Of course it was coming. The DA finally plea bargained McClung He was out on probation after being convicted of manufacturing meth with a gun, and sentenced to the maximum term. That ten year sentence had been suspended by the court which placed him on probation. Only if he got caught violating his probation would he have to serve his term.
Well. Now - he did get caught, allegedly trying to kill his girlfriend, and he was charged with "four felonies — false imprisonment/person used as a shield; false imprisonment; threatening crime with intent to terrorize; and assault with a deadly weapon or great bodily injury force with a kitchen knife — and the misdemeanor of resisting arrest or obstructing a public officer."
All of the new charges, assault, kidnapping were dismissed and he entered a plea to 2 years for false imprisonment (shades of GARZA) to run concurrent to the older prison sentence. (Meaning it is not added on top of the old sentence.)
After Thursday’s court proceedings, (McClung's attorney Russell) Clanton said that if McClung didn’t have the 10-year probation violation prison sentence hanging over his head, Thursday’s outcome may have been different. Clanton whined that he would have gotten a more "equitable" sentence if it hadn't for that earlier 10 yr sentence that he couldn't get out of. Doesn't he mean the guy could have gotten off scott-free? As it is, he only has to serve 5 years.
Were it not for that earlier sentence, which tied Gallegos' hands, you have to wonder if this guy would be seeing any prison time.
The background:
McClung accepts plea offer
Judge grants third continuance for felony assault case
Judge grants McClung two-week continuance
Plea agreement offered to McClung
Judge continues McClung hearing
McClung pleads not guilty
McClung to return to court Wednesday
Man who threatens to kill girlfriend, himself arrested
No coverage in the Times Standard apparently.
Friday, May 04, 2007
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
More on the Witch Hunt..."This is not a NIMBY issue" WITH KHUM UPDATES
In a message dated 5/2/2007 salzman@inreach.com writes:
To: Humboldt neighbors re 17-unit subdivision in Manila...
"...This is NOT just a Manila issue - and NOT a NIMBY issue. it's about what kinds of development the residents of Humboldt Bay wish to allow in our communities in the future, and how these critical decisions should be made...."
"...This is not a NIMBY issue. No developer should be allowed to place a densely packed subdivision of large homes on top of a wild dune ecosystem adjacent to a healthy willow wetland in a rural neighborhood on a narrow road...
Uh huh.
It does happen elsewhere, and it looks kinda nice.
UPDATE:
Letters to the North Coast Journal, from Fennel, his tenant, and a guy from Trinidad - and a correction noted, But the facts still stand. Michael Fennel asserts, and Hank agrees, that Fennel did not BUILD three houses. One existed, One was built and another is planned. Nevertheless, Sims points out, the point of his comments last week was that Fennel wants to hold Riley to a half acre minimum standard that he himself did not - or was not allowed to - follow.
ANOTHER UPDATE:
Calling out all the stops and using the media - today, (Thursday) Michael Fennel is on KHUM decrying Scott Riley's project, saying it is not a "green development" - STILL says this project plans to bulldoze the dunes - says people should be honest - says they are trying to impose a dense new neighborhood - still upset about the scrub pines which were cut, wants to ask for a measuring of the stumps, says he has already measured the stumps - (isn't that trespassing?) Says he doesn't see cutting a new road into the dunes is fair to the protected environment, says the new development must fit in with the character of the existing homes (-?-), and that these 3 story homes just won't fit in with the existing character, in part becasue they have to be built to withstand a tsunami. Says, essentially that John Ash, the architect is lying. (Spin, he says, to call using recycled products and installing solar "green.") No mention of the trail access, nor the fact that Riley offered to donate land to the Community... Like I said, there's no appeasing these guys.
UPDATE to UPDATE (1:31):
Scott Riley called in to KHUM to set the record straight... Wow what a story! Basically, I'll stick to the order in which he spoke:
First he talked about the trees. He said it is illegal to cut anything over a foot in diameter. Then he talked about the trees he cut, He said, first of all, that he planted 150 native trees on the property (turns out he owns a tree farm), and said they had gotten to be about 15 to 20 feet tall. He said when trees grow to a certain height in the sand, they often get blown over, and that that had happened here. So he went in to clean up the dead and dying trees, cut them up for firewood.
Then the harassment begins...The next day, he said, he came to work on them and found a Stop Work' order posted. The County sent out a code enforcement unit to inspect his property, they told him they had gotten complaints from a couple of neighbors. He showed them the trees, explained what was going on. The code enforcement officers found that there was no violation.
A couple of weeks later he cut the trees up and stacked them up. Then another agency came to inspect, this time the Coastal Commission, again because of complaints from Fennel and company. The Coastal Commission representative also sees that this is not a violation.
Then another Federal agency showed up, because Fennel and his friends had complained about an illegal timber harvest.
All three agencies found that no violation had occurred. And, Riley said, he got three cords of wood finally.
Next, the radio host, Mike Dronkers, asked him about the three story houses that Fennel had complained so loudly about.
Riley said first that the house Fennel built was 6 feet from his own property line and that it is taller than any of the houses Riley plans to build, and that across the street Fennel had another 30 foot building. Riley said that his tallest house will be 35 feet in height, and that they will have underground garages.
Giving a background on the dispute, he said that in 1992 he talked to the property's then owners, the Shires, and asked if they would sell the property. they said the property was not for sale, but mentioned that Fennel and Aryay Kalaki had gotten the property appraised and made an offer to the Shires.
Noting that the property was not for sale, they then said that if someone offered them twice what Kalaki had offered, they would sell it. So Riley bought it, and made a lifelong enemy apparently. He said he himself had put the property up for sale, that for 15 years Kalaki and Fennel could have purchased the property and turned it into a dune sanctuary if they wanted to, but they did not.
Regarding the houses, he said he has posted the plans on a bulletin board and that people can see them at the Planning Dept. When he decided to develop it, the County suggested that he do a planned unit development, where you cluster the houses and leave the rest for natural habitat, the new wave of the future.
He said most of Manila is zoned for 5,000 sq. ft lots which is 8 houses to an acre, and some allow 16 per acre, and he pointed out that his property is 8.5 acres, and he is only building 17 homes, much better than the rest of Manila.
He said his homes will be set well back from the wetlands, while Fennel's house is only 7 feet from the wetlands, and that one of Fennel's buildings is in the wetland, something Fennel had requested a variance to hbe allowed to do so.
In fact, he said, Fennel has requested a variance each time he has done something, while he, Riley had not asked for any zoning variances.
The homes he is proposing have sod roofs, passive solar, solar panels, thermal mass, with recycled and organic materials. The building cost is substantially more than a "normal" house. They'll cost $400,000 to $500,000 to build, but they represent a new wave in sustainable development. Riley said he is willing to take the risk, but that it is a gamble, whether or not he will be able to sell them. "Green" housing is more expensive. Like organic produce. But worth it.
It's an ambitious project, and one people should be excited about, especially the so-called enviros.
To Mike Dronkers - like Hank Sims - you deserve thanks for allowing both sides to be told. Very interesting.
It is quite a story. Not a pretty story, though.
Footnote and disclaimer: I was scribbling as fast as I could as the two men were talking. I believe I got all the points correctly. But, given the interest this is generating, and given the fact that Fennel's side looks like they are the nitpicky ones who are probably looking for any little thing I might have gotten wrong that they can use against Riley, I am very thankful to have been given an mp3 copy of both appearances. I'm trying to figure out how to upload the file if I can't link to it at the station, so you can all hear it verbatim for yourselves. So, if I got any number wrong - my apologies.
MORE:
Though Fennel derided Riley's architect, John Ash, Ash is no lightweight. John Ash Group Architects received the Los Angeles Conservancy’s prestigious Preservation Award for 2005. John Ash Group Architects, with offices in both Eureka and Los Angeles, worked as the historic preservation architect on the winning Infomart-Los Angeles Terminal Annex project.
He also writes a column on building design for the Eureka Reporter:
(A new column: Design for Life)
Creating spaces, building fences
The life style brand: Bringing meaning to your life
The lighted path on the search for enlightenment
Doors — our humble guardians should give us more
The continuing story of the door
Defining your home's character
Imagining a better space
My Space, Chapter 2: Building the perfect shower
A brief plan for the 'me space'
A Deck For All Seasons Part 2
Clients come first, real or not
To: Humboldt neighbors re 17-unit subdivision in Manila...
