Thursday, July 31, 2008

Ho-ly sh-t! - 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


☛ ER Doe 1 speaks out, files complaint
The complaint, authored by Gundersen’s wife (Doe 1), alleges that the HCSO and District Attorney’s Office violated her civil rights, falsely imprisoned her on Feb. 8, coerced a statement out of her that day and conspired to imprison Gundersen.

“There’s a whole other side to this story,” Doe 1 said in an interview Wednesday. “I just thought I need to get this out.”...

As a result of Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Bruce Watson’s decision to allow testimony from Gundersen’s ex-wife Monday, and other compounding events since Feb. 8, Doe 1 said she felt the truth needed to be told.

“I’m the only person who can do that,” she said, “because David can’t be heard.”...

In the four-page complaint sent to the Humboldt County Grand Jury and both the California and U.S. Attorney General’s Office, Doe 1 wrote how a custody battle turned into a conspiracy against her husband.

“I felt I was entrapped and coerced,”
she said. “I think someone else should review this.”...

Much of the complaint described in detail what Doe 1 had testified during Gundersen’s preliminary hearing in April, which included how she “felt coerced” into giving statements about non-consensual sex by her husband during a seven-hour interview on Feb. 8 that she couldn’t walk away from.

The District Attorney’s Office had to subpoena Doe 1 to the stand, as she had no intention on testifying.

Doe 1 added in the complaint that she answered questions “sarcastically,” such as telling the three HCSO investigators interviewing her that Gundersen had non-consensual sex with her 365 times when asked if he ever did.

During the preliminary hearing, Doe 1 testified that Gundersen had non-consensual sex with her at least once a month between 2005 and 2007.

As Doe 1 testified before, she had no intention on pressing any charges against Gundersen and merely wanted to talk about police assistance if anything got out of control between the two.

Doe 1 also wrote about events leading up to that encounter with law enforcement.

Sometime in December 2001, Doe 1 wrote that Gundersen’s ex-wife told her that he had raped her and it would happen to her as well.

Events happened in the summer of 2007, Doe 1 wrote, moved Gundersen to file for full custody of his children. At that point, Gundersen’s ex-wife hired Joan Gallegos, wife of Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos, to represent her in the family matter.

By the time Jan. 28 rolled around, Doe 1 wrote she wanted a separation with Gundersen.

On that day, Doe 1 wrote that Gundersen’s ex-wife told her she could use Paul Gallegos’ willingness to prosecute Gundersen for allegedly raping her in the past as a way to get rid of Gundersen — this after Joan Gallegos allegedly talked with him about it.

“I believe this was a conspiracy between (Paul Gallegos), his wife and (Gundersen’s ex-wife) in an attempt for (Gundersen’s ex-wife) to gain full custody of the kids,” she wrote. “Her plan worked.”...

Joan Gallegos issued a denial.

☛ TS Gundersen's wife alleges misconductby law enforcement
In a letter sent to a variety of agencies Wednesday, former Blue Lake Police Chief David Gundersen's wife is accusing the Humboldt County District Attorney's Office and the Sheriff's Department of civil rights violations, police coercion, false imprisonment and conspiracy...

From the outset, Gundersen's attorney Russell Clanton has contended the investigation and charges took root in an ongoing and bitter custody battle between Gundersen and his ex-wife. Gundersen's wife's letter, which she said she mailed Wednesday to the Humboldt County Grand Jury, the Attorney General's Office and the United States Attorney's Office, echoes that claim.

In the five-page letter, Gundersen's wife, Jane Doe 1, wrote that she told an investigator on the day of Gundersen's arrest that she hadn't been raped and, at times, contradicts the testimony she gave under oath during Gundersen's preliminary hearing.
Reached Wednesday, District Attorney Paul Gallegos said he doesn't see Jane Doe 1's letter having any impact on Gundersen's case.

”Those agencies that have received this, if they feel it's appropriate they will investigate, and they will have all the information,” Gallegos said, adding that his office hasn't committed any of the offenses alleged in the letter. “(Jane Doe 1) is a victim and she's been victimized, but not by us.”...

In the letter, Jane Doe 1 claims that she “sarcastically” answered investigators' questions during an interview on the day of Gundersen's arrest, that investigators would not let her leave and that, prior to Gundersen's preliminary hearing, “numerous threats were made including arrest.” She claims was told she didn't have the right to not testify in the case.

Jane Doe 1 also states her belief that Gundersen's ex-wife was behind the entire investigation.
”I believe (his ex-wife) set me up,” she writes.

According to the letter, Gundersen and his ex-wife hold a lot of animosity toward each other after a bitter divorce and an ensuing battle over custody of the couple's two children.

