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
****
☛ TS Gundersen's wife says case causing financial, emotional turmoil (LINK MISSING)
David Gundersen's wife said she feels like a victim, just not in the way most people think.
Darcie Seal, who requested that the Times-Standard refer to her by her real name rather than the court designation of Jane Doe 1, said the aftermath of her husband's Feb. 8 arrest on suspicion of spousal rape has done nothing short of tear her life apart.
”I don't go out,” she said. “If I have to go shopping, I go late at night or early in the morning. I've become a prisoner in my own home.”
Soon, that may gone. Both of the houses the couple own are in Gundersen's name and now have for-sale signs up on the front lawns, she said.
”I cried when they put that sign up,” Seal said, sitting in the living room of her McKinleyville home. “I wasn't prepared for all this.”...In her interview with the Times-Standard, Seal said she doesn't feel she has been raped by Gundersen and that she only testified because law enforcement and District Attorney's Office personnel had convinced her that if she had taken sleeping pills she was legally unable to consent. She said they told her that it was rape, pure and simple.
Seal said she's not saying any of this out of an attempt to free her husband and she just wants to tell the truth.
”If these other charges are good charges, send him to prison -- that's fine -- but don't send him to prison on lies and fabrications,” she said.
Experts in rape and domestic violence, speaking in general terms and not about the Gundersen case, have told the Times-Standard it's not uncommon for victims' stories to change, and that it can happen for a variety of reasons....
Seal insists this isn't a case of her recanting her prior allegations, and maintains this is the story she has tried to tell investigators and the District Attorney's Office since Feb. 8.
While maintaining she is not a rape victim, Seal said she is starting to feel like a victim of circumstance....
In the aftermath of her husband's arrest, she said her house was shown on the local TV news and she's had random strangers knock on the door to tell her they feel sorry for her. She was forced to resign her position as a sergeant with the Blue Lake Police Department, she said, and friends have kept their distance.
More importantly, Seal said, she's lost contact with Gundersen's two children -- who she said she has treated as her own.
”I'm looking at being homeless in less than a month, and nobody cares,” she said, before turning her attention to what once was her family. “I just miss the boys so much. That's been the hardest thing throughout this whole thing. I miss them -- I'm used to having them here.”
There has got to be help for this family. Somehow they have to be able to keep their house while this whole mess unfolds. Neither of them have jobs. There's way more to this tragedy than newspaper headlines.
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
****
More and more bizarre all the time, sadder and sadder. Anyone with a lick of sense who reads what this woman claims can see what is going on. She just wants it all to go away and is blaming the people she asked to help her. She is obviously mentally ill from the years of rape and abuse. years. You are exploiting her sad case to bash a DA you hate.
ReplyDeleteJane Coe 1 was at her husbands OR/bail hearing and was prepared to testify that she was wanted her husband out of jail and was not fearful of him. The DA objected and she was not allowed to testify. The DA is the one that victimizing people for his political goals. This case and the Moore case will blow up in his face, but what does he care. He's been able to finacilly destroy these people and cost the county hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollors on his crusade.
ReplyDeleteI am exploiting her case? By including this as part og Gallegos' record?
ReplyDeleteTry again.
She has said since the beginning that she was coerced in a 7 hour interrogation.
Now she says "...don't send him to prison on lies and fabrications..."
You think she has been treated well, I suppose? And I should look away and say nothing because - why? Because you think Gallegos can do no wrong?
Sorry. No cigar.
Jane (D)oe 1 was at her husbands OR/bail hearing and was prepared to testify that she was wanted her husband out of jail and was not fearful of him. The DA objected and she was not allowed to testify.
ReplyDeleteGood point. From the beginning.
Yes, my husband has been raping me and verbally abusing me for years. I reported it to the police and now I want them and the DA punished for taking my complaint seriously. They forced me to come in and make this complaint and now they are forcing me to help them put a serial rapist in prison. The DA should lose his license and the county should pay me lots of money for what they caused. If she was the only victim, I would say let Gundersen out so he can continue on with the abuse and rapes that she seems to enjoy. Her martyrdom just isn't as much fun with the sadist in prison.
ReplyDeleteShe said repeatedly that they told her it was rape, technically. You're characterizing it as rape.
ReplyDeleteDID YOU READ THE LUNESTA SITE?
4 all u no she wuz affectionate
ReplyDeleteShe said herself that she had even told Gundersen that he was raping her and to stop having sex with her when she was unconscious. Most women would be able to tell if someone had sex with them while they were unconscious, once they woke up.
ReplyDeleteDoes this kind of stuff go on in other counties ???????
ReplyDeleteAnd PVG needs, deserves all the attention.
Keep up the good (detailed and accurate) work Rose. It obviously has that camp upset and worried.
I've been poking my sleeping partner in the butt for years. I know it was enjoyable because he starts snorrrrrr'n in high C. Hope I don't get charged with rape.
