Friday, February 02, 2007

Gallegos' theatre of the absurd

We'll just let all the bad guys go and we'll prosecute this guy? You must be kidding! How dare you.

"...Ferndale Police Chief Lonnie Lawson alleges Sean Marsh failed to keep his toddler from danger when Marsh allegedly let his child walk off the curb of Main Street and 18 inches into the roadway at the intersection with Brown Street.

Marsh, however, has stated in media reports that he was calling his 2-year-old son Everett to come back to him — as Marsh walked about 15 feet behind the toddler — and that Everett got only as far as the curb of the intersection.

Thursday was Marsh’s second day of jury trial..."


We'll let the Whitethorn rapists off because - why was it again? But we'll put the full weight of the law behind THIS ONE.

Related:
RELATED:
Ferndale Enterprise Sean Marsh NOT GUILTY - A cartoon, an editorial, an article and letters to the editor
ACQUITTED ER - Sean Marsh not guilty on all counts, jury decides Tuesday
Ferndale Enterprise - DA explains Marsh "child endangerment" prosecution
ER - Sean Marsh testifies on his own behalf in child endangerment trial
ER - Marsh denies letting 2-year-old toddler walk unattended in road
Word to the Wise:
Don't Cop an Attitude in Ferndale

33 comments:

Eric V. Kirk said...

We'll let the Whitethorn rapists off because - why was it again

Shakey evidence.

Eric V. Kirk said...

When Lawson tried to investigate why the child was out in the street “without supervision,” he felt he couldn’t properly do so because Marsh continued to walk away despite Lawson’s attempts to contact him.

Marsh, Lawson claims, then became uncooperative when Marsh failed to submit his identification upon Lawson’s command.

In court Thursday, Mendez asked Lawson if — in all of Lawson’s 30 years of experience as an officer — he’s ever dealt with someone as uncooperative as Marsh. Lawson said he hadn’t.

“I can never remember anyone just brushing me off, just walking off,” Lawson said, “(without) some contact.”


Police officers take incidents like these very seriously, and the officer was in a bit of a bind because he is a mandated reporter for child neglect.

It's a misdemeanor that's being charged. If the officer's account is true, then he is guilty under the law.

As to whether he is obligated to show him ID when he wasn't driving, there's some ambiguity there. However, you are required to identify yourself. Those laws, unfortunately, were upheld by a recent Supreme Court decision.

I wrote about it here.

Eric V. Kirk said...

On the other hand, if the defendant's account is correct, Chief Lawson is a jerk abusing his power.

Rose said...

I'd have to agree with that last one, Eric. This whole thing is ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

If the officer is correct Marsh is not guilty under the law. He is accused. Marsh is only guilty if convicted. An outcome that did not need to happen,and was based mostly on the personalities and ego's of both the Chief and Marsh. It is not a minor covection. It will have sever reprecussions Marsh's entire life. My God what other charges would Marsh have if he had swatted the child to keep him closer? This is not a slippery slop,it is an Avalanche.

Anonymous said...

Eric - you are so full of shit. No one said "shaky evidence." Yougofree said that the victim wasn't looking forward to testifying.

Did you read the case file - NO

Did you speak with the attorney who filed it - NO

Hey - how about buying some ocean front property in kansas.

The fact of the matter is that many of us are pretty tired of reading Eric justifying Pauls fuck ups....

Anonymous said...

Eric please don't go down as an apologist? Gallegos has enough brown-nosers close at hand.

Anonymous said...

Hey knock it off. There are nice people in Kansas and they don't deserve Eric !

Fact is Eric will defend Gallegos no matter what he does or how he fucks up. It's a given. That is what erodes Eric's credibility.

To go to trial on this ? Who is the prosecutor ?

Anonymous said...

Shakey evidence ? You are truly full of shit!

It's called lying Eric ?

Anonymous said...

