Friday, February 15, 2008

OR denied

ER Police Chief denied release from jail — $500,000 bail stands
TS Judge denies police chief's release

64 comments:

Anonymous said...

According to both papers
The alleged victim confirmed that she attended the hearing to support her husband (ER quote).

So the DA is there saying he's a rapist, and the alleged victim is there saying he's not? PVG might want to read CCP 1219(a) (giving sex crimes victims the right to refuse to testify) and figure out how this train wreck will proceed.

Anonymous said...

Oh he's not going to read anything, silly.

Anonymous said...

The alleged victims feelings don't matter to the "Idiot." She (like all others) is just collateral damage to him. He needed to do something to get some good press and evidently needed to help his wife continue to bilk her clients.

To do this to Gundersens current wife against here wishes is just plain wrong. His callous disregard for her has put her on the front page of all the local papers, put her on all of the blogs and put her on radio and television - to her public humiliation.

what a fucking monster Gallegos is.

what a slap to the case of all potential sexual assault victims.

This has been so mishandled that I can see it having a negative effect on other women thinking about whether or not to report this type of crime. If you can't say no to having to testify and to whether or not you have the strength to withstand all of the publics scrutiny, then many women will simply not report at all.

Gallegos is a callous son of a bitch. The man has no conscience at all.

capdiamont said...

Problem is they are saying he has threatened the victim, while he was in jail. It is hard enough for a victim to come out, let alone with being threatened.

<“One of the reasons we believe he’s a threat is because of his threats to the victim,” Gallegos said, adding that the chief has access to the BLPD firearms.>

mresquan said...

I have a feeling the Paul haters would love to see this nut released and see him go on a rampage and kill some people just so they can all come back and blame Paul for releasing him in the first place.

Anonymous said...

Msresquan once again you are blogging without thinking or maybe just blogging out your backside. It was the judge who decided if Gunderson was to be released, not Gallegos. If by some remote chance Gunderson was released, and like you said went on a rampage then it would be PVG that would say see I told you do.

And I'm not suggesting Gunderson would do such a thing.

Who's the nut mresquan?

Anonymous said...

"Gallegos said recorded phone conversations made while Gundersen was in jail show he was making threats to the victim and discussing possible hiding places with a registered sex offender."

You Gallegos obsessed people only see what you want to believe and don't have the intellectual capacity to understand that no one is always wrong. You don't have the ethics to admit that in this case at least, Gallegos is doing the right thing.

I agree 100% Mresquan. They will claim it was his incompetence in handling the case that resulted in the guy getting off. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

Anonymous said...

Judge Miles said if she reconsidered his bail she would raise it to the court's bail schedule of $715,000 so Clanton withdrew his request. There is no way this man who has been recorded looking for places to hide should be let out on any amount of bail.

Anonymous said...

Unlike 9:34 and mresquan, I will wait to see what he means by "threatening the victim."

I have to because I simply can't believe ANYTHING that Gallegos says. He is a pathological liar.

And I agree with 9:07. If the "victim" doesn't consider herself one, if she doesn't consider any of the remarks as a threat, then how and why is this going on?

Lame attempt at the spin to just ignore this and say that any questions must be attributed to Gallegos haters.

very close minded of you.

Anonymous said...

Why don't try looking at this as if Gundersen was just average Joe Blow rape suspect rather than one of the boys in blue you have such a crush on and imagine Dikeman as the DA bringing the charges,9:42. The VICTIM made the initial report on 2/7. After Gundersen was arrested he made threatening calls to her and called a registered sex offender to discuss hiding places which were recorded. Do those sound like the actions of an innocent man?

Rose said...

I have to agree that nothing he says can be trusted. From Martinez-Hernandez to the plagiarism to the Use of Force Policy... just can't find him believable.

The only way Gallegos can handle this case correctly, given his wife's involvement is to remove himself from the equation.

It's another one for the Attorney General.

Anonymous said...

Gee 9:54 - blogging on county time again?

Seems that you have more information than the press does.

Anonymous said...

His wife isn't involved in this case Rose. The reporting person was the VICTIM, not the ex-wife. In a small community it is not at all unusual for DA's to be called on to handle cases in which someone could INFER a conflict of interest and only the obsessed can see any conflict in this case. What does it matter to Gallegos if his wife's client wins or loses a custoday case? She gets paid either way.