ReplyDeleteOdd that you didn't use THIS exerpt from the T-S interview:
ReplyDelete"She stepped back from the allegations later in the day, according to the documents, but testified under oath at Gundersen's preliminary hearing that everything she told investigators was true. She also testified that she had confronted Gundersen in the past and told him that she considered his actions to be rape."
Contrary to your claim above, she didn't get the idea that she was raped from the investigators. So much for concern over a woman's right to choose whether she has sex Rose. Once a woman is married it's only TECHNICAL rape when she doesn't consent, not REAL rape. You are a real piece of work.
Poor Darcy. She must wish she had just filed for divorce now rather than filing rape charges as things would have worked out better for her financially. As an aside, she wouldn't have contact with the step kids after the divorce either so that's a wash.
ReplyDeleteCounseling might have helped this family.
ReplyDeleteI guess it doesn't mean much to you, 6:29, that she has come out so strongly, even to the point of saying go ahead and use my name, trying to set the record straight.
She says she is a victim alright, just not the way people think, and that she has basically been raped by the system. But, of course, that's not REAL rape, is it.
It would take a special kind of counselor to work with someone in law enforcement because they deal with the worst of the worst of society on a daily basis. It is no wonder one would turn to sleeping pills to try to shut it all out. But that's a path that a counselor ought to advise against, or at least monitor, looking at all this.
She is beginning to look like a publicity hound. She is a sick woman who was involved in a sick relationship, took it public with her complaint and now claims to be a martyr. Maybe she is worried about those other charges which could be leveled against her, the illegal drugs and weapons.
ReplyDeleteSerial apists just need counseling. Right.
You didn't address your false claim that it was the investigators who told her she was being raped.
It looks like Darcy's trying to get the truth out has blistered the ork supports of Gallegos. So in true form they now turn their venom from Gunderson to his wife.
ReplyDeleteHow progressive!
Gallegos has already offered one plea deal that took the, what, 34 counts, down to, ummm, 2 (two)? Is that right... ?
ReplyDeleteIf he takes it down to misdemeanor jaywalking, will Gundersen accept it? And will Paul call that a win?
That's the real question here.
Previous report: A Plea Offer takes 31 counts, including 24 charges of spousal rape with the use of an intoxicant, forcible rape of a second victim with a firearm enhancement, attempting to dissuade a witness, violating a court order and possessing a submachine gun and a pistol with an attached silencer and reduces it to one count of spousal rape and another of forcibly raping a second victim.
The TS reports that Gundersen, who is facing 28 felony charges, turned down a plea deal that could have landed him in prison for anywhere from nine to 26 years.
Which "truth" is she trying to get out? The "truth" she told the investigators? The "truth" she told at the preliminary hearing? Or the latest version of the "truth" which she stated in the newspaper interviews?
ReplyDeleteWhich truth are you trying to get out 10:44? That you are an orc,that pg screwred the pooch again,that as true proggies you will try to destroy anyone out of pocket,that you just might be covering for you own odd sexual tastes. Film at 6.
ReplyDeleteGreat nonrespone 10:56. When my sexual tastes result in criminal charges we'll talk about them. Until then please tell us which of the contradictory truths Darcy wants us to believe today.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you could take up a donation to help Darcy keep one house. And don't forget those kids whose daddy is in jail and not paying child support. As to Darcy having visitation, I wouldn't let that nut case within 50 yards of my kids.
ReplyDelete1. The issue of finances is one that, hopefully, can be helped by Victim Witness and Rape Crisis. Because this must happen all the time and we never hear of it. Talk about a chilling effect.
ReplyDeleteAre there services available? Can the mortgage be held until an outcome is reached? Surely there is something in place for this.
As for the latter part of your comment 11:49, shall we assume you know Darcy? Or just that you have formed your opinion based on the newspaper reports?
maybe if the DA hadn't gone off like a 16 year old boy in the back seat instead of taking the time to look at what he had in terms of provable facts and believable witnesses, he wouldnt be offering a plea to two counts where he charged over 30. Really, that's pathetic. On the other hand, he made McLaughlin try a murder case he knew he could not win, using perjured testimony that the DA granted immunity to get. So maybe pathetic isn't strong enough. Criminal negligence is a term the DA is fond of these days.
ReplyDeleteHey, did they get a Ramey warrant before they arrested Gunderson?
How do I know your sexual tastes are legal? Do you ever smoke pot before? Or maybe you are a saint happy in your missionary position? Or do you like to spank,just a little? Why don't you just chill a bit 11:04? Your proggy self righteousness is boorish. You have no high ground in this tradgity.
ReplyDeleteSounds like your sexual tastes might be illegal with your idiotic defense of a rapist, 837. I didn't file the rape complaint against Gundersen, Darcy did. I didn't change my story 4 times, including at least 2 times where she swore that what she was saying was the truth and now says wasn't the truth, Darcy did. I wish the DA would charge her with filing a false report, perjury and obstruction of justice. Presumably she didn't get immunity for those crimes and that would take care of her homeless problem for a few years. Presumably she didn't get immunity for those crimes.
