Delusional Ken Miller defends his failed Palco lawsuit

If only HE could have gone and argued the case, surely the outcome would have been different. Surely.

At some point I will read the whole thing, I guess. I didn't get part the first couple sentences, and the "courageous" lawsuit. Yes. That one. The one Ken Miller wrote. The same one that was - literally - laughed out of court.

But let this record show, there was - and there is - nothing 'courageous' about an elected politician filing a lawsuit at the behest of his backers and handlers. 'COURAGE' would have been saying, "No, Ken. Sorry, it doesn't work that way."

Ken glosses over all the lies. Employs his spin doctored talking points, and his delusional version of reality. Even Gallegos knows it's false, if ever he were to admit the truth.

◼ Paul Gallegos restored honor to DA's office = Ken Miller's MY WORD in the Times-Standard

Now, if only he could restore our seasoned, trained, top-flight Prosecutors. He had 20 when he took office, right, Ken? How many prosecutors does he have now, not even counting whether they're experienced or not... six? seven?

Related: ◼ Good riddance to Paul Gallegos - Susan Dodd, Letter to the Editor/Times-Standard

The End

☛ TS Moore civil suit dismissed as plaintiffs agree to defense motion
A federal judge signed an order this week to dismiss the civil rights violation lawsuit brought against the city of Eureka by the son of Cheri Lyn Moore and, apparently, the plaintiffs agreed to the defense-requested dismissal.

”We appreciate the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of the case,” said Eureka City Attorney Sheryl Schaffner. “It's just a relief for the city, Chief (David) Douglas and all the officers and staff involved to have this very sad and community-wrenching event finally put behind us.”

Defense attorney Nancy Delaney said the suit, which sought unspecified damages for the alleged civil rights violations against Moore, faced an uphill battle after the involuntary manslaughter indictments handed up against Douglas and Lt. Tony Zanotti by a criminal grand jury were thrown out by Humboldt County Superior Court Judge John Feeney in August.

”The ruling of Judge Feeney made it clear that there were indeed exigent circumstances,” Delaney said. “We ultimately expected (the suit) to be dismissed on motions without a trial -- this just short circuited that. It was already headed that way somewhat, but (Feeney's ruling) certainly sealed it.”

The plaintiff's attorneys, Dennis Cunningham and Gordon Kaupp, did not return numerous Times-Standard phone calls seeking comment for this story....

...Federal Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton's dismissal of the civil suit seems to signal the end of drawn-out legal saga after Moore's shooting shook the local community.

But District Attorney Paul Gallegos has yet to unequivocally say he won't file a criminal complaint against Douglas and Zanotti for their decision-making roles in Moore's death.

”The indictment that was issued by the grand jury has resulted in significant change,” Gallegos said in an e-mail to the Times-Standard. “I believe that the changes that have taken place since Ms. Moore's tragic death are such that I do not expect a recurrence of the events that took place in that incident. In light of those changes and the remoteness of any additional positive result for the community by moving forward, I have not seen a compelling reason to move forward with a complaint at this time.

”My hope is that the changes that have been made, and the resulting remoteness of a recurrence of events such as took place with Ms. Moore, provide some solace to the aggrieved, some comfort to the distressed and some positive resolution for the community,” Gallegos continued.

Local attorney Bill Bragg, who represented Douglas during the criminal case, said he doesn't anticipate Gallegos filing a complaint against his client.

”In my experience, prosecuting authorities rarely commit themselves,” Bragg said. “My feeling is there is certainly no present intent to move forward, but the district attorney did leave the door open.”

For his part, Garr Nielsen, current chief of the Eureka Police Department that was also named in the suit, said Hamilton's decision is welcome news for the department, and brings a close to another painful chapter.

”As with the criminal piece, every part of this that gets put to rest brings us closer to putting closure to what was a tragic incident both for the police department and the community,” Nielsen said. “I think this is very good news, and welcome news to us and to this organization.”

Delaney said she hopes the civil suit's demise sends a clear message to the local community.

”I don't think the public sometimes appreciates the emotional toll that these occurrences have on the officers, but the positive thing here is that each knew that he or she had done what they were supposed to do, what they were required to do (in the situation),” Delaney said. “My hope would be that now the public understands that the officers acted appropriately.”

Measure T Down. No flames. Just Down. As it should be.

County, Pacific Legal Foundation reach Measure T settlement Measure T: 'Null and void'
The Pacific Legal Foundation announced Monday that it has agreed to a settlement with Humboldt County over the legality of Measure T.

