Monday, February 11, 2008

On Gundersen and RUMORS - 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

****

Lotta speculation on the blogs following the articles on his arrest...
An anonymous comment on the TS site offers the following:
Bothered to Check said
Commenters keep bringing up that Gundersen was arrested before, which would be public record, but then acting like it's too much of a secret to give us any details. So I looked for myself. Many commenters also assume that the newspapers have the whole story and are correct in their reporting. Having been in the newspapers many times, I wouldn't assume either to be the case. Why not wait until the facts come out. If he's guilty, lock him up for the rest of his life. If he's not, then Gallegos has some explaining to do. Here's some info on the "mysterious" arrest of Gundersen at his old police job: The following article describes the events that took place in that case and notes the resolution: http://www.porac.org/ldf/articles/february%201%201998.html

It's quite a story. The article Bothered to Check links to describes in detail the events that took place and ends with this statement:
Gundersen's attorney then applied to the city and the District Attorney's Office for a determination of factual innocence, which was granted and favorably acted upon by the Department of Justice. The terms of Gundersen's settlement agreement are, for the most part, confidential.

However, he is permitted to reveal to prospective employers certain documents which demonstrate that he did nothing wrong, in addition to being able to establish that he was factually innocent of criminal wrong-doing. In addition, Gundersen received a six figure settlement for back wages and to end the pending litigation.

Now - a finding of factual innocence is a big deal.

Today's coverage in the Times-Standard has an update to their previous story, but yesterday's story links are dead, maybe it is a glitch. (Note: TS link has changed and I have updated the post below) DA: Allegations stem back a couple years, may have been continual occurrence

Something odd here?

Then, on "heraldo" - February 11, 2008 at 3:09 pm
truthgiver Says:
After reading the biased and very ignorant rantings of people who are criminals themselves (you know who you are) really makes me sick and sad that you all are so jaded. You people need to look within yourselves, focus on becomming a better person.

One simple observation after reading these comments and seeing how people can not spell “Gundersen’s” name right only exhibits the fact that you people do not pay attention and only believe what you want to. SICK

Stop being ingnorant and speaking off the cuff. NO one has mentioned that Gundersen’s ex-wife is employeed by the Humboldt county Sheriff’s Office and her attorney is Mrs. Gallegos and they are currently in a custody battle, can you say hunting expidition? just like the Grand Jury. NO one has mentioned that his current wife is seeking to drop all charges, although it’s too late now, the DA is running with it now. There is alot more truths to this case, but the foolish ones who post comments and who will post comments don’t want to hear that.


If true - this is serious stuff,

RELATED:
TS DA: Allegations stem back a couple years, may have been continual occurrence
TS Blue Lake police chief arrested for alleged rape
ER Blue Lake Police Chief arrested on suspicion of rape
ER Blue Lake police chief accused of multiple assaults
http://www.porac.org/ldf/articles/february%201%201998.html
UPDATE:
TS No charging decision made in Gundersen case, says DA
District Attorney Paul Gallegos said Monday that his office is investigating allegations of spousal rape made against the Blue Lake police chief that span a couple of years, but no charging decisions have been made.

TS News spreads quickly in sleepy Blue Lake
KMUD Daniel MIntz interview with Gallegos. Click on KMUD Local News, 6:00 pm edition, Monday, February 11, 2008 6:00 pm
"heraldo" Blog - Blue Lake Police Chief Arrested for Rape
TS Attorney: Gundersen claims 'false'
ER Gundersen: No stranger to bumpy roads 2/16/08

69 comments:

  1. I do not know the facts of this case. Only two people know for sure. What I do know is that the "mob" rule radicals trying to run this county are very close to becomming the over the hill version of "Lord of the Flies" It's very sad and VERY SCARY!

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's heady stuff Rose.

    But a POA defense org. is no more unbiased than the cop haters. Maybe the POA advocates use more discretion.

    I've represented a lot of cops over the years. Seen the best and the worst of it.

    Let's let this nasty business play itself out.

    But, however it gets sliced, this IS serious stuff.

    Most interesting is why now, why the DA, why not the local authorities?

    In the fullness....

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have the same questions.

    With regards to the PORAC info, I would agree except for the fact that a finding of factual innocence corroborates what they say, in pretty much no uncertain terms.

    WHo submitted, and who approved the Ramey warrant in this case?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yep...that is also a good question.