"...This is NOT just a Manila issue - and NOT a NIMBY issue. it's about what kinds of development the residents of Humboldt Bay wish to allow in our communities in the future, and how these critical decisions should be made...."
"...This is not a NIMBY issue. No developer should be allowed to place a densely packed subdivision of large homes on top of a wild dune ecosystem adjacent to a healthy willow wetland in a rural neighborhood on a narrow road...
Uh huh.
It does happen elsewhere, and it looks kinda nice.
UPDATE:
Letters to the North Coast Journal, from Fennel, his tenant, and a guy from Trinidad - and a correction noted, But the facts still stand. Michael Fennel asserts, and Hank agrees, that Fennel did not BUILD three houses. One existed, One was built and another is planned. Nevertheless, Sims points out, the point of his comments last week was that Fennel wants to hold Riley to a half acre minimum standard that he himself did not - or was not allowed to - follow.
ANOTHER UPDATE:
Calling out all the stops and using the media - today, (Thursday) Michael Fennel is on KHUM decrying Scott Riley's project, saying it is not a "green development" - STILL says this project plans to bulldoze the dunes - says people should be honest - says they are trying to impose a dense new neighborhood - still upset about the scrub pines which were cut, wants to ask for a measuring of the stumps, says he has already measured the stumps - (isn't that trespassing?) Says he doesn't see cutting a new road into the dunes is fair to the protected environment, says the new development must fit in with the character of the existing homes (-?-), and that these 3 story homes just won't fit in with the existing character, in part becasue they have to be built to withstand a tsunami. Says, essentially that John Ash, the architect is lying. (Spin, he says, to call using recycled products and installing solar "green.") No mention of the trail access, nor the fact that Riley offered to donate land to the Community... Like I said, there's no appeasing these guys.
UPDATE to UPDATE (1:31):
Scott Riley called in to KHUM to set the record straight... Wow what a story! Basically, I'll stick to the order in which he spoke:
First he talked about the trees. He said it is illegal to cut anything over a foot in diameter. Then he talked about the trees he cut, He said, first of all, that he planted 150 native trees on the property (turns out he owns a tree farm), and said they had gotten to be about 15 to 20 feet tall. He said when trees grow to a certain height in the sand, they often get blown over, and that that had happened here. So he went in to clean up the dead and dying trees, cut them up for firewood.
Then the harassment begins...The next day, he said, he came to work on them and found a Stop Work' order posted. The County sent out a code enforcement unit to inspect his property, they told him they had gotten complaints from a couple of neighbors. He showed them the trees, explained what was going on. The code enforcement officers found that there was no violation.
A couple of weeks later he cut the trees up and stacked them up. Then another agency came to inspect, this time the Coastal Commission, again because of complaints from Fennel and company. The Coastal Commission representative also sees that this is not a violation.
Then another Federal agency showed up, because Fennel and his friends had complained about an illegal timber harvest.
All three agencies found that no violation had occurred. And, Riley said, he got three cords of wood finally.
Next, the radio host, Mike Dronkers, asked him about the three story houses that Fennel had complained so loudly about.
Riley said first that the house Fennel built was 6 feet from his own property line and that it is taller than any of the houses Riley plans to build, and that across the street Fennel had another 30 foot building. Riley said that his tallest house will be 35 feet in height, and that they will have underground garages.
Giving a background on the dispute, he said that in 1992 he talked to the property's then owners, the Shires, and asked if they would sell the property. they said the property was not for sale, but mentioned that Fennel and Aryay Kalaki had gotten the property appraised and made an offer to the Shires.
Noting that the property was not for sale, they then said that if someone offered them twice what Kalaki had offered, they would sell it. So Riley bought it, and made a lifelong enemy apparently. He said he himself had put the property up for sale, that for 15 years Kalaki and Fennel could have purchased the property and turned it into a dune sanctuary if they wanted to, but they did not.
Regarding the houses, he said he has posted the plans on a bulletin board and that people can see them at the Planning Dept. When he decided to develop it, the County suggested that he do a planned unit development, where you cluster the houses and leave the rest for natural habitat, the new wave of the future.
He said most of Manila is zoned for 5,000 sq. ft lots which is 8 houses to an acre, and some allow 16 per acre, and he pointed out that his property is 8.5 acres, and he is only building 17 homes, much better than the rest of Manila.
He said his homes will be set well back from the wetlands, while Fennel's house is only 7 feet from the wetlands, and that one of Fennel's buildings is in the wetland, something Fennel had requested a variance to hbe allowed to do so.
In fact, he said, Fennel has requested a variance each time he has done something, while he, Riley had not asked for any zoning variances.
The homes he is proposing have sod roofs, passive solar, solar panels, thermal mass, with recycled and organic materials. The building cost is substantially more than a "normal" house. They'll cost $400,000 to $500,000 to build, but they represent a new wave in sustainable development. Riley said he is willing to take the risk, but that it is a gamble, whether or not he will be able to sell them. "Green" housing is more expensive. Like organic produce. But worth it.
It's an ambitious project, and one people should be excited about, especially the so-called enviros.
To Mike Dronkers - like Hank Sims - you deserve thanks for allowing both sides to be told. Very interesting.
It is quite a story. Not a pretty story, though.
Footnote and disclaimer: I was scribbling as fast as I could as the two men were talking. I believe I got all the points correctly. But, given the interest this is generating, and given the fact that Fennel's side looks like they are the nitpicky ones who are probably looking for any little thing I might have gotten wrong that they can use against Riley, I am very thankful to have been given an mp3 copy of both appearances. I'm trying to figure out how to upload the file if I can't link to it at the station, so you can all hear it verbatim for yourselves. So, if I got any number wrong - my apologies.
MORE:
Though Fennel derided Riley's architect, John Ash, Ash is no lightweight. John Ash Group Architects received the Los Angeles Conservancy’s prestigious Preservation Award for 2005. John Ash Group Architects, with offices in both Eureka and Los Angeles, worked as the historic preservation architect on the winning Infomart-Los Angeles Terminal Annex project.
He also writes a column on building design for the Eureka Reporter:
(A new column: Design for Life)
Creating spaces, building fences
The life style brand: Bringing meaning to your life
The lighted path on the search for enlightenment
Doors — our humble guardians should give us more
The continuing story of the door
Defining your home's character
Imagining a better space
My Space, Chapter 2: Building the perfect shower
A brief plan for the 'me space'
A Deck For All Seasons Part 2
Clients come first, real or not
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Who is Bob Martel? "Executive Director" of "Humboldt Watershed Council"
He's listed as the "Executive Director" of "Humboldt Watershed Council."
In April of 2000 the North Coast Journal reported that "Local activist Bob Martel received an expensive setback this week in his ongoing battle against Pacific Lumber and its parent company, MAXXAM. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Martel's appeal to an earlier decision in MAXXAM's favor and ordered him to pay the company legal fees of more than $110,000.
The case concerns the failure in 1988 of a savings and loan association in which MAXXAM and its chairman, Charles Hurwitz, were investors. Martel contends that Hurwitz exercised control over the company; Hurwitz denies the charges. Related cases are still pending, but the court ruled that Martel's case was "frivolous."
Martel disputes that claim, saying that the suit cost him $250,000 and took five years of research. That, he said, "doesn't actually fit the definition of frivolous."
As to how he might pay the legal fees awarded by the court, Martel said he hasn't earned "more than six thousand dollars in a year in recent memory"
MAXXAM spokesman Josh Reiss said that the corporation intends to pursue the claim.
###
On April 29, they reported that "A taxpayer and a local nonprofit group have been ordered to pay legal fees for two separate lawsuits involving Pacific Lumber and its chief stockholder, Charles Hurwitz.
In 1995, Humboldt County resident Robert Martel filed suit against Hurwitz, alleging he had defrauded the federal government of $1.6 billion in the collapse of the United Savings Association of Texas 11 years ago, according to a report in the Times-Standard. Now Martel has been ordered by U.S. District Court Judge Lynn Hughes to pay Hurwitz' $110,123 in legal fees and expenses.