Anonymous said...

and...

btw - if Dikeman did anything like this, it would have changed my opinion of him. But I have never heard of any DA or Deputy DA doing anything like this.

And I am looking like this if Gundersen was just an average Joe. Evidently, you are not.

Even more, I am also looking at Gundersens wife in a manner of all other average "joe" victims. Evidently, 9:54 this concept has not even occured to you.

Anonymous said...

I think ALL rapists should be denied bail and go to prison, even those who are cops and regardless of who the DA is. There are serious allegations here of rape using an illegal drug, threatening the victim and talking to a registered sex offender about places to hide. If that doesn't set off your alarm bells, you might need to change your batteries.

Rose said...

All CONVICTED rapists should go to jail. I agree.

DENYING BAIL means you are not granting the assumption of innocence that is the hallmark of our judicial system.

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

Fred said...

Does anyone know if it still holds true that a wife cannot be compelled to testify against her husband (and vice versa)?

Or was that ever true?

Anonymous said...

Bsil is granted only when there is no flight risk. When you have an accused recorded looking for a place to hide, that is a high flight risk, don't you agree? The judge is who made the decision to not allow him out on his OR, not Gallegos. Do you know more about this case than the judge?

A wife cannot be compelled to testify against her husband. But a husband can be charged for making threats against any witness, even his wife. They have the recordings.

Anonymous said...

Since prisoners can't receive calls but only make them, Gundersen called a registered sex offender from jail and discussed places for fugitives to hide. Why is a police chief calling a registered sex offender from jail to discuss anything? Is this registered sex offender his source for date rape drugs?

Anonymous said...

Let's see, they have the recording of the wife making the complaint, the recording of him threatening her from jail, the recording of him discussing hiding places with a registered sex offender, and drugs and other evidence found in his home with a search warrant.

Sounds perfectly innocent to me. What is wrong with Gallegos to think he has a case?

Anonymous said...

Either someone is blogging from the DA’s office with information that is not yet public or Gallegos has a fan that is blogging with information given unlawfully to him or her.

I am not supporting any rapist here. I am deeply troubled by what seems to be a flagrant disregard for the rights of the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator.

And exactly how are you going to make a foundation regarding who was on the other end of a phone call without the witness? Just a question.

I agree that the judge should not have reduced the bail and that he remain in custody. Alleged rapists should NEVER be OR’d. What I am having a difficult time with is that he should not be in custody at all if the alleged victim won’t prosecute.

Rose said...

Considering him a flight risk or a threat to the victim or the public is a legitimate reason to deny OR, or deny bail altogether. No question there.

Anonymous said...

Everything I have posted is available in the local news. READ IT!

Anonymous said...

Phone calls from the jail are recorded including the number called. How do you think they knew he called a registered sex offender? Voice identification is an easy process.

Anonymous said...

may I repeat 10:54 and 11;21 -

"Either someone is blogging from the DA’s office with information that is not yet public or Gallegos has a fan that is blogging with information given unlawfully to him or her."

Now stop it and go back to work and earn your keep!

We have all read what is in the two papers!

I hope you are not a lawyer though (that is 10:54 and 11:21) your knowledge regarding privileges is pretty screwed up.

Anonymous said...

Exactly which of my claims are you saying weren't in the papers? I can provide newspaper accounts of everything I have posted.

Which privileges would those be?

red said...

Fred, look at Evidence code section 970 et. seq. Basically there is a privilege with some exceptions. One exception is in 972(e)(1) - crime committed against spouse. On the facts alleged here there is no privilege.

Rose, once there is probable cause for arrest the rules change a bit. Apparently there was a warrant issued which means a judge signed off on the PC. When someone is charged with serious or violent felonies (i.e. strikes) then bail has to be in the bail schedule amount, absent unusual circumstances. For the purposes of setting bail the judge presumes the charges are true. That is what Judge Miles meant when she said she would have to raise bail to $750K, that is apparently the schedule amount (PC 1270.1). Judge Miles is following the law.

