asked if she was OK, to which she replied, “It’s emotionally difficult.”
Clanton continued, asking her if she remembered the names of her friends at the mall. She testified that one guy’s name was Robert and someone’s name that started with a J. She said she had the names written down.
When Clanton asked if she gave the names to the Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office, she wasn’t sure.
Clanton asked if she was offered the job.
“Yes, I believe I was,” she said, adding that the mayor gave approval for her to go undercover. “I could do things that an officer in uniform cannot.”
Jane Doe No. 2 testified her first assignment was the weekend of the fish fry in Trinidad in 1998.
She couldn’t recall how long it was between the time she became an officer and when she had her first assignment.
Jane Doe No. 2 testified that she wasn’t given a uniform.
“That was the point of the job,” she said.
She couldn’t recall if she was given a badge number. She didn’t get a gun, but did own one.
When asked if she told anyone about the job, she testified that she might have told her mother.
Clanton then asked if she ever went out with Gundersen on calls. She said she went out for minor things, usually in a vehicle. She testified that she didn’t wear a uniform, and couldn’t recall if she carried a gun.
When Clanton asked if she made any arrests with Gundersen, Jane Doe No. 2 pleaded the Fifth Amendment.
Feeney then asked if she had legal representation, and when Jane Doe No. 2 said she didn’t, he said he would contact the public defender’s office to appoint her an attorney.
Gallegos said that he would offer Jane Doe No. 2 use immunity for anything she might say on the stand, and have the paperwork ready today.
The hearing ended for the day and will continue with Jane Doe No. 2 in the morning.
Gundersen’s hearing
By JOHN C. OSBORN , The Eureka Reporter
Published: Apr 22 2008, 12:40 AM · Updated: Apr 22 2008, 12:41 AM
ER - First witness testifies at Gundersen’s hearing
The preliminary hearing for Blue Lake Police Chief David Gundersen began Monday – after being continued four times – marking the start of what could be a several-day process.
The hearing, scheduled to start at 8:30 a.m., didn’t see testimony until about 11 a.m. due to several courtroom changes and a request for a continuance by Gundersen’s attorney, Russell Clanton.
The first person to testify in the hearing was “Jane Doe No. 2,” who alleges that Gundersen raped her after forcing her into their bedroom in March 1999.
Preliminary hearings are held before a trial to weigh whether the evidence presented by the prosecution fits the charges against an individual and whether there is enough evidence for the case to go to trial.
Gundersen may face trial on suspicion of 19 charges, including 12 counts of spousal rape with an intoxicant, one count of kidnapping to commit another crime and possession of a machine gun.
Gundersen is being held at the Humboldt County jail with a $1.25 million bail.
After the first courtroom change and the conclusion of another case, Gundersen – gray haired and wearing a red jumpsuit – entered the courtroom.
Clanton requested a continuance based on having received more evidence from the Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office the day before.
That evidence included a recorded interview with Blue Lake City Manager Wiley Buck and a report of an inventory of evidence compiled by the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office.
Clanton requested more time to discuss the new evidence with Gundersen.
“I don’t think this is too great of a request,” Clanton said during the hearing.
District Attorney Paul Gallegos argued against the continuance on the grounds that the additional evidence shouldn’t significantly increase the workload for the defense.
Buck’s recorded testimony pertained to both the possession of a machine gun and possession of a silencer charges, he said.
Gallegos also said that several witnesses were present and ready to testify, including “Jane Doe No. 1,” who was under a court order to appear.
Judge Dale A. Reinholtsen decided to take a brief recess before beginning testimony by both Jane Does.
After the recess, Reinholtsen said his presiding over the hearing might present a conflict of interest, since his brother is a member of the law firm representing Jane Doe No. 1.
“I wanted to raise that in the very beginning,” he said during the hearing.
During this announcement, Jane Doe No. 1 entered the courtroom surrounded by officials from the District Attorney’s Office, looked at Gundersen and let out several whimpers.
After moving to another courtroom presided over by Judge John T. Feeney, Gallegos called Jane Doe No. 2 to the stand.
Before testimony began, Feeney ordered Jane Doe No. 1 to return to court today, since there wasn’t enough time to put her on the stand Monday.
Gallegos began questioning Jane Doe No. 2, who testified that she met Gundersen in December 1997 through friends she worked with at a private security firm in the Bayshore Mall in Eureka.