Hughes ruled that Martel's suit was "abusive litigation" because Martel had based much of his suit on information garnered from newspaper reports. Hughes also said Martel, who had filed the suit as a taxpayer, lacked standing to sue on behalf of the federal government.
Neither Martel nor Hurwitz could be reached for comment.
In a separate case, the Garberville-based Environmental Protection Information Center was ordered to pay Pacific Lumber $17,731 in legal costs as a result of a June 1997 lawsuit. EPIC sued PL in March of 1995, maintaining that the California Department of Forestry should have prepared an environmental impact study before it granted the company a salvage-logging permit for spotted owl habitat now protected as part of the Headwaters Reserve.
EPIC spokesperson Kevin Bundy said U.S. District court judge Louis Bechtle dismissed the suit because EPIC "couldn't convince the court (salvage logging) would violate the endangered species act."
John A. Campbell, PL president, recently issued a statement saying PL is entitled to the court costs.
"The favorable court ruling highlighted that salvage and other logging would not cause a take of endangered species," he said. "The court ... made clear in this case that endangered species would benefit from the working relationship developed by Pacific Lumber, federal wildlife agencies and the California Department of Forestry."
Bundy said the amount EPIC must pay is a fraction of the $700,000 PL originally requested to cover fees.
###
In other coverage, it is reported that: "Judge Hughes characterized Martel's pleading as "Regurgitating politicized half-truths" ...Describing Martel as "a bystander" who "knows nothing, saw nothing, did nothing," U.S. District Court Judge Lynn N. Hughes determined that Martel "lacks standing, was not the original source of the information, and filed his suit too late." Martel filed suit in January 1995, saying he was bringing the action on behalf of the U.S. government; however, the U.S. government declined to participate in the suit. (Missed another statute of limitations did ya, guys?)
Is this why getting Paul Gallegos to file the lawsuit for them was so important? Martel and Miller lacked standing.
And who paid the $250,000 Martel claims to have paid out?
In April of 2000 the North Coast Journal reported that "Local activist Bob Martel received an expensive setback this week in his ongoing battle against Pacific Lumber and its parent company, MAXXAM. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Martel's appeal to an earlier decision in MAXXAM's favor and ordered him to pay the company legal fees of more than $110,000.
The case concerns the failure in 1988 of a savings and loan association in which MAXXAM and its chairman, Charles Hurwitz, were investors. Martel contends that Hurwitz exercised control over the company; Hurwitz denies the charges. Related cases are still pending, but the court ruled that Martel's case was "frivolous."
Martel disputes that claim, saying that the suit cost him $250,000 and took five years of research. That, he said, "doesn't actually fit the definition of frivolous."
As to how he might pay the legal fees awarded by the court, Martel said he hasn't earned "more than six thousand dollars in a year in recent memory"
MAXXAM spokesman Josh Reiss said that the corporation intends to pursue the claim.
###
On April 29, they reported that "A taxpayer and a local nonprofit group have been ordered to pay legal fees for two separate lawsuits involving Pacific Lumber and its chief stockholder, Charles Hurwitz.
In 1995, Humboldt County resident Robert Martel filed suit against Hurwitz, alleging he had defrauded the federal government of $1.6 billion in the collapse of the United Savings Association of Texas 11 years ago, according to a report in the Times-Standard. Now Martel has been ordered by U.S. District Court Judge Lynn Hughes to pay Hurwitz' $110,123 in legal fees and expenses.
Hughes ruled that Martel's suit was "abusive litigation" because Martel had based much of his suit on information garnered from newspaper reports. Hughes also said Martel, who had filed the suit as a taxpayer, lacked standing to sue on behalf of the federal government.
Neither Martel nor Hurwitz could be reached for comment.
In a separate case, the Garberville-based Environmental Protection Information Center was ordered to pay Pacific Lumber $17,731 in legal costs as a result of a June 1997 lawsuit. EPIC sued PL in March of 1995, maintaining that the California Department of Forestry should have prepared an environmental impact study before it granted the company a salvage-logging permit for spotted owl habitat now protected as part of the Headwaters Reserve.
EPIC spokesperson Kevin Bundy said U.S. District court judge Louis Bechtle dismissed the suit because EPIC "couldn't convince the court (salvage logging) would violate the endangered species act."
John A. Campbell, PL president, recently issued a statement saying PL is entitled to the court costs.
"The favorable court ruling highlighted that salvage and other logging would not cause a take of endangered species," he said. "The court ... made clear in this case that endangered species would benefit from the working relationship developed by Pacific Lumber, federal wildlife agencies and the California Department of Forestry."
Bundy said the amount EPIC must pay is a fraction of the $700,000 PL originally requested to cover fees.
###
In other coverage, it is reported that: "Judge Hughes characterized Martel's pleading as "Regurgitating politicized half-truths" ...Describing Martel as "a bystander" who "knows nothing, saw nothing, did nothing," U.S. District Court Judge Lynn N. Hughes determined that Martel "lacks standing, was not the original source of the information, and filed his suit too late." Martel filed suit in January 1995, saying he was bringing the action on behalf of the U.S. government; however, the U.S. government declined to participate in the suit. (Missed another statute of limitations did ya, guys?)
Is this why getting Paul Gallegos to file the lawsuit for them was so important? Martel and Miller lacked standing.
And who paid the $250,000 Martel claims to have paid out?
IRONY OF IRONIES
Rollin, Kesser appear in court to handle retrial issues
Richard Craig Kesser and Joseph Pierre Rollin appeared together briefly in Judge Timothy Cissna’s courtroom Monday afternoon at the Humboldt County Courthouse.
Kesser, convicted for his role in the 1992 murder of his ex-wife, and Rollin, convicted in connection with the 2002 death of Orick resident Joi Henderson Wright, sat quietly for the most part as their attorneys handled technical matters related to their possible retrials.
Kesser’s conviction was overturned in September, when an appeals court ruled former Humboldt County Deputy District Attorney Worth Dikeman had made racially based remarks during the jury selection process.
Rollin’s conviction was overturned in December because DA Paul Gallegos used Rollin’s non-Mirandized denial of responsibility as evidence against him.
And, Allison Jackson, who spent two years preparing the Rollin case, now represents Joi Henderson Wright's family.
Looks like you may see justice after all.
Related/Update:
Judge continues Kesser, Leahy murder retrial to early July
Judge denies bail to murder suspect
Richard Craig Kesser and Joseph Pierre Rollin appeared together briefly in Judge Timothy Cissna’s courtroom Monday afternoon at the Humboldt County Courthouse.
Kesser, convicted for his role in the 1992 murder of his ex-wife, and Rollin, convicted in connection with the 2002 death of Orick resident Joi Henderson Wright, sat quietly for the most part as their attorneys handled technical matters related to their possible retrials.
Kesser’s conviction was overturned in September, when an appeals court ruled former Humboldt County Deputy District Attorney Worth Dikeman had made racially based remarks during the jury selection process.
Rollin’s conviction was overturned in December because DA Paul Gallegos used Rollin’s non-Mirandized denial of responsibility as evidence against him.
And, Allison Jackson, who spent two years preparing the Rollin case, now represents Joi Henderson Wright's family.
Looks like you may see justice after all.
Related/Update:
Judge continues Kesser, Leahy murder retrial to early July
Judge denies bail to murder suspect
Sunday, April 29, 2007
"Justice for All"?
"Joi died on March 19, 2002, probably bent into the bathtub of a condemned trailer in Orick, her body weighing only 60 pounds and swathed in a soiled disposable diaper.
A medical examiner determined that Joi, 42 years old and long rendered helpless by multiple sclerosis, died from lobar pneumonia with a variety of contributing factors.
These included MS, malnutrition, a urinary tract infection from a catheter that hadn’t been cleaned in several months and 20 or more feces-infected bedsores, two of which gaped so wide and deep that the bones beneath were exposed."
Joseph Pierre Rollin "was convicted only of the enhanced abuse of a dependent adult and was sentenced to eight years in prison.