Jane Doe 1 states that Gundersen's ex-wife, an employee with the Humboldt County Sheriff's Department, told her in 2001 that she believed Gundersen had raped her while the two were married -- claims the ex-wife has also made to a court investigator, DA investigators and, most recently, on the stand in a pre-trial hearing in Gundersen's current case.

”Over the years she said things to me, to the effect that Dave would eventually rape me too,” Jane Doe 1 writes in the letter.
According to the letter, things started to come to a head on Jan. 28, when Jane Doe 1 claims Gundersen's ex-wife called her and said she had repeated her rape allegations to her divorce attorney Joan Gallegos -- the wife of District Attorney Paul Gallegos.

”(Gundersen's ex-wife) told me that Joan told her she had discussed the rape with her husband Paul and that he would be willing to prosecute Dave for rape if she wanted,” Jane Doe 1 writes. “(Gundersen's ex-wife), knowing that I wanted a separation from Dave due to our own marital problems, told me that we could use the fact that the (district attorney) was willing to press charges on Dave to get him to leave the county. (Gundersen's ex-wife) and I spoke many times this same day because I was not OK with her blackmailing him.”...

Jane Doe 1 writes that she learned from her psychiatrist after the preliminary hearing that the effects of Lunesta are light and not so intoxicating as to make her unable to give consent. She also reiterates her belief that this whole case has spawned out of Gundersen's custody battle with his ex-wife.

”I have told the DA, Paul Gallegos, several times that I believe this was a conspiracy between he, his wife, and (Gundersen's ex-wife) in an attempt for (Gundersen's ex-wife) to gain full custody of the kids,” Jane Doe 1 writes. “Her plan worked. Dave was arrested on Feb. 8 and she had an order of full custody on the 11th.”...

Joan Gallegos said the conspiracy allegation simply doesn't make sense, as neither she, her client nor Paul Gallegos have benefited in any way from the case.

For his part, Gallegos said the case will simply have to play out in court.

”I've seen what she's written, but I don't know the motivation behind it or the actual author of it,” he said. “We understand she's afraid and we understand the dynamics of these types of cases.”


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



  1. And where did we hear the words "set- up" first?

    I'll have to say, though, it seems pretty clear that there aren't any credible witnesses in this case, on either side. I think all the charges, at least the sex related ones, should be dropped simply because there aren't any credible witnesses. At least I haven't heard of any at this point.

  2. This story is incredible and she contradicts her own sworn testimony. It's obvious she is very upset over financial difficulties, home foreclosure and all, but I don't think she will be successful in any lawsuit against the county which is obviously what she has in mind. The claim that cops would tell another cop such unbelievable lies is bizarre, and even more bizarre to claim that the cop believed it. While it is possible that the ex wife lied to her about conversations with Mrs. Gallegos, I don't for a second believe that the conversation between Ex and Mrs. Gallegos ever took place. This woman is desperate to find a way out of the nasty hole she has made of her life. She isn't going to get anything from the divorce so will try to get it from the county. All in all disgusting and unbelievable. Good thing she isn't the only witness against Gundersen.

  3. Why don't you just link to these stories? Do you think your readers are too dumb or too lazy to read them if you don't post them in their entirety?

  4. 8:53 - IF - IF you followed the links and actually READ the articles, you will see that these are excerpts.

    Pretty damn explosive excerpts if you ask me.

    It doesn't get much worse than this.

  5. I agree, Jane Doe 1 is one messed up woman and hopefully she won't get worse. It is obvious to anyone with an open mind that financial considerations are driving her constantly changing stories and the drugs she takes prevent her from keeping track of her different versions. Only the true Gags and cop haters will believe this latest story because it defies credulity and contradicts her own sworn testimony.

  6. I read the articles in their entirety in the newspapers before reading your blog and didn't bother to read your long and boring repeats of the same material.

  7. Rose: 10:04 and 8:53 probably just want the links because they hate having this blog make sure this stuff lasts forever (unlike the papers which archives sometimes aren’t available.) Also his “critic” may simply hate having to read about GAG’s spiral to defeat.

    Keep posting excerpts Rosie - we love it. I like it!

  8. No credibility
    False allegations
    Never admits mistakes

    If you don't like Rose's blog, don't read it. The prosecutor has to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. No one has done more to inject reasonable doubts into this case the the District Attorney himself. And what happened to his subpoena to Rape Crisis? Seems to me that his attempt to bully them is consistent with what Jane Doe is alleging.

  9. You people are unbelievable!

  10. Compared to whom? Mr. or Mrs. Gallegos or their respective clients and witnesses?

  11. And how does the DA feel about a change of venue now? And Mr. Clanton? Have they exactly switched sides on that issue?

    Long ago in one of the Gunderson strings someone said it was going to be unique, watching Clanton and Gallegos go at it. But this? This exceeds one's wildest expectations.
    If nothing else, when PVG is in the picture, truth is indeed stranger than fiction. Fiction has to be believable. PVG is not.