She said Gundersen offered her an undercover job with the Trinidad Police Department, where he was chief at the time.
“I was looking for law enforcement work,” she said during the hearing. “He offered to train me.”
Jane Doe No. 2 said she then believed that she was an employee of the TPD.
Throughout the proceeding, Jane Doe No. 2 had problems recalling specifics like dates, her salary at the TPD and whether she was issued a badge.
Although Jane Doe No. 2 couldn’t remember the date that it occurred, she testified that at some point she and Gundersen started dating and eventually moved in together.
In March 1999, she testified, Gundersen forced her to have sex after an argument in their McKinleyville home about his marital status.
At the time, Gundersen was still married to his now ex-wife. Jane Doe No. 2 had just found out about that despite the two having made plans to get married.
Jane Doe No. 2 said that three children were in the house that night – her child and two of Gundersen’s children.
At some point, Jane Doe No. 2 testified, Gundersen grabbed her, forced her into the bedroom, tore up her clothes and raped her.
She said she reported the incident to the Eureka Police Department because she feared the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office would do nothing – Gundersen’s ex-wife worked there at the time.
As far as she knew, she said, nothing happened regarding her report.
Toward the end of the hearing, Clanton asked Jane Doe No. 2 whether she made any arrests with Gundersen when she worked at the TPD. Jane Doe No. 2 pleaded the Fifth Amendment, which is invoked when someone doesn’t want to incriminate themselves.
After Feeney said he would appoint a public defender for Jane Doe No. 2, Gallegos offered her immunity for anything she might say on the stand and said he would bring paperwork to today’s hearing.
“That should enable her to testify,” he said.
After the proceeding, Gallegos said he didn’t know she was going to plead the Fifth, but added that it wasn’t unusual.
Gundersen’s hearing continues today at 8:30 a.m.
(For more detailed testimony from Gundersen’s ongoing preliminary hearing, go to The Eureka Reporter’s Web site at www.theeurekareporter.com.)
First witness testifies at Gundersen’s hearing
By JOHN C. OSBORN , The Eureka Reporter
Published: Apr 21 2008, 11:03 PM · Updated: Apr 22 2008, 12:01 AM
The hearing, scheduled to start at 8:30 a.m., didn’t see testimony until about 11 a.m. due to several courtroom changes and a request for a continuance by Gundersen’s attorney, Russell Clanton.
The first person to testify in the hearing was “Jane Doe No. 2,” who alleges that Gundersen raped her after forcing her into their bedroom in March 1999.
Preliminary hearings are held before a trial to weigh whether the evidence presented by the prosecution fits the charges against an individual and whether there is enough evidence for the case to go to trial.
Gundersen may face trial on suspicion of 19 charges, including 12 counts of spousal rape with an intoxicant, one count of kidnapping to commit another crime and possession of a machine gun.
Gundersen is being held at the Humboldt County jail with a $1.25 million bail.
After the first courtroom change and the conclusion of another case, Gundersen – gray haired and wearing a red jumpsuit – entered the courtroom.
Clanton requested a continuance based on having received more evidence from the Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office the day before.
That evidence included a recorded interview with Blue Lake City Manager Wiley Buck and a report of an inventory of evidence compiled by the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office.
Clanton requested more time to discuss the new evidence with Gundersen.
“I don’t think this is too great of a request,” Clanton said during the hearing.
District Attorney Paul Gallegos argued against the continuance on the grounds that the additional evidence shouldn’t significantly increase the workload for the defense.
Buck’s recorded testimony pertained to both the possession of a machine gun and possession of a silencer charges, he said.
Gallegos also said that several witnesses were present and ready to testify, including “Jane Doe No. 1,” who was under a court order to appear.
Judge Dale A. Reinholtsen decided to take a brief recess before beginning testimony by both Jane Does.
After the recess, Reinholtsen said his presiding over the hearing might present a conflict of interest, since his brother is a member of the law firm representing Jane Doe No. 1.
“I wanted to raise that in the very beginning,” he said during the hearing.
During this announcement, Jane Doe No. 1 entered the courtroom surrounded by officials from the District Attorney’s Office, looked at Gundersen and let out several whimpers.
After moving to another courtroom presided over by Judge John T. Feeney, Gallegos called Jane Doe No. 2 to the stand.