Passed by county voters in 2006, Measure T aimed to ban political contributions from out-of-county corporations to local campaigns. But, the measure quickly came under fire from those who believed it to be unconstitutional.

...Reached Monday, Interim Humboldt County Counsel Wendy Chaitin said the county felt compelled to fight the case because it stemmed from a citizen-passed initiative, despite the fact that many worried from the beginning that the measure may not past constitutional muster.

”The county felt it was necessary to defend Measure T and they did,” Chaitin said. “But, there's a point where you have to balance the reasonable likelihood of winning the lawsuit versus what kind of effort and county funds -- basically taxpayer money -- you want to put toward that effort.”

Illston's initial ruling on the injunction, Chaitin said, plainly showed the proverbial writing was on the wall.

”It was clear from the preliminary injunction ruling that the U.S. District Court Judge Illston, in granting that preliminary injunction, was pretty strong and clear in her language that there were many distinct grounds on which she concluded that Measure T violated the Constitution, both on First and 14th Amendment grounds,” Chaitin said.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the county will have to pay $44,000 in Pacific Legal Foundation legal fees, but Chaitin said the total cost of the case for the county is closer to $100,000, not including county staff time.

heraldo has the press release from DUH C MEASURE T: Finished
Press release from the backers of Measure T:
HUMBOLDT COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CAVE TO CORPORATE PRESSURE:
AGREEMENT TO SETTLE OVER MEASURE T FILED IN FEDERAL COURT
Eric has a thread going.

And That POS Measure cost the county HOW MUCH? Kaitlin?

Another funny quote:

When Stoen talks about the PL suit, his complete confidence in its success is disarming. "I will win this case," he says. "If Paul's not recalled, I am guaranteeing you that we will win this case. I don't know what the penalties will be, but this case is as solid as a rock." ☛ NCJ Cover Story

Yeah. He also said he only needed two pieces of paper and a couple of expert witnesses and this case was a SLAM DUNK.

More on the Judge's ruling

☛ TS Judge tosses Douglas, Zanotti manslaughter charges
Legal and police experts have called the indictments unprecedented, as they targeted the incident's commanders and none of the officers who fired the fatal shots.

The case has captured the attention of law enforcement agencies across the nation, many of which worried a conviction of Douglas and Zanotti could set a precedent that would send shock waves throughout the law enforcement community.

Feeney began Tuesday's hearing by saying he believed the grand jury indicted without sufficient probable cause to establish that the defendants had committed an illegal act or a lawful act in a criminally negligent manner.

Feeney said he found Gallegos' jury instructions on exigent circumstances -- or the presence of an imminent threat necessitating prompt action -- to be inadequate....

”I do find the indictments were not supported by probable cause,” he said. “The entry into Ms. Moore's apartment, even without a warrant, was lawful given her brandishing a flare gun at officers and her threats to burn down the building.”

Feeney went on to say he felt there was no evidence to show that Douglas or Zanotti acted in an aggravated or reckless manner, that Gallegos presented insufficient evidence to show the defendants failed to adequately supervise the SWAT and negotiations teams, and that he never advised the grand jury that Moore had committed a felony in brandishing the flare gun at officers.

After the hearing, defense attorneys said they were pleased with the ruling.

”I'm satisfied with the result because it's the correct result -- the legally correct result,” said William Rapoport, who was representing Zanotti in the matter. “(This case has) destroyed a huge part of these men's lives for the last nine months, and it's time they got some relief. ... They've had a cloud hanging over their heads for no good reason other than someone's political aspirations.”

Gallegos said he respects the court's ruling in this difficult case but disagrees with it.

While he has the option of re-filing the charges in a criminal complaint and bringing them to a preliminary hearing, Gallegos said he would have to “digest” the court's ruling before determining how to proceed.

If he feels the heart of the court's decision was based on the facts of the case and the law, Gallegos said he would likely let Feeney's decision be the end of it. But, if he feels Feeney's decision had more to do with his errors instructing the grand jury, Gallegos said he would feel obligated to proceed with a criminal complaint.

”I think my position has to be, whether I like it or not, that if the facts are there and the law is there, I have to proceed,” Gallegos said. “I owe it to the family.”

UH, Paul - the Judge just told you. The facts ARE NOT there. The LAW is NOT there.

☛ ER Judge throws out involuntary manslaughter case
Feeney said the indictments the grand jury handed down to Douglas and Zanotti in December 2007 weren’t supported by probable cause. Insufficient evidence regarding the former leaders’ alleged failure to oversee other law enforcement was also presented to the grand jury, Feeney said, and instructions given on “exigent circumstances” were inadequate.