ReplyDeleteDarcy didn't file a rape complaint against Gundersen - the DA did.
ReplyDeleteShe didn't "change" her story 4 times. She has repeated virtually the same thing 4 times.
You weren't in the court room nor have you been speaking to her so you interpret things the way it pleases you 8:52.
Whats with some of you folks - charge this, charge that,
You have to be able to prove charges and the DA can't even prove what he has charged against Gundersen. Now it is plain from what you have written 8:52, that you are a selective reader and listener and are just another Gallegos apologist, far from progressive in your politics if your only response from reading all of this is to blame the this woman for this fiasco.
Heh. I'd say "progressive" is exactly what 8:52's politics are - that means forgive Gallegos every transgression. Plagiarism? Aw, shucks, he didn't mean to. Using the People's Office for his backer's benefit? Why, he's a hero. Filing charges against people he doesn't like? Trying cases in the press... time and time again, well, that is ok with the "Progressives."
ReplyDeleteVictim's Rights? Pshaw. Only when it matters to the "Progressives" and that ain't when it contradicts the heroic Paul.
Hey 852, 'splain to me why it was ok for the DA to immunize a witness to give testimony that was
ReplyDelete1)self serving and 2) contradicted by the coroner in the recent manslaughter fiasco? I mean, if Darcy made a false report (and how you plan to prove that should be interesting) how do we stomach not prosecuting young Steed? Not only not prosecuting him for lying, but immunizing him to get his lies in front of a jury? What a lovely interview that must have been. Ok, you told us a self serving story to explain why you ran over your father and Dowdy. And that story is contradicted by the coroner's report. And you aren't willing waive your 5A privilege against self incrimination to convict the guy who killed your dad. That's ok, putting yourself first is something this offie understands. NO WORRIES. We will give you immunity to tell your story in court. By the way, how about a vicodin to take the edge off.
She did file a complaint against her husband with the sheriff's office and signed a sworn statement that she was raped. Then she said she didn't want to proceed with the case, that she wasn't raped. Then she testified in the preliminary hearing under oath that she was raped and that she had told Gundersen that he was raping her and to stop. Now she says she wasn't raped, that it was the investigators who told her she was being raped. The woman can't keep her lies straight and you people are too idiotic to comprehend what you read.
ReplyDeleteI don't give a damn about Gallegos one way or the other. People who file false police reports and perjure themselves should be prosecuted. The fact that you bring up other cases proves you don't care about this case either, its just an opportunity for you to bash Gallegos.
ReplyDeleteThe complaint- is that the one after the interview she wasn't allowed to leave? The 7 hour one?
ReplyDeleteHmmm, no problem there.
The fact that other cases are brought up proves that PVG has a track record, of which interested parties keep track. If Mr. Gallegos record deserves bashing, that would be his fault, and his alone. You can ignore it if that pleases you, but you can't expect others to conform to your low standards.
You may believe that a cop doesn't know her rights when being questioned, but I don't buy it for a minute. She WAS a cop, right?
ReplyDelete12:35 and 12:40 - you are sure dense. The record is pretty clear that she was called into the substation to talk with a lt. and then called back. The sheriff submitted a report with a request for the DA to issue a complaint to the DA.
ReplyDeletethe DA issued a complaint and she refused to testify. The DA threatened her with arrest for not testifying and arrest for some bogus trumpted up charge to coerce her to testify. She wasn't allowed to tell her story at the hearing but was limited only to carefully crafted questions during the hearing and she was refused the opportunity to explain during the hearing. You weren't there 12:35 or 12:40, but others were there in that courtroom.
I am so confused. So did they pull her over in a traffic stop and drag her into the sheriff's office on the off chance that she might be a rape victim? When she left the first time, did they go out and arrest her to bring her back in? Did they torture her to get a signed complaint? Did she commit perjury at the preliminary hearing when she said he had raped her many times or is she lying now? How many of you just don't believe it is possible for a man to rape his wife?
ReplyDeleteWhat "bogus" charge did they threaten her with 1:32?
ReplyDeleteDidn't Clanton get to question her during the preliminary hearing? Were his questions carefully crafted by Gallegos as well?
ReplyDeleteLooks like there is a gallegos apologist who utterly lacks reading comprehension or who is conveniently forgetting what has been in all of the papers.
ReplyDeleteTypical!
It looks like some Gallegos haters can't answer simple questions because if they answer them they will have to admit they are just BSing here and don't know what is going on but just have to jump on the pile on Gallegos. What bogus charge did they threaten her with? Did Clanton have an opportunity to question her at the preliminary hearing? Did she testify under oath that she was repeatedly raped and that she told Gundersen to stop raping her?