Before testimony began, Feeney ordered Jane Doe No. 1 to return to court today, since there wasn’t enough time to put her on the stand Monday.
Gallegos began questioning Jane Doe No. 2, who testified that she met Gundersen in December 1997 through friends she worked with at a private security firm in the Bayshore Mall in Eureka.
She said Gundersen offered her an undercover job with the Trinidad Police Department, where he was chief at the time.
“I was looking for law enforcement work,” she said during the hearing. “He offered to train me.”
Jane Doe No. 2 said she then believed that she was an employee of the TPD.
Throughout the proceeding, Jane Doe No. 2 had problems recalling specifics like dates, her salary at the TPD and whether she was issued a badge.
Although Jane Doe No. 2 couldn’t remember the date that it occurred, she testified that at some point she and Gundersen started dating and eventually moved in together.
In March 1999, she testified, Gundersen forced her to have sex after an argument in their McKinleyville home about his marital status.
At the time, Gundersen was still married to his now ex-wife. Jane Doe No. 2 had just found out about that despite the two having made plans to get married.
Jane Doe No. 2 said that three children were in the house that night – her child and two of Gundersen’s children.
At some point, Jane Doe No. 2 testified, Gundersen grabbed her, forced her into the bedroom, tore up her clothes and raped her.
She said she reported the incident to the Eureka Police Department because she feared the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office would do nothing – Gundersen’s ex-wife worked there at the time.
As far as she knew, she said, nothing happened regarding her report.
Toward the end of the hearing, Clanton asked Jane Doe No. 2 whether she made any arrests with Gundersen when she worked at the TPD. Jane Doe No. 2 pleaded the Fifth Amendment, which is invoked when someone doesn’t want to incriminate themselves.
After Feeney said he would appoint a public defender for Jane Doe No. 2, Gallegos offered her immunity for anything she might say on the stand and said he would bring paperwork to today’s hearing.
“That should enable her to testify,” he said.
After the proceeding, Gallegos said he didn’t know she was going to plead the Fifth, but added that it wasn’t unusual.
Gundersen’s hearing continues today at 8:30 a.m.
(For more detailed testimony from Gundersen’s ongoing preliminary hearing, go to The Eureka Reporter’s Web site at www.theeurekareporter.com.)
First witness testifies at Gundersen’s hearing
By JOHN C. OSBORN , The Eureka Reporter
Published: Apr 21 2008, 11:03 PM · Updated: Apr 22 2008, 12:01 AM
4.17.2008
ER - Molestation charges reduced
Molestation charges reduced
A church youth pastor and teacher’s aide was held over on lesser charges than were originally filed against him, a Humboldt County Superior Judge ruled Wednesday.
Andrew Brian Belant, who was 25 when he was arrested on felony charges of child molestation March 1, was held to answer on seven charges of child molestation. Belant, who worked at the Eureka First Presbyterian Church, Jacoby Creek Elementary School, Eureka’s Lafayette and Lincoln Elementary Schools and the Humboldt Child Care Council, has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Judge Marilyn Miles reduced three counts of oral copulation, including one alleging Belant threatened to retaliate against the alleged victim, to lewd and lascivious acts upon a child younger than 14. She also said there wasn’t sufficient evidence to support a charge of forcible rape, as it didn’t occur on the date alleged in the complaint.
There is sufficient evidence to move forward on two counts of lewd and lascivious acts upon a child younger than 14, Miles said, but not enough evidence to support a similar charge alleged by a different victim.
Belant sat beside his attorney, Patrick Griego, in an orange jail jumpsuit and didn’t speak during the proceedings. He wore glasses, had short, balding hair and facial hair.
District Attorney Paul Gallegos said some of the children’s testimony regarding the charges of oral copulation were contradictory, and that he thinks the transcripts from the victims’ interviews may be inaccurate.
“The fault is on my shoulders,” he said, adding that the DA’s office recently switched to a different interview transcribing company that charged a less-expensive rate.
And though the oral copulation charges were reduced to charges of lewd and lascivious acts, the sentencing range for both are the same — three, six or eight years in prison.
“It really has no impact on what his prison sentence is likely to be,” Gallegos said.
The four male victims are between 9 and 13 years old and knew Belant through after-school programs and from his role as a junior youth pastor. Three witnesses from law enforcement testified, and parts of the children’s interviews were read and referenced in court.