The grand jury should have also been instructed on justifiable homicide by law enforcement officials, Feeney said....

Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos argued that exigent circumstances, which allow law enforcement to legally enter a building or residence without a warrant if people are in imminent danger or threatened, didn’t exist, as the apartment building wasn’t evacuated, law enforcement’s command center was in the same building and the gas to the structure wasn’t shut off.

If the court says, as a matter of law, exigent circumstances were present, that’s different than the officers believing the situation fit the definition, Gallegos said. And, if faulty instructions on exigent circumstances were given to the grand jury, Gallegos said he may file charges against Douglas and Zanotti.

While he respects the court’s decision, Gallegos said he disagreed and pointed to the grand jury transcripts, which included interviews with negotiators, mental health officials, the officers involved in the shooting and others.

Attorney William Bragg, who along with William Rapaport and Greg Rael, represented Douglas and Zanotti, said he expected the dismissal, adding the case shouldn’t have been one in the first place. He cited overwhelming case evidence on the defense’s side and said Feeney made the decision based on the law.

The defense attorneys filed motions starting in June seeking to have the case dismissed. The motions stated Gallegos misrepresented the law to the grand jury and didn’t provide evidence that would have helped justify the men’s decisions in the standoff.

Gallegos said there’s no set timeline on when and if he’ll file charges against Douglas and Zanotti, as he used a group process to make such big decisions and would speak to other district attorneys. “There’s no reason to be hasty,” he said.

One can only imagine the last minute email that went out on this one!

Day 875 - Douglas-Zanotti case TOSSED by judge

DOWN ON EVERY COUNT.
He misrepresented the law.
He didn't provide exculpatory evidence.
The entry was legal.
☛ TS Douglas-Zanotti case tossed by judge BREAKING NEWS!
Humboldt County Superior Court Judge John Feeney dismissed the criminal case against Eureka Police Chief David Douglas and Lt. Tony Zanotti this afternoon.
At a hearing on the motion to dismiss the involuntary manslaughter charges that stem from a grand jury inquiry into the 2006 death of Cheri Lyn Moore during a SWAT operation, Feeney ruled for the defense.
The defense argued that District Attorney Paul Gallegos misrepresented the law and didn't provide evidence of the commanding officers' innocence to the grand jury.
The criminal charges have been called unprecedented, in that they focused on the officers in charge of the SWAT operation. No charges were filed against the officers that stormed Moore's apartment and shot her after a standoff in which she brandished a flare gun and threatened to burn down the building.

☛ ER Douglas/Zanotti case dismissed
☛ ER Judge throws out involuntary manslaughter case
Feeney said the indictments the grand jury handed down to Douglas and Zanotti in December 2007 weren’t supported by probable cause. Insufficient evidence regarding the former leaders’ alleged failure to oversee other law enforcement was also presented to the grand jury, Feeney said, and instructions given on “exigent circumstances” were inadequate.

The grand jury should have also been instructed on justifiable homicide by law enforcement officials, Feeney said.

The entire courtroom applauded.

JUSTICE IS SERVED.

While he respects the court’s decision, Gallegos said he disagreed ... Gallegos said there’s no set timeline on when and if he’ll file charges against Douglas and Zanotti, as he used a group process to make such big decisions and would speak to other district attorneys. “There’s no reason to be hasty,” he said.

DOWN IN FLAMES - Gallegos has lost his appeal.

Gallegos Loses, Hank has it first. TS has it, Eric's also picked it up, Nothing - zip zero nada from heraldo.
The First Appellate Court has just weighed in on the landmark fraud suit brought by District Attorney Paul Gallegos against Pacific Lumber. Gallegos has lost. The trial court decision to toss the case on demurrer was affirmed in full.

The Mother of All Long Term Projects has come to an end.There's a CD of the proceedings. More to come. You should all hear it.

Case information P. ex rel. Gallegos v. Pacific etc. 1/10/08
PDF file
Source, doc file also available

In concluding, the Appeals Court found that:
Given the undisputed presence of disinterested decision-makers at the CDF as well as other state agencies, the extensive independent review and analysis of Pacific Lumber’s proposed harvesting plan, the public hearing open to all interested persons and agencies, and the review process that was available for correcting any identifiable errors including misrepresentations) in a timely fashion, we are thus disinclined to conclude the CEQA proceedings were rendered illegitimate by Pacific Lumber’s alleged submission of raudulent data – which indeed was corrected over a month before issuance of the CDF’s ultimate decision.

