7.19.2007
transcript - Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Glenn Beck…
YouTube link. Click to play. Transcript below in case the link goes dead.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Glenn Beck…
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who seems to be avoiding Sean Hannity on FNC since Jr’s comments on certain talking heads including Glenn Beck, during the Live Earth Concert did appear on HLN with Glenn Beck as a part of what Glenn called the “I Hate Glenn Beck” segment. RFK Jr. came off looking very arrogant and nasty, I wonder if he will show up on H&C this or next week?
Transcript…
BECK: I know this is going to come as a shock to you, but the “Real Story” is there are actually a few people in this country who don`t like me. Yes, I know, I was surprised. I thought, “Really?” I mean, why not invite these people to come on the show, you know? To know me is to love me. Put them back on the show. We can get all the hate out in one segment, and we`re going to start tonight with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Last January, he wrote that I was “CNN`s chief corporate fascism advocate.” And then, last Saturday, at a Live Earth event, he went even further.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVIST: And so I`m going to tell you this, that the next time you see John Stossel, or Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity, these flat-Earthers, these corporate toadies, lying to you, lying to the American public, and telling you that global warming doesn`t exist, you send an e-mail to their advertisers and tell them you`re not going to buy their products anymore.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: So what does RFK, Jr., think of these corporate toadies, what should happen to these people?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KENNEDY: This is treason. And we need to start treating them now as traitors.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: Wow, I mean, since the penalty for treason is either imprisonment or execution, I`m a little curious as to which one Mr. Kennedy had in mind for me. I sent him a letter asking him just that question, and now he`s here to hand down my sentence.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., actually, thank you for agreeing to be on the program and answering the question in person. I have a theory: to know me is to love me. And you don`t know me.
KENNEDY: Well, I`m waiting, Glenn.
BECK: OK. Tell me my stance on global warming.
KENNEDY: Your stance, as I understand it, Glenn, is that you acknowledge that global warming exists, that probably human beings are causing it, although I don`t know if you`ve really made that commitment, and that — but you don`t understand, you`re not ready to commit to the idea that we need to invest energies or times or entrepreneurial resources in order to solve the problem.
BECK: Wow.
KENNEDY: That`s my understanding of your…
BECK: You know what? You`re going to stop calling me a fascist and stop calling for my execution on this. You`re kind of close. I do believe in global warming. I`m not sure if man is causing it, but I`m willing to listen to that side and be convinced of that. The biggest problem I have is, I`m not convinced that things like the Kyoto treaty are the right answer.
However, sir, I am — I`ve been asking on the air for a moon shot. Where is the politician, where is the president that will do, like somebody famous in your family said, “We`re going to do this in 10 years, let`s get off of oil?”
KENNEDY: You know, Glenn, you`re saying that now, but what you`ve done on your show, as I`ve said, you`ve turned the issue…
BECK: Is said that.
KENNEDY: Instead of getting serious people to seriously debate this issue on your show — and there`s incredible scientists out there…
BECK: Yes, and I`ve had several of them on.
KENNEDY: No, you`ve brought people on like Jorn Wanberg (ph) and John Christy and…
BECK: But does that make it treason? Should I be executed, or should I spend prison time for my personal beliefs, sir?
KENNEDY: No, no, no, I didn`t say that. Go look at the speech.
BECK: Yes, you did. Would you like me to show it again?
KENNEDY: You asked me a question, what your sentence should be. Your sentence should be that you should have to read the IPCC report and from cover to cover. And I know you don`t have it. I don`t mean this with any particular disrespect, but I don`t believe that you have a long attention span.
BECK: I am trying to ask questions, sir, honest questions. And yet you call me a fascist for asking questions. You, sir — and I know you probably, and I mean no disrespect — probably have even a shorter attention span, because I`m only asking you to read the definition of fascist. What, sir, is a definition of fascist? In your world, someone who says, “Wait a minute, slow down, let`s just talk about this before we spend all kinds of money and raise all kinds of taxes, let`s just slow down, sir.”
KENNEDY: Let me answer your question. You asked me what the definition of fascist is. The American Heritage Dictionary defines fascism as the domination of government by corporate power. You and John Stossel, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh have made yourselves the primary spokesman for the domination of corporate power over American government, and that is…
BECK: Sir, I`ve got to tell you — you know what`s really sad? You know what`s really sad, Mr. Kennedy, is you and I actually agree on something. You and I agree that corporations have become far too powerful in this country. And if you actually knew me, you would know that I believe that with everything in me. And I speak out about it an awful lot. You and I also…
KENNEDY: Glenn, why don`t you use the power that you have, this enormous power to communicate with the American public…
BECK: Wow, a Kennedy said I had enormous power.