    As to the FFI, there is a often a lot of vicarious, political and other liabilities attached.

    Such as when you have a politically driven and ethically challenged elected official moving the case until it hits the brick wall of a good judge....

    But...that doesn't happen around here does it?

    Nevermind.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why were the DA investigators going in before charges were filed? Is that normal? If they went in doesn't that mean the DA knew the charges he was going to file, despite what he told the Times Standard? And what does that do to his immunity?

    As always, more questions, no answers yet.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dog Running at Large2/11/2008 10:06 PM

    Exactly right Rose. In most jurisdictions, DAI's go with police on major cases and get involved AFTER the arrest(s) are made.

    Or they follow up based on incident/arrest reports for the purpose of securing a prosecution and making sure there are no constitutionally troublesome, liabilities in the case.

    The police and the DA's have fundamentally different missions. Almost never do DAI's make an independent arrest unless they happen on the scene.

    I could be wrong about how this one came down but the AR (Arresting Officer) Id in the arrest report should be illucidating.

    Ok I'm creating a name for myself. Getting tired of this anon business.

    Dog

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well, of course Gunderson is legally "innocent until proven guilty" at this point. As far as whether he is *actually* innocent or guilty in this disturbing case, those of us in the general public don't have much information to go on yet. We haven't yet heard from Gunderson or his supporters or attorney.


    One piece of information we do have is that he has been arrested and jailed on $500,000 bond.


    Another thing we know (or should know) is that very few women make false reports of rape, despite the high profile given to the few cases where that occurs.


    It will be interesting to see how the law-and-order crowd reacts to this story: Will it turn out that "order" is more important than "law" to the authoritarian personalities who populate the cops-can-do-no-wrong club?


    Will they circle the wagons and defend the chief, even if the evidence stacks up against him? Will the law enforcement interest groups in Sacramento open up their checkbooks for his defense?


    What will they do if the physical evidence all points to rape, corroborating the victim’s account?


    Perhaps some will fall back on the “socially conservative” idea that there can be no such thing as marital rape, that a husband has a "right" to force himself on his wife? I bet some privately take that position, but most of these won't have the guts to make their revolting views known to the general public.


    Does the fact that the allegations are apparently being made by one cop against another cop neutralize the usual pro-cop bias of the law-and-order crowd, or does the Chief get more of a presumption that he is telling the truth because he is a man? Or because he is higher-ranking in the law enforcement hierarchy?


    Perhaps they can somehow blame the whole thing on District Attorney Paul Gallegos?


    Watch for the whiplash effect, as the "lawnorderers" turn from, on the one hand, defending police chiefs accused of serious crimes on the basis that they are "innocent until proven guilty" to, on the other hand, smearing in the press the victims of recent police killings, and defending those killings as "just" despite the lack of any due process at all for the victims of the police violence.


    Wow those necks must be getting sore! Or perhaps some of you lawnorderers have actually evolved two faces to avoid the hypocritical whiplash effect?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Annon 10:28 you may just be off base but your opinion is crap. Law and order types won't let a rapist off or convict a cop just because you hate him. We will let the facts lead and our just decessions will follow. Your corrupt paint brush paints a very dirty picture.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 10:28, you used the name Lawn Order on the Times-Standard's site comments. Don't worry, they haven't gone unnoticed. I included them on the post on the ARTICLES side of this blog.

    Nobody set out to blame Gallegos.

    Just asking questions, and in light of that PORAC report, a good idea to ask questions.