In reaching this decision, we agree with the State that the trial court had no discretion to weigh the evidence in ruling on Pacific Lumber’s demurrer. However, “while the court does not weigh evidence, it must determine whether plaintiffs have demonstrated evidence which, if credited, would justify their prevailing at trial.” (Blanchard v. DIRECTV, Inc. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 903, 921.) Here, for the reasons discussed above, we conclude the State’s evidence, even if credited, would not justify its prevailing at trial. Further, we conclude the State has failed to prove, on its third try, a reasonable possibility that the operative pleading’s defect can be cured by amendment. Blank, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318.) As such, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
***
See Gallegos' Complaint and Appeal in the sidebar for links to all the filings, amendments and briefs, as well as the decision.
***

How long before he files a Petition For Review before the California Supreme Court?

Sean Marsh NOT GUILTY - A cartoon, an editorial, an article and letters to the editor.

Includes a letter to the editor from Sean Marsh, setting the record straight, from his perspective.

From my perspective, it's not just that this case should never have gone to trial, it's that it went to trial when so many much more serious cases have not. When there has been little to no prosecution of REAL child abusers and molesters in the past year under Paul Gallegos (one as of last April, according to the statistics at the time). Yet he chooses to prosecute this man whose kid got a few feet ahead of him while walking down Main Street in the quiet town of Ferndale.

Many questions remain. Not the least of which is how this case came to be pulled out of the "Rejected cases" file and reactivated to the point that Gallegos himself participated in the investigation.

From the Ferndale Enterprise:

Editorial: Justice... but at what cost?

Incredulous.

That's the word to describe our reaction to the events that unfolded last week and the early part of this week at the Humboldt County Courthouse.

As we watched the trial of Sean Marsh, it was hard to believe that it was real and not some big joke, like many thought the arrest of Marsh was some eight months ago.

The prosecution was weak. No, strike that. The prosecution was embarrassing. Embarrassing to the rookie deputy district attorney who had no evidence and whose cross-examination of Marsh left Ferndalers in the audience shaking their heads.

Yes, the system worked. A jury, thank goodness, used some common sense and ruled in less than 20 minutes that Marsh did nothing wrong (perhaps even shorter than that if you take into consideration the time it takes to pick a foreperson and fill out the judgement forms.)

Who's to blame for this mess and the exorbitant amount of money spent on investigating, prosecuting, and defending Marsh? There's plenty to go around. Of course, Chief Lawson is to blame. But he's not alone. Former City Manager Michael Powers, now in King City, is also involved in this mess. Remember former Councilman Carlos Benneman and Mayor James Moore stating that it would be an "unmitigated disaster" if Powers left? Excuse us? We're still cleaning up the mess he left behind and now the city will most certainly face a lawsuit from Marsh.

As we've pondered why this case was picked up by the DA's office and prosecuted, we look back on those emails from the city manager to this paper. Many of his comments were "off the record." However, it was clear that the complaint filed against the chief by merchant Polly Stemwedel prompted the city manager to stand firmly behind the chief and push strongly for a Marsh conviction. Powers and his supporters boasted about his "fending off" a major lawsuit against the city. He never named the lawsuit publicly, but we can't help but wonder if it involved this case. Can you say backfire? Emails this week to Powers in King City were not answered.

As for Marsh, he'll survive. Worst injustices have occurred. But the damage is done. When future employers "google" his name, the words child endangerment will forever come up. His name has been not only in this paper but others, who we must say have hurt him even worse. (His name was in the Times Standard police blotter when he was arrested... we've yet to see a story about his acquittal.)

The Eureka Reporter massacred its story on Saturday on the Marsh trial. (See the Marsh letter on this page.) It irresponsibly and unfairly gave six paragraphs to a resident's phoned in opinion about the chief. Evelyn Harrison, who did not attend the trial and hear the testimony, is the mother of one-time city council candidate Rachel Harrison - a staunch police department cheerleader, no matter who is in charge. The ER's reporter was in town Friday for lunch at Curley's and was seen taking pictures with her cell phone of the "busy intersection" and Brown and Main. Why, we ask, didn't she do her job and interview a selection of residents instead of taking a phone call at her desk from a resident with a known bias?