Shakey evidence indeed. Reinholtsen did not think so.
The injuries were consistent, the
phone messages from the defendant Levi was chilling, the victim was unshaken on the stand at prelim.

The only thing shaky was the trial prosecutor. And, perhaps, his boss.

Anonymous said...

Oh man - that was good 4:40!

Anonymous said...

Eric - are you getting the message that these bloggers know what the hell they are talking about and won't be snowed by your bullshit. Take your totally uninformed bull and peddle it on your site or Heraldo. Now if you want to talk realities ok, we are on, but run your standard bullshit line about Gallegos elsewhere.

Eric V. Kirk said...

Then why did Reinholtsen accept the plea?

Anonymous said...

That's a good question Eric. Why don't you ask him?

After all you are Eric V. Kirk ! Doesn't everyone have to answer to you? You've had dinner with the mayor !

Maybe Reinholtsen knew that if he didn't take the plea that worthless pile of crap Hugo would then dismiss the case, then the victim and the public wouldn't even get token justice.

Eric V. Kirk said...

Yeah. That must be it.

Anonymous said...

Well Mr. Big Stuff, EVK, what's your take? You have an opinion on everything else. C'mon dude share your profound wisdom with the under educated masses.

Carol Ann said...

Rose, I have to say that you sure do your homework. Caroline Titus wrote an in-depth article in this week's Ferndale Enterprise. This is not accessable by email. You would have to obtain a copy. We have a copy, too.

Anonymous said...

Knowing Ferndale and Sean and Allison from having lived in the Victorian Village for awhile, my question is "how much is this costing US?". The Chief, the DA, the Public Defender, the Judge, Jury, court staff...couldn't we (the county) make some kind of plea bargain with these guys and get off a lot cheaper? Maybe "both of you give it up, and we will pay you each ten grand?" or some such...

Rose said...

Thanks for the heads up, Carol Ann. I'll see if I can get a copy.

Rose said...

Is it negotiable 8:03? Because is a far less serious case than Bowman. Then again, this guy's reputation is far more valuable.

Carol Ann said...

You are welcome, Rose. I know they are available in front of Tipple Motors in Ferndale, in front of Ray's in Fortuna, and also at Loleta Grocery. I am not sure if and where they are available in Eureka.

Best,

Carol

Anonymous said...

I have blathered bout this on other threads a bit, but it does not appear that any sort of evaluation is going on at that office. Mr. Schwartz takes a battery w/ gbi to trial in which the accussed is a middle-aged gal who lives in NY and has an apparently plausible self-defense claim; Dollison takes a rape to trial in which the victim consumed, seemingly, copious amounts of alcohol and invites the accused to spend the night at a remote cabin. And now this - I presume that there was some effort to settle this case, but if I were defendant I wouldn't plead - why should I? Even if everything is true, has this guy committed a crime 12 people are going to care about? Is he perpetually allowing his kid to run into traffic (traffic - in Ferndale, forsooth!)? Was he aware that he had committed an act which a reasonable officer would believe provided proable cause to believe a public offense had been committed in his presence such that he was required to accede to the officer's directions? Maybe there is more to this then is in the paper, but if there isn't, then this is a big feckin' waste of time. Maybe it will be a valuable lesson for the poor schmuck who is trying it though.

Anonymous said...

The prosecutor in the case has been interviewing at every office in the state and can't get hired elsewhere. He's drinking buddies with yougo, and has a huge, unjustified ego, but no judgment and no adult supervision. The only mystery is how Cissna let it go to trial. He runs a good courtroom even if he is a trifle arrogant and a bit of a bully.

Anonymous said...

Jose M. has an ego ? Gee I never would have guessed!

Just a thought! Where do Jose and Jeff drink? I'd like to buy them a drink for all the hard work they do and the lack of appreciation that they receive.

Rose said...