District Attorney Investigator William Honsal, who served a search warrant on Belant’s home around the time of his arrest, testified that when he arrived, a program that erases software was running on one of two computers in Belant’s room.
Honsal said after conferring with another investigator with expertise in that area, he learned the program completely deletes the content of hard drives in emergency situations. Honsal photographed the screen before pulling the computer cord from the wall, he said.
Though the alleged victims didn’t testify in person during Wednesday’s preliminary hearing, they would have to if the case goes to trial, Gallegos said. Most cases are resolved before that point, he said, but at the same time “you always want to prepare for trial.”
Belant is scheduled to appear in court for an arraignment April 29.
By KAREN WILKINSON, The Eureka Reporter
Published: Apr 16 2008, 10:33 PM · Updated: Apr 16 2008, 11:52 PM
A church youth pastor and teacher’s aide was held over on lesser charges than were originally filed against him, a Humboldt County Superior Judge ruled Wednesday.
Andrew Brian Belant, who was 25 when he was arrested on felony charges of child molestation March 1, was held to answer on seven charges of child molestation. Belant, who worked at the Eureka First Presbyterian Church, Jacoby Creek Elementary School, Eureka’s Lafayette and Lincoln Elementary Schools and the Humboldt Child Care Council, has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Judge Marilyn Miles reduced three counts of oral copulation, including one alleging Belant threatened to retaliate against the alleged victim, to lewd and lascivious acts upon a child younger than 14. She also said there wasn’t sufficient evidence to support a charge of forcible rape, as it didn’t occur on the date alleged in the complaint.
There is sufficient evidence to move forward on two counts of lewd and lascivious acts upon a child younger than 14, Miles said, but not enough evidence to support a similar charge alleged by a different victim.
Belant sat beside his attorney, Patrick Griego, in an orange jail jumpsuit and didn’t speak during the proceedings. He wore glasses, had short, balding hair and facial hair.
District Attorney Paul Gallegos said some of the children’s testimony regarding the charges of oral copulation were contradictory, and that he thinks the transcripts from the victims’ interviews may be inaccurate.
“The fault is on my shoulders,” he said, adding that the DA’s office recently switched to a different interview transcribing company that charged a less-expensive rate.
And though the oral copulation charges were reduced to charges of lewd and lascivious acts, the sentencing range for both are the same — three, six or eight years in prison.
“It really has no impact on what his prison sentence is likely to be,” Gallegos said.
The four male victims are between 9 and 13 years old and knew Belant through after-school programs and from his role as a junior youth pastor. Three witnesses from law enforcement testified, and parts of the children’s interviews were read and referenced in court.
District Attorney Investigator William Honsal, who served a search warrant on Belant’s home around the time of his arrest, testified that when he arrived, a program that erases software was running on one of two computers in Belant’s room.
Honsal said after conferring with another investigator with expertise in that area, he learned the program completely deletes the content of hard drives in emergency situations. Honsal photographed the screen before pulling the computer cord from the wall, he said.
Though the alleged victims didn’t testify in person during Wednesday’s preliminary hearing, they would have to if the case goes to trial, Gallegos said. Most cases are resolved before that point, he said, but at the same time “you always want to prepare for trial.”
Belant is scheduled to appear in court for an arraignment April 29.
By KAREN WILKINSON, The Eureka Reporter
Published: Apr 16 2008, 10:33 PM · Updated: Apr 16 2008, 11:52 PM
4.02.2008
ER - No charges for Douglas and Zanotti
No charges for Douglas and Zanotti
The arraignment for former Eureka Police Department Chief Dave Douglas and EPD Lt. Antonio Zanotti was continued a third time Tuesday in the Humboldt County Superior Courthouse.
At arraignments, defendants are informed of the charges against them and enter pleas. Douglas’ Eureka-based attorney, Bill Bragg, said his client will plea not guilty, as will Zanotti.
When Douglas and Zanotti were indicted by a Humboldt County criminal grand jury on Dec. 3, they were accused of felonious involuntary manslaughter for their leadership roles in the death of Cheri Lyn Moore on April 14, 2006.
Douglas was the acting chief of police at the time and Zanotti was the incident commander.