It seems like a regular thing now for us to email the editor of that paper to point out mistakes in their coverage of Ferndale. Is it self serving to do so? You betcha. Journalists have a lousy reputation and unless responsible reporting is sought, we'll continue to be in the same column as prosecuting district attorneys are this week. Two days later, a small correction, buried on the bottom of the second page was run. Four days later, after we hounded them again, another correction, excuse me, "clarification," was run. (Coincidentally, Marsh outside of court Tuesday was explaining to the ER reporter the mistakes in her story, and how they could have affected his case, while owner Rob Arkley, a juror in an adjacent courtroom, chatted on his cell phone during a break. Too bad he didn't hear about yet another Ferndale story inaccurately reported.)

Can we as a city move on from this story? Eventually. Now, the city council will have to decide what to do with Marsh's formal complaint. And outside investigation, done after Stemwedels's complaint, has already been completed by the Fortuna Police Department into the chief's actions. It found nothing wrong with the chief's actions.

Marsh, however, deserves a public apology - from the chief, the city and the DA. Many argue he deserves a year's worth of lost wages. (He was let go fro mhis job after being a "no show" at a bank training seminar he was to lead, scheduled at 8 am the morning after his night in jail.)

Life does go on, but this soty is not over.

The system worked, as the DA's office likes to point out. But we ask... at what cost?
###


Marsh acquitted
Jury finds former Main Street business owner Sean Marsh not guilty of child endangerment or interfering with duties of police officer
Feb. 8, 2007
It took a jury of six men and six women less than 20 minutes Tuesday morning to return to Courtroom Seven at the Humboldt County Courthouse and acquit former main Street business owner Sean Marsh, 38, on charges of child endangerment and interfering with the duties of a police officer.

Eight months after he was arrested on a Wednesday afternoon in Ferndale, while shopping with his eight-month pregnant wife, the former Village baking and catering owner hugged friends outside the courtroom moments after hearing the not guilty judgements.

Ferndale Police Chief Lonnie Lawson, who arrested and charged Marsh, did not wait for the verdict after testifying again on Tuesday.

Several Ferndalers, not necessarily close with the couple, traveled to Eureka to listen to the final day of testimony in a trial that lasted over a week. Some said, after reading news reports, they wanted to see first hand what was going on.

Marsh was charged with child endangerment - likely to produce great bodily harm or death - for allegedly allowing his two-year old son Everett to step off a curb 18 inches into the crosswalk at Main and Brown. He was arrested by Lawson who said he saw the child "running full speed: in front of Lentz Department store on the sidewalk. Marsh could have faced two years in jail. He has denied all along that his son was ever in any danger, and that he was right behind the youngster watching him carefully. He testified that the two had just smelled the flowers in front of the old Nilsen building and that he was on one knee, just getting up, when the chief, who was driving down Main, spotted the toddler.

Chief Lawson pulled into the intersection and parked his car at an angle to protect the child. Marsh, however, says the child was in fact shaken by Lawson's actions and that he was right behind his son to "scoop him up."

Both men differed in their testimony in court last week on what happened next. The chief claims Marsh "brushed him off" after admonishing him to keep a better watch on his child. Marsh testified that he raised his hand as to say, "I got it."

Lawson then pulled his car into a parking place near Lentz's, got out and approached Marsh. he claims Marsh was uncooperative and that he had to grab his shoulder. Marsh however, testified he was always cooperative and answered Lawson's questions.

He did not, however, produce written identification when asked by Lawson.

"I'm not required to by law," Marsh said after his acquittal Tuesday. "I gave the chief my name and birthdate."

That law was critical during judge Timothy Cissna's instructions to the jury Tuesday. He explained to the jury that one is not required to produce written identification when approached on the street by an officer.

Lawson took the stand twice in the course of the trial and had only one witness. Kevin Hamilton, owner of the Wild Blackberry Cafe, testified that he too saw the child on the sidewalk when he was driving down Main Street and exercised caution while making a U-turn.

Lawson took the stand for a second time Tuesday morning for last-minute questioning by prosecutor Jose Mendez, who attempted to prove that Lawson was not "angry" that day, as several witnesses to the arrest testified, but rather in "a very good mood."

Lawson said he had just received word that someone had donated $3,000 to the police department to purchase new body armor. He was on his way to tell former City Manager Michael Powers the news when he noticed the toddler running down the sidewalk.

Lentz's owner Polly Stemwedel filed a complaint with the city several weeks after the arrest, stating that she saw the chief during the arrest and was shocked by the angry look on his face.

On Tuesday, prosecutor Mendez discredited Stemwedel's testimony by stating that she had admitted to having a "prior beef" with the chief and often "complained to her husband" about him. He asked Lawson on the stand "if during the whole process, did he notice Mrs. Stemwedel?"

"I never saw her." replied Lawson.

