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
****
From the Times-Standard Blogs - The Humboldt Wasp reports "If you're waiting to read reporting from the courtroom in the Blue Lake police chief rape case in tomorrow's local daily newspapers, you won't find it. That's because District Attorney Paul Gallegos apparently snuck David Gundersen's arraignment onto the court calendar while reporters weren't looking this afternoon." Read Andrew Bird's full account
The TS does have a late breaking report posted:
Gundersen pleads not guilty to 12 rape charges
Blue Lake Police Chief David Gundersen pleaded not guilty today to 12 counts of spousal rape, along with additional charges.
”We make decisions based on the evidence we have,” Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos said.
Gallegos said the multiple rape charges all relate to the same victim. The chief is being held in Humboldt County Jail on $500,000 bail.
Gundersen's attorney Russell Clanton said that he's been told that the information he's received from the investigation is only a small part of what's been collected by the DA's office. He added that his stance has not changed regarding the chief's innocence.
From Andrew (The Wasp) comes this: Correction: Apologies to Paul Gallegos. I was wrong, apparently, when I said it was Mr. Gallegos who snuck the arraignment into court while reporters were not present. According to one of the reporters who was initially upset that the arraignment was heard ahead of schedule, it was the judge, not Gallegos, who called it into his courtroom early.
If this is true, I owe Mr. Gallegos an apology.
The fact remains that the hearing was held before it was scheduled to be heard, and that no reporters from the two dailies were in the courtroom when Gundersen entered his not guilty pleas.
And, Andrew has a follow up post: Gold stars for Thad and John...but something's amiss
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
****
Right. First he is being tried in the media and now Gallegos is a sneak for avoiding the media. You freaks are a joke.
ReplyDeleteThat is the title of Andrew Bird's report. I noted on another thread that perhaps we should assume he was trying to exercise discretion.
ReplyDeleteAndrew's full account describes the reporters as 'fuming.' Can you blame them?
TS has late breaking news on Gunderson being charged with 12 counts of rape.
ReplyDeleteAnd he wasn't let out on his OR. Maybe for protection the witness he intimidated?
ReplyDeleteI believe Channel 3 said that the OR hearing was tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteSomehow they got an interview with Gallegos and Clanton.
Here's another way to put what happened today:
ReplyDeleteLocal reporters, despite having been informed for several days that Gunderson would be arraigned today, left the courthouse before the hearing took place, then got mad when they missed out.
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.
11:24 (same as 11:38 on the next thread down) 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?
ReplyDeleteDid they try discrediting the messengers?
I'm sorry, but the "reporters" are full of it. What's so hard about going to court and waiting until the arraignment happens? What's so hard about asking the prosecutor or the defense lawyer, a bailiff, the court clerk's office.
ReplyDeleteDo your jobs, don't expect news to be handed to you, you whining slacker incompetent juvenile
puling morons. You screwed up, no one else.
Correction: Apologies to Paul Gallegos. I was wrong, apparently, when I said it was Mr. Gallegos who snuck the arraignment into court while reporters were not present. According to one of the reporters who was initially upset that the arraignment was heard ahead of schedule, it was the judge, not Gallegos, who called it into his courtroom early.
ReplyDeleteIf this is true, I owe Mr. Gallegos an apology.
The fact remains that the hearing was held before it was scheduled to be heard, and that no reporters from the two dailies were in the courtroom when Gundersen entered his not guilty pleas.
In response to anonymous 8:13: Reporters are busy people. They don't have the luxury of sitting in court all day waiting for a hearing. The Gundersen case is not the only news happening in Humboldt County. If you look at the Times-Standard and Eureka Reporter this morning, you will find lots of locally reported copy. It didn't get in the newspaper by reporters sitting in a courtroom all day.
Reporters were initially told the arraignment was at 1:30 p.m. Later, it was added to the 4 p.m. calendar. Reporters have the right to expect court hearings to occur when they are scheduled.
Thank You, Andrew - I have added this to the post above. I appreciate the update.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on that Andrew. It was Gallegos' job to remind the court that it was set for four o'clock and that the public and press had a right to be present when the matter was originally set. But, then again, Gallegos has never stood up for the public's right to know. Look how he used the grand jury in the EPD fiasco to cheat the public from hearing what went on.