ReplyDeleteAs I stated above, I don't care one way or the other about Gallegos. I do have strong feelings about rapists, women who enable them to continue raping and women who falsely claim they were raped. So spank me!
Yes, 4:12, we just have to wait and see what happens.
ReplyDeleteYou may like to think of it as rape, but you don't know the circumstances anymore than we do. It appears a person can be pretty normal while under the influence of Lunesta, and you have to convince a jury of 12. All things else being equal, I doubt you will find 12 that see this as (spousal) rape. You may find 2. Under these circumstances.
There's loads of reasonable doubt here. Just my observation, and like you, I only know what's in the papers.
Did you forget that she is the third woman to make this exact claim against Gundersen? And then there is the matter of the nude pictures of these women when they were unconscious. I have no doubt that reasonable people won't have any trouble knowing the difference between consensual sex and rape of unconscious women.
ReplyDelete412 has strong feelings, but not for things like the presumption of innocence, due process, victims rights, or prosecutorial integrity, conflicts of interest,
ReplyDeleteconsistency in the application of the laws, or professional competence. Nope, 412 has it all figured out. No need for a trial, just have 412 read the T/S and the
E/R, and pronounce guilty.
Tell me 412, what was your take on
the PALCO suit? How about Debbie August? Where were you on the Garza boys? Was the DA's handling of that one up to par? Who enabled young Mr. Garza to continue to abuse his minor girlfriend? The girl? Or PVG/yougo?
oh, sorry, you don't like to be bothered with other cases, do you. History is so awkward, all those facts, records, witnesses, transcripts. Better to stick to the newspapers.
And if 412 could enlighten us about the Rape Crisis subpoena fiasco, that would be good. Since RC did not do what PVG wanted, does that mean they are facilitating rape? Any strong feelings there, genius?
ReplyDeleteOne case is severed, 4:45. So what evidence is there? And what does it show? That he had a weakness for women who take sleeping pills? That he drugged them all? That he was a sleeping pill pusher? That their doctors' shouldn't have prescribed those pills?
ReplyDeleteI don't know. You could convince me they had a dysfunctional relationship, even a massively unhappy marriage. But lots of people have them. Some people get in horrific fights and then make up - and that's their pattern. Lots of women have lots of complaints against their husbands, complaints they'll talk about all day long to friends and co-workers, but they'd be shocked to the max if all of a sudden the spouse was arrested.
Is that what happened here? Who knows. Sounds like she talked about it on occasion, even with some of those people. Maybe she trusted them to just listen. Then it all blew out of control.
And you still have the ex-wife's representation to address.
Regardless, she has taken a no holds barred, not uncertain stand. She has sent her complaint to the Attorneys' General. That is surely not something one does lightly.
ReplyDeleteThe AG's office is going to look at her various statements and sworn testimony and say something polite but essentially that there is nothing of substance in her complaint. As to the "ex-wife's representation to address," there is nothing there either. Joan Gallegos isn't representing the ex-wife now. Do the ex-husband's of her clients receive a get away with rape card because of her representation?
ReplyDeleteShe either lied in the preliminary hearing under oath (perjury) or she is lying now, not under oath. She is just looking for money. It wouldn't surprise me if she had this planned all along.
Ok fine she's nuts, she's out for money, she perjured herself, whatever dude. So, PVG filed this case based solely on the word of a person whose credibility his supporters are now vigourosly attacking. Alternatively, he filed this case and somehow managed to so completely alienate his star witness that she is very publically disavowing this prosecution and in particular this prosecutor. Cluster may not be an adequate term anymore.
ReplyDeleteJoan Gallegos isn't representing the ex-wife now
ReplyDeleteI don't think that is going to make this go away, sweetie.
You are the NUT. I have said over and over that I am not a Gallegos supporter. Why do you have to put everyone into the pro or con Gallegos box? This is a very complex legal case that you are attempting to make about supporting or opposing the DA. It may come as news to you, but everyone doesn't decide cases based on their love or hate of the DA like you do. Some of us are more concerned about getting rapists in prison where they belong. You disgust me.
ReplyDeleteI think we can all agree that putting rapists in prison where they belong is a worthy goal. If that is the case, then, 7:28, perhaps you should ask yourself whether PVG is the man you want in charge of that in Humboldt, given the circumstances of this case.
ReplyDeleteOh, it's a complex case, alright. That conflict of interest alone is a real doozy.
ReplyDeleteI heard jury selection was on hold. Is that for real? Anybody know why?
ReplyDeletePVG is the DA today. I don't care whether he or somebody else is doing the job. Reading this blog is sickening with the obsession and obvious desire for everyone to get off no matter how henious their crimes just because you hate PVG. You people are sick. Making up shit about conflicts of interest because his wife used to represent the exwife of the rapist is insane. That crazy Seals woman is probably reading this blog to figure out what she should lie about next. DISGUSTING!
