Tuesday, February 12, 2008

TS - Attorney: Gundersen claims 'false' UPDATED

UPDATED:

Former Blue Lake Police Chief David Gundersen has been cleared of all major charges first filed against him in 2008. - Arcata Eye MARCH 2012

****

Ya can't make this stuff up...

TS Breaking News/Updated Gallegos sticks to his guns regarding investigation into Blue Lake police chief
Blue Lake Police Chief David Gundersen's attorney said today that a bitter custody dispute is likely the genesis of his arrest on suspicion of spousal rape.

Arcata attorney Russell Clanton said that Gundersen's current wife told him that she's not a victim, and that she's completely supportive of her husband.

Clanton said that he believes it was Gundersen's ex wife who alleged his current wife was repeatedly raped while intoxicated or drugged. Clanton said Gundersen's current wife, a sergeant at the Blue Lake Police Department currently on leave, is fully supportive of the chief, who intends to plead not guilty to any charges if they are filed.

”Frankly I think the position is that the state has put their nose into the bedroom of Chief Gundersen and his current wife,” Clanton said.

District Attorney Paul Gallegos strongly disagreed with Clanton's take. He said Tuesday that believes Gundersen's current wife is the alleged victim, that she first reported the alleged acts and that his investigators have been in contact with her in recent days.

”If we don't have a victim, it seems we wouldn't have probable cause to issue an arrest warrant,” Gallegos said.

The Times-Standard Article Launched: 02/12/2008 04:05:29 PM PST
Includes Video of Clanton's Statement.
ER Defense attorney announced for Blue Lake Police Chief
ER Blue Lake residents speak out against police chief
TS Breaking News/Updated Gallegos sticks to his guns regarding investigation into Blue Lake police chief
TS In tense meeting, council puts off action on jailed police chief

Arraignment expected today.

UPDATED:

Former Blue Lake Police Chief David Gundersen has been cleared of all major charges first filed against him in 2008. - Arcata Eye MARCH 2012

****

51 comments:

  1. Is it just me or do I hear the Twighlight Zone music in the background...or maybe it's the Law and Order: SVU music?

    ReplyDelete
  2. IMAGINE a defense attorney claiming his client is innocent! Will wonders never cease? loi

    ReplyDelete
  3. I can figure out why Clanton is flapping his gums to the media; why is PVG? Does he want his entire office to be recused (PC 1424)? Another lesson from his mentor Hallinan I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Do you really think this is unusual, Red? loi You don't read the news much?

    ReplyDelete
  5. There's going to be enough egg to go around. But one thing is for sure:
    Gallegos v. Clanton in a slanging match-- better than the smell of baking bread.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, 7:45, it is a bit unusual in that most prosecutors have read Rule 5-120. It is bad form to comment on a pending case. It is bad form to say, in essence: I think he's guilty because we got a warrant and arrested him. Admittedly a paraphrase but a fair charcaterization of his comment, I believe. Terence Hallinan managed to get his entire office recused on a homicide by doing just that.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Right Red. They prosecute people who are arrested because they think they are innocent. You are almost as bright as Rose.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Which case was that Red?

    ReplyDelete
  9. 10:22, you are correct to a degree. However, there is a difference between trying your case in the courtroom and trying it in the media. Defendants have a right to a fair trial; there are rules in place to ensure that. One such rule is that the prosecutor should not shoot off his mouth to comment on the merits of the case, even when provoked by the likes of Russ Clanton. That is Rule of Professional Conduct 5-120.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 10:36, the case where Hallinan managed to have his office recused is People v. Choi (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 476. If that's you Clanton, don't you have a paralegal? I should say that I don't know if PVG's comments are sufficient to trigger recusal, but a prudent DA would just keep his mouth shut and try the case in court.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Maybe you should let your legal assistant do your research, Red. People v. Choi (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 476 was a case involving city attorney Herrera and wasn't a murder case.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Perhaps you were referring to the murders of Tran and Natali? Hallinan was recused for stating that the 2 murders were related when involved in the case for Tran's murder. Quite different than our situation.

    ReplyDelete
  13. His comments may not warrant a recusal, but if his wife represents the ex wife in current custody proceedings AND if this started with the ex wife and the current wife denies it AND if the DA still files it, then he should be recused immediately. Hell, if this is correct, Gallegos should not even have charged it or assisted and should have immediately turned it over to the State.

    This really stinks on a lot of levels.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Remember the qualifier IF.

    IF that is all true, he should be thrown out of office.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 10:56, you are incorrect. 11:02, yes, that's the case, People v. Choi, 80 Cal.App.4th 476. You are correct, the facts are different, my point was that a prosecutor stating a personal belief that a defendant is guilty because he was arrested is grist for a 1424 motion, without even considering some of the other factors which may or may not be true (i.e. what 11:05 said).