ReplyDeleteOh wow, let's still find a way to blame Gallegos. I got news for you, the Judge decides when to call a calendar. It is his calendar. It does not belong to the press. It does not belong to the attorneys appearing on that calendar. The Judge who called that particular arraignment calendar likes to finish in a quick and expeditious manner. He was already done with his regular afternoon calendar. Those so-called "4:00" calendars are routinely called early (and sometimes late). It is not the lawyer's fault, if the Judge wanted it called early. However, I love this line. The early spin on this case was that Gallegos was "trying this case in the press and was violating Rules of Professional Conduct." Now because a Judge made a completely proper decision to call the case when he was ready, you blame Gallegos for not ordering the Judge to call it later so the media could be there. Give me a break. Does your hypocrisy know no bounds? You just haven't found anything to like about this dirty cop, and are finding it hard to really criticize Gallegos on this one. Just give up, will ya.
ReplyDeleteWow! 12:33 what a keen mind you have---BUT---- wouldn't you want all the facts before you charge Gunderson with being" this dirty cop"? I usually find that type of myopia sells better over on heraldo.
ReplyDeleteOh! I think I saw a rainbow today.I'm sure that proves the cops are bad.
ReplyDeletenope, mr bird, not buying it. If reporters were busy doing a good job, there would be a lot more information in the papers. your implication that you are too busy doing lots of things badly to do anything right is, well
ReplyDeleteprobably pretty close to truth.
There isn't a paper up here that can afford to have reporters sitting on one case all day. Most reporters have multiple stories to file on any given day and it is no easy task.
ReplyDeleteAndrew has another post on the subject up:
There are sure alot of questions to be answered, as someone noted on this or one of these posts, this is a gold mine for reporters.
Andrew Bird said: "Reporters have the right to expect court hearings to occur when they are scheduled."
ReplyDeleteReally now, Andrew?
That's more of a luxury than either the Defense or the Prosecution enjoys.
The judge called the case early, because all parties were present, which happens all the time. Sometimes the hearing will start late, or be postponed until later in the day, or rescheduled to another date. All part of life in the big city, Andrew.
Reporters have no special right to have the court tailor its schedule to meet their needs. If they want to get the story, they have to wait around like all the other mere mortals in the courthouse.
Then, Andrew, in your most recent post on your blog you award "gold stars" to the reporters who missed the hearing and therefore only got the prosecution's take on the hearing and didn't get to see it or themselves.
In your pretzel-logic world, missing the actual event and getting the information second-hand, from only one side, they achieved an "exclusive", a "scoop." Wow, that deserves congratulations and mutual back-patting all around.
And on top of that, in that same post, you go even farther through the looking-glass.
Having made a perfect fool of yourself with your original shoddy reporting that inaccurately blamed the D.A. for the reporters missing the hearing...
...now you go even farther out on a limb to accuse the judge, the defense lawyer, and the D.A. of all secretly conspiring to manipulate the court schedule to trick the media!
Wow. Bold move.
Any evidence, or just more of your hot air?
Obviously, Andrew, that is the same guy who posted on your blog calling himself/herself "Lawn Order."
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty easy to use a name on these blogs, Lawn, and it does make it easier to 'talk.'
One thing, "lawn" - we might be able to conclude from Andrew's update that it wasn't the DA trying to treat the case with some discretion.
Rose said: "... we might be able to conclude from Andrew's update that it wasn't the DA trying to treat the case with some discretion."
ReplyDelete-----------------
So far my tentative conclusion is that Andrew Bird is full of crap, knows nothing about how the legal system works, likes to speculate wildly, does not practice responsible, fact-based journalism, and is somewhat conspiracy-minded.
Hmmm, reminds me of another blogger, by the name of Rose, who also believes her own spin, and also sees shadowy conspiracies everywhere.
You surely owe Andrew an apology. He most certainly does not want to be associated with me.
ReplyDeleteHis only crime here is criticizing Paul, you don't need to sling in all your other accusations. And he didn't even mean to do that.
Andy's only crime is practicing pseudojournalism while taking himself way too seriously.
ReplyDeleteRose, on the other hand is more of a full-time Gallegos-hater, who just happens to practice pseudojournalism as a means to an end.
Still, I stand by the comparison I drew in the 6:52 post, a valid comparison as far as it goes.
Wrong again. I do not HATE Gallegos. I think he is a piss poor DA. I think he is incredibly dishonest, I learned that firsthand very quickly. The reporters are only just now starting to see it themselves.
ReplyDeleteWorse than that, he chose to use that office politically. It is not supposed to be a political office. It has very express duties, and a very express position in the overall system of check and balances.
To file a lawsuit at the behest of your handlers, against all the advice of the people who know the law, and then to pursue a scheme to solicit, accept and use special interest money to privately fund a vendetta, using the office to give the gift of a public, sanctioned in law, office, to privately fund a public lawsuit is WRONG.