  12. People should file a state bar complaint and have both the Gallegos licenses pulled. This is a disgrace.

  13. Yes, a woman who is admittedly on psychotropic drugs who contradicts her own sworn testimony is given absolute credibility when she is making crazy accusations against those you hate. Unbelievable.

  14. Uh then a woman on psychotropic drugs is brought in against her will, interviewed for seven hours and not allowed to leave, denied her panick medicine when she has a panic attack, is given valium not prescribed to her and has been consistent from DAY ONE that this case was brought against her will.

    You are unbelievable 11:12!

    I want the state to investigate and I want to know everything that has happened in this mess.

    And I agree, Gallegos and Gallegos (thats what the sign still says folks) should have their licenses pulled and sued to the moon.

  15. 1112 and that ilk seem to lack perspective. Crazy witness supports PVG, crazy witness ok.
    Crazy witness reports abuse by PVG (which he largely admits) crazy witness bad. Proof that no matter what he does, some people will back him. A claim not even
    Nifong could make. Remember Nifong, guys? Whose case went down the tubes and took him with it because he concealed facts about the case? It's going to be truly
    interesting once the defense starts cross examining cops and witnesses in open court and we see what else has been glossed over in PVG's drive to nail Gunderson NO MATTER WHAT.
    People, the system is supposed to have some integrity, it's not about one case. Remember that line about better to 10 guilty go free that to convict one innocent man?
    Note to idiots- I am NOT saying Gunderson is innocent. I am saying too high a price is being paid in
    PVG's desperation to convict, whether he's guilty or not. This case has descended into farce.

  16. Hi ya Rose. I was going to leave a commet, but I got anonymously dizzy.......

  17. All we need for this so called "case" is Tim Stoen (remember that nut job).

  18. Crazy witness initiated the complaint against police chief. 2other women made the same charges. Your glee over crazy witness recanting ignores the other 2 witnesses who made the same claim. Either Gundersen is a serial rapist or he has very bad taste in women. Maybe both.

  19. 1:15 - if that is your interpretation of this your reading comprehension is low.

    Why didn't the DA charge for the allegations of the ex wife - A: no evidence.

    The allegations from Jane Doe 2 - not the same and no evidence.

    Jane Doe 1, said it was coerced and didn't happen.

    The charges should be dismissed because no reasonable person could convict under these circumstances.

    Now for the interesting part:

    Generally speaking a defendant can't object to a violation of another persons Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. Those rights are personal. But, what has happened here will probably let Gunderson challenge the search warrant which got them the rest of the evidence on the other charges. See about 40 years ago the supreme court held that "in the absence of physically or or coercive tactics a defendant lacks standing to contest violations of someone elses 5th and 6th amendment rights. But - with the presence of coercive tactics a defendant does have standing when it is offered at the trial of someone else.

    I see everything circling the drain here solely due to Gallegos' stupidity and corruption.

  20. I guess my questions with regards to the 'conflicing' testimony - how were the questions asked of? Was it "Did you say this, yes or no?" in which case she would have to answer yes even if her initial statement was sarcastic... was she allowed to talk and say in full what she had to say? Did Clanton have any idea she was feeling this way so that he could ask those questions even if Gallegos did not?

    Seems to me her stance has been consistent from the word go, that she was caught by surprise, and overwhelmed by the system (which you would be, cop or not, once it is turned on you.) It seems to me that she is DONE being intimidated and has essentially said in no uncertain terms "I'm not going to take it anymore!"

    The vilification has begun in earnest on the TS comments section, the tactic as usual, is to destroy anyone who threatens Gallegos, This is some of what is there: "REAL Agent of Chaos
    "Jane Doe2" has a nice history of being a wannabe golddigger (had TWO sugardaddies in the academy) so I'll bet the only way for Gunderson to get some from the "Doorknob" (everyone gets a turn, lol) was to do it while she was drugged up, lol. She just doesn't want to admit all that because she is on the prowl again, beats having to get a job.

    As usual it will be blame everyone but Gallegos, blame the Sheriff, blame the victim, ignore the fact that Gallegos tramples all over the rape victim laws, subpoenas the crisis counselor... YOU WOULDN'T TOLERATE THAT FROM ANYONE ELSE.

  21. Crazy last few days on your blog. Go get em Rose!

  22. She went in to the sheriff's department and made a complaint. Was she surprised they took her seriously? There are 2 other victims who haven't recanted their very similar testimony. There is also physical evidence, photos of these same women on his computer, apparently unconscious, stolen drugs and unexplained weapons. As much as you all want this rapist to get off because of your hatred of Gallegos, it isn't going to happen. One victim who changes her mind because of financial problems doesn't negate the other charges including the other rapes.