    ReplyDelete
  16. A prosecutor who prosecutes a person he believes to be innocent would be a serious problem. Stating to the media that he believes someone is guilty is a bit redundant but not cause for any concern or recusal.

    ReplyDelete
  17. My problem is not with him saying the guy is probably guilty, it is with saying he didn't yet know if he was going to charge and with what when they had tricked the guy into coming in for a meeting so that they could arrest him. That, it seems to me, should have been known before any arrest warrant was issued. An honest answer, at least about the basic charges would have gone a long way towards stopping all the speculation.

    Hislop's gleeful description of the plan he concocted, lying to the guy, using the name of the Drug Task Force as a ruse is really pretty creepy.

    Is there any reason why there can't be some honesty in an arrest?

    ReplyDelete
  18. They didn't say they didn't know if he would be charged. They said they didn't know which charges. Huge difference. He may face charges for things that were found in his home or on his computer in addition to the rape charges.

    ReplyDelete
  19. They didn't say they didn't know if he would be charged. They said they didn't know which charges. Huge difference. He may face charges for things that were found in his home or on his computer in addition to the rape charges.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Additional charges and counts are expected to be added, Gallegos said."

    2/12/2008
    http://www.times-standard.com//ci_8237889?IADID=Search-www.times-standard.com-www.times-standard.com

    ReplyDelete
  21. You should take a class in critical thinking before you pick up a newspaper and post what you THINK it said.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Rose you don't have all the facts. thus you make many many assumptions. And you know what they say about assumptions. Rose = ASS

    ReplyDelete
  23. Its amusing to see Rose so bent out of shape about the cops using a ruse to carry out the arrest.


    When these kind of deceptive law enforcement practices
    are used against the general public we don't hear a peep from Rose and her ilk, but when the same tactic is used on a police chief, that's suddenly it's an outrage. (And just imagine how apoplectic Rose would have been if they had pepper-sprayed Gunderson and then Tasered him a few times for good measure!)


    Too bad Rose is apparently too simpleminded to recognize her own hypocrisy.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Oh, for crying out loud.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Great response Rose. You definitely won this round in a knockout. :P

    ReplyDelete
  26. Rose needs it, she hasn't been winning many lately.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Keep goin' - you only show up in full attack regalia when something serious is going down with your boy. It must be worse than I thought.

    You really ought to use your name. What's the point of hiding it?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Full attack regalia? Countering your spin and bringing some balance to this cyber rag is attack? Pointing out your hypocrisy is attack? If you weren't such a bimbo you would recognize it and correct it yourself. Bragging about not posting rumors as you post the rumors should be even too blatant for you to miss. Being all law and order until anyone in law enforcement is accused is another. Your obsession is unhealthy and you are coming unhinged, if you were ever hinged to begin with.

    ReplyDelete
  29. According to these dip shits Gallegos isn't tough on rape but when he arrests an alleged rapist who is also a cop they howl.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Well, the news'll be on in a few minutes. Maybe there'll be more information. Then we'll see what plays out.

    Nobody is howling because they arrested a cop. What they are howling about, if they are howling at all, is trying the man on the front pages of the paper, and citing a previous arrest without disclosing the true circumstances of THAT case and its resolution...

    ReplyDelete
  31. The higher they are, the more the publicity. This is just business as usual for those accused of serious crimes. But you didn't care when YOU thought they were guilty.

    ReplyDelete
  32. around and around we go.........check out the ts blogsite thewasp.........thats the latest news....

    ReplyDelete
  33. It's pretty rare when a statement that someone has a past history and has "been arrested before" turns out to be a documented witch hunt with a finding of FACTUAL INNOCENCE. That in and of itself is as much a story as the fact that people think Gundersen is a jerk.

    Is he just unlucky? Or is he guilty? Time will tell and it is an interesting discussion with serious consequences either way.

    Multiple counts according to Channel 3 - including intimidating a witness and possession of a controlled substance.

    Still nothing on the TS Breaking News - I'm hoping they have more details.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Which news article mentioned that old arrest, Rose?

    ReplyDelete
  35. "The incident was about a little S&M love reported to ex-wife by son. Ex-wife filed the charge."

    quote was found on the TS blogsite.....

    ReplyDelete
  36. Thanks, Theo, I just read Andrew's report. He titled it "Gallegos the sneak."

    Read his full account

    To be charitable, we should probably assume he was trying to exercise some discretion and keep the case FROM being tried in public.

    ReplyDelete
  37. dog running at large2/13/2008 6:58 PM

    Well Rose, I don't know...I guess you can expect to get hammered for raising questions that make the 'otherwise initiated' uncomfortable.

    Still some good questions though. Who's the witness that was allegedly intimidated? Speculation should abound on this one.

    Who made the original complaint? And why didn't the SO take the handle? Why now?

    Why the big time bail?

    This should be a reporter's goldmine....who's working it?