KENNEDY: Instead of being frivolous, instead of being sarcastic, why don`t you listen and have some real scientists on your show, and not these phony corporate-paid scientists, doing the real work…
BECK: Because there are actual scientists, sir, that disagree with not global warming. They disagree with some of the steps that people like you are touting.
KENNEDY: Glenn…
BECK: I`m just saying, how do we solve it, sir? That`s all I`m asking.
KENNEDY: Glenn, the 2,500 top scientists in the world, from 120 nations…
BECK: The 2,500 scientists that you`re talking about had to each of them do one page on a specific thing. They did not have a consensus on everything in the report. That`s why some of them had to sue to get their name off of the IPCC report. They don`t all agree on the entire report, just their piece of the report.
KENNEDY: The report is clear. Get a real scientist on your show, rather than getting these guys who are just industry thugs and industry…
BECK: So it prison or execution for…
KENNEDY: Well, here`s what I think, that you go back to journalism school, number one…
BECK: I didn`t go. I`m not a journalist.
KENNEDY: Right, I can tell that. And, number two, that you read the IPCC report with somebody standing over your shoulder to help with your ADD.
BECK: That`s not the law for treason or that`s not the sentence for treason, but I guess we`re making up new laws in your world. Robert Kennedy, thank you very much.
7.18.2007
The stupidest endorsement in the history of the County
The stupidest endorsement in the history of the County - yes, gallegos is incompetent, but he deserves four more years to see if he can improve his record. This after the grand Jury report clearly detailed the fact that the guy can't - and isn't - running his office, that staffers are training the new hires, this despite the loss of key grants
For his third election in a little more than four years, we endorse Paul Gallegos for DA."
A clear difference in DA candidate visions
The Times-Standard
Body language says a lot. And judging by the unspoken part of Wednesday's televised debate between district attorney candidates Worth Dikeman and Paul Gallegos, it seemed apparent these men don't like each other very much.
Their spoken comments further separated them. Dikeman, a veteran Humboldt County prosecutor, frankly states that his boss has mismanaged the office in a variety of ways, to the detriment of local crime-fighting efforts.
Gallegos, the incumbent, clearly believes his opponent would take the office backward in terms of reaching out to the community and retaining the DA's independence from law enforcement and other traditional local influences.
The two offer a sharp contrast to voters, which is in itself refreshing.
Dikeman, for his part, would likely make a fine DA. He has decades of experience, a good relationship with local law enforcement -- having made a clean sweep of police union endorsements -- and exhibits a straight down the line approach to upholding the law and nailing bad guys. If you want a back-to-basics DA, Dikeman is the man for you.
Gallegos notes, however, that he was elected to bring change to the DA's office, and that he's done. He appears more concerned over prosecuting white-collar crime, and working to update the office in its operations and outreach. As a surfer and former defense attorney, he also appeals to the strong counter-cultural aspects of the North Coast community.
Like it or not, Humboldt County is changing, demographically, and Gallegos appears to represent part of that change.
In his first four years, there were some obvious missteps and rocky moments, evidence of a steep learning curve in an admittedly tough job. The hiring of Tim Stoen comes to mind, with the questionable filing of the Palco fraud allegation case -- which may be a lost cause, judging by recent court rulings -- and the poor handling of the Debi August conflict-of-interest case. Both cases put the community through a great deal of pain, for little gain.
But Stoen is gone. And through all the turmoil, the DA's office appears to have kept functioning, with current crime rate and suspect conviction stats breaking in Gallegos' favor.
In addition, much of Gallegos' first term was sidetracked by the dragging distraction of an unnecessary, unsightly recall attempt. He deserves an uninterrupted four-year term to show what he can do.
We don't expect our elected leaders to be perfect, but we do require them to be effective, accessible and able to learn and grow on the job. Gallegos has met those requirements -- although building a needed, better rapport with rank-and-file law enforcement remains undone.
Above all else, Humboldt has already voted overwhelmingly in favor of Gallegos -- twice. For his third election in a little more than four years, we endorse Paul Gallegos for DA.
For his third election in a little more than four years, we endorse Paul Gallegos for DA."