  23. You are deranged 2:21. I don't know where you are getting your information but it is wrong.

    She talks to ex-wife briefly.
    She is called to come into station and goes.
    She leaves for her doctor
    then called back to the station where she is interrogated for 7 hours
    denied her meds
    given unprescribed medication
    Then a search produces pictures that she said were either consensual or taken while she was asleep.

    Ex-wife has no evidence or pictures or anything else. Made charges only in family court 10 years ago.

    Only after that a girlfriend from 10 years ago said she lived with them and on one occasion he forced himself on her after an argument when she found out he couldn’t marry her until his divorce was final. That he pushed her into their bedroom and took OFF his gun and they had sex after their argument. Oh, I forgot, there was someone else in the house, that didn’t hear or see anything.

    I don't see how any reasonable person could convict anyone on this evidence. There is way to much screwed up here. Hell, I don't believe anyone in this case about anything.

  24. That's the way I feel. Doesn't seem there's any credible witnesses anywhere in this mess.

  25. Remember----One does NOT have to talk to the cops. Be nice, show your I.D. when asked.(it's called the 5th. Amendment)

  26. She would have viewed them as friends and colleagues, maybe even felt comfortable griping about a husband, as many do without expecting any repercussions. The Sheriffs would have trusted their friend and colleague, the ex. Contrary to the views of many anons, cops do not like 'dirty cops' and if persuaded that Gundersen was one, they would not be sympathetic towards him.

    But, given the information about Lunesta - I'd say every man who sees that shit in his house ought to toss it in the garbage. If your wife could, on that stuff, be affectionate and have sex with you, then not remember it later, and think that you might have raped her, you don't need that kind of grief. And that is an entirely plausible scenario - in a case where any reasonable doubt torpedoes the case.

    Throw in the custody battle, the DA's wife, and a victim who says she was no victim - pffffft, you've got no case.

    Then, figure you've destroyed this couple's lives, they've lost the house, the marriage, their jobs, their reputations, their kids have had to deal with this horrendous scenario...

  27. I agree. I see it the same way, just an horrendous scenario.


  28. Can we just call it a cluster and go home now? This case stinks on ice and it seems very unlikely at this point that PVG will be able to present any kind of case which will make any kind of sense. He is now in the position where he has to impeach his star witness who, by the way, has immunity and could just get up there and claim the machine guns and drugs if she were so inclined. I suppose PVG could then go after her for perjury. That would be about what I'd expect.

  29. A star witness who had to be compelled to testify and granted immunity? WTF are YOU smokin Red. He has another witness, also a victim, who is going to testify voluntarily to similar rapes. Another victim whose case is separate, in which at least 1 of his other victims will testify voluntarily and likely the other on subpoena. Then there are all the other charges. Yeah, he should just turn Gundersen loose on other women.

  30. All these women seem to be as disfunctional as Gunderson,6:26. They're a mess. Get over it.

  31. Taht's it. No more sex for me. At least not in Humboldt County.....

  32. 6:26, I do not smoke; it is a filthy habit. The People have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no physical evidence, as far as I can tell from the media accounts, to support the rape charges. The evidence will be testimony from two, possibly three, witnesses - Doe 1, Doe 2, and ex-wife. The sheer number of witnesses does not matter; the quality of the testimony and the witness' believability is the key. It is by no means certain that Doe 2 will be allowed to testify; even if she does her testmony at the PX (as reported by the media) was hardly stellar. Ex-wife plainly has an axe to grind; and Doe 1 has managed to muddy the waters to such a degree that her credibility is probably nil. Victims go sideways all the time in DV cases, but not like this. This case, as far as I can tell from what I have read, was mishandled at the get-go and has not gotten better.

  33. "mishandled" is a nice way to put it. The case was driven by ambition and ego, and not by any interest in due process, respect for victims, or justice. PVG knew knew his PALCO case was toast, he
    knew he was on thin ice in the Cheri Moore case (that's why he went to GJ instead of an open court prelim in front of a judge) and he knew he needed another
    ice flow to dance on to get to the
    other side of the river (next election). Will his credibility and the voters credulousness
    ever melt, or does he skate forever?
    Over the long run, the public is getting what it deserves.

  34. Gunderson is a skunk but this case stinks. But PVG's best buddy Russ Clanton gets to drain Gunderson of every penny her every earned or **&^%. And PVG gets to stroke his ego.

    PVG's major prosecutions;

    PALCO, August, Douglas/Zanotti, Gunderson. And tell me again what happened to the Rat Twins for rape, kidnapping, and marijuana?

    And yes PVG does get to skate forever! That's what happens when the local marijuana industry supports you. Sad but true.

  35. Heraldo and Eric are pretty quiet on this. Guess they can't figure out how to spin this in Paul's favor.

  36. If he loses it never happened. If he convicts on anything, he's a hero. How the game is played.


Comments are open, but moderated, for the time-being. Good luck.