    This story gets stranger by the day. And if there is any truth to the comment posted on heraldo's blog, LOTS more SERIOUS questions to come.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I note that the arrest was made on Friday night before a three day weekend, which means that Mr. Gunderson can be kept in custody until Wednesday before charges are filed. That seems unusual, given that the investigation is not yet complete and that the DA doesn't even know what charges, if any, are to be filed. I don't think it is unusual for the DAIs to conduct an investigation when there's a conflict - here you have a victim who works for the SO and a suspect with another local agency - so I don't read much into that.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Further, after reading the coverage of PVG's press conference in today's TS and ER, there is a quailty here which I can only characaterize as half-assed. I can't tell from the media coverage but as no charges have been filed I presume he was arrested on PC,. not an arrest warrant. The DAI got involved on Friday morning after a call from the SO? So there was virtually no investigation by an independent agency (the victim works for SO) prior to the arrest? The warrant wasn't served until after the arrest? What's the rush here, given that these allegations encompass behavior that goes back several years - is there some evidence that it was an ongoing situation? If not, the timing of the arerest just seems odd. Maybe Mr. Gunderson is a jerk and a lousy cop, I don't know, maybe there are reasonable explanations for all of this, but at this point it just seems, at best, half-assed.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ok, I'm confused. The paper now says the DA says that this "might have been ongoing" and "no charging decisions have been made". If, and that's a big if, the paper has it right, the DA does not know what he's got? Against a police chief, where the victim is a police officer? There should be a taped statement by the victim, perhaps some taped conversations between the victim and the defendant, possibly medical records and other records showing dates and times. If DA INVESTIGATORS, as opposed to
    "on the scene" cops make an arrest, there has, in theory,
    been and INVESTIGATION. Which is supposed to tell the DA WHAT TO CHARGE. Anyway, let's see what develops before jumping to any conclusions about anyone. At this point, it only seems that the papers have done a lousy job reporting.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Keep on grasping at those straws, folks...

    ...I'm sure you'll find some way to blame Gallegos for the situation!

    ReplyDelete
  14. From today's Eureka Reporter:


    "The alleged victim reported to the HCSO Friday that the alleged spousal rape had been occurring for a couple of years, Gallegos said."


    So you kooks are speculating that perhaps victim lying -- in order to benefit the ex-wife and her attorney, Joa Gallegos?


    Its funny how you whine about rumours and people "smearing" Gugderson, then turn right around and propagate bizarre and nonsensical rumours attempting to smear the alleged victim, the ex-wife, Joan Gallegos, and of course Paul Gallegos.


    Its getting harder and harder to take you Gallegos-haters seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  15. All anyone is saying is that you cannot make any assumptions here.

    And that there are questions that need to be answered.

    ReplyDelete
  16. As long as it's only a rumor that Gundersen's wife is being represented by Joan Gallegos, any further talk about it is only hot air. It should be easy to verify through court records (I'll leave that to somebody else).

    If there is a custody battle, regardless of whether or not Joan Gallegos is involved, it puts the whole affair in a suspicious light. Few things are more common than false allegations of violence or sexual abuse during divorce and custody proceedings. Given that the DA's office does not have sufficient confidence in the evidence to make a charging decision, they apparently acted with undue haste in arresting Gundersen. The DA's move looks pretty sloppy at the very least.

    ReplyDelete
  17. And for the PVG apologists, any arrest of a cop is a good arrest. And this may be a good arrest. It's just that if you are the DA, and you are going to talk about a case in public (actually not always a good idea, but hard to resist) it seems a little
    odd to say "Well, we arrested him and locked him up, but we're not sure what we've got and haven't decided to charge him with anything yet". That's just a silly thing to say. Of course some charging decisions have been made-- he was arrested by DA
    investigators and charged with specific penal code violations.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Rose: "All anyone is saying is that you cannot make any assumptions here."


    Backpedaling now doesn't get you off the hook, but it's still the right thing to do.


    As far as assumptions go, it seems to me that you are assuming a lot: for one thing you are assuming that if Joan Gallegos represents Gunderson's ex-wife (in a seperate civil case), that somehow that has some bearing on the rape charges. (That's a pretty big jump for someone who is so dead set against making assumptions). If not what was the point of reprinting the "heraldo/truthgiver" comments so prominently on this blog?


    And its funny how your "questions that need to be answered" are all focused on the victim, the ex-wife, the DA's wife, and the D.A.


    The fact that you can't see or ackowledge your own bias in anything involving Gallegos and local police only makes that bias more transparent to the rest of us.


    Face it, you are obsessed with all things Gallegos, and also biased in favor of local police (who you seem to view as hapless vctims of his tyrannical rule).


    It's no wonder so many rape victims are afraid to come forward, when self-serving, self-appointed pundits like you, Rose, are waiting there to re-victimize them as you thoughtlessly insinuate that they are lying, or are being manipulated by others.


    Like everyone else, I'll have to wait and watch how this plays out. If the victim is telling the truth, as I strongly suspect, I'll be watching for the apologies you owe the victim, the ex-wife, and the DA's wife (I know you won't have the class to apologize to the D.A.).