A clear difference in DA candidate visions
The Times-Standard
Body language says a lot. And judging by the unspoken part of Wednesday's televised debate between district attorney candidates Worth Dikeman and Paul Gallegos, it seemed apparent these men don't like each other very much.
Their spoken comments further separated them. Dikeman, a veteran Humboldt County prosecutor, frankly states that his boss has mismanaged the office in a variety of ways, to the detriment of local crime-fighting efforts.
Gallegos, the incumbent, clearly believes his opponent would take the office backward in terms of reaching out to the community and retaining the DA's independence from law enforcement and other traditional local influences.
The two offer a sharp contrast to voters, which is in itself refreshing.
Dikeman, for his part, would likely make a fine DA. He has decades of experience, a good relationship with local law enforcement -- having made a clean sweep of police union endorsements -- and exhibits a straight down the line approach to upholding the law and nailing bad guys. If you want a back-to-basics DA, Dikeman is the man for you.
Gallegos notes, however, that he was elected to bring change to the DA's office, and that he's done. He appears more concerned over prosecuting white-collar crime, and working to update the office in its operations and outreach. As a surfer and former defense attorney, he also appeals to the strong counter-cultural aspects of the North Coast community.
Like it or not, Humboldt County is changing, demographically, and Gallegos appears to represent part of that change.
In his first four years, there were some obvious missteps and rocky moments, evidence of a steep learning curve in an admittedly tough job. The hiring of Tim Stoen comes to mind, with the questionable filing of the Palco fraud allegation case -- which may be a lost cause, judging by recent court rulings -- and the poor handling of the Debi August conflict-of-interest case. Both cases put the community through a great deal of pain, for little gain.
But Stoen is gone. And through all the turmoil, the DA's office appears to have kept functioning, with current crime rate and suspect conviction stats breaking in Gallegos' favor.
In addition, much of Gallegos' first term was sidetracked by the dragging distraction of an unnecessary, unsightly recall attempt. He deserves an uninterrupted four-year term to show what he can do.
We don't expect our elected leaders to be perfect, but we do require them to be effective, accessible and able to learn and grow on the job. Gallegos has met those requirements -- although building a needed, better rapport with rank-and-file law enforcement remains undone.
Above all else, Humboldt has already voted overwhelmingly in favor of Gallegos -- twice. For his third election in a little more than four years, we endorse Paul Gallegos for DA.
7.17.2007
TS - Possible Edwards visit has hairdressers primed
Possible Edwards visit has hairdressers primed
James Faulk Opinion Column/The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 07/17/2007 04:25:02 AM PDT
The possibility of a Humboldt County visit by top-tier Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has kicked off a wave of manic competition among the area's hair management specialists.
Beauty pushers county-wide have been sweeping and re-sweeping their tiles floors and obsessively filling their perfumed spray bottles, anxious to cash in on what has become the most expensive political race in the history of American politics.
”If I can get just one haircut from Mr. Edwards, I'll be set for the quarter,” said one anonymous stylist.
Many hairdressers in the county are self-employed. They rent booths from shop owners, but buy their own supplies and pay for their own insurance.
Having to float their own boats makes it hard to get ahead. So any opportunity to land a hairy fish as big as Edwards, one who indiscriminately flings cash at anyone who attempts to tame his sandy blond bouffant, is a blessing.
Many local lock snippers, embittered by recent Humboldt County elections, pointed to the rifts created in their industry in last race for district attorney.
Paul Gallegos, flush with a full head of hair, seemed an obvious choice for the local beauty industry. But Worth Dikeman, man of the charming flesh-colored dome, had friends at least who needed haircuts, and many of those have been known to drop generous tips.
So the bloodbath ensued -- hairdresser versus stylist, sister versus sister, mother versus daughter, stylish man versus talkative woman.
In the end, youth and beauty won the day, but even the memory of that bitter battle has some wary now to partake in this Great Humboldt Haircut Hullabaloo of 2007.
For some, it's just too early to commit to one candidate. If Edwards wins, that's all fine. But what if Hillary takes the cake? While she may frequent the beauty shop, she's appears to be more frugal with that expense -- and all her donors have flocked to Obama.
And what if Obama wins? Some in the beauty biz might say this is a worst case scenario -- the attractive young candidate has been spotted more than once this past year in Chicago-area barber shops, touting his cultural credentials, and scaring the daylights out of stylists the world over.