Zanotti’s attorney, William Rapoport of Redwood City, requested the arraignment be continued because the defense has not received 105 exhibits of evidence — including pictures, Zanotti’s testimony at the County Coroner’s inquest and questions jurors inquired of witnesses who testified.
“We’re entitled to know what the grand jury wanted to get from those witnesses,” Bragg said.
At the prior arraignment date on Feb. 22, Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos stipulated that he would have copies of the exhibits made — which are court property — and provided to the defense.
That was over a month ago, and they still haven’t been received, Bragg said.
Gallegos said that he expects the exhibits will be provided by the end of the week. “They’re going to get everything,” he said.
“My client wants to move this thing along,” Bragg said, but the exhibits may impact any pre-trial motions the defense may file — which must be done within 60 days of the arraignment.
One motion Bragg said he intends to file, will state that Gallegos improperly instructed the grand jury on the law.
“If we’re right, we’ll never go to trial — and that’s what we anticipate happening,” he said.
The arraignment was rescheduled for April 22, at 1:30 p.m.
Judge John T. Feeney presided over the hearing and Douglas and Zanotti were both present with their wives.
The courtroom was packed full of men and women in uniform, most of whom were off-duty, current EPD Chief Garr Nielsen said.
It’s likely the department deployed five officers to patrol the streets Tuesday, and probably just two of them attended the hearing, he said. “The streets were as safe as they are any other time.”
Deputy Public Defender and Redwood Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union Chairperson, Christina Allbright said that in her opinion, if the officers weren’t working, they shouldn’t be in their uniforms.
“(And) if they are working, why are they here?” she said.
EPD officers dressed in uniform to show their support and department allegiance, Nielsen said.
“I think it’s to let everybody know — to let the community know the officers are standing as a united front,” he said.
Allbright also said she was puzzled by the special treatment Douglas and Zanotti received. “I’ve never seen defendants escorted through the back door.”
Bragg said it was an attempt to avoid unpleasant confrontations in a high-profile case. It’s easier security-wise than having them wait in the hallway where they are exposed to people with different opinions on the case, he said.
Additionally, Allbright said she’s never seen a chief of police profess the innocence of criminals. “It’s a wonderful standard that should be applied to all defendants.”
Nielsen said that he “absolutely” gives all defendants the same presumption of innocence. “Everybody is innocent until proven guilty, and that goes for everybody including police officers.”
By EMILY WILSON, The Eureka Reporter
Published: Apr 1 2008, 10:46 PM
The arraignment for former Eureka Police Department Chief Dave Douglas and EPD Lt. Antonio Zanotti was continued a third time Tuesday in the Humboldt County Superior Courthouse.
At arraignments, defendants are informed of the charges against them and enter pleas. Douglas’ Eureka-based attorney, Bill Bragg, said his client will plea not guilty, as will Zanotti.
When Douglas and Zanotti were indicted by a Humboldt County criminal grand jury on Dec. 3, they were accused of felonious involuntary manslaughter for their leadership roles in the death of Cheri Lyn Moore on April 14, 2006.
Douglas was the acting chief of police at the time and Zanotti was the incident commander.
Zanotti’s attorney, William Rapoport of Redwood City, requested the arraignment be continued because the defense has not received 105 exhibits of evidence — including pictures, Zanotti’s testimony at the County Coroner’s inquest and questions jurors inquired of witnesses who testified.
“We’re entitled to know what the grand jury wanted to get from those witnesses,” Bragg said.
At the prior arraignment date on Feb. 22, Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos stipulated that he would have copies of the exhibits made — which are court property — and provided to the defense.
That was over a month ago, and they still haven’t been received, Bragg said.
Gallegos said that he expects the exhibits will be provided by the end of the week. “They’re going to get everything,” he said.
“My client wants to move this thing along,” Bragg said, but the exhibits may impact any pre-trial motions the defense may file — which must be done within 60 days of the arraignment.
One motion Bragg said he intends to file, will state that Gallegos improperly instructed the grand jury on the law.
“If we’re right, we’ll never go to trial — and that’s what we anticipate happening,” he said.
The arraignment was rescheduled for April 22, at 1:30 p.m.
Judge John T. Feeney presided over the hearing and Douglas and Zanotti were both present with their wives.
The courtroom was packed full of men and women in uniform, most of whom were off-duty, current EPD Chief Garr Nielsen said.