    ReplyDelete
  19. -------------------
    anonymous 10:47am said:

    "If there is a custody battle, regardless of whether or not Joan Gallegos is involved, it puts the whole affair in a suspicious light. Few things are more common than false allegations of violence or sexual abuse during divorce and custody proceedings. Given that the DA's office does not have sufficient confidence in the evidence to make a charging decision, they apparently acted with undue haste in arresting Gundersen. The DA's move looks pretty sloppy at the very least."
    ---------------------


    Really now? You really think that's gonna fly?


    Even though the woman making the rape charges is the current wife, whereas the ex-wife is the one trying to get custody?


    So the current wife and alleged rape victim is lying to help her husband's ex-wife win a custody battle? That's a pretty weird theory, especially based on zero evidence. Good thing you're not the DA.


    Perhaps you acted with "undue haste" in advancing your blame-the-victim theory?


    Your reasoning is pretty sloppy at the very least.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Now now Rosita! You knew your paranoid delusions would get the better of you at some point darling! Paul is not the boogie man around every corner. And you are not Sherlock, always one step ahead of Moriarty. What you are is simply paranoid, nasty and delusional.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Rose, it is always apparent when you hit a nerve. The personal attacks are what you might call a clue. Seems even PVG's supporters have noticed that this has all the earmarks of another monumental cluster.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Here's the thing, 1:01. By your reasoning, no one is supposed to ask any questions. But it is ok for the smear comments to stand uncorrected.

    By your reasoning it is ok for people to post comments (maybe it was you) on the Times Standard's site, saying that this man was ARRESTED before in his other town, implying that he is a guilty man with a history of corruption, WITHOUT adding the resolution or the facts that led to his being FOUND FACTUALLY INNOCENT in that case.

    By your reasoning to point out that there is more to that story and that the facts do not match "your" allegations is wrong.

    What I am saying is that finding out what the facts are before jumping is important. Too late, now that there are articles saying how everyone in town hates him, and specualtion about what is on his computer.

    AND I used the anonymous statement from "Heraldo"s comments as an example of questions that need to be answered. ASKED and answered. They come from all sides, dear.

    THEN, the facts should come out in a court of LAW, NOT in the paper, smearing everyone along the way.

    I am also on record as saying that I believe that the news media is going down a dangerous road allowing anonymous comments on their sites. They should, in my opinion, require the same standards for comments as they do for letters to the editor - that is verification of identity - name and town, and a phone number to verify the person. That is because they are a record of our time and factual information is vitally important.

    There are MANY rumors about Mr. Gallegos - and his wife - that I never post. For example - the allegations that he was not surfing with his "college buddy Michael Shellenberger" as claimed but rather with a female companion whose name I will not put here. I do not have proof of that therefore i do not post it. There are other comments that he was in arrears with the IRS and put on a payment plan - I do not post those things because I do not have documentation to back them up. They are unsubstantiated rumors. Those are only TWO examples out of many.

    So do not lecture me about RUMORS - it is your side that has stock in that trade, and proof of that exists.

    With regards to this situation, I say again, people need to wait until the facts are in. AND it is fair to raise questions about an arrest that appears to have been conducted in an abnormal manner.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Rosalina, if youre everything good and sweet in the world, why don't you extend the same courtesy to Mr. Gallegos as you extend Mr. Gunderson. And no, I couldnt care less about this case and am not posting on other boards about it. And rumors about the past are just that. Rumors. They didn't factor into this arrest. Duh, Rose. What I find troubling is you seem to find fault with anything and everything that PG does. You can't seem to choose which line of bullshit to feed your eager readers; Is Paul a mastermind, or a dunce? Is the DA's office full of tools, or are they as out of control as he? Your attacks are so wide ranging and bizarre that you discredit yourself. But you sure know how to hedge your bets. Anyone who is curious simply should just look in Roses own records of past posts that have now played out, and how hysterical and quite frankly, unstable, she is.

    Rose in summary:

    1.) Paranoid

    2.) Nasty

    3.) Delusional

    Any questions?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Also Rose, it's pretty tacky and juvenile of you to say basically "I don't post rumors, and heres an example of a rumor I don't post...(And then you post the rumor)" Youre talking about someones father. You should know better Rose. But you don't. And your readers should be made aware of that. What you posted is simply none of your business but you also know it is patently false Rose.

    1.) Paranoid

    2.) NASTY

    3.) Delusional

    ReplyDelete
  25. Welcome, back, Missy. Why don't you post with your name?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Why don't you stop spreading rumors and innuendo?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Au contraire, m'dear. It is the express purpose of this blog to post the facts, as opposed to the spin.