ReplyDelete815. You are obtuse. It's getting criminals off that is the problem with the current DA. That and the total loss of integrity.The point of this blog, fromt the beginning up to the present, is that PVG is not an effective law enforcement officer. If he was, he would still have the best small DA's office in the state.
ReplyDeleteIt is the schizophrenic nature of who he chooses to prosecute that is part of the problem, 8:15. It is the record of trying cases in the public. It is the record of plea bargains when there should be prosecutions and vice versa. It's a record of plagiarism, of filing cases - or charges - that shouldn't be filed, just because.
ReplyDeleteIt's a record of losing top talent, losing grants, losing employees, killing programs, missing meetings, refusing to work with others...
It's a record of secrecy and spin. A record of letting people into the office who weren't hired, people like Salzman and Schectman...
And as for Gundersen - it is something that hasn't been 'right' about this case from the very beginning - and that may be because of Gallegos' known antipathy towards law enforcement, or it may be for some other reasons - history with Hislop, the ex-wife's attorney being Gallegos' wife - we don't exactly know - but alot of us can see PROBLEMS here.
And they're blowing up all over the front page of the paper, right where Gallegos put them.
This blog is full of lies and inaccuracies. This thread alone has so many misrepresentations it is appalling. When you have the facts on your side you don't have to make shit up. Either you people are mentally retarded or evil. With people like you opposing him, no wonder PVG keeps winning.
ReplyDeleteAnd this blog is here, open for discussion, so that you can correct any lies or inaccuracies.
ReplyDeleteComments threads often go off on tangents, rumors get aired, and either proven or disputed, as was the case early on with the fact that Gallegos' wife represented the ex- Mrs. Gundersen in an ongoing and bitter custody dispute.
That turned out to be true.
Other rumors get proven false. That's what it is about.
And, the problem, 9:15, is that it is not about 'winning.' It is about doing a good job ONCE you win. It is about honor and integrity and respect for the office and for the people whose office it is.
Filing and pursing the Palco case on behalf of special interests showed an utter lack of integrity and respect for the people, and the law, and the office. And that was just the beginning.
You have been the main perpetrator of the lies here. You posted that Seals got the idea that her husband was raping her from the investigators but that was contradicted by her own preliminary hearing testimony that she had told Gundersen he was raping her and to stop. Your lack of integrity by spreading these lies to attack PVG proves you are worse than he is. You have claimed that she hasn't changed her story when any fool can read her many different accounts and see where she has changed it drastically. Your zeal to smear PVG has blinded you to reason and your obsession is taking its toll on your mental health. The only people who take you seriously are mentally retarded fools like yourself and those who hope to gain politically from your smears from an anonymous position where they can't be blamed for libel. The lot of you are disgusting!
ReplyDeleteReally? Well. Time, and the published record will tell.
ReplyDeleteLook, Gallegos may be a very nice guy. He can go back into private practice, and you can hire him next time you need legal help.
He's so great, you'll be lucky to have him, right?
Or, he can get on the EPIC, ERF stable of attorneys. They'd love to have him, right? Because he is so sharp and all. Probably pays better than the gig he has now.
“no wonder PVG keeps winning.” 8/06/2008 9:15 AM? - you were kidding right?
ReplyDeleteHe has lost consistently
Palco
August
Marsh
Dowdy
Garza
Ogeara
those just popped into my mind. there are a lot of other cases that I remember the facts about from reading in the paper.
Oh - and I am not even mentioning the cases that he could only get misdemeanors or lesser convictions because he couldn't competently present the evidence like the Bridgeville murder case he punted on.
and this isn’t even mentioning the destruction of all specialties (sex cases, sex registrants, homocide, environmental, elder abuse) in that office.
Nor the plea bargains - I especially remember the one where a guy was on parole for numerous drug sale priors and came up here from SoCal with over 3 pounds of heroin hidden in hidden compartments in his car. Confessed to making numerous runs a year for millions of dollars for a SoCal drug lord. Guy faced over 20 years and got a parole revocation for 3 years. Pretty lame and pretty indicative of the screw ups that you are trying to defend 9:15.
you know there is not enough room here to print it all, but what I can say is that you seem to know a little 9:15 and have chosen to deliberately try and spin it to justify Gags’ incompetence. Could be you are right and you don’t care for Gags. Could also be that you are not being honest with us. But really, saying that he wins consistently would be a lie. If you want to go there be prepared to deal with all of the loses, the lost cases, programs and lawyers and then deal with the lies to the public and victims as well as the plaigarism.
Please list the so-called "lies" that Rose has been spreading.
ReplyDeleteBe specific.
Regarding JD#1 and the idea that Rose "lied" about her getting the idea of rape "from the investigators", remember this JD has been all over the place with her story.
List more lies...we are waiting.
Why do I get the feeling that we will be waiting quite awhile?
By winnning, 915 means elected office, methinks.