"Did you make eye contact with her?" asked Mendez.

"I might have, but I don't recall seeing her there. I can't say one way or another."

During his closing arguments, Mendez repeated a theme of, "What's a police officer supposed to do?" He also called the defense a "Blame Chief Lawson defense."

"What would you do if you saw a kid on the sidewalk...walking to an intersection?" he asked jurors. "We pay money to them to investigate, put their noses in there, make sure things are okay. It would have been almost a dereliction of duties if he hadn't."

Mendez then stated that Lawson "put a hand" on Marsh's shoulder "to get him to stop." Marsh however testified that at no time did he not stop for Lawson.

"He became confrontational on certain levels." continued Mendez, describing Marsh's attitude. Witnesses on the defense side, however, such as Marilyn Benneman, Abraxas Shoe Store owner Brett Boynton, and real estate agent Jake Drake, all testified that Marsh just stood there and was not saying a word.

"Everyone else saw things after the major crux of the case," argued Mendez. "They saw someone being arrested. He has the right to ask for written identification."

Mendez continued describing a picture of Marsh attempting "to leave," although that allegation hadn't come up in previous testimony.

"I'm asking you to hold him accountable for his responsibilities," he concluded, referring to Marsh.

Public Defender Angela Fitzsimmons quickly summed up her closing arguments.

"Mr. Marsh was arrested not because he was engaged in any criminal conduct, but because he flunked the attitude test." she stated.

Fitzsimmons described Marsh as a loving and attentive father, proving that by his own testimony detailing his trip up Main Street with his son.

"Not only was he watching, but interacting," she said

She noted that the prosecution's only witness testified that he never saw the toddler enter the street.

"The evidence shows the little boy reached the end of the curb," she said, "that's it."

By convicting Marsh, Fitzsimmons told the jury, the DA would be "setting a standard" for child endangerment that would "snare innocent parents."

"That standard is ludicrous," she said while describing everyday events that occur when parents are taking care of children. "I'm sure the DA has the resources to pursue the real endangerment cases, since this week those resources were used to pursue this case."

As far as Marsh not showing written identification, Fitzsimmons explained that the law allows you to "turn away.:

"It may be rude, but it's not illegal," she said. "Officer Lawson, however, didn't like that."

Fitzsimmons then said that Lawson shoed "little or no concern" for the child, noting that he ordered Marsh to hand the child to Jake Drake, who was inside the store helping Marsh's wife Allison, shop for shoes. Drake, upon seeing the arrest outside, thought the situation was a joke and when asked by Lawson if the toddler was her child, joked back by pinching Marsh's cheek and stating, "No, this is my child."

The defender noted that the chief never contacted Allison to check on the child, or made no effort to make sure the child was in the hands of a caretaker.

She also noted the speed of the whole incident.

"Did you notice, this was the fastest investigation in the world? It all happened in minutes. How possibly, using a professional method, can you investigate child endangerment in about five minutes? In 20 minutes he had completed his report."

Fitzsimmons then noticed those in the audience and those that had testified in Marsh's defense.

"These are respectable business owners," she said. "They make up the backbone of the Ferndale business community. These are not anarchists."

Finally Fitzsimmons questioned why the DA charged Marsh.

"Did he hear Mrs. Stemwedel filed a complaint? Did he think it would be heard in the press? We can only surmise that the complaint against Officer Lawson was the reason that this case was brought to trial."

After the jury was excused, several told The Enterprise that "there just wasn't enough proof" and that "anyone who has a child knows that they can run away from you."

"there wasn't much to it," said juror Kenneth Willhoite about the case.

While defense attorney Fitzsimmons kept her usual practice of not talking to the media, prosecutor Mendez stated in an email later to The Enterprise that "we believe in the jury system... and respect it."

"I am obviously evaluating the case to see what I think worked and what didn't, though this process may take days or weeks."

Marsh, visibly relieved to have the case behind him after eight months, reiterated that the chief misperceived the situation from the beginning.

As for not showing his identification, Marsh said he was "standing up for his rights."

He also said he has thought about the case every day for eight months and that the effects of his ordeal are long term.

"Every article has involved the words child endangerment," he said. "Fifty people during jury selection saw that I'm the guy arrested for child endangerment. It's absolutely the most ludicrous thing. My wife almost died giving birth to my son. Nothing could be further from the truth."

Marsh said he wants a public apology from the chief.

"He wronged our family and wronged the entire community."

Reached later, Lawson had no comment.