But in December, the conviction was reversed on appeal because, court documents show, Gallegos repeatedly used Pierre’s non-Mirandized denial of responsibility for Joi’s death — later refuted by a Mirandized confession — as evidence of his guilt.
Joseph Pierre Rollin was returned to the Humboldt County jail last week and is scheduled to appear Monday (April 30, 2007) for a new pre-trial hearing."
Joi's mother, Betty "has tried repeatedly to contact the DA" but he has not spoken to her.
I just don't get it. Why? Why hasn't he called her back?
Why did Paul Gallegos run for the job of District Attorney? He made alot of pronouncements about what he thought doing the job meant.
Well, talking to victim's families is part of that job, and in fact, helping victim's families find justice ought to be the most pleasurable and rewarding part of his job.
Instead he says (in an e-mail to the Eureka Reporter) "“As with all cases, we operate on the assumption that they will be tried. We are also obligated to listen and evaluate all evidence related to any possible legal, factual and equitable issues and we will. I am under the assumption that Ms. Henderson is being assisted by one (of) our most experienced victim witness advocates. I believe she will confirm that. Any possible pre-trial resolution would be discussed with the family prior to being agreed to. Of course, the ultimate decision rests entirely with me and I will exercise that authority vested in me with an eye toward balancing the duty to impose an appropriate consequence while tempering that with compassion.”"
What happened to "Justice for all!"?
It's not Palco - but what about justice for Joi Henderson Wright and her family?
Rollin, Kesser appear in court to handle retrial issues 5/1/07
ER - A mother's last chance for justice 4/28/07
Previous post: Rollins Case Overturned 12/14/06
The history:
ER - Ruling of man accused of causing the death of Orick woman overturned 12/13/2006
ER - Appeal Likely In Caregiver Case; Families Await Sentencing Hearing 10/1/04
ER - Abuse Case Weak Against Brother, Trial Of Caregiver To Begin 8/6/04
ER - Caregiver Found Guilty Of Dependent Abuse, Death 9/2/04
ER - Brother of caregiver sentenced to five years supervised probation 11/10/04
ER - Caregiver Trial Heads To Jury Later This Week 8/31/04
ER - Bench Warrant Issued For Man Who Was Recently Given Plea Bargain 8/31/04
ER - Caregiver Gets Eight Years For Causing Woman’s Death 10/6/04
ER - Jury Deliberating Caregiver Case 8/31/04
There are also twelve stories in the Times Standard, but they are not freely available online.
Brother of convicted dependent adult abuser sentenced on embezzlement charges 11/10/04
Brother of recently sentenced dependent abuser arrested 10/9/04
Dependent adult abuser sentenced to three years 10/6/04
Former caregiver found guilty in woman's death 9/3/04
Dependent abuse trial goes to jury 9/1/04
Closing arguments begin in dependent abuse trial 8/31/04
Manslaughter trial finishes first week of testimony 8/21/04
Deputy briefly takes the stand in manslaughter trail 8/20/04
Nurse only witness Wednesday in manslaughter trial 8/19/04
Dependent adult abuse trial enters second day 8/18/04
Dependent adult death trial begins 8/17, 2004
Grand jury probes death of disabled woman 7/8/04
A witch hunt
She was my brother's teacher. She was creative, and innovative, and something of a radical. She talked about saving the forests long before the treesitters and Redwood Summer. She introduced the concept of organic food, and had the kids making (and drinking) carrot juice, brought in xeroxed sheets of information on the formaldehyde in ice cream. She exemplified the back to the land, grow your own, live off the grid lifestyle. And we loved her.
One day, a kid brought a Playboy Magazine into class. When she discovered it in his desk, she did something very unusual. She took it out, and hung it on the bulletin board. And the class had a discussion about what it represented.
The kids knew it to be the right reaction. It was just. It wasn't over-reactive. It was real and it was honest. And they loved her.
But the parents didn't. She was far too radical. And soon she was gone.
And the kids knew - she was the victim of a witch hunt.
It seems ironic to me that her son is now becoming a victim of the same sort of narrow minded thinking - but with a major twist.
Her name was Irene Riley.
Her son's name is Scott Riley.
His proposal for an "eco-groovy" development in Manila has brought out the lynch mob.
Salzman and his "eco-groovy" cohorts kicked into full gear, sounding the clarion call for warm bodies to kill the proposal, promising all kinds of dire consequences if Riley is successful - calling it "a very dense subdivision," stating that The development could be precedent-setting county-wide in a number of harmful ways. They "organized a publicized walk ... so local residents could see for themselves how d-e-s-t-r-u-c-t-i-v-e this will be. They hope that dozens of concerned residents across the Humboldt Bay area will recognize the i-m-p-o-r-t-a-n-c-e of this meeting, and that we're able to pack the chambers with articulate voices of opposition. They claim "None of us are opposed to this property being "developed" as long as it matches the existing neighborhood's low density, and doesn't destroy any of the existing dunes.,, Aryay Kalaki said it would irretrievably change the community's rustic attributes that residents cherish. ”We would permanently lose the rural character,” said Kalaki." (Don't laugh!) (Channel 3 they claim, ran the "publicized walk" as a lead story that night. The Times Standard and The Lumberjack covered it as well - Guys, you might wanna check your sources.)
As Hank Sims details in his recent column, there are some problems with their story.
"...Pine trees. In his letter, (Michael) Fennell stated that Riley was "caught cutting mature beach pines on [his] property prior to submitting [his] development plan." The implication was that this was an illegal act, and in a follow-up call Fennell asserted that it was.
In fact, it was not. The tree-cutting incident was covered in the Arcata Eye at the time. The story from that paper described how officers from the county's code enforcement unit had been called to the scene and had issued a stop-work permit for "possible" violations, but had later determined that no law had been broken. The trees were not, in fact, "mature," at least by the definition adopted by the county. In our phone conversation, Fennell insisted that code enforcement had simply been too busy to prosecute Riley, but this is not the case. No law was broken.
Sand. In his letter, Fennell mentioned that the Riley plan involves "bulldoz[ing] the dunes (about 650 large dump-truck loads)." In fact, the great majority of the sand removed from building sites in the Riley proposal will be used to restore historic dunes on the property, according to engineering plans that have been submitted to the county. Only one "large dump-truck load" of sand is scheduled to be removed from the site.
Density. Fennell, speaking for the community, said: "We welcome any new housing that ... maintains the half-acre minimum standard." (Half-acre-minimum lots are standard for the area's zoning.)
Riley's plan calls for 17 homes on 8.5 acres, which pencils out to one home per half-acre. However, those proposed homes will be scrunched into one corner of the property so that the rest of the parcel, which consists of sensitive wetlands, may be protected as open space. This kind of thing is the purpose behind "planned unit developments." Trevor Eslow, a planner with the county's Community Development Services division, assured us Tuesday that these kind of trade-offs -- smaller lot sizes for preserved open space -- are not entirely uncommon.
In fact, just last year there was another Manila developer who did a somewhat analogous deal with the county. His name is Michael Fennell. Last year, Fennell wanted to subdivide 3.7 acres, 3 acres of which was wetlands or pine forest. Fennell built three homes on the other seven-tenths of an acre, with the county's blessing. According to Eslow, the lead planner on the project, one of the lots was only 15,000 square feet in size -- about .35 acres, well below the standard he sets for Riley's development..."
Riley's development is "green" - the kind of thing that should make these guys happy.
And, there's more to the story. Kalaki has a longstanding grudge against Riley (reportedly he wanted Riley's piece of property, but offered less than Riley, and so did not get it, and has been on a vendetta ever since. There's also some evidence that he uses the "Dunes Forum" to harass Riley.)
Another neighbor is Salzman's buddy, extremist, Paul Cienfuegos.
Why is Salzman suddenly so interested in all proposed development? It's not just that he likes to meddle in other people's business. It appears that he's an active force in Mark Lovelace's "Healthy Humboldt." You can expect activist tactics to be employed, viral email alerts, plaintive "My Word's" penned by people other than him, and Salzman's Orks armed with talking points attending community meetings and speaking against Riley. Riley's only real sin appears to be that he doesn't belong to the Club.
It tells you that these guys are not really in it for "green" reasons. It's about power and control and you can't appease these guys.