Faulk truism No. 714: A barber is not a hairdresser, nor vice versa. And don't forget it.
It's like Yankees/Red Sox, or 49ers/Rams, between the two shearing camps. There's only so much hair to be cut, and too many scissors.
Note to readers: I made this all up. I “Jayson Blair'ed” it for fun. But it's OK -- my wife's a hair stylist. And don't call my editors. They already know.
James Faulk can be reached at 441-0511 or jfaulk@times-standard.com.
James Faulk Opinion Column/The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 07/17/2007 04:25:02 AM PDT
The possibility of a Humboldt County visit by top-tier Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has kicked off a wave of manic competition among the area's hair management specialists.
Beauty pushers county-wide have been sweeping and re-sweeping their tiles floors and obsessively filling their perfumed spray bottles, anxious to cash in on what has become the most expensive political race in the history of American politics.
”If I can get just one haircut from Mr. Edwards, I'll be set for the quarter,” said one anonymous stylist.
Many hairdressers in the county are self-employed. They rent booths from shop owners, but buy their own supplies and pay for their own insurance.
Having to float their own boats makes it hard to get ahead. So any opportunity to land a hairy fish as big as Edwards, one who indiscriminately flings cash at anyone who attempts to tame his sandy blond bouffant, is a blessing.
Many local lock snippers, embittered by recent Humboldt County elections, pointed to the rifts created in their industry in last race for district attorney.
Paul Gallegos, flush with a full head of hair, seemed an obvious choice for the local beauty industry. But Worth Dikeman, man of the charming flesh-colored dome, had friends at least who needed haircuts, and many of those have been known to drop generous tips.
So the bloodbath ensued -- hairdresser versus stylist, sister versus sister, mother versus daughter, stylish man versus talkative woman.
In the end, youth and beauty won the day, but even the memory of that bitter battle has some wary now to partake in this Great Humboldt Haircut Hullabaloo of 2007.
For some, it's just too early to commit to one candidate. If Edwards wins, that's all fine. But what if Hillary takes the cake? While she may frequent the beauty shop, she's appears to be more frugal with that expense -- and all her donors have flocked to Obama.
And what if Obama wins? Some in the beauty biz might say this is a worst case scenario -- the attractive young candidate has been spotted more than once this past year in Chicago-area barber shops, touting his cultural credentials, and scaring the daylights out of stylists the world over.
Faulk truism No. 714: A barber is not a hairdresser, nor vice versa. And don't forget it.
It's like Yankees/Red Sox, or 49ers/Rams, between the two shearing camps. There's only so much hair to be cut, and too many scissors.
Note to readers: I made this all up. I “Jayson Blair'ed” it for fun. But it's OK -- my wife's a hair stylist. And don't call my editors. They already know.
James Faulk can be reached at 441-0511 or jfaulk@times-standard.com.
Nature Cult's Devious Tactics Exposed
Nature Cult's Devious Tactics Exposed
by Vin Suprynowicz
Nature cultists have been lying for decades about the supposedly "devastating" impacts of ranching, mining, lumbering, and just about any other productive use of the Western lands that you can think of.
One of their favorite tactics is to post misleading photos of "damaged" lands on their Web sites – blithely ignoring the fact that many ecosystems depend on large ungulates (today's cattle partially replacing yesterday's bison, elk or antelope) to trample grass seeds into the ground, fertilize and stir up creeks to promote insect hatches, etc.
Down in Arivaca, Ariz., near the Mexican border, rancher Jim Chilton, 66, went on the Internet and was shocked to find a bunch of green extremists dubbed the Center for Biological Diversity had done the same job on him, posting photos which they claimed showed the harm Joe's 425 cattle were doing to his mountainous 21,500-acre leased allotment of U.S. Forest Service land.
But this time, they'd picked on the wrong cowhand.
True, Jim Chilton is a fifth-generation descendant of frontier settlers who still owns the first saddle he got as a child (it's now used by his 4-year-old grandson), and often spends 12-hour days in the (now presumably larger) saddle.
But Jim Chilton is neither struggling economically, nor unversed in the ways of the world.
Besides ranching, Joe is president of a Los Angeles municipal investment bank he co-founded, and which his oldest son now largely runs, The Wall Street Journal reported in an Aug. 19 feature story.
Mr. Chilton set about taking his own photos of the very areas the nature cultists contended his cattle had destroyed – showing the pro-desert group's photos had been carefully framed to make isolated dirt patches amidst plentiful greenery look like some kind of war zone.