###

Letters to the editor:

Questions about the Marsh case
Dear Editor:

We, along with other residents of Ferndale, have followed with interest the proceedings involving Sean Marsh. We have appreciated the coverage that you have given this series of events. Several questions, however, have arisen in our minds.
1. How much has this prosecution, including the arrest and incarceration of the defendant and the investigation of the "scene of the crime" by the district attorney and his staff, the jury trial, the entire proceeding cost the taxpayers of Ferndale and Humboldt County, and more importantly, cost the accused?
2. More important questions arise:
--a. Why was the defendant arrested rather than cited?
--b. Why was he taken to jail and required to post $50,000 bail?
--c. Why did the district attorney's office decide to proceed with prosecution after reportedly rejecting the case ("pending more investigation')?
We are privileged to live in Ferndale, a law-abiding, gentle and kind community. However, we are troubled than an event which could have been treated as a minor incident blossomed into what it has become.
Yours truly,
Patricia Hofstetter
Sally Tanner
Ferndale

Charged responds to reporting inaccuracies
(Ed.'s note: The following letter was submitted to the Eureka Reporter in response to several factual errors in an article published Saturday regarding the Sean Marsh case.)
Dear Editor:

The article submitted by Kara D. Machado on February 3, 2007 (Eureka Reporter) regarding the proceedings against Sean Marsh is inaccurate and contains elements more suited to the opinion page.

First, Machado asserts facts about Marsh's testimony that are false and libelous. Second, in an article purporting to be an accurate representation of facts involved in a trial, fully one third of the article is devoted to opinions from a person neither involved with the trial nor present at the proceedings. These opinions are misrepresentative of the issues being brought up at trial and are not indicative of the Ferndale community.

Machado's statement, "Marsh admitted he did not first stop for Lawson," is factually incorrect. The facts, as stated by Marsh in his testimony, are that Lawson did not order or request Marsh to stop. Rather, Lawson said, "You need to hold his hand (referring to Marsh's son)," Marsh acknowledged Lawson's statement by raising his hand, picked up his son, and turned around to walk back up the sidewalk. Shortly thereafter, Lawson pulled his cruiser to the curb, exited the vehicle and walked toward Marsh. Marsh having heard a door slam, turned to see Lawson behind him. Marsh stopped and turned to face Lawson. The encounter that followed is at the heart of this trial.

Not only did Marsh not "admit that he did not first stop for Lawson." but Marsh did in fact stop for Lawson as soon as it became apparent that the officer wanted to speak with him.

Machado's inaccurate statement is not a fair and true report of Marsh's testimony and fails to capture the substance of that testimony. Her reporting creates an inaccurate effect on the reader.

Furthermore, Machado did not arrive at the courtroom in time to hear Marsh's testimony. Having missed the bulk of the proceeding, Machado tried to get Marsh to speak with her "on the record" outside the courtroom. Marsh declined as instructed by his legal counsel.

Machado had an exchange with a member of the public defender's office where she defended her reputation for fair and accurate reporting. Having missed the actual testimony, it's curious how Machado acquired her version of the facts.

Depending on her source, Machado may be guilty of actual malice for her reckless disregard for the falsity of her statements.

Regarding the "opinion piece" encapsulated in Machado's report, this is a fine example fo irresponsible reporting. The opinions put forth by Evelyn Harrison are certainly not relevant to Marsh's testimony, and are not representative of the Ferndale community.

Harrison opines that the intersection of Brown and Main is 'hub' of Ferndale. really? This is simply a misrepresentation of fact. Brown is two blocks long. It has a "T" intersection with Main at one end, and the residential street of Craig on the other.

Brown is a wonderful street, but it Is not utilized to get anywhere. In the Main Street business district, Brown in undeniably the least traveled street. the other streets intersecting Main within the business district, Ocean, Shaw and Washington each are used to access the outlying areas of Ferndale and other communities.

In fact, the only time Brown could be considered a "highly congested traffic area" is when there is a fire, because it is then utilized by all of the volunteer firemen and the fire department equipment. During such an event, the siren is blaring, and all are aware that the intersection will soon be active. Literally, at all other times, a dog could take a leisurely nap in the middle of Brown and scarcely be bothered. Just to drive this point home, Main at Brown is the single most common place in Ferndale for Main Street drivers to make a U-turn. This is a resounding indictment; that drivers would rather risk an illegal maneuver in the middle of Main than trouble themselves with turning down Brown. It just doesn't go anywhere.

Harrison next expounds on the virtues of Officer Lawson. She states that Lawson is and "outstanding citizen and a wonderfully caring man. He's not the hothead police officer he's been portrayed to be. He is a gentleman."