10:56 (and others) what we have is PVG saying he has an audio. PVG's credibility is diminished by some of the whacky shenanigans he's pulled in the past, as far as I am concerned. I presume that there is some audio, not even PVG would make that up. Question is, is his interpretation of the contents accurate? Reasonable? What's the context? Who are the parties involved? Lots of questions have to be answered before bottom is reached.

11:08 has an excellent point - even if you have a tape, does the jury get to hear it?

Anonymous said...

Oh good god...

provide all links to every fact you posted.

What privileges you ask? Really?

Please answer the question of how any sexual assault is going to be proved without the victim testifying?

Anonymous said...

oh and also, why would you force her into a situation that she would be humiliated in against her will?

Is your hatred so great, that her rights should be ignored? Really? How progressive!

Anonymous said...

This is not the first time he has been accused of this crime. Given his position of authority, this is very serious.

Everything I have stated has been reported in the news, most of which in today's T-S article. If you would be specific as to which of my claims had to be privileged information, I will be happy to provide the source.

I have no hatred of Gundersen, don't know him, never had any contact with him, don't live in his town. I hate rapists, don't you? I want them in jail until convicted and in prison for the rest of their lives. This case goes beyond an accusation of rape and there is massive evidence that he is guilty. I can have and voice an opinion on that. There is no presumption of innocence in the public at large, just in the courtroom.

Rose said...

To recap the last couple of threads - what we all seem to agree on:

1. Let the facts and the evidence come out in court. If he is guilty he should go to jail.

2. When you mention Gundersen's previous arrest for "stolen cars in his backyard," make sure you include the fact that that case was thrown out, that Gundersen was found to be FACTUALLY INNOCENT IN THAT CASE, and that he won a substantial settlement as a result of the false charges.

3. Gallegos should recuse himself, and probably his office, from this case because of his wife's involvement in the custody battle with the ex-wife, since she appears to be involved in this case.

4. There are more questions than answers at this point.

Anonymous said...

There is no conflict here. You won't address the fact that whether or not his ex-wife wins the custody battle is not an issue for Gallegos. He isn't winning or losing anything. His wife gets paid regardless.

Anonymous said...

I didn't reference Gundersen's previous arrest, just the previous accusations of him committing this same crime against his ex-wife. Certainly relevant.

Anonymous said...

Can you really believe anything his ex-wife said during a custody battle over the kids? Come on everybody lies on disputed custody cases.

Anonymous said...

Nice one Rose, trying to sneak number 3 in. How about this one:

5. Rose is a reactionary who prides herself in not spreading rumors while she spreads personal rumors about Mr. Gallegos that she knows are false. In other words, you cannot trust a word of what she says. And this case is going to be the one where she trips up big time. In fact she already has.

Anonymous said...

By your reasoning, 12:20, any victim who made an accusation against someone would not be allowed to testify on behalf of another victim. She is his ex-wife for a reason and made the same complaints his current wife has made. It is not uncommon for a sexual predator to use the same methods over and over again, in fact is usually the case. His ex-wife being the client of Gallegos' wife has no bearing on this case whatsoever. This isn't a custody case, it is a criminal case with lots of unfavorable evidence already public for Mr. Gundersen including his recorded phone threats, drugs found, and discussion about a place to hide. That you would defend a man like this, unless you are his attorney, shows you care nothing about crime but only vindictiveness against the DA. Btw, were you falsely accused of something during a custody battle or do the false accusing? You seem to have some serious personal issues going on here. Most people who get divorced don't have big custody battles in which they lie. Most people reach an agreement for custody in the best interest of their children. If you knew your ex was a sexual predator from personal experience, would you want that person raising your children or would you fight to the end?

Anonymous said...

Once again, the primary role of the comments section is to demonstrate that a lot of people are ignorant of the law and the facts and desperately seeking to display that ignorance.

When a person is in custody, the case has to go to preliminary hearing within 10 days. At that open hearing, the DA has to put on witnesses, and the defense gets to ask questions (and put on witnesses). In a shaky case, the wise prosecutor calls the victim
to, among other things, see if she
will assert her privilege under
1219(a) to refuse to come to court.
If she does come to court, and testifies, the transcript can be used at trial if, at trial, she
refuses to come per 1219. So, be a little patient. If, on the other hand, Clanton waives time and starts tap dancing, well, then, maybe the DA has something here.

Clanton himself would be insane to put the victim on the stand if she is on his side, because then the
DA can get her under oath.

If the victim is on the defense side, the case is over, unless the DA can prove she is staying silent due to fear. In which case he can introduce her recorded statement to police. If he has one.

Anonymous said...

I agree with you 12:19. This will all come out in time. The idea that some on this blog consider people who are concerned about how this case came down are somehow Gundersen supporters bothers me greatly. I certainly hope that what Clanton has to say ISN’T true, because if the his wife didn’t want this then it’s a disgrace. We will see when the preliminary hearing takes place. If the victim doesn’t want to testify, then Gallegos better not keep this going by admitting hearsay at the preliminary hearing under these bizarre circumstances.

And if she does want this to go forward, then more power to her. If he is guilty, then he should fry. I just don’t want this woman victimized by Gallegos if this is against her will.

Anonymous said...

Just shows how deranged you are. A DA who arrests a person you have accused of raping you becomes the victimizer because you may have recanted your claim after you were threatened by the one you accused. You must be one dumb asshole! Rapists should be locked up to protect the rest of society even if the victim doesn't want to testify. This is the second woman to make this claim against him. How many women does he get to rape before you think he should be in prison?

red said...

Well Rose, apparently there is no concensus as to the recusal issue. Eventually a judge will sort it out, I expect. What 12:05 doesn't understand is that a conflict is not necessarily economic. That is, the law recognizes that persons in certain relationships may be influenced by those relationships. The Choi case, for example, involved recusal of the SF DA office because of (among other things) Hallinan's friendship with the victim. I would also note that most attorneys are somewhat competitive by nature - even if JG won't make an extra penny more (and by the way that assertion is supposition, not fact) I bet she'd like to win that case. Old lawyer saying: What's better then saying "fuck you" to your adversary? Having 12 people do it for you.

For what its worth, my opinion, when you are talking about baseless rumours and say "for instance here's a baseless rumour with no facts to back it up" then you are not passing along a baseless rumour. That's different then "Hey I heard that PVG is unkind to ungulates."

Rose said...

Thanks, Red. I have appreciated your insight and input since you first started posting.

Pogo said...

We don't need no steeeenking trial.
To hell with Amendments V, VI & XIV of the U.S. Constitution. After all this is a cop enemy of the people here. Fry the Pig! All Power to the Humboldt Soviet!

Anonymous said...

Wrong again, Red. Hallinan was recused for stating IN THE PRESS that he thought 2 different murders were related, not because of his friendship with one of the victims. And again, it was the TRAN case, not the Choi case. The Choi case involved SF city attorney Herrera. Tran wasn't on trial for killing Natali but for killing a drug lord that Natali represented. Natali was killed 8 minutes later and Hallinan stated he thought they were related.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1998/12/22/MN85464.DTL&hw=Hallinan+Tran+recusal&sn=002&sc=829

"In a highly unusual ruling, a judge has stripped San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan and his office of a murder prosecution because of what he called Hallinan's ``totally inappropriate'' behavior."

"Hallinan first angered Cahill last month when he was quoted in The Chronicle as saying the killings of Tran and lawyer Dennis Natali were probably connected.

"``I believe the same people were involved in both of them, but we haven't been able to prove it,'' Hallinan said at the time."

"``Mr. Hallinan's approach to the court was totally inappropriate under the ethical guidelines (under) which California courts and attorneys operate,'' Cahill said. By trying to run his letter past Cahill without notifying attorneys in the case, the judge said, Hallinan violated ``elementary rules of professional conduct.''

Anonymous said...

Yes I am sure you appreciate Red's input Rose. She repeated the same mistake today that she admitted to yesterday. Short term memory loss?

Rose said...

I assumed Red was a guy. You could be right, though. Red?

Anonymous said...

Did anyone else notice how Judge Miles allowed the alleged rapist's attorney to "speak for" the wife / alleged victim, instead of having her speak for herself (and under oath).