His real coup, though, concerned photo No. 18 – a shot of Joe's cattle resting on a bare stretch of sand.
Joe Chilton filed a defamation lawsuit against the center in January 2004, contending the stretch of sand depicted in photo No. 18 had been the site of a big May Day weekend campout involving several hundred people only two weeks before the center's posted photo had been taken.
And he produced a photo of the campout.
Under oath at the two-week trial, CBD member A.J. Schneller admitted that he had attended the camporee on the Forest Service site, and knew darned well what had trampled down the land.
Mr. Chilton said he would have been happy with the vindication of a $1 damage award.
But the Tucson jury was not so forgiving, awarding $600,000, including $500,000 in punitive damages against the lying anti-human green extremists, whose co-founder now says the jury award could financially devastate the group.
Let's hope so. The real goal of these fruitcakes is to remove all human activity from vast swatches of the rural West (turning most of it back into an untended desert), whereupon they seem to imagine only they and their closest friends will be handed picnic permits.
And the Center for Biological Diversity is actually among the more litigious of these gangs; a third of its $3 million income in 2003 came from court awards and settlements, according to the Journal.
Live by the sword, die by the sword?
Jim Carlton of the Journal reports the Chilton case "if upheld, could spark a legal uprising by ranchers against environmentalists, experts say." The lawsuit "has given hope to a lot of ranching families," agrees C.B "Doc" Lane, executive vice president of the Arizona Cattle Growers' Association.
And about time.
October 29, 2005
Vin Suprynowicz [send him mail] is assistant editorial page editor of the daily Las Vegas Review-Journal and author of The Black Arrow.
Copyright © 2005 Vin Suprynowicz
by Vin Suprynowicz
Nature cultists have been lying for decades about the supposedly "devastating" impacts of ranching, mining, lumbering, and just about any other productive use of the Western lands that you can think of.
One of their favorite tactics is to post misleading photos of "damaged" lands on their Web sites – blithely ignoring the fact that many ecosystems depend on large ungulates (today's cattle partially replacing yesterday's bison, elk or antelope) to trample grass seeds into the ground, fertilize and stir up creeks to promote insect hatches, etc.
Down in Arivaca, Ariz., near the Mexican border, rancher Jim Chilton, 66, went on the Internet and was shocked to find a bunch of green extremists dubbed the Center for Biological Diversity had done the same job on him, posting photos which they claimed showed the harm Joe's 425 cattle were doing to his mountainous 21,500-acre leased allotment of U.S. Forest Service land.
But this time, they'd picked on the wrong cowhand.
True, Jim Chilton is a fifth-generation descendant of frontier settlers who still owns the first saddle he got as a child (it's now used by his 4-year-old grandson), and often spends 12-hour days in the (now presumably larger) saddle.
But Jim Chilton is neither struggling economically, nor unversed in the ways of the world.
Besides ranching, Joe is president of a Los Angeles municipal investment bank he co-founded, and which his oldest son now largely runs, The Wall Street Journal reported in an Aug. 19 feature story.
Mr. Chilton set about taking his own photos of the very areas the nature cultists contended his cattle had destroyed – showing the pro-desert group's photos had been carefully framed to make isolated dirt patches amidst plentiful greenery look like some kind of war zone.
His real coup, though, concerned photo No. 18 – a shot of Joe's cattle resting on a bare stretch of sand.
Joe Chilton filed a defamation lawsuit against the center in January 2004, contending the stretch of sand depicted in photo No. 18 had been the site of a big May Day weekend campout involving several hundred people only two weeks before the center's posted photo had been taken.
And he produced a photo of the campout.
Under oath at the two-week trial, CBD member A.J. Schneller admitted that he had attended the camporee on the Forest Service site, and knew darned well what had trampled down the land.
Mr. Chilton said he would have been happy with the vindication of a $1 damage award.
But the Tucson jury was not so forgiving, awarding $600,000, including $500,000 in punitive damages against the lying anti-human green extremists, whose co-founder now says the jury award could financially devastate the group.
Let's hope so. The real goal of these fruitcakes is to remove all human activity from vast swatches of the rural West (turning most of it back into an untended desert), whereupon they seem to imagine only they and their closest friends will be handed picnic permits.
And the Center for Biological Diversity is actually among the more litigious of these gangs; a third of its $3 million income in 2003 came from court awards and settlements, according to the Journal.