    You had your run. Lying to the media only lasts so long, sooner or later the truth comes out.

    Because it is a blog, it also involves discussion, such as the discussion about the rumors that have been circulating in the community.

    I think you are upset because Red at 1:16 is right "this has all the earmarks of another monumental cluster."

    ReplyDelete
  28. 1.) Paranoid

    2.) Nasty

    3.) Delusional

    ReplyDelete
  29. the rumour of the "surfing buddy" is well known around the community.....id say its more fact than rumour at this point....


    personally, this reminds me of bill clinton and monica.....i could care less what people do with their penises as long as its legal....if i had a powerful position like that, im sure that id have a whole slew of "surfing buddies".....j/k

    ReplyDelete
  30. Rumor is Gallegos also surfs with male 'companions' from time to time. He also has a bust of Lincoln in his office, and we all know the rumors about him!

    ReplyDelete
  31. He wasn't surfing, he was home nursing a headache.

    ReplyDelete
  32. he was surfing when he got caught on a rock with a large cut on his leg. his surfing buddy that day was reportedly a female other than his wife...

    as to the comment about male companions,guys surf together all the time, so what? are you claiming that the DA is bi?
    now thats one i hadnt heard before now...not that it would matter much to me......whatever floats your boat...

    most people have no trouble whatsoever with bi ladies, but the thought of a bi gy repulses them....funny

    ReplyDelete
  33. Well are you claiming that just because a guy and a girl surf together (A rumor in this case) that they must be fucking? Sounds just as stupid as saying PG is gay.

    ReplyDelete
  34. the fact that they surfed together is a fact..the fucking part is rumour.....what i had heard is that the DA's wife had told him to stay away from the surfing buddy beforehand and he hung out with her anyways.......getting stuck on a rock with a cut leg makes it kinda hard to hide a secret meeting.......

    ReplyDelete
  35. So you guys insist that the 'alleged' part be put in the Gundersen drugging and rape story (Which I agree with). But with Gallegos it's no holds barred mud slinging?? You guys are sooo fucked in the head! Only on WatchPaul will you get this kind of story being tuned into political hardball against a man never accused of raping anyone. Get a life losers! You've lost 3 elections, get over it!

    ReplyDelete
  36. no one is making any claims agasint paul, those stories are old news......the difference here is that gunderson's case is planted all over the front of the newspapers, thus making it a puclic story....there were no stories in the paper claiming that paul was cheating on his wife....

    extramarital relations are not against the law, rape is.......

    paul has to explain it to his wife, gunderson has to explain it to a judge and jury....

    seems like putting this stroy on the front page is bound to cause problems, especially given the fact that the DA doesnt even know whom was raped....

    ReplyDelete
  37. In that vein, fyi - more info in TS breaking news section Attorney: Gundersen claims 'false'
    The Times-Standard 2/12/2008 04:05:29 PM PST

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  38. so......the DA isnt even positive as to whom was raped....great...

    ReplyDelete
  39. There's a sitcom in here somewhere. Stranger by the minute.

    Be interesting to see what tomorrow brings.

    ReplyDelete
  40. You must have read that differently than I did, Theo. It states quite clearly that he believes Gundersen's wife is the victim and that she reported it and talked to investigators in recent days. Do you think him saying he BELIEVES the victim is the wife means that he doesn't know? Come on now!

    ReplyDelete
  41. You guys are aware that the Sheriff's department was the responding agency, right? You guys are aware no charges have been filed as of right now, right? Do you guys know what that means? Where is the watchgary website then?

    ReplyDelete
  42. No. We're not. None of the news reports so far has given any info. That's WHY we're waiting for the arraignment tomorrow, to see if there is any clarification.

    I don't think the Sheriff would have gone in unless they had been assured that the DA was going to file charges. Therefore, it is fair to assume he knows full well what he is going to charge. Saying he didn't know is what has led to the speculation.

    ReplyDelete
  43. speeaking of times standard coments
    A business woman in Old Town confided in me that the attorney that represented my ex advised her to file false charges against her estranged husband to get a restraining order against him because that would give her custody of their children. And then charge that the estranged husband was stalking her and had violated the restrinaing order and that would land him in jail.
    She promptly up and left but there are many women with an axe to grind that have taken this attorney up on her advice.
    Who is this attorney?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Don't you know the name of the attorney who represented your ex? Here's a clue, it will be on your divorce papers. Your inuendo is duly noted.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Rose,
    Forgive me for saying this, but this entire thread has the makings of a dark comedy. I don't know if it's because I'm so far removed from the characters & situation or if I'm extra tired, but I started giggling a little less than half-way through it & I know the subject matter is NOT funny.