The Humboldt County Planning Commission will consider Riley's development at its regular meeting on Thursday, May 3.
Paul Cienfuegos wants you to "share YOUR concerns with the various public officials who will be involved in this decision.
* Michael Wheeler, Humboldt County Planner mwheeler@co.humboldt.ca.us
* Bob Merrill, CA Coastal Commission bmerrill@coastal.ca.gov
* CA Dept of Fish and Game wcondon@dfg.ca.gov
* Your local Board of Supes, especially John Woolley jwoolley@co.humboldt.ca.us"
Will they take the time to check their sources?
ADDTL INFO:
Manila takes second look at Riley development, fluoride
Manila rejects wetland donation from developer
One day, a kid brought a Playboy Magazine into class. When she discovered it in his desk, she did something very unusual. She took it out, and hung it on the bulletin board. And the class had a discussion about what it represented.
The kids knew it to be the right reaction. It was just. It wasn't over-reactive. It was real and it was honest. And they loved her.
But the parents didn't. She was far too radical. And soon she was gone.
And the kids knew - she was the victim of a witch hunt.
It seems ironic to me that her son is now becoming a victim of the same sort of narrow minded thinking - but with a major twist.
Her name was Irene Riley.
Her son's name is Scott Riley.
His proposal for an "eco-groovy" development in Manila has brought out the lynch mob.
Salzman and his "eco-groovy" cohorts kicked into full gear, sounding the clarion call for warm bodies to kill the proposal, promising all kinds of dire consequences if Riley is successful - calling it "a very dense subdivision," stating that The development could be precedent-setting county-wide in a number of harmful ways. They "organized a publicized walk ... so local residents could see for themselves how d-e-s-t-r-u-c-t-i-v-e this will be. They hope that dozens of concerned residents across the Humboldt Bay area will recognize the i-m-p-o-r-t-a-n-c-e of this meeting, and that we're able to pack the chambers with articulate voices of opposition. They claim "None of us are opposed to this property being "developed" as long as it matches the existing neighborhood's low density, and doesn't destroy any of the existing dunes.,, Aryay Kalaki said it would irretrievably change the community's rustic attributes that residents cherish. ”We would permanently lose the rural character,” said Kalaki." (Don't laugh!) (Channel 3 they claim, ran the "publicized walk" as a lead story that night. The Times Standard and The Lumberjack covered it as well - Guys, you might wanna check your sources.)
As Hank Sims details in his recent column, there are some problems with their story.
"...Pine trees. In his letter, (Michael) Fennell stated that Riley was "caught cutting mature beach pines on [his] property prior to submitting [his] development plan." The implication was that this was an illegal act, and in a follow-up call Fennell asserted that it was.
In fact, it was not. The tree-cutting incident was covered in the Arcata Eye at the time. The story from that paper described how officers from the county's code enforcement unit had been called to the scene and had issued a stop-work permit for "possible" violations, but had later determined that no law had been broken. The trees were not, in fact, "mature," at least by the definition adopted by the county. In our phone conversation, Fennell insisted that code enforcement had simply been too busy to prosecute Riley, but this is not the case. No law was broken.
Sand. In his letter, Fennell mentioned that the Riley plan involves "bulldoz[ing] the dunes (about 650 large dump-truck loads)." In fact, the great majority of the sand removed from building sites in the Riley proposal will be used to restore historic dunes on the property, according to engineering plans that have been submitted to the county. Only one "large dump-truck load" of sand is scheduled to be removed from the site.
Density. Fennell, speaking for the community, said: "We welcome any new housing that ... maintains the half-acre minimum standard." (Half-acre-minimum lots are standard for the area's zoning.)
Riley's plan calls for 17 homes on 8.5 acres, which pencils out to one home per half-acre. However, those proposed homes will be scrunched into one corner of the property so that the rest of the parcel, which consists of sensitive wetlands, may be protected as open space. This kind of thing is the purpose behind "planned unit developments." Trevor Eslow, a planner with the county's Community Development Services division, assured us Tuesday that these kind of trade-offs -- smaller lot sizes for preserved open space -- are not entirely uncommon.
In fact, just last year there was another Manila developer who did a somewhat analogous deal with the county. His name is Michael Fennell. Last year, Fennell wanted to subdivide 3.7 acres, 3 acres of which was wetlands or pine forest. Fennell built three homes on the other seven-tenths of an acre, with the county's blessing. According to Eslow, the lead planner on the project, one of the lots was only 15,000 square feet in size -- about .35 acres, well below the standard he sets for Riley's development..."
Riley's development is "green" - the kind of thing that should make these guys happy.
And, there's more to the story. Kalaki has a longstanding grudge against Riley (reportedly he wanted Riley's piece of property, but offered less than Riley, and so did not get it, and has been on a vendetta ever since. There's also some evidence that he uses the "Dunes Forum" to harass Riley.)
Another neighbor is Salzman's buddy, extremist, Paul Cienfuegos.
Why is Salzman suddenly so interested in all proposed development? It's not just that he likes to meddle in other people's business. It appears that he's an active force in Mark Lovelace's "Healthy Humboldt." You can expect activist tactics to be employed, viral email alerts, plaintive "My Word's" penned by people other than him, and Salzman's Orks armed with talking points attending community meetings and speaking against Riley. Riley's only real sin appears to be that he doesn't belong to the Club.
It tells you that these guys are not really in it for "green" reasons. It's about power and control and you can't appease these guys.
The Humboldt County Planning Commission will consider Riley's development at its regular meeting on Thursday, May 3.
Paul Cienfuegos wants you to "share YOUR concerns with the various public officials who will be involved in this decision.
* Michael Wheeler, Humboldt County Planner mwheeler@co.humboldt.ca.us
* Bob Merrill, CA Coastal Commission bmerrill@coastal.ca.gov
* CA Dept of Fish and Game wcondon@dfg.ca.gov
* Your local Board of Supes, especially John Woolley jwoolley@co.humboldt.ca.us"
Will they take the time to check their sources?
ADDTL INFO:
Manila takes second look at Riley development, fluoride
Manila rejects wetland donation from developer
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Houston Chronicle - Loren Steffy's Blog
"Humboldt Watershed Council" is very busy lobbying against Hurwitz in every possible forum.
Even on Loren Steffy's Blog
(Photo: Houston Chronicle Reporter Loren Steffy)
January 24, 2007
Sound Off: Pacific Lumber's bankruptcy
If you've followed the Charles Hurwitz saga for a while, you probably know that Pacific Lumber was flirting with bankruptcy for several years. I discuss the bankruptcy in my column today.
One thing I didn't mention in the column, though, is the theory among environmental groups that Hurwitz has purposely kept Palco near bankruptcy.
He did this, the theory goes, because he was siphoning money out of the company. Now first of all, no executive purposely keeps a company near bankruptcy. That's especially true if you're wanting to siphon money out of a company, because when the company goes bankrupt the first thing the creditors will do is look at where the money went.
The environmental groups, though, can't be bothered with such business basics. Here's another one they frequently flub: they want to stop logging on private land, yet they are unwilling to pay to preserve the trees.
If these guys cared so much about nature, why don't they simply buy up the bonds of Palco's Scotia Pacific division? That's the unit that owns the timber land. Then, they could control the trees. They could refuse to sell the trees to Palco or any other lumber company. They could retire the debt and set up a preserve. They could, in other words, put their money where their mouths are.
Why don't they?
He invites readers: Please discuss.
Asked why he doesn't rake Hurwitz over the coals, (Steffy is a reporter for the Houston Chronicle) Steffy responds:
"Actually, I've taken quite a bit of time to study this issue. I've read several books on the Timber Wars, I've reviewed thousands of pages of documents and interviewed quite a few people on both sides of the issue. I have written thousands of words on the topic. It's a remarkable story, but one that's steeped in myth. To portray the "old" Palco as an idyllic, paternalistic company, for example, ignores the changes that were happening before Hurwitz came on the scene. (Tax benefits for selective cut, for example, had been eliminated. Palco was going to have to start clear-cutting to remain competitive.) To imply that Hurwitz's timber harvest rates have remained double or triple those of the old Palco is inaccurate. To say that he destroyed the pension is wrong. Palco still has a defined benefit pension plan, something few companies in America still offer. But none of this matters because the rhetoric has been driving the debate for more than a decade. Hurwitz's biggest mistake was not recognizing the cost of alienating the environmentalists, and for that, he has paid dearly. They will not rest until he is gone. The irony is that their protests and legal challenges have kept him from selling.