Live by the sword, die by the sword?
Jim Carlton of the Journal reports the Chilton case "if upheld, could spark a legal uprising by ranchers against environmentalists, experts say." The lawsuit "has given hope to a lot of ranching families," agrees C.B "Doc" Lane, executive vice president of the Arizona Cattle Growers' Association.
And about time.
October 29, 2005
Vin Suprynowicz [send him mail] is assistant editorial page editor of the daily Las Vegas Review-Journal and author of The Black Arrow.
Copyright © 2005 Vin Suprynowicz
7.16.2007
TS - Retrial drudges up past for longtime Fortuna residents
Retrial drudges up past for longtime Fortuna residents
Chris Durant/The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 07/16/2007 04:27:58 AM PDT
FORTUNA -- An old dusty box in Police Chief Kris Kitna's office is a reminder of the past.
A reminder of a crime that shook the Friendly City over a decade ago and is about to be rehashed in a lengthy retrial.
”This is something we thought was over,” Kitna said in a recent interview.
Jury selection is under way in the homicide retrial of Richard Craig Kesser and Jennifer Gayle Leahy, who allegedly hired Stephen Duane Chiara to kill Kesser's estranged wife in 1991.
Mary Kesser's body was found Nov. 26, 1991, in her N Street home with more than 30 stab wounds.
Chiara was arrested the next day when he was found hiding in Kesser's closet. Kesser and Leahy were arrested Dec. 10, 1991.
”It really affected a lot of people,” Kitna said. “Stuff like that doesn't happen here.”
Since the Kesser killing, there have been two other homicides in Fortuna, Kitna said. One was deemed self-defense, and the other was a murder/suicide pact between an elderly couple.
Kitna worked the case as a sergeant, along with Officer Cliff Chapman. They are the only officers currently on the force who were there when the killing occurred.
Kitna said that Mary Kesser was well
Advertisement
known in Fortuna and that the brutality of the crime against the young mother rocked the community.
”This was a good person who got killed,” Kitna said. “This wasn't a drug deal gone bad or something like that.”
Rhonda Rael, who provided “gavel to gavel” coverage of the 1992 trial for the Times-Standard, said in a recent interview that it was who Mary Kesser was that sent shock waves through Fortuna and the county.
”It was particularly sad because she was an innocent victim and a young mother,” Rael said. “I remember Terry Farmer (the district attorney at the time) told me she fought. She fought back.”
After the killing, police offered counseling for officers and residents, Kitna said.
Police were alerted to the case when a relative called and said Mary Kesser didn't pick up her then 4-year-old son from the baby sitter.
Police found the body and the investigation began.
Mary Kesser's son still lives in the area, Kitna said, and is going to college.
Richard Kesser and Leahy were linked to the crime through phone calls made to Chiara's mother and friends in Sonoma County.
The alleged motive for the killing was Mary Kesser's $50,000 insurance policy.
All three of the accused were convicted in December 1992 by a seven-man, four-woman jury. They were sentenced in 1993.
In September 2006, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted Richard Kesser and Leahy a retrial after finding that former Deputy District Attorney Worth Dikeman rejected potential jurors “on the basis of their race, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.”
Dikeman has denied the finding.
The Humboldt County District Attorney's Office estimates jury selection, which began last week, will take another three weeks. The trial is estimated to last three months.
Chris Durant/The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 07/16/2007 04:27:58 AM PDT
FORTUNA -- An old dusty box in Police Chief Kris Kitna's office is a reminder of the past.
A reminder of a crime that shook the Friendly City over a decade ago and is about to be rehashed in a lengthy retrial.
”This is something we thought was over,” Kitna said in a recent interview.
Jury selection is under way in the homicide retrial of Richard Craig Kesser and Jennifer Gayle Leahy, who allegedly hired Stephen Duane Chiara to kill Kesser's estranged wife in 1991.
Mary Kesser's body was found Nov. 26, 1991, in her N Street home with more than 30 stab wounds.
Chiara was arrested the next day when he was found hiding in Kesser's closet. Kesser and Leahy were arrested Dec. 10, 1991.
”It really affected a lot of people,” Kitna said. “Stuff like that doesn't happen here.”
Since the Kesser killing, there have been two other homicides in Fortuna, Kitna said. One was deemed self-defense, and the other was a murder/suicide pact between an elderly couple.