    This is going to be an interesting playout.

    Oh and Rose....I don't think you should have to defend yourself for raising questions or having an opinion. Just like all your critics.

    But if Joanie has the 'ex' this could get dicey.

    Where is Hank when we need him?

    ReplyDelete
  38. For all Ms. N's jumping up and down in fury, she has not denied that Joanie has the 'ex.' That will be a matter of court record, I would think.

    When I say there are lots of rumors I don't post - sometimes I think maybe I should. As Theo notes, they are actually part of the urban legend. Is it better to get them out and air them?

    ReplyDelete
  39. If he and his wife were practicing S&M in front of a child he should be brought up on child abuse charges as well. Is the child who he was trying to intimidate?

    ReplyDelete
  40. rose,
    its true, you respond to insults too often. you should just ignore the ones that arent on topic.....even the ones that i make...

    you shouldnt have to defend yourself for having a good blogsite and for asking questions......we may disagree alot, but i cant deny that your blogsite is packed with a ton of information.......

    ReplyDelete
  41. s&m in front of a child? heck, out here in the humboldt hills, we call that foreplay...........just kidding, dont freak out....

    ReplyDelete
  42. Rose wants the witnesses to testify before the trial? Who is Ms N?

    ReplyDelete
  43. This blog is joke Rose plays on herself. Im outta here.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Oh my God,mom and dad doing S&M .What will the kido's say? You'll have to pry them away from the E channels true Hollywood story of Jenna Jameson. Pretty hot stufffffff! Plus the" Bliss "ad.

    ReplyDelete
  45. do running at large2/13/2008 9:28 PM

    I absolutely agree Theo

    It's a good idea not to take any of this at face value.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Thanks, Theo - I do so enjoy our disagreements, though :). But I sometimes respond to insults when they open the door to points of discussion, or things that need to be brought out.

    And, Thanks, Dog. I agree - lots and lots and lots of questions.

    Still don't know who submitted and who signed the Ramey warrant. Or if they had a Ramey warrant.

    Is that a publicly available document?

    ReplyDelete
  47. In reference to Andrew Bird's claim that the DA "snuck" the arraignment in while reporters weren't there:


    It sounds to me like the reporters in question were too lazy to stick around the whole time, and not resourceful enough to leave one person with a cell phone at the courtroom to alert the others if/when the case came up.


    When they didn't see the case on the schedule for 1:30 did any of these intrepid reporters bother to check with the Court Clerk or the D.A.'s office, or did they proceed straight to assuming that it wouldn't be until 4:00?


    If the reporters were "hopping mad," I suggest they hop on over to the nearest mirror so they can have a word with the only person they SHOULD be angry with.


    But I guess it's a lot easier to blame the D.A. for "sneaking" the arraignment in than to face the fact that they dropped the ball themselves out of laziness and/or incompetence, and then had to face their respective editors empty-handed on the most prominent story of the day.


    As anyone who has followed any case in court should know (and as these "reporters" should certainly know), courts don't always hear things in the order you expect them to, or at the hour you expected them to -- for a whole variety of reasons having nothing to do with a "sneaky" D.A.


    Maybe the problem here is the poor quality of local reporters. Oh well, I guess you get what you pay for.

    ReplyDelete
  48. 11:38 Whatever happened to the tailors in that old fable when the people realized that the Emperor was buck naked and started laughing and pointing at him?

    Did they try discrediting the messengers?

    ReplyDelete
  49. What ever happened to that little girl, Rose, who kept crying "wolf, wolf" when there was no wolf?


    Answer: people stopped believing her... and then when there really was a wolf, no one would believe her.


    Rose, I don't doubt that the DA's office and the DA need to be watchdogged. While I tend to agree with the current DA's approach on many issues (I have no problem ackowledging that bias), at the same time I'm by no means blind to his missteps and blunders, such as Tim Stoen, Debi August, AK-47's for his investigators, firing some good staff people, etc.


    But when you, Rose, stoop to spreading scurrilous rumours, or always assume the worst of the DA before the facts are in (as in this case), you risk becoming a parody of a watchdog, rather than the actual article.


    I offer this unsolicited advice: take the high road, stick to the facts, and try to withhold judgement on the DA's actions until more of the facts are in on this matter.


    This is a small county and the fact that the DA's wife happens to be the Chief's ex-wife's attorney doesn't strike me as all that surprising, just based on chance alone.


    But time will tell. In the meantime, the high road beckons...

    ReplyDelete
  50. To those spreading unconfirmed or demonstrably false stories about incidents alleged to have taken place in Gunderson's past, I offer the same unsolicited advice:


    Take the high road, stick to the facts, and try to withhold judgement on Gunderson until more of the facts are in on this matter.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I can tell I have struck a nerve, just can't tell exactly WHY. I guess we will see as this all shakes out.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open. Play nice.