ReplyDeleteAs for Rose being "worse" than PVG? Interesting. Did Rose run for office on the promise that the DDA's deserved job protection? Did Rose take an oath to uphold the laws and Constitution of the State and the Nation? Is Rose obligated to prosecute without fear or favor?
One could go on and on, but perhaps even to 915 and his ilk, it should be obvious that elected officials have responsibilities, private citizens have rights. Some of them are protected by the First
Amendment.
still waiting for a list of Rose's "lies"...
ReplyDeletetick...tick...tick...
ok 9;15 - here is another example of Gallegos's losses: The Kidnaping and Robbery at the sequioa zoo.
ReplyDeleteWell, Estrada-chavez who was the defendant was originally charged with a violation of 209(b)(1) - kidnaping to commit robbery, 211 - robbery, assault with a firearm. The sentence on the kidnaping for robbery alone is life in prison. So our lazy DA changes it to kidnaping under 207 and makes him plea to kidnaping and robbery in order to avoid sending him to prison for life in exchange for a light sentence which will have him out in less than 6 years.
That’s right 9:15 - such a win. And your "boy" who is supposed to follow the law and apply it equally chooses to ignore the people and ignore the legislature that made this a life offense.
Maybe if Estrada Chavez had been run over by the victim or a witness, who could then have been immunized, there could have been a trial.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to the rest of this thread that was here previously? Censoring posts? Say it isn't so!
ReplyDeleteComments from this thread have disappeared. I'll see what can be done to restore them. It appears to be a blogger glitch.
ReplyDeleteHere are the missing comments: (Note: when Blogger fixes the glitch I will delete this comment...because there's no need in having repetitive comments)
ReplyDeleteAnonymous has left a new comment on your post "The human cost":
Did you forget that she is the third woman to make this exact claim against Gundersen? And then there is the matter of the nude pictures of these women when they were unconscious. I have no doubt that reasonable people won't have any trouble knowing the difference between consensual sex and rape of unconscious women.
Posted by Anonymous to watchpaul at 8/05/2008 4:45 PM
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The human cost":
412 has strong feelings, but not for things like the presumption of innocence, due process, victims rights, or prosecutorial integrity, conflicts of interest,
consistency in the application of the laws, or professional competence. Nope, 412 has it all figured out. No need for a trial, just have 412 read the T/S and the
E/R, and pronounce guilty.
Tell me 412, what was your take on
the PALCO suit? How about Debbie August? Where were you on the Garza boys? Was the DA's handling of that one up to par? Who enabled young Mr. Garza to continue to abuse his minor girlfriend? The girl? Or PVG/yougo?
oh, sorry, you don't like to be bothered with other cases, do you. History is so awkward, all those facts, records, witnesses, transcripts. Better to stick to the newspapers.
Posted by Anonymous to watchpaul at 8/05/2008 4:52 PM
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The human cost":
And if 412 could enlighten us about the Rape Crisis subpoena fiasco, that would be good. Since RC did not do what PVG wanted, does that mean they are facilitating rape? Any strong feelings there, genius?
Posted by Anonymous to watchpaul at 8/05/2008 4:55 PM
Rose has left a new comment on your post "The human cost":
One case is severed, 4:45. So what evidence is there? And what does it show? That he had a weakness for women who take sleeping pills? That he drugged them all? That he was a sleeping pill pusher? That their doctors' shouldn't have prescribed those pills?
I don't know. You could convince me they had a dysfunctional relationship, even a massively unhappy marriage. But lots of people have them. Some people get in horrific fights and then make up - and that's their pattern. Lots of women have lots of complaints against their husbands, complaints they'll talk about all day long to friends and co-workers, but they'd be shocked to the max if all of a sudden the spouse was arrested.
Is that what happened here? Who knows. Sounds like she talked about it on occasion, even with some of those people. Maybe she trusted them to just listen. Then it all blew out of control.
And you still have the ex-wife's representation to address.
Posted by Rose to watchpaul at 8/05/2008 5:12 PM
Rose has left a new comment on your post "The human cost":
Regardless, she has taken a no holds barred, not uncertain stand. She has sent her complaint to the Attorneys' General. That is surely not something one does lightly.
Posted by Rose to watchpaul at 8/05/2008 5:14 PM
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The human cost":
The AG's office is going to look at her various statements and sworn testimony and say something polite but essentially that there is nothing of substance in her complaint. As to the "ex-wife's representation to address," there is nothing there either. Joan Gallegos isn't representing the ex-wife now. Do the ex-husband's of her clients receive a get away with rape card because of her representation?
She either lied in the preliminary hearing under oath (perjury) or she is lying now, not under oath. She is just looking for money. It wouldn't surprise me if she had this planned all along.
Posted by Anonymous to watchpaul at 8/05/2008 9:10 PM
red has left a new comment on your post "The human cost":
Ok fine she's nuts, she's out for money, she perjured herself, whatever dude. So, PVG filed this case based solely on the word of a person whose credibility his supporters are now vigourosly attacking. Alternatively, he filed this case and somehow managed to so completely alienate his star witness that she is very publically disavowing this prosecution and in particular this prosecutor. Cluster may not be an adequate term anymore.
Posted by red to watchpaul at 8/05/2008 9:52 PM
Rose has left a new comment on your post "The human cost":
Joan Gallegos isn't representing the ex-wife now
I don't think that is going to make this go away, sweetie.
Posted by Rose to watchpaul at 8/05/2008 11:07 PM
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The human cost":
You are the NUT. I have said over and over that I am not a Gallegos supporter. Why do you have to put everyone into the pro or con Gallegos box? This is a very complex legal case that you are attempting to make about supporting or opposing the DA. It may come as news to you, but everyone doesn't decide cases based on their love or hate of the DA like you do. Some of us are more concerned about getting rapists in prison where they belong. You disgust me.
Posted by Anonymous to watchpaul at 8/06/2008 7:28 AM
red has left a new comment on your post "The human cost":
I think we can all agree that putting rapists in prison where they belong is a worthy goal. If that is the case, then, 7:28, perhaps you should ask yourself whether PVG is the man you want in charge of that in Humboldt, given the circumstances of this case.
Posted by red to watchpaul at 8/06/2008 7:55 AM
Rose has left a new comment on your post "The human cost":
Oh, it's a complex case, alright. That conflict of interest alone is a real doozy.
Posted by Rose to watchpaul at 8/06/2008 7:56 AM
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The human cost":
I heard jury selection was on hold. Is that for real? Anybody know why?
Posted by Anonymous to watchpaul at 8/06/2008 8:02 AM
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The human cost":
PVG is the DA today. I don't care whether he or somebody else is doing the job. Reading this blog is sickening with the obsession and obvious desire for everyone to get off no matter how henious their crimes just because you hate PVG. You people are sick. Making up shit about conflicts of interest because his wife used to represent the exwife of the rapist is insane. That crazy Seals woman is probably reading this blog to figure out what she should lie about next. DISGUSTING!
Posted by Anonymous to watchpaul at 8/06/2008 8:15 AM
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post ">The human cost":
815. You are obtuse. It's getting criminals off that is the problem with the current DA. That and the total loss of integrity.The point of this blog, fromt the beginning up to the present, is that PVG is not an effective law enforcement officer. If he was, he would still have the best small DA's office in the state.
Posted by Anonymous to watchpaul at 8/06/2008 8:19 AM
Rose has left a new comment on your post "The human cost":
It is the schizophrenic nature of who he chooses to prosecute that is part of the problem, 8:15. It is the record of trying cases in the public. It is the record of plea bargains when there should be prosecutions and vice versa. It's a record of plagiarism, of filing cases - or charges - that shouldn't be filed, just because.
It's a record of losing top talent, losing grants, losing employees, killing programs, missing meetings, refusing to work with others...
It's a record of secrecy and spin. A record of letting people into the office who weren't hired, people like Salzman and Schectman...
And as for Gundersen - it is something that hasn't been 'right' about this case from the very beginning - and that may be because of Gallegos' known antipathy towards law enforcement, or it may be for some other reasons - history with Hislop, the ex-wife's attorney being Gallegos' wife - we don't exactly know - but alot of us can see PROBLEMS here.
And they're blowing up all over the front page of the paper, right where Gallegos put them.
Posted by Rose to watchpaul at 8/06/2008 9:07 AM
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The human cost":
This blog is full of lies and inaccuracies. This thread alone has so many misrepresentations it is appalling. When you have the facts on your side you don't have to make shit up. Either you people are mentally retarded or evil. With people like you opposing him, no wonder PVG keeps winning.
Posted by Anonymous to watchpaul at 8/06/2008 9:15 AM
Rose has left a new comment on your post "The human cost":
And this blog is here, open for discussion, so that you can correct any lies or inaccuracies.
Comments threads often go off on tangents, rumors get aired, and either proven or disputed, as was the case early on with the fact that Gallegos' wife represented the ex- Mrs. Gundersen in an ongoing and bitter custody dispute.
That turned out to be true.
Other rumors get proven false. That's what it is about.
And, the problem, 9:15, is that it is not about 'winning.' It is about doing a good job ONCE you win. It is about honor and integrity and respect for the office and for the people whose office it is.
Filing and pursing the Palco case on behalf of special interests showed an utter lack of integrity and respect for the people, and the law, and the office. And that was just the beginning.
Posted by Rose to watchpaul at 8/06/2008 9:30 AM
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The human cost":
You have been the main perpetrator of the lies here. You posted that Seals got the idea that her husband was raping her from the investigators but that was contradicted by her own preliminary hearing testimony that she had told Gundersen he was raping her and to stop. Your lack of integrity by spreading these lies to attack PVG proves you are worse than he is. You have claimed that she hasn't changed her story when any fool can read her many different accounts and see where she has changed it drastically. Your zeal to smear PVG has blinded you to reason and your obsession is taking its toll on your mental health. The only people who take you seriously are mentally retarded fools like yourself and those who hope to gain politically from your smears from an anonymous position where they can't be blamed for libel. The lot of you are disgusting!
Posted by Anonymous to watchpaul at 8/06/2008 10:00 AM
Rose has left a new comment on your post "The human cost":
Really? Well. Time, and the published record will tell.
Look, Gallegos may be a very nice guy. He can go back into private practice, and you can hire him next time you need legal help.
He's so great, you'll be lucky to have him, right?
Or, he can get on the EPIC, ERF stable of attorneys. They'd love to have him, right? Because he is so sharp and all. Probably pays better than the gig he has now.
Posted by Rose to watchpaul at 8/06/2008 10:12 AM
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The human cost":
“no wonder PVG keeps winning.” 8/06/2008 9:15 AM? - you were kidding right?
He has lost consistently
Palco
August
Marsh
Dowdy
Garza
Ogeara
those just popped into my mind. there are a lot of other cases that I remember the facts about from reading in the paper.
Oh - and I am not even mentioning the cases that he could only get misdemeanors or lesser convictions because he couldn't competently present the evidence like the Bridgeville murder case he punted on.
and this isn’t even mentioning the destruction of all specialties (sex cases, sex registrants, homocide, environmental, elder abuse) in that office.
Nor the plea bargains - I especially remember the one where a guy was on parole for numerous drug sale priors and came up here from SoCal with over 3 pounds of heroin hidden in hidden compartments in his car. Confessed to making numerous runs a year for millions of dollars for a SoCal drug lord. Guy faced over 20 years and got a parole revocation for 3 years. Pretty lame and pretty indicative of the screw ups that you are trying to defend 9:15.
you know there is not enough room here to print it all, but what I can say is that you seem to know a little 9:15 and have chosen to deliberately try and spin it to justify Gags’ incompetence. Could be you are right and you don’t care for Gags. Could also be that you are not being honest with us. But really, saying that he wins consistently would be a lie. If you want to go there be prepared to deal with all of the loses, the lost cases, programs and lawyers and then deal with the lies to the public and victims as well as the plaigarism.
Posted by Anonymous to watchpaul at 8/06/2008 10:38 AM
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The human cost":
Please list the so-called "lies" that Rose has been spreading.
Be specific.
Regarding JD#1 and the idea that Rose "lied" about her getting the idea of rape "from the investigators", remember this JD has been all over the place with her story.
List more lies...we are waiting.
Why do I get the feeling that we will be waiting quite awhile?
Posted by Anonymous to watchpaul at 8/06/2008 10:40 AM
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The human cost":
By winnning, 915 means elected office, methinks.
As for Rose being "worse" than PVG? Interesting. Did Rose run for office on the promise that the DDA's deserved job protection? Did Rose take an oath to uphold the laws and Constitution of the State and the Nation? Is Rose obligated to prosecute without fear or favor?
One could go on and on, but perhaps even to 915 and his ilk, it should be obvious that elected officials have responsibilities, private citizens have rights. Some of them are protected by the First
Amendment.
Posted by Anonymous to watchpaul at 8/06/2008 11:13 AM
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The human cost":
still waiting for a list of Rose's "lies"...
tick...tick...tick...
Posted by Anonymous to watchpaul at 8/06/2008 11:46 AM
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The human cost":
ok 9;15 - here is another example of Gallegos's losses: The Kidnaping and Robbery at the sequioa zoo.
Well, Estrada-chavez who was the defendant was originally charged with a violation of 209(b)(1) - kidnaping to commit robbery, 211 - robbery, assault with a firearm. The sentence on the kidnaping for robbery alone is life in prison. So our lazy DA changes it to kidnaping under 207 and makes him plea to kidnaping and robbery in order to avoid sending him to prison for life in exchange for a light sentence which will have him out in less than 6 years.
That’s right 9:15 - such a win. And your "boy" who is supposed to follow the law and apply it equally chooses to ignore the people and ignore the legislature that made this a life offense.
Posted by Anonymous to watchpaul at 8/06/2008 1:43 PM
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The human cost":
Maybe if Estrada Chavez had been run over by the victim or a witness, who could then have been immunized, there could have been a trial.
Posted by Anonymous to watchpaul at 8/06/2008 1:50 PM
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The human cost":
What happened to the rest of this thread that was here previously? Censoring posts? Say it isn't so!
Posted by Anonymous to watchpaul at 8/07/2008 8:26 AM
It isn't so, and I am trying to find out what is wrong.
But it is looking like even this comment will not post on that thread,.
testing
ReplyDeletetesting again
ReplyDelete