Posted by: Loren at January 25, 2007 08:11 AM"
Another excerpt: (from Josh Reiss)
This is in response to the several postings from the Humboldt Watershed Council. In the interest of full disclosure I served as the spokesperson of Maxxam from 1999-2002. I have not worked for the corporation in any capacity since 2004.
Anyone who ever worked at worked at Maxxam in any capacity knows that the bankruptcy of ScoPac was a painful and sad decision, not taken lightly. Nor was it ever a part of a plan as the Council and others have recklessly suggested over the last week and in the post above. Indeed, one need only look at the 10Qs over the past several years at the $ that has moved downstream (no pun intended) to make bond payments as proof that bankruptcy was never planned nor desired. Moreover, if it was planned or desired why on earth would a significant capital contribution be made for Project Scotia to revitalize and modernize the mill. It simply makes no sense to suggest that the intent was to bankrupt.
I have never met Mr. Lovelace (who I assumed posted the above note from the Council). In fairness to him I do believe that he really does care about the Humboldt Community. And I think he has toned down some of the Council's rhetoric and tactics from the past. (For instance,who can ever forget Bob Martel -- Mr. Lovelace's predecessor at the Council -- suing Maxxam in the FDIC case and losing more than 110K of his own money in the process because his suit was frivilous. Or Darryl Cherney declaring on the radio in 2001 that he hoped PL would go bankrupt.)However, I also cannot help but note the irony of several groups such as the Humboldt Watershed Council and others over the last week declaring that they intend to press for the HCP to stay in place. These are the same individuals and groups that did not like the HCP to begin with. Remember the placards HCP=Huge Corporate Profits. Showing up at community meeting to reckle and give a tough time to PALCO scientists who were dedicated 100% to watershed management based on science. Perhaps now these groups can finally acknowledge what PALCO declared accurately for years -- that the HCP was the most environmenatlly senstitive HCP plan ever. Unfortunately no one ever gave the plan a chance to work because the goal of the headwaters movement was never fully met -- acquisition of 200K acres without having to pay a dime for it. That the HCP failed is a true tragedy right up there with the bankruptcy; perhaps ever sadder.
Posted by: Josh Reiss at January 28, 2007 08:26 PM
And:
"O.C.: Sorry if I overlooked a respone to your earlier question. The short answer is that companies filing for bankruptcy have a lot of latitude in choosing a venue. Basically anything that can be considered an operation of the company allows it to file in that jurisdiction. That's the reason that Enron could file in Manhattan, for example. It's also the reason many companies file in Delware -- simply because they're incorporated there. Debtor companies do this all the time, looking for a venue they believe will be more favorable to them.
Posted by: Loren at February 11, 2007 02:17 PM
Even on Loren Steffy's Blog
(Photo: Houston Chronicle Reporter Loren Steffy)
January 24, 2007
Sound Off: Pacific Lumber's bankruptcy
If you've followed the Charles Hurwitz saga for a while, you probably know that Pacific Lumber was flirting with bankruptcy for several years. I discuss the bankruptcy in my column today.
One thing I didn't mention in the column, though, is the theory among environmental groups that Hurwitz has purposely kept Palco near bankruptcy.
He did this, the theory goes, because he was siphoning money out of the company. Now first of all, no executive purposely keeps a company near bankruptcy. That's especially true if you're wanting to siphon money out of a company, because when the company goes bankrupt the first thing the creditors will do is look at where the money went.
The environmental groups, though, can't be bothered with such business basics. Here's another one they frequently flub: they want to stop logging on private land, yet they are unwilling to pay to preserve the trees.
If these guys cared so much about nature, why don't they simply buy up the bonds of Palco's Scotia Pacific division? That's the unit that owns the timber land. Then, they could control the trees. They could refuse to sell the trees to Palco or any other lumber company. They could retire the debt and set up a preserve. They could, in other words, put their money where their mouths are.
Why don't they?
He invites readers: Please discuss.
Asked why he doesn't rake Hurwitz over the coals, (Steffy is a reporter for the Houston Chronicle) Steffy responds:
"Actually, I've taken quite a bit of time to study this issue. I've read several books on the Timber Wars, I've reviewed thousands of pages of documents and interviewed quite a few people on both sides of the issue. I have written thousands of words on the topic. It's a remarkable story, but one that's steeped in myth. To portray the "old" Palco as an idyllic, paternalistic company, for example, ignores the changes that were happening before Hurwitz came on the scene. (Tax benefits for selective cut, for example, had been eliminated. Palco was going to have to start clear-cutting to remain competitive.) To imply that Hurwitz's timber harvest rates have remained double or triple those of the old Palco is inaccurate. To say that he destroyed the pension is wrong. Palco still has a defined benefit pension plan, something few companies in America still offer. But none of this matters because the rhetoric has been driving the debate for more than a decade. Hurwitz's biggest mistake was not recognizing the cost of alienating the environmentalists, and for that, he has paid dearly. They will not rest until he is gone. The irony is that their protests and legal challenges have kept him from selling.
Posted by: Loren at January 25, 2007 08:11 AM"
Another excerpt: (from Josh Reiss)
This is in response to the several postings from the Humboldt Watershed Council. In the interest of full disclosure I served as the spokesperson of Maxxam from 1999-2002. I have not worked for the corporation in any capacity since 2004.
Anyone who ever worked at worked at Maxxam in any capacity knows that the bankruptcy of ScoPac was a painful and sad decision, not taken lightly. Nor was it ever a part of a plan as the Council and others have recklessly suggested over the last week and in the post above. Indeed, one need only look at the 10Qs over the past several years at the $ that has moved downstream (no pun intended) to make bond payments as proof that bankruptcy was never planned nor desired. Moreover, if it was planned or desired why on earth would a significant capital contribution be made for Project Scotia to revitalize and modernize the mill. It simply makes no sense to suggest that the intent was to bankrupt.
I have never met Mr. Lovelace (who I assumed posted the above note from the Council). In fairness to him I do believe that he really does care about the Humboldt Community. And I think he has toned down some of the Council's rhetoric and tactics from the past. (For instance,who can ever forget Bob Martel -- Mr. Lovelace's predecessor at the Council -- suing Maxxam in the FDIC case and losing more than 110K of his own money in the process because his suit was frivilous. Or Darryl Cherney declaring on the radio in 2001 that he hoped PL would go bankrupt.)However, I also cannot help but note the irony of several groups such as the Humboldt Watershed Council and others over the last week declaring that they intend to press for the HCP to stay in place. These are the same individuals and groups that did not like the HCP to begin with. Remember the placards HCP=Huge Corporate Profits. Showing up at community meeting to reckle and give a tough time to PALCO scientists who were dedicated 100% to watershed management based on science. Perhaps now these groups can finally acknowledge what PALCO declared accurately for years -- that the HCP was the most environmenatlly senstitive HCP plan ever. Unfortunately no one ever gave the plan a chance to work because the goal of the headwaters movement was never fully met -- acquisition of 200K acres without having to pay a dime for it. That the HCP failed is a true tragedy right up there with the bankruptcy; perhaps ever sadder.
Posted by: Josh Reiss at January 28, 2007 08:26 PM
And:
"O.C.: Sorry if I overlooked a respone to your earlier question. The short answer is that companies filing for bankruptcy have a lot of latitude in choosing a venue. Basically anything that can be considered an operation of the company allows it to file in that jurisdiction. That's the reason that Enron could file in Manhattan, for example. It's also the reason many companies file in Delware -- simply because they're incorporated there. Debtor companies do this all the time, looking for a venue they believe will be more favorable to them.