It’s likely the department deployed five officers to patrol the streets Tuesday, and probably just two of them attended the hearing, he said. “The streets were as safe as they are any other time.”
Deputy Public Defender and Redwood Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union Chairperson, Christina Allbright said that in her opinion, if the officers weren’t working, they shouldn’t be in their uniforms.
“(And) if they are working, why are they here?” she said.
EPD officers dressed in uniform to show their support and department allegiance, Nielsen said.
“I think it’s to let everybody know — to let the community know the officers are standing as a united front,” he said.
Allbright also said she was puzzled by the special treatment Douglas and Zanotti received. “I’ve never seen defendants escorted through the back door.”
Bragg said it was an attempt to avoid unpleasant confrontations in a high-profile case. It’s easier security-wise than having them wait in the hallway where they are exposed to people with different opinions on the case, he said.
Additionally, Allbright said she’s never seen a chief of police profess the innocence of criminals. “It’s a wonderful standard that should be applied to all defendants.”
Nielsen said that he “absolutely” gives all defendants the same presumption of innocence. “Everybody is innocent until proven guilty, and that goes for everybody including police officers.”
By EMILY WILSON, The Eureka Reporter
Published: Apr 1 2008, 10:46 PM
3.26.2008
ER - Candidate seeks balance between growth, quality of life
Terrible interview, given all the controversy and the questions that should be asked of Mark Lovelace. This is a typical puff piece interview, that you can expect to see of all the candidates. No tough questions, no examination of the issues, no challenges. A big disappointment.
Candidate seeks balance between growth, quality of life
By CERENA JOHNSON, The Eureka Reporter
Published: Mar 25 2008, 10:46 PM
Third District Supervisor candidate Mark Lovelace said he is focused on balancing a need for economic development and growth with quality of life.
Lovelace, who has lived in the area for 20 years, is president of the Humboldt Watershed Council and is involved with the Healthy Humboldt Coalition, a cooperative effort through the council geared at protecting the environment and strengthening the local economy through the Humboldt County General Plan.
Lovelace has also served with various community organizations, including Citizens for Real Economic Growth, and established a consulting business working with small manufacturers, and has worked on property issues, affordable housing, alternative transportation and land use issues.
Lovelace also notes work in 2000 on the Sunny Brae forest project, through which 175 acres were added to the city of Arcata’s community forest management plan.
Lovelace said his public and private sector involvement will help him to recognize the connection between all of the different projects facing the county.
In confronting challenges that lie ahead, Lovelace said a dialogue about the future of Humboldt County and what it should look like is necessary.
“People live here for the quality of life,” he said, including scenic beauty and a natural environment. “We need to build upon that.”
Lovelace said in focusing on economic development, it is important to look at growing businesses locally that are also able to compete outside of the community, providing good paying jobs and utilizing local talent.
“There are some amazing young people coming out of this area,” he said.
He described the third district as a “magnet” for innovative businesses.
Having worked in manufacturing and being Web based, Lovelace also stressed the area’s need for infrastructure.
“As supervisor, I would want to work with those kinds of businesses and see that they have the tools they need,” he said.
The Third District stretches from Arcata and Manila to Freshwater and Kneeland.
Lovelace is running against Arcata City Councilmember Paul Pitino and Bryan Plumley, a financial adviser.
Candidate seeks balance between growth, quality of life
By CERENA JOHNSON, The Eureka Reporter
Published: Mar 25 2008, 10:46 PM
Third District Supervisor candidate Mark Lovelace said he is focused on balancing a need for economic development and growth with quality of life.
Lovelace, who has lived in the area for 20 years, is president of the Humboldt Watershed Council and is involved with the Healthy Humboldt Coalition, a cooperative effort through the council geared at protecting the environment and strengthening the local economy through the Humboldt County General Plan.
Lovelace has also served with various community organizations, including Citizens for Real Economic Growth, and established a consulting business working with small manufacturers, and has worked on property issues, affordable housing, alternative transportation and land use issues.
Lovelace also notes work in 2000 on the Sunny Brae forest project, through which 175 acres were added to the city of Arcata’s community forest management plan.
Lovelace said his public and private sector involvement will help him to recognize the connection between all of the different projects facing the county.
In confronting challenges that lie ahead, Lovelace said a dialogue about the future of Humboldt County and what it should look like is necessary.