Kitna worked the case as a sergeant, along with Officer Cliff Chapman. They are the only officers currently on the force who were there when the killing occurred.
Kitna said that Mary Kesser was well
Advertisement
known in Fortuna and that the brutality of the crime against the young mother rocked the community.
”This was a good person who got killed,” Kitna said. “This wasn't a drug deal gone bad or something like that.”
Rhonda Rael, who provided “gavel to gavel” coverage of the 1992 trial for the Times-Standard, said in a recent interview that it was who Mary Kesser was that sent shock waves through Fortuna and the county.
”It was particularly sad because she was an innocent victim and a young mother,” Rael said. “I remember Terry Farmer (the district attorney at the time) told me she fought. She fought back.”
After the killing, police offered counseling for officers and residents, Kitna said.
Police were alerted to the case when a relative called and said Mary Kesser didn't pick up her then 4-year-old son from the baby sitter.
Police found the body and the investigation began.
Mary Kesser's son still lives in the area, Kitna said, and is going to college.
Richard Kesser and Leahy were linked to the crime through phone calls made to Chiara's mother and friends in Sonoma County.
The alleged motive for the killing was Mary Kesser's $50,000 insurance policy.
All three of the accused were convicted in December 1992 by a seven-man, four-woman jury. They were sentenced in 1993.
In September 2006, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted Richard Kesser and Leahy a retrial after finding that former Deputy District Attorney Worth Dikeman rejected potential jurors “on the basis of their race, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.”
Dikeman has denied the finding.
The Humboldt County District Attorney's Office estimates jury selection, which began last week, will take another three weeks. The trial is estimated to last three months.
7.12.2007
ER - Murder retrial begins Monday
Murder retrial begins Monday
by Kara Machado, 7/7/2007
Proceedings are scheduled to begin Monday in the new trial of two codefendants accused of a November 1991 Fortuna murder.
Richard Craig Kesser, 47, and Jennifer Gayle Leahy, 37, will appear in court Monday to begin the process of their second chance to prove they are not guilty.
The case is scheduled to be presided over by Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Dale A. Reinholtsen, according to Humboldt County Assistant District Attorney Wes Keat.
Kesser is represented by Humboldt County Chief Conflict Counsel Glenn Brown and Leahy is represented by Eureka-based attorney Neal Sanders.
Humboldt County DA Paul Gallegos is planning on prosecuting the case, confirmed Humboldt County Deputy DA Allan Dollison Friday.
A compilation of past reports indicates Kesser and Leahy plotted to kill Kesser’s former wife, Mary, for her insurance money and that they hired Stephen Duane Chiara — who was convicted of Kesser’s wife’s murder in November 1991.
A document from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals indicates Kesser, Leahy and Chiara were all found guilty of first-degree murder with special circumstances — the special circumstances were not specified in the appellate court document — and were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Kesser, Leahy and Chiara all had state court appeals denied, but only Kesser and Leahy went on to appeal in federal court, Dollison confirmed.
In September, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Kesser’s and Leahy’s 1992 murder convictions — when it was ruled that former Humboldt County Deputy DA Worth Dikeman had made racially based remarks during the jury selection process, past reports indicate.
Dikeman has denied being racially biased in the jury selection process.
Dollison said jury selection in the new trial for Kesser and Leahy is expected to last about a month and that the trial is expected to last “anywhere from four to six months.”
“The original trial — with the three defendants and all-day trial proceedings and 88 witnesses — took six months,” Dollison said. “The new trial, with two defendants, will have upwards of probably 65 to 70 witnesses in total — the prosecution will have about 55 to 56 witness — but will only consist of half-day (trial) proceedings.”
Dollison said both defense attorneys will have the opportunity to make opening statements to jurors, can call their own witnesses when presenting their cases on behalf of their clients and will each have the opportunity to make closing arguments about the case to the jury.
Brown could not be reached for comment by the end of business day Friday.
Sanders, who confirmed he was also Leahy’s attorney in the first trial, declined to comment about the case.
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
by Kara Machado, 7/7/2007
Proceedings are scheduled to begin Monday in the new trial of two codefendants accused of a November 1991 Fortuna murder.
Richard Craig Kesser, 47, and Jennifer Gayle Leahy, 37, will appear in court Monday to begin the process of their second chance to prove they are not guilty.
The case is scheduled to be presided over by Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Dale A. Reinholtsen, according to Humboldt County Assistant District Attorney Wes Keat.