Posted by: Loren at February 11, 2007 02:17 PM
This week's Cases to Watch
TS - Contested interview halts molest prelim
ER - Toomey hearing interrupted
"Jacob Charles Toomey, 28, was arrested earlier this month and has been charged with a count of lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14 and two counts of lewd and lascivious acts with a child 14 or 15 with the suspect being more than 10 years older." ER At issue, "an April 11 recorded interview of Toomey by Humboldt County Sheriff’s Detective Rich Schlesiger... (Humboldt County Chief Conflict Counsel Glenn) Brown, asked for the continuance because, Brown told Humboldt County Superior Judge W. Bruce Watson, he needed time to research a “messiah issue” — “that once a person has been appointed counsel, police may not interview” the defendant without his/her counsel present.
ER - Judge grants third continuance for felony assault case
Charged with "four felonies — false imprisonment/person used as a shield; false imprisonment; threatening crime with intent to terrorize; and assault with a deadly weapon or great bodily injury force with a kitchen knife — and the misdemeanor of resisting arrest or obstructing a public officer." Mark Christopher McClung, apparently considering whether to take an "unspecified plea offer or opt instead for a preliminary hearing... the first continuance was requested so that McClung’s Arcata-based attorney Russ Clanton could go over the offer further with his client." ER
Earlier information: Judge continues McClung hearing
...McClung could get up to two strikes if convicted, past reports indicate, making any future felony a third strike...
McClung is currently on a probation hold from a case that stems from a January 2003 case, in which he pleaded guilty to possessing chemicals to manufacture methamphetamine, as well as to a firearm enhancement.
With the probation penalty and fresh charges combined, McClung faces a maximum prison term of 17 years and eight months, past reports indicate...
“...We have begun a real thorough investigation and it’s put us in a position that we’ve been able to have some discussions with the District Attorney’s Office in regard to reaching an agreement in how we should proceed in this case,” (Russ) Clanton said. “There are many issues in regard to the factual aspects of this case..."
What will the deal be?
ER - Toomey hearing interrupted
"Jacob Charles Toomey, 28, was arrested earlier this month and has been charged with a count of lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14 and two counts of lewd and lascivious acts with a child 14 or 15 with the suspect being more than 10 years older." ER At issue, "an April 11 recorded interview of Toomey by Humboldt County Sheriff’s Detective Rich Schlesiger... (Humboldt County Chief Conflict Counsel Glenn) Brown, asked for the continuance because, Brown told Humboldt County Superior Judge W. Bruce Watson, he needed time to research a “messiah issue” — “that once a person has been appointed counsel, police may not interview” the defendant without his/her counsel present.
ER - Judge grants third continuance for felony assault case
Charged with "four felonies — false imprisonment/person used as a shield; false imprisonment; threatening crime with intent to terrorize; and assault with a deadly weapon or great bodily injury force with a kitchen knife — and the misdemeanor of resisting arrest or obstructing a public officer." Mark Christopher McClung, apparently considering whether to take an "unspecified plea offer or opt instead for a preliminary hearing... the first continuance was requested so that McClung’s Arcata-based attorney Russ Clanton could go over the offer further with his client." ER
Earlier information: Judge continues McClung hearing
...McClung could get up to two strikes if convicted, past reports indicate, making any future felony a third strike...
McClung is currently on a probation hold from a case that stems from a January 2003 case, in which he pleaded guilty to possessing chemicals to manufacture methamphetamine, as well as to a firearm enhancement.
With the probation penalty and fresh charges combined, McClung faces a maximum prison term of 17 years and eight months, past reports indicate...
“...We have begun a real thorough investigation and it’s put us in a position that we’ve been able to have some discussions with the District Attorney’s Office in regard to reaching an agreement in how we should proceed in this case,” (Russ) Clanton said. “There are many issues in regard to the factual aspects of this case..."
What will the deal be?
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Board commends Victim Witness Office
The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors Tuesday commended the District Attorney Victim Witness Office for 25 years of service in the community.
Victim Witness assists victims of crimes in coping with trauma, accompanying them to court and connecting victims with community resources.
Victim Witness sees about 1,000 victims and family members per year.
Twenty-year volunteer Audrey Pacheco was awarded with a surprise when the board adopted an additional resolution commending her for her years of service in the community.
“It’s been 20 wonderful years, very much rewarding,” she said.
full story - Board commends Victim Witness Office
***
Well deserved praise for some amazing people and a great program.
And luckily, though he should have been there, District Attorney Paul Gallegos was nowhere to be seen.
More
Victim Witness assists victims of crimes in coping with trauma, accompanying them to court and connecting victims with community resources.
Victim Witness sees about 1,000 victims and family members per year.
Twenty-year volunteer Audrey Pacheco was awarded with a surprise when the board adopted an additional resolution commending her for her years of service in the community.
“It’s been 20 wonderful years, very much rewarding,” she said.
full story - Board commends Victim Witness Office
***
Well deserved praise for some amazing people and a great program.
And luckily, though he should have been there, District Attorney Paul Gallegos was nowhere to be seen.
More
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
A finding of Factual Innocence
"... Humboldt County Superior Court Judge John T. Feeney found good cause Tuesday — “due to the facts of the case” — to grant a motion that finds (Carol Ann) Yunque “factually innocent” of the charges she was acquitted of following a jury trial in January.
In addition, Feeney found good cause for the “sealing and ultimate destruction of the records in (the) Yunque case.”...: Yunque trial records to be 'destroyed'
It is a rare thing for a prosecutor to say that a defendant is INNOCENT of all charges, as Roy Cooper did in the Duke Lacrosse case. But those cases were stopped before they went to trial
It is also a rare thing for a motion for FACTUAL INNOCENCE to be applied for and even more rare than that for it to be granted after a full trial.
But that is what just happened in the Yunque case.
This can only happen if the judge finds that there was NO EVIDENCE worthy of going to trial. According to one of my anons "This means there was no factual basis to have charged her to begin with and not that there was not enough evidence to get the conviction."
It means the District Attorney's Office abused it's prosecutorial discretion and brought a case to trial that never should have been pursued.
Since it also means, apparently, that Yunque can sue, we'll have to put this one on the list of cases to watch. After the fact.
Question is, though - who will be sued, and does Paul Gallegos have absolute immunity?
(Thanks for the heads up, anon 2:17)
Addtl info:
Cal Pen Code § 851.8
In addition, Feeney found good cause for the “sealing and ultimate destruction of the records in (the) Yunque case.”...: Yunque trial records to be 'destroyed'
It is a rare thing for a prosecutor to say that a defendant is INNOCENT of all charges, as Roy Cooper did in the Duke Lacrosse case. But those cases were stopped before they went to trial
It is also a rare thing for a motion for FACTUAL INNOCENCE to be applied for and even more rare than that for it to be granted after a full trial.
But that is what just happened in the Yunque case.
This can only happen if the judge finds that there was NO EVIDENCE worthy of going to trial. According to one of my anons "This means there was no factual basis to have charged her to begin with and not that there was not enough evidence to get the conviction."
It means the District Attorney's Office abused it's prosecutorial discretion and brought a case to trial that never should have been pursued.
Since it also means, apparently, that Yunque can sue, we'll have to put this one on the list of cases to watch. After the fact.
Question is, though - who will be sued, and does Paul Gallegos have absolute immunity?
(Thanks for the heads up, anon 2:17)
Addtl info:
Cal Pen Code § 851.8
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Open thread on Cotchett's PL filing
I'm paraphrasing, but back when Tim Stoen stood before the Board of Supervisors asking to bring Cotchett's law firm in to do the PL suit, he said this was a slam dunk case - that all he needed was 4 pieces of paper and two expert witnesses and this case would be over in two days...
Typical Stoen histrionics.
"...Gallegos' complaint, Cotchett said, is legally sound... "This is an extremely well-written complaint," Cotchett said. "The district attorney (and his staff) did a full and complete investigation
before they filed..."
Oh really?
Much has been revealed since that first day about how the PL suit came about, with Ken Miller in Stoen's office helping draft the suit, and of course it was laughed out of court. Didn't even pass demurrer, didn't even go to trial.