“People live here for the quality of life,” he said, including scenic beauty and a natural environment. “We need to build upon that.”
Lovelace said in focusing on economic development, it is important to look at growing businesses locally that are also able to compete outside of the community, providing good paying jobs and utilizing local talent.
“There are some amazing young people coming out of this area,” he said.
He described the third district as a “magnet” for innovative businesses.
Having worked in manufacturing and being Web based, Lovelace also stressed the area’s need for infrastructure.
“As supervisor, I would want to work with those kinds of businesses and see that they have the tools they need,” he said.
The Third District stretches from Arcata and Manila to Freshwater and Kneeland.
Lovelace is running against Arcata City Councilmember Paul Pitino and Bryan Plumley, a financial adviser.
3.14.2008
ER - DA mistake violates victims’ rights
DA mistake violates victims’ rights
By JOHN C. OSBORN , The Eureka Reporter
Published: Mar 13 2008, 11:47 PM · Updated: Mar 14 2008, 12:21 AM
In a mistake that the District Attorney admits to, the names of both alleged sexual assault victims in the case against David Gundersen found their way into the public record. This happened despite both women’s request that the information remain confidential.
In cases like the one against Gundersen, confidential personal information is required by law to not be made public. One of the reasons for this is that revealing personal information could have harmful effects to victims of sexual violence.
Gundersen, chief of the Blue Lake Police Department, awaits trial on suspicion of 19 charges, including 12 counts of spousal rape with an intoxicant and one count of kidnapping to commit another crime.
Confidentiality laws are in place to protect victims of sexual assault, so they can feel comfortable coming forward to testify,
Yet several documents, found in Gundersen’s case file, reveal the identity of the victims.
One document was a request by one of the alleged victims to have her name kept confidential, although the form not only has her name but also her address and contact information.
“That should not be there,” District Attorney Paul Gallegos said of the document. “That’s an error on my part.”
Another court record — the statement for probable cause, which led to an arrest warrant issued against Gundersen — had repeated uses of the same alleged victim’s name.
Gallegos said he was unsure how the name had gotten placed into the document as it had been given to a judge by his office.
No law enforcement agency is allowed to make public the name of any victim of a sex crime who chooses to keep it confidential, according to Section 293 of the penal code. The confidential names of victims are only supposed to be made available to the appropriate
people, mainly law enforcement officials.
Victims’ addresses are also not intended for public viewing when sex crimes are involved, according to the same penal code.
The second alleged victim, who, according to other court documents, is known as one of the confidential victims, had her name on a confidential report from the Eureka Police Department.
“If you have identifiable information in there, it’s not supposed to be in the record,” said Executive Director of the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault Suzanne Brown-McBride regarding confidentiality.
Despite the error, Gallegos said he doesn’t believe it will affect the case against Gundersen. That case’s preliminary hearing was moved forward two weeks to April 11.
With the names of the victims clearly identified in court records, one could look at other reports where they are called “Confidential Victims” to get full details into the crimes that allegedly happened to them.
“It’s fairly easy to sort through who that is,” Brown-McBride said.
Protections for sexual assault victims don’t go away after trial, she said. These protections are also in place for victims when the sex offender is released from prison.
Publicly revealing the details, and personal information, of someone who was sexually assaulted can have grave consequences, said North Coast Rape Crisis Team Community Outreach Coordinator Paula Arrowsmith-Jones, who spoke in general and not about the
Gundersen case.
“It could be a discouragement for those people coming forward,” she said. “It can’t help but affect the decisions that they make.”
It’s rare for cases involving sexual assault to receive widespread publicity, but when it does, hundreds of survivors watch to see how its handled, Arrowsmith-Jones said.
A survivor can be victimized twice when their identity is revealed and scrutinized publicly, said Executive Director of the Emma Center Marybeth Bian.
“Once it’s out,” she said, “it’s a snowball effect.”
Although California provides protection to survivors of sexual assault, Arrowsmith-Jones said it doesn’t do enough to give the person privacy if they don’t want their identity known. Examples of this are cases of spousal rape — a different charge from rape in California —
that identify the person harmed in the charge.
Gallegos, who said he was surprised that this information was in the case file, said the first step was to notify both victims of what happened. Then he would “act accordingly,” which includes having the documents with the victims’ names sealed by the court.
He said he reviewed the case file and that it was clearly an oversight on his part.