I do not know how you continue to use all the BS campaign rhetoric and manage to obscure the corruption that single act represents.
There's more. Lots more. This blog stands in evidence, and as reference so that in the future, you and the likes of Richard Salzman cannot pull the wool over anyone's eyes.
Would you like to hear some of the other rumors? I only used two of the benign ones. Maybe people ought to hear the rest.
Hey, if you want to soil yourself further by continuing to engage in slimy rumour-mongering, that's your choice. It seems to me that it just lowers your credibility even farther (assuming that is still possible) but, hey, that's your call.
ReplyDeleteBut if you really "have the goods" on Gallegos, as you claim so vociferously, why take the low road with the rumours? Or do you just like it down there in the mud?
Whatever, it's your blog, I'm just the rubbernecker who just had to slow down and have a look at the accident: its so repulsive, yet oddly fascinating.
All things come to light. This week we are seeing one of them. Long couched in rumor, now seeing the light shining in.
ReplyDeleteLots of rumors about PVG. And a very good chance 50% or more of the rumors are true. PVG is not an honorable man. Just a couple obvious examples everyone already knows about; the lying to his staff that he is going home sick when he is really going surfing with some gal. Not speculation, he got rescued by the coasties. And then there is the plagiarism upon plagiarism which is dishonesty.
ReplyDeletejust a couple thoughts from the peanut gallery. But Rose is and has been headed in the right direction. Certain people are feeling very uncomfortable because they see it too.
For me the giant red flag was the apparent prominence of the DA investigators. The weirdness that surrounds the DA investigators since the assault team and AR-15 plans is something to watch.
ReplyDeleteTo then find that the DA's wife is involved... you are right, it stinks to high heaven.
7:40: You make a fool of yourself repeating Rose's "surfer gal" rumour. Gallegos was injured in a surfing accident and rescued by the Coast Guard. But that's the end of the story: there was no "surfer gal," the friend who was surfing with him was Micheal Shellenberger. He wasn't "out sick" or "playing hooky" either. These are just fabrications that make the surfing accident story into fodder for Rose's little hate-in.
ReplyDeleteBut don't take my word for it, give the Chief of Police of Trinidad a call. He destroyed the "surfer gal" rumour long ago when he stated publicly that it was false. Or do you think the Trinidad Police Chief is lying to people about the incident?
The fact that Rose has to bring up these sorts of old, thoroughly disproven rumours shows how weak her overall case about Gallegos really it. It's about 20 parts spin to every 1 part fact, with another 10 parts pure fabrication throw in. The "surfer gal" rumour is a good example of the latter.
If you only realized how you are playing right into it 6:41 - LOL - you'd probably stop.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing that stinks to high heaven are the rotting carcasses that used to be the brains of the pack of tunnel-vision-afflicted morons who are more concerned with trying to discredit the DA that they are so obsessed with that they are prepared to slander, spin, sling rumours and generally pollute the body politic with their putrid bile.
ReplyDeleteSince you appear to be close to him - why don't you ask him why he is afraid to release the CAST agendas and attendance records.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that you think your sick rumour-mongering is a game, or something to laugh about, shows the advanced state of your moral decay all too clearly.
ReplyDeleteOr maybe just maybe it goes like this;
ReplyDeleteEx wife is pissed at police chief husband. Ex wife hires DA’s lawyer wife. Ex wife tells DA’s lawyer wife that police chief’s wife is being sexually assaulted (every night?). DA’s lawyer wife tells DA that police chief is sexually assaulting wife. DA asks “how do you know?” DA’s lawyer wife says “pissed off ex wife told me.” DA says “oh. I’ll have him arrested tomorrow.” DA’s wife says “Ok.”
Is this what you are insinuating Rose et al.
That's clearly what they are insinuating, they just don't have any evidence to back it up, so expect continued insinuations and rumours. Apparently that's all they've got.
ReplyDeleteLet me repeat it again - s-l-o-w-l-y
ReplyDelete1. Wait for the thing to be tried in court.
2, And this is a biggie - the DA has an inherent conflict of interest in this case. No ifs ands or buts about it. If even you can envision that scenario, then there are dozens of other possibilities. Would he risk the case being tossed on appeal if he managed to win it?
At most a "perceived" conflict of interest.
ReplyDeleteIt would be fine with me if Gallegos recused himself from the case, and its certainly the easiest path if he wants to take it, but I doubt recusal going to is going to be required as a matter of law.