There were big numbers being thrown around back then - "... In the lawsuit, Gallegos is asking PL pay damages of up to $2,500 per tree for every one cut as a result of its alleged deception surrounding the Headwaters deal. The district attorney's office has estimated the company cut 30,000 trees it shouldn't have been allowed to cut, which appears to mean the damages the district attorney is seeking are in the neighborhood of $75 million. Of that, the Bay area firm would want more than $10 million plus expenses...."
But, somehow, I don't think this is about money, and I don't think we know all there is to know about who is behind this effort. There is a big story here waiting to be told.
There are questions that have to be answered. How did Cotchett come to be involved in the first place? How did Stoen get brought in? Was John Burton involved? How about Pete McCloskey? What are his links to Burton? How did Ken Miller pull this off?
And why is Cotchett "jonesing" after this suit to this day? Is it the money?
I'm starting to wonder if Cotchett is all that smart. His statement that Miller's suit was well-drafted is ludicrous.
And if some of the points which have been brought up in the discussion on the Humboldt Herald are true, he has really screwed up this time.
That being that the Statute of Limitations has long since expired since the "whistleblowers" objections were discovered while the Headwaters deal was being finalized, if I read it correctly.
My opinion has been and remains that Hurwitz ought to sue Ken Miller and his dedicated cronies (including Fenton Communications and Michael Shellenberger) for their decade long effort to destroy Pacific Lumber Company, to use the power of government offices to steal his land, for their ongoing and vicious defamation of him and his company. It would be a groundbreaking thing. The activists and their power are a new and untested thing, and the use of the internet to spread the defamation is a new thing.
Consider this an open thread on the latest Cotchett/Palco filing.
And would the person who posted that information at Heraldo, please email me with information. I see you have also drawn the connection between Burton and this whole sorry mess. Help us understand this process.
Sidenote: Cotchett also gave Gallegos' campaign three grand, if I remember correctly. It's high time I posted those 460s.
More on heraldo - besides the rhetoric, check the comments, though he seems to be deleting them as fast as they come in.
Typical Stoen histrionics.
"...Gallegos' complaint, Cotchett said, is legally sound... "This is an extremely well-written complaint," Cotchett said. "The district attorney (and his staff) did a full and complete investigation
before they filed..."
Oh really?
Much has been revealed since that first day about how the PL suit came about, with Ken Miller in Stoen's office helping draft the suit, and of course it was laughed out of court. Didn't even pass demurrer, didn't even go to trial.
There were big numbers being thrown around back then - "... In the lawsuit, Gallegos is asking PL pay damages of up to $2,500 per tree for every one cut as a result of its alleged deception surrounding the Headwaters deal. The district attorney's office has estimated the company cut 30,000 trees it shouldn't have been allowed to cut, which appears to mean the damages the district attorney is seeking are in the neighborhood of $75 million. Of that, the Bay area firm would want more than $10 million plus expenses...."
But, somehow, I don't think this is about money, and I don't think we know all there is to know about who is behind this effort. There is a big story here waiting to be told.
There are questions that have to be answered. How did Cotchett come to be involved in the first place? How did Stoen get brought in? Was John Burton involved? How about Pete McCloskey? What are his links to Burton? How did Ken Miller pull this off?
And why is Cotchett "jonesing" after this suit to this day? Is it the money?
I'm starting to wonder if Cotchett is all that smart. His statement that Miller's suit was well-drafted is ludicrous.
And if some of the points which have been brought up in the discussion on the Humboldt Herald are true, he has really screwed up this time.
That being that the Statute of Limitations has long since expired since the "whistleblowers" objections were discovered while the Headwaters deal was being finalized, if I read it correctly.
My opinion has been and remains that Hurwitz ought to sue Ken Miller and his dedicated cronies (including Fenton Communications and Michael Shellenberger) for their decade long effort to destroy Pacific Lumber Company, to use the power of government offices to steal his land, for their ongoing and vicious defamation of him and his company. It would be a groundbreaking thing. The activists and their power are a new and untested thing, and the use of the internet to spread the defamation is a new thing.
Consider this an open thread on the latest Cotchett/Palco filing.
And would the person who posted that information at Heraldo, please email me with information. I see you have also drawn the connection between Burton and this whole sorry mess. Help us understand this process.
Sidenote: Cotchett also gave Gallegos' campaign three grand, if I remember correctly. It's high time I posted those 460s.
More on heraldo - besides the rhetoric, check the comments, though he seems to be deleting them as fast as they come in.
Monday, April 23, 2007
And Walin makes five... w/update
Walin filing latest in recent rash of gag order requests
A motion for the protective order request, filed by the Humboldt County Public Defender’s Office, will be heard before Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Christopher Wilson on Monday.
If the request for the protective order — also known as a gag order — is granted, it will prevent trial attorneys, court officials and other trial participants from talking to media about the case.
On Friday, Walin’s attorney, Deputy Public Defender Jennifer D. Dixon, declined to comment on why the gag order request was filed....
Humboldt County Deputy District Attorney Arnie Klein said a judge found sufficient evidence — following an April 3 preliminary hearing — to hold Walin to answer to all charges listed on the complaint against him: felon in possession of a firearm, a sawed-off shotgun; felon in possession of ammunition; possession of a sawed-off shotgun; assault with a firearm; felon in possession of a short-barreled shotgun; and grand theft auto, with a special allegation that Walin allegedly did so with a sawed-off shotgun and another special allegation that Walin has a prior felony vehicle theft conviction.
Mr. Schwartz called us
"Gag" Orders
California Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct
California Bar Association Rule 5-120. Trial Publicity
American Bar Association Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor
UPDATE:
Judge denies protective order request in Michael Walin case "without prejudice."
A motion for the protective order request, filed by the Humboldt County Public Defender’s Office, will be heard before Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Christopher Wilson on Monday.
If the request for the protective order — also known as a gag order — is granted, it will prevent trial attorneys, court officials and other trial participants from talking to media about the case.
On Friday, Walin’s attorney, Deputy Public Defender Jennifer D. Dixon, declined to comment on why the gag order request was filed....
Humboldt County Deputy District Attorney Arnie Klein said a judge found sufficient evidence — following an April 3 preliminary hearing — to hold Walin to answer to all charges listed on the complaint against him: felon in possession of a firearm, a sawed-off shotgun; felon in possession of ammunition; possession of a sawed-off shotgun; assault with a firearm; felon in possession of a short-barreled shotgun; and grand theft auto, with a special allegation that Walin allegedly did so with a sawed-off shotgun and another special allegation that Walin has a prior felony vehicle theft conviction.
Mr. Schwartz called us
"Gag" Orders
California Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct
California Bar Association Rule 5-120. Trial Publicity
American Bar Association Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor
UPDATE:
Judge denies protective order request in Michael Walin case "without prejudice."
Saturday, April 21, 2007
In case you missed it...
This letter to the editor is worth repeating, and needs to be part of the permanent record:
Humboldt Baykeeper seems to have lost its way as a positive force
by Ron Fritzsche, 2/10/2006
Dear Editor,
As a marine biologist and member of Humboldt Baykeeper, I continue to be disappointed in the actions of Humboldt Baykeeper as reported in the local media.
I was duped into thinking that it was an organization that would be a positive force for Humboldt Bay. I soon found out that Humboldt Baykeeper is willing to collect money but does not involve the “members” in any way. The director does have a self-appointed advisory board that is “available for us to consult with from time to time,” according to the Humboldt Baykeeper.
Interestingly, there isn’t a single Humboldt State University faculty member on the board. One would think that faculty from disciplines such as chemistry, oceanography, and environmental resources engineering would be important to an organization concerned about water quality and contamination issues. Scientific input and peer review is the key to providing validity and credibility to statements and positions taken by the organization.
Additionally, Humboldt Baykeeper has acted in a manner opposite to what was indicated would be the case. Rather than being an organization that would help facilitate the identification, cleanup, and remediation of possible contamination, Humboldt Baykeeper seems intent on hindering the process by threatening lawsuits or making grandstand statements that appear to serve a need to gain publicity. The Humboldt Baykeeper had stated publicly that litigation would be the last resort after all attempts to work with the landowner to resolve identified problems had failed.
I have decided not to renew my membership in Humboldt Baykeeper. I recommend that others consider doing the same.
Ron Fritzsche
Humboldt Baykeeper seems to have lost its way