Wow, Carol Ann. That's quite a revealing article. The cartoon is great, too! Wish I could post it! I will be posting the article tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

Hard work? Jeff? Help me out here, is this irony or are you drunk? Jeffie is the laziest sob this side of his boss. Jose spends time in the office, but it's mostly networking, harassing the new female hires, and schmoozing in Jeff's office. Work? Well, that's for those whose noses have not yet turned totally brown.

Eric V. Kirk said...

Anon 7:01 - I've discussed the matter in great detail, on this forum and on my own. You can use the search function to call up Garza if you're really curious. But as someone who has been in the trenches, the interview with the prosecuting attorney on KMUD indicated to me that the victim didn't hold up well during the pretrial hearing and the prosecutor was concerned about how well her testimony would hold up in front of a jury. He said it in a way that didn't slam her in public.

The monday morning quarterbacking on cases is really inappropriate. You don't know what the prosecution was dealing with behind the scenes. But Gallegos haters will seize upon pretty much anything it seems, whether they have the facts or not.

Anonymous said...

Erik, you are full of it. No one talked to the lawyer who did the prelim hearing. Schwartz is a poltroon and a coward, and lazy to boot. You are an apologist and nothing more. You have deliberately shaded you post to suggest that the pretrial prosecutor told the media the case was weak. The only person who ever said that was Schwartz, and his record speaks for itself. Take a look at the attempted murder case he bargained down to assault right before he punted the
Garza case. I suppose that victim was shaky too?
Really, your constant refrain of blame the victm for the cowardice of the DA is beneath contempt
Lots of rape victims have problems. The answer is not to dump them, but to courageously and sympathetically support them. Try readng the transcript of the prelim, and see how the injuries found on the victim proved she was tied up and abused. Try listening to the recordings Levi left on her phone. You should shut the hell up when you don't know anything first hand and you should quit spinning facts about what someone who wasnt at the prelim said about the prelim.
And labelling people who criticize rank cowardice and incompetence as "Gallegos haters" is an ad hominem attack which answers nothing. The facts of Schwartz's performance and
Gallegos' elevation of him merit criticism.
You will never admit it, but the fact is you would never give him one of YOUR cases, and it is appalling that he has been made the core of the
child abuse prosecution unit.
Of course, maybe he is just the guy to assess all the "shaky" kids whose cases dont get filed.
Spin it all you want, the facts are leaking out.
If Dollison, whatever his flaws, had the balls to take his drunken victim to court, he is the one who
should be the child abuse/sex crimes deputy. And again, since you have never prosecuted or defended a rape case, and never met the victim in Garza, never attended the prelim, never talked to the prelim prosecutor, you should leave off the
excuses for a blatant miscarriage of justice. The community was entitled to trial in the matter.

Anonymous said...

Geez Eric-you've been drawn quartered tarred and festered-I mean feathered in less than a page. More than your ears must be stinging!

Anonymous said...

Eric is too full of himself and bullshit to admit anything.

Anonymous said...

Eric will stretch his already thread bare credibility even further to worship at the feet of his Dear Leader. What does this blind allegiance grant him, I wonder, or is he simply brainwashed?

Anonymous said...

Eric said, "The monday morning quarterbacking on cases is really inappropriate."

But it is acceptable for you to monday morning quarterback the president, EPD and anybody that furthers your "progressive" dialogue.

It's fine for you, but when somebody who doesn't share your blind allegiance to Gallegos exercises his or her First Amendment rights, it is "inappropriate." This is still a democracy, Eric, and citizen still retain the right to criticize all actions of government officials at all levels, not just the officials you despise.

Anonymous said...

What in heaven's name could be deemed inappropriate about questioning and analysing the actions of elected officials and their sworn delegees? Such a comment from a fellow who, as a laywer, is professionally dedicated to "monday morning quarterbacking" as a way to earn his bread is, to say the least, odd. That's all lawyers do, is tell other people what they should have done and how they should have done it better. Are those of us without law degrees to humbly leave the questions to those high and mighty lawyers who will inform the masses what to think? So that's the Progressive theory. It takes a village to take orders from the chosen ones.