His office works hard to not reveal the names of those who want confidentiality, but couldn’t guarantee that mistakes wouldn’t happen, Gallegos said. “By and large we are successful.”
Maintaining the privacy of survivors is critical to the healing process, Arrowsmith-Jones said. Allowing for public scrutiny does the opposite.
“These protections are very important,” she said. “The best all of us can do is respect that.”
updated Related coverage, with links
By JOHN C. OSBORN , The Eureka Reporter
Published: Mar 13 2008, 11:47 PM · Updated: Mar 14 2008, 12:21 AM
In a mistake that the District Attorney admits to, the names of both alleged sexual assault victims in the case against David Gundersen found their way into the public record. This happened despite both women’s request that the information remain confidential.
In cases like the one against Gundersen, confidential personal information is required by law to not be made public. One of the reasons for this is that revealing personal information could have harmful effects to victims of sexual violence.
Gundersen, chief of the Blue Lake Police Department, awaits trial on suspicion of 19 charges, including 12 counts of spousal rape with an intoxicant and one count of kidnapping to commit another crime.
Confidentiality laws are in place to protect victims of sexual assault, so they can feel comfortable coming forward to testify,
Yet several documents, found in Gundersen’s case file, reveal the identity of the victims.
One document was a request by one of the alleged victims to have her name kept confidential, although the form not only has her name but also her address and contact information.
“That should not be there,” District Attorney Paul Gallegos said of the document. “That’s an error on my part.”
Another court record — the statement for probable cause, which led to an arrest warrant issued against Gundersen — had repeated uses of the same alleged victim’s name.
Gallegos said he was unsure how the name had gotten placed into the document as it had been given to a judge by his office.
No law enforcement agency is allowed to make public the name of any victim of a sex crime who chooses to keep it confidential, according to Section 293 of the penal code. The confidential names of victims are only supposed to be made available to the appropriate
people, mainly law enforcement officials.
Victims’ addresses are also not intended for public viewing when sex crimes are involved, according to the same penal code.
The second alleged victim, who, according to other court documents, is known as one of the confidential victims, had her name on a confidential report from the Eureka Police Department.
“If you have identifiable information in there, it’s not supposed to be in the record,” said Executive Director of the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault Suzanne Brown-McBride regarding confidentiality.
Despite the error, Gallegos said he doesn’t believe it will affect the case against Gundersen. That case’s preliminary hearing was moved forward two weeks to April 11.
With the names of the victims clearly identified in court records, one could look at other reports where they are called “Confidential Victims” to get full details into the crimes that allegedly happened to them.
“It’s fairly easy to sort through who that is,” Brown-McBride said.
Protections for sexual assault victims don’t go away after trial, she said. These protections are also in place for victims when the sex offender is released from prison.
Publicly revealing the details, and personal information, of someone who was sexually assaulted can have grave consequences, said North Coast Rape Crisis Team Community Outreach Coordinator Paula Arrowsmith-Jones, who spoke in general and not about the
Gundersen case.
“It could be a discouragement for those people coming forward,” she said. “It can’t help but affect the decisions that they make.”
It’s rare for cases involving sexual assault to receive widespread publicity, but when it does, hundreds of survivors watch to see how its handled, Arrowsmith-Jones said.
A survivor can be victimized twice when their identity is revealed and scrutinized publicly, said Executive Director of the Emma Center Marybeth Bian.
“Once it’s out,” she said, “it’s a snowball effect.”
Although California provides protection to survivors of sexual assault, Arrowsmith-Jones said it doesn’t do enough to give the person privacy if they don’t want their identity known. Examples of this are cases of spousal rape — a different charge from rape in California —
that identify the person harmed in the charge.
Gallegos, who said he was surprised that this information was in the case file, said the first step was to notify both victims of what happened. Then he would “act accordingly,” which includes having the documents with the victims’ names sealed by the court.
He said he reviewed the case file and that it was clearly an oversight on his part.
His office works hard to not reveal the names of those who want confidentiality, but couldn’t guarantee that mistakes wouldn’t happen, Gallegos said. “By and large we are successful.”
Maintaining the privacy of survivors is critical to the healing process, Arrowsmith-Jones said. Allowing for public scrutiny does the opposite.
“These protections are very important,” she said. “The best all of us can do is respect that.”
updated Related coverage, with links