    Remember a movie from the '80s called "Blue Velvet" about S&M & corruption buried under the facade of small town Americana? Or a '90s TV show called "Twin Peaks" where nothing was as it appeared to be & nobody was as wholesome as they wanted us to believe they were? If the writers were still on strike you could probably sell this as an outline for a series to one of the networks!

    And, 12:16, Anonymous 11:31 knows who the attorney is. He wants to know if YOU know who the attorney is. (Clue: She's married to your DA.) Jeez! Get in the game!

    ReplyDelete
  46. Yes, I caught that, Robin. Look up inuendo in the dictionary for Khrist sake. He is too cowardly to come right out with his libel.

    ReplyDelete
  47. 2/11/2008 10:28 PM said:

    "Wow those necks must be getting sore! Or perhaps some of you lawnorderers have actually evolved two faces to avoid the hypocritical whiplash effect?"

    You must be wearing a neck brace 10:28. "Justice for all!" You can't even seem to embrace the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

    This case sure took the dialogue away from the failed PALCO case in a hurry....

    ReplyDelete
  48. One "anonymous" calling another "anonymous" a coward... it just keeps getting funnier!
    (Catch the "inuendo" in that,8:47?!)

    ReplyDelete
  49. Well, look at the bright side for the prosecutor. If it turns out that the whole thing was stitched together by the ex, and that the current wife is saying no rape, the ex can be charged with making a false report. Of course, if in fact the cops never checked with the alleged victim, and arrested a person anyway, charging the person who made the original report won't be much of a salve to the giant honking civil rights suit for
    incredibly negligent false and stupid arrest.
    This should resolve today. Either the current wife shows up at arraignment and says what Clanton says she will say, or not. If Clanton starts tap dancing, well,
    sit back and enjoy the show.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Robin, I don't think 11:31 implied any specific lawyer couseling for false accusations. I think it was meant as an example of what unscrupulous divorce lawyers are willing to do to husbands. Unfortunately, the sexist system of family law brings no accountability or consequence to those who bring false accusations into the court.

    ReplyDelete
  51. ------------------------
    Rose said: "There are MANY rumors about Mr. Gallegos - and his wife - that I never post. For example - the allegations that he was not surfing with his "college buddy Michael Shellenberger" as claimed but rather with a female companion whose name I will not put here. I do not have proof of that therefore i do not post it....I do not post those things because I do not have documentation to back them up. They are unsubstantiated rumors."

    -----------------------


    So you re-posted this old, tired, thoroughly discredited rumour as a way of proving that you don't post rumours?


    By the way, you could easily confirm the falsehood of this rumour: the Chief of Police of Trinidad and other law enforcement agents who were on the scene have long ago confirmed that the surfing buddy was indeed Michael Shellenberger.


    So where did this "surfing with the other woman" rumour come from? It turns out that a not-too-bright a.m. radio host from Fortuna is credited with getting that one started. When asked where he got the information, his answer was "from the rumour-mill."


    Oh, but Rose knows all this (or remains intentionally ignorant, despite how simple it would be to get the facts) but continues to spread the rumour anyway, even as she hypocritcally lectures against rumour-mongering.


    You are one hurtin' unit, Rosie. Seek help now, before you degrade yourself even further.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Radio disc jockey? Never heard that. The "rumor" was in fact, immediate. Within minutes probably, of the Coast Guard rescue. The name of the woman was included.

    Salzman went into full protective mode.

    At the time, I had nothing against Gallegos. My comment to Richard was "He's facing a recall and he's out surfing on a Friday when he should be at work?! What is he thinking!"

    ReplyDelete
  53. Just as I thought...Rose won't bother to check on the facts, she'd rather continue her vile rumour-mongering.


    Rose, it would take all of two minutes for you to ask the Trinidid Police Chief who the "surfing buddy" was.

    ReplyDelete
  54. ------------------------------

    Rose said: "The "rumor" was in fact, immediate. Within minutes probably, of the Coast Guard rescue. The name of the woman was included."


    Earlier she said: "I do not have proof of that therefore i do not post it....I do not post those things because I do not have documentation to back them up. They are unsubstantiated rumors."

    -------------------


    Rose, when you started this rag of a blog there was a rumour that you like to have anal sex with barnyard animals. The rumour was in fact, immediate. Within minutes probably, of the founding of this blog. The name of the swine was included. I do not have proof of that therefore I do not post it....I do not post those things because I do not have documentation to back them up. They are unsubstantiated rumors.

    ReplyDelete
  55. You keep on trying 9:54.

    The one rumor which got you all riled up earlier has now been confirmed as true.

    The Times Standard's report this morning that Gundersen's ex-wife, who works for the Humboldt County Sheriffs Office as a legal office assistant, is represented by Arcata attorney Joan Gallegos, the wife of Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos. Attorney Christopher Metzger represents Gundersen in that matter.

    TS Gundersen custody battle goes back 10 years
    TS Gundersen hit with 12 counts of rape

    ReplyDelete
  56. Rose said "The one rumor which got you all riled up earlier has now been confirmed as true."

    ------------------------------


    Oh, O.K., now rumours are fine as long as the rumour turns out to be true? Well then I guess you won't mind the rumours about Gunderson as long as they later turn out to be true?


    By the way, I have no problem with that position, myself, so long as we are going to be consistent. After all, spreading a "rumour" that turns out to be true is also known as "getting the truth out there."


    Since it is apparently true that the D.A.'s wife IS Gunderson's ex-wife's attorney, I have no real beef with the fact that people posted this info several days ago. They "got the truth out there" on that particular fact(albeit in a snide kind of way, where they also attached some innuendo and unwarranted conclusions to the raw data).


    Meanwhile, your sleazy rumour-mongering about Gallegos and his surfing accident is in the complete opposite direction -- a false rumour, and one who's falsehood can be easily confirmed by just a few phone calls. Make those calls, Rose, or give up on the surfing accident rumour. That kind of mudslinging is beneath contempt; it suggests either an advanced case of cynicism (as in the ends justify the means) and/or acute intellectual laziness.

    So on to the real point: O.K., so the D.A.'s wife is Gunderson's ex-wife's attorney...and that proves WHAT?


    This is where the accurate part of the rumours leave off, and the jumping to conclusions seems to start for many of you folks.


    Look back at the original posts from those who supplied the info that the D.A.'s wife is Gunderson's ex-wife's attorney, and you'll see that they try to make that fact into some kind of evidence that the crime didn't take place, or that Gunderdon is being unfairly targeted.


    I call bullshit on that argument.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Well, it is nice to see you being a little more reasonable, 3:33. But still missing the point.

    (Incidentally, you never asked, you just assumed that I am defending someone -a man I know nothing about, have never met - you never asked, but my opinion is, IF he is shown to be, and found to be guilty in a court of law, then he should suffer the consequences.)

    ReplyDelete
  58. One more thing, though - the 'rumors' alluded to above re" Gundersen's prior arrest were in fact NOT TRUE. That was the point of this whole entire discussion.

    That is entirely different from the CHARGES.

    Do you understand the distinction?

    ReplyDelete
  59. This whole discussion of the surfing accident rumor is a good example of how radically a point can be twisted by people whose sole aim is to discredit someone. The original point was that it was an example of a rumor deemed by the blogger to not bear repeating. Then some rabid folks twisted that into a statement that the rumor was seen to have merit. Nobody said any such thing.

    ReplyDelete
  60. I don't care one whit about Gallegos' personal life. It's up to his wife to deal with him on that one, just like Bill and Hillary.

    I don't really know why you are coming back again and again on that point, You are far better off to let it drop.

    One reason for that is there are many many people who see certain scenarios unfold. You never know who they are, or who they have talked to, or what was said to them, or what it might take for them to come forward.

    The problem with Gallegos is not whether he cooks a mean steak at a bbq. It is whether or not he is doing a good job running the DA's Office. He hasn't been. He isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  61. I stand by my 3:33 comments, which stand unrefuted. Do you disagree with these points? If so, how so? Try to be specific.


    I don't much care about the long-ago theft charges, I didn't make those accusations and I didn't take them seriously when I read them. The individuals spreading those rumours showed a low level of ethical integrity by repeating disproved allegations, which you matched with your own dive into the gutter of false rumours.


    What I do care about is whether an alleged serial rapist gets a fair trial, and, if convicted, gets the same long sentence and harsh treatment as any other serial rapist, despite his role as a Police Chief.


    From what we have seen so far, the DA appears to interested in the same, despite all the huffing and puffing about the DAs wife, the DA's alleged anti-police bias, blah, blah, blah.


    Rose, this will go where the facts take it, no matter how hard you try to twist it around into more fodder for your little hate-in.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Hey 6:20 - what about the rights of the alleged victim. In all other counties, if she doesn't want the thing to go forward, that choice controls everything. From what I see this is not being treated in the same manner as other cases.

    That is more than troubling.

    ReplyDelete
  63. 6:20, the falsity of your comments about the blogger's intentions in mentioning the surfing incident rumor (which she NEVER said she agreed with) is obvious to anyone who reads this thread carefully. No further refutation is necessary. You are obviously someone who can only argue by distorting what others say. There is no point to getting involved in an infinite thread that is no longer about the topic, but about one poster's distortions of it.

    The involvement of the DA's wife as the attorney in the custody dispute where the rape allegations originated raises some very serious issues. It's almost comical when people try to deny that.

    ReplyDelete
  64. It is impossible to comprehend the stress a victim goes through when their spouse/partner/lover commits a serious offense against them. There is anger, confusion, betrayal, waffling, even co-dependency issues that are a quagmire to sort out. My heart goes out to the victim(s). Add to that the difficulty for a peace officer to be certain that the victim is willing to follow through on pressing charges, once a police report has been made, and the true ramifications have settled in. I have been there, done that, even received the threatening call the jail phone. Until you have walked a mile in their shoes,.....please reserve your judgement.

    ReplyDelete
  65. 9:22 Who died and made you God. People can comment on other's comments all they like. Rose made an ass of herself by repeating false rumours while simultaneously complaining about others doing exactly the same. What's distorted is your sense of self-importance. Get over yourself, pal, and maybe you'll be worth conversing with.

    ReplyDelete
  66. This is for you 7:04 -
    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.”

    ER Jane Doe “felt coerced” into making statements
    For more: ER Gundersen's hearing transcripts

    Note the dates of your comments and the dates of those articles, from coverage of the hearing.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Joan Gallegos represented the former Mrs. Gundersen until February 2008 according to the clerks in the Family Law division in the Eureka courthouse. I asked them.

    This does seem to present an appearance of impropriety by Mr. Gallegos. It makes it look like he's running the DA's office for the convenience of his wife and her clients. That is unseemly if not illegal.

    ReplyDelete
  68. The following press release from his office shows that Gallegos has heard of the concepts of conflict of interest and "appearance of impropriety" and is willing to refer cases to the AG when it suits his convenience.


    NEWS RELEASE
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    October 25, 2007
    CONTACT: Assistant District Attorney, Wes Keat
    PHONE: (707)268-2554
    DISTRICT ATTORNEY FORWARDS INVESTIGATION TO ATTORNEY
    GENERAL’S OFFICE
    District Attorney, Paul Gallegos, made public his decision to forward the investigation into the allegations involving Robert Arkley and City Council member, Larry Glass to the California Attorney General’s office stating that “It is important that the Attorney General’s Office review the matter to determine whether the decision on whether to file criminal charges should be made
    by the Attorney’s General Office instead of ours.” He added further, “I was present that evening, was interviewed as a witness and have had or have a personal relationship with the involved parties and several witnesses. I have some concern that, even if I could decide the matter fairly and impartially without bias for or against any party, any decision I made would have an overwhelming appearance of an impropriety and have communicated that to the Attorney General’s Office. If the Attorney General’s Office determines that, despite the presence of these issues, it is appropriate for my office to decide this matter, I will review it for the possibility of filing criminal charges.” In a criminal action, a defendant may move to recuse or disqualify the prosecutor on the ground of a conflict of interest that would make it unlikely that the defendant would receive a fair trial. This is done by showing circumstances that demonstrate a “reasonable possibility that the District Attorney’s Office may not exercise its discretionary function in an evenhanded manner”. The defendant must then show that the conflict is “so grave as to render fair treatment of the defendants in all stages of the criminal proceedings unlikely.” The conflict must be caused by factors extraneous to the prosecutor’s official duty. Although both actual and apparent conflicts can form the basis for recusing the prosecution, for a defense motion to recuse the prosecution to be granted, the likelihood that the defendant will not receive a fair trial must be real, not merely apparent.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open. Play nice.