"Miles said she would take Clanton's word for the intent of Gundersen's wife's statement..." (T-S)


So the judge is taking the defense attorney's word as to what the statement of the victim would have been if she had made a statement?


Weird.


And the anti-Gallegos people are worried that the Gunderson is being persecuted and treated unfairly? Seems more like Gunderson's being coddled by the court.


Also, his bail remains at $500,000, whereas the guidelines call for about $715,000? Gallegos apparently didn't ask for bail to be increased. Again, that hardly sounds like Gunderson's being singled out for harsh treatment either...

Anonymous said...

"Miles set an intervention hearing for Feb. 20.." (T-S)


What exactly is an intervention hearing ?

red said...

Actually, I am a hot sixteen year-old cheerleader.

Anonymous said...

How 4ratus for Gags. He has something to take the heat of his grand jury outing on the EPD police managment.

Next week will be an intersting week.

Rose said...

To say the least.

Anonymous said...

It is interesting that the foundation of this blog is the grand jury report critical of Gallegos but the grand jury that indicted the cops is wrong.

Why don't you get a life?

Anonymous said...

Oh 7:11 AM ! Why don't you take a class on reading comprehension? Either that or go play in traffic on Broadway.

Anonymous said...

7:11 is the reason that one most always be engaged or freedom will die under his/her boots. It was two different juries. We don't want your way of life 7:11

Anonymous said...

DUH! It is hypocritical, to say the least, that you only support a grand jury that decides the way YOU want. But you are too ignorant to recognize it.

Anonymous said...

Actually this whole thing is good for PVG. He is center stage going after a "rapist" and a cop, a "rapist cop". His supporters are happy, he's puffing out his chest and this past week he's the BMOC. Some people hate cops, just about everybody dislikes a rapist. Does Gunderson meet the standard as a rapist? I guess we'll know when we get all the facts. As it stands right now it's somewhat confusing.

This takes a bit of the focus away from PVG's mess regarding the GJ indictment on the ex police chief and Lt, EPD. (and losing the PL lawsuit for the 3rd time). Even if both of these cases go south PVG will bragg that he had the guts to take on the cops and so on and so on. This gives him a boatload of goodwill from the cop haters and drug dealers. But I don't think most of the local cops, or cop supporters really think too highly of the Blue Lake Chief.

I think people are concerned with the appearance of an abuse of power and serious conflict of interest.

An interesting situation. PVG's wife is the lawyer for the suspect and PVG is leading the charge agasint the suspect. And on top of that PVG's good friend, Russ Clanton, is representing the suspect. Traditionally Clanton's clients appear to get extra special deals from PVG's office.

I guess it's a good deal for PVG, JG, and RC. PVG get's to be the crusading DA against the cops, his wife and her client win their case, and Russ gets the soon to be ex-chief's bank account & house & retirement.

What a great place we live?!

I like your blog Rose. The facts, nothing but the facts.

Anonymous said...

7:11 AM ...... you seem to be the ignorant one, and a bit of an asshole. But hey this is American, you have the right to be an asshole.

Rose said...

Not just two different Grand Juries, 7:11, TWO DIFFERENT KINDS of Grand Juries.

One is independent, conducts their own investigations, follows leads, and reaches a group consensus over the period of almost a year. They consider exculpatory evidence as well as damning evidence. That is the case with the Grand Jury who found that Paul, among other things, "lacked the global perspective needed" to run the office.

The other is led by the DA, must decide on the facts and instructions given to them by the DA, and basically operates in a vacuum of information. That is the case with the Grand Jury who found that Gallegos could indeed file charges against Douglas and Zanotti.

The second is a criminal grand jury, yet the accused has no representation.

Thus the old saw - A DA can get a (criminal) Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich.

Keep watching.

Anonymous said...

Isn't the arraingment this Thursday ? For Douglas and Zanotti.

We haven't heard much on the Douglas/Zanotti case. I'm a little curious why.

A busy week for reporters, bloggers, and the DA.

The old story about the "ham sandwich" has some serious merit to it. In this case if PVG had really been the courageous DA "policing the police" he would have just filed the charges against Douglas/zanotti like the DA's office would on any other case. Be prepared to see those charges go bye bye. But then PVG will still have his case against gunderson.

Anonymous said...

You nutballs are the biggest joke in blogworld.

Anonymous said...

9:10AM

everyone else is a "nutball" but you're OK ? I got it.

red said...

8:44, an intervention hearing is a standard setting before a prelim. Mostly its to see if the case can be resolved prior to prelim (conventionally a defendant gets a better deal if he pleads before prelim - that is s.o.p. most places), also to sort out discovery issues, see if both sides are going to be ready, and so on. Perfectly normal, probably not much is going to happen in this case.

5:31, I really am not sure what you are talking about. I am referring to People v. Choi (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 476, an appellate case published in the offical court reports; you are citing a story in the Chronicle. Have you looked the case up or are you relying on something other than the California Appellate Reports, 4th edition, volume 80 at page 476? You can look it up on the Court website through the California portal, or Findlaw. Anyway I have it up in another window (via Westlaw) I'm looking right at it. I did think earlier that you had the right case but were simply not looking at the right cite for some reason; still seems like you have the right case, but I can't help but feel that you are playing "gotcha," which is fine, have a ball. But you are missing the point I was attempting to make, which may be my fault.

12:05 and others assert that no conflict exists because JG does not stand to profit economically from the prosecution of this criminal case. But the Law recognizes that attorneys are human beings, subject to influences subtle and otherwise. Attorneys have emotions which may influence their decisions.

The Choi case (People v. Choi (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 876) is an excellent example. Hallinan could not keep his cakehole shut because he had an emotional investment in the case which robbed him of objectivity. Indeed, the case allows recusal of the whole office because Hallinan is the boss and everyone knew how he felt. Indeed, there are not very many cases construing PC 1424 which concern economic conflict. By far more common is a conflict based upon relationships. I suggest anyone who is interested take a look at CCP 170.1, which lists conflicts for judges. The analogy to prosecutors is not far-fetched. Anyhow, the stuff you say about People v. Choi actually supports my point.

6:05, what are you talking about? I make mistakes, but if you are talking about People v. Choi then you didn't do any research either, did you?

I don't care if you kids want to play lawyer, but really, 12:52 said it all. You want to play "gotcha" with me, fine, but cite some authority, or stay at the kid's table.

There is unquestionably a potential conflict in this case. A prudent DA would hand it off, to the AG or a deputy, and keep his mouth shut. That PVG thinks there is no problem does not make me fill me with confidence in his ability to evaluate such things.

7:49 and 11:11, excellent point! At some level every DA is a politician; PVG is a politician who happens to be a DA.

Finally, as is the case with most hot sixteen-year-old cheerleaders on the internet, I am in fact a plump middle-aged guy.

Rose said...

LOL, Red. Do you know how many online identities the average hot sixteen year old cheerleader has? It's staggering.

Anonymous said...

RED!!! THE CASE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT WAS THE TRAN CASE. HALLINAN WAS REMOVED FROM THE CASE BY THE JUDGE, IT NEVER WENT TO APPEAL!!! JEEZUS YOU ARE DENSE AS A ROCK!!!
HE WASN'T REMOVED FOR TALKING TO THE PRESS. HE WAS REMOVED BECAUSE OF A PROPOSED LETTER TO THE EDITOR ABOUT WHY HE SAID IN THE PRESS THAT TWO MURDERS WERE CONNECTED WHICH HE PRESENTED TO THE JUDGE WITHOUT PASSING BY THE OTHER ATTORNEYS IN THE CASE!

red said...

Ok, 8:46, you're right, I made it all up. There was no appellate decision, if you went to the State of California portal at www.ca.gov and clicked on California Courts in the lower left and then clicked on Opinions in the upper left corner and then clicked on Searchable Opinions 1850-present on the left, agree to the Lexis terms of use and then type in 80 Cal.App.4th 476 you wouldn't find an opinion in People v. Choi in which the People's appeal of a lower court's order recusing the entire San Francisco District Attorney's office is upheld. By all means don't bother to do that because that's research and why should you have to do boring old research when you have already made up your mind about something and you can then post your conclusion on the internet? That is my most awesome run-on sentence ever. I did put the wrong cite in once above (I put 876 not 476 the third time I included the cite), so perhaps I owe you an apology.