Kesser is represented by Humboldt County Chief Conflict Counsel Glenn Brown and Leahy is represented by Eureka-based attorney Neal Sanders.
Humboldt County DA Paul Gallegos is planning on prosecuting the case, confirmed Humboldt County Deputy DA Allan Dollison Friday.
A compilation of past reports indicates Kesser and Leahy plotted to kill Kesser’s former wife, Mary, for her insurance money and that they hired Stephen Duane Chiara — who was convicted of Kesser’s wife’s murder in November 1991.
A document from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals indicates Kesser, Leahy and Chiara were all found guilty of first-degree murder with special circumstances — the special circumstances were not specified in the appellate court document — and were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Kesser, Leahy and Chiara all had state court appeals denied, but only Kesser and Leahy went on to appeal in federal court, Dollison confirmed.
In September, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Kesser’s and Leahy’s 1992 murder convictions — when it was ruled that former Humboldt County Deputy DA Worth Dikeman had made racially based remarks during the jury selection process, past reports indicate.
Dikeman has denied being racially biased in the jury selection process.
Dollison said jury selection in the new trial for Kesser and Leahy is expected to last about a month and that the trial is expected to last “anywhere from four to six months.”
“The original trial — with the three defendants and all-day trial proceedings and 88 witnesses — took six months,” Dollison said. “The new trial, with two defendants, will have upwards of probably 65 to 70 witnesses in total — the prosecution will have about 55 to 56 witness — but will only consist of half-day (trial) proceedings.”
Dollison said both defense attorneys will have the opportunity to make opening statements to jurors, can call their own witnesses when presenting their cases on behalf of their clients and will each have the opportunity to make closing arguments about the case to the jury.
Brown could not be reached for comment by the end of business day Friday.
Sanders, who confirmed he was also Leahy’s attorney in the first trial, declined to comment about the case.
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
7.10.2007
About politicizing a case
Elections should focus on the good record of candidate
5/27/2006
Dear Editor,
I realize that in writing this letter it is not helping my cause in trying to keep my family’s name and the circumstance regarding my son’s 14-year-old trial out of public scrutiny. That is not possible now, as Ellie Bowman and Madison Ayala have taken it upon themselves to pass out fliers in front of the Courthouse regarding this case.
They have not taken into consideration, nor have they contacted me as to how this would affect my feelings or the feelings of my grandson, whom I have been raising since this tragedy.
They state that this is not politically motivated. Why then, after this length of time, have they taken it upon themselves to bring anything about this case up now? Yes, Mr. Worth Dikeman was the prosecuting attorney in the case and yes, he obtained a conviction and yes, it is something I have to live with every day, but he was doing the job he was appointed to do and I will never fault him for that, not as it seems Ellie Bowman is doing because of the conviction of her son.
During the trial and for all the years that have gone by, Mr. Dikeman has shown me and my family the greatest respect and compassion. He has shown interest in how my grandson was doing in school, how I was doing and always had a great concern for our family. I doubt if there are many attorneys on either side who do that. I deeply resent the fact that to win an election people have to use tactics that can hurt other people instead of running on their supposedly good record.
Joanne Kesser
Fortuna
5/27/2006
Dear Editor,
I realize that in writing this letter it is not helping my cause in trying to keep my family’s name and the circumstance regarding my son’s 14-year-old trial out of public scrutiny. That is not possible now, as Ellie Bowman and Madison Ayala have taken it upon themselves to pass out fliers in front of the Courthouse regarding this case.
They have not taken into consideration, nor have they contacted me as to how this would affect my feelings or the feelings of my grandson, whom I have been raising since this tragedy.
They state that this is not politically motivated. Why then, after this length of time, have they taken it upon themselves to bring anything about this case up now? Yes, Mr. Worth Dikeman was the prosecuting attorney in the case and yes, he obtained a conviction and yes, it is something I have to live with every day, but he was doing the job he was appointed to do and I will never fault him for that, not as it seems Ellie Bowman is doing because of the conviction of her son.
During the trial and for all the years that have gone by, Mr. Dikeman has shown me and my family the greatest respect and compassion. He has shown interest in how my grandson was doing in school, how I was doing and always had a great concern for our family. I doubt if there are many attorneys on either side who do that. I deeply resent the fact that to win an election people have to use tactics that can hurt other people instead of running on their supposedly good record.
Joanne Kesser
Fortuna