One can deduce that Harrison knows Lawson socially. How Lawson acts in his social circles, however is irrelevant to the trial at hand. Harrison was not present at the incident involved in this trial. I assume she doesn't ride with Lawson during his shifts as police officer either. So her assertion that Lawson is not a "hothead police officer" is not based on any relevant observation.

It reminds me of the statements we hear from people who live next door to serial killers. They always say, "I'm shocked, he was such a nice quiet man."

So rather than the unfounded musings of a misguided friend to Lawson, why didn't Machado report on the testimony of the five defense witnesses who observed Lawson's interaction with Marsh?

Independently, these five witnesses described Lawson as "yelling" at Marsh, "pointing his finger in his face." "clearly agitated," :out of control," "staring with eyes so full of anger and hatred." The witnesses also described Marsh as "calm," "quiet," "just standing there holding his son."

Lawson in his testimony, stated "I never get emotional," and later added "I never get angry." According to the witnesses, Lawson's statements are incorrect.

Just for fun, let's look at another statement Lawson gave during his testimony. Lawson stated that he originally saw Marsh 200 feet from his child who was about to run into the street.

In a time span that Lawson estimated at 2 or 3 seconds, he pulled his car into the intersection, looked up and Marsh was picking up his son. Marsh had somehow covered 200 feet in two or three seconds? The world record for the 100 yard dash without starting blocks was set by Frank Wykoff in 1930 in a time of 9.4 seconds. At that pace, Wykoff could have covered 200 feet in about 6.1 seconds.

Lawson's testimony has Marsh covering that same distance twice, if not three times, as fast as the world record pace. Either Lawson is again incorrect, or Marsh should be pursuing a career as an elite runner.

Finally, Harrison does make one statement of opinion that is relevant to this case. She states of Lawson, "I would trust him with my life and the lives of any of my family members," Well, that's good, because as a police officer of Ferndale, our entire community has trust in officer Lawson. The entire community trusts that Lawson will uphold the laws of our village, state and country. We further trust that Lawson will respect the constitution and protect the civil rights and liberties of every citizen in our community.

And this brings up the relevance to this case. Marsh also trusted Lawson. It appears from the testimony at trial, that Lawson violated that trust. According to the testimony, Lawson acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner when arresting Marsh. Lawson was not acting in a lawful course in his duties to detain Marsh, and had questionable constitutional authority to demand Marsh produce an identification document after Marsh had identified himself verbally.

Furthermore, there was testimony that Lawson twisted Marsh's handcuffs as a punitive measure. This technique was denounced by our current administration when it was discovered that twisting handcuffs of prisoners at Abu Ghraib had become a common form of torture.

Whether Marsh or Lawson are "gentlemen" is irrelevant to this case, and therefore should not be the subject of an article reporting on the testimony in the case.

The testimony is that Lawson perceived a situation incorrectly. Lawson then confronted Marsh in an aggressive and confrontational manner. Marsh attempted to walk away from the confrontation and Lawson detained Marsh without cause. Lawson ordered Marsh, a pedestrian, to produce identification documents. Marsh immediately identified himself verbally. Marsh asserted that Lawson's demand for physical documentation of identity constituted an illegal search.

Unable to admit his mistake in perceiving the situation, and unwilling to acquiesce that Marsh had identified himself within the scope of the constitution, Lawson arrested Marsh.

Machado has served this community unjustly with her inaccurate and irresponsible article. She has defamed Sean Marsh by not verifying the truth or falsity of her reported "facts." Further, she has confused the public by publishing narrowly held opinions in an article representing itself as factual reporting. Please print an equally conspicuous retraction to the original article, or print this letter in response to the original article.

Sean and Allison Marsh
Eureka

RELATED:
Ferndale Enterprise Sean Marsh NOT GUILTY - A cartoon, an editorial, an article and letters to the editor
ACQUITTED ER - Sean Marsh not guilty on all counts, jury decides Tuesday
Ferndale Enterprise - DA explains Marsh "child endangerment" prosecution
ER - Sean Marsh testifies on his own behalf in child endangerment trial
ER - Marsh denies letting 2-year-old toddler walk unattended in road
Word to the Wise:
Don't Cop an Attitude in Ferndale

Sean Marsh - ACQUITTED

Sean Marsh not guilty on all counts, jury decides Tuesday
by Kara D. Machado, 2/7/2007

"...The not guilty verdicts were reached in a little less than half an hour of jury deliberation Tuesday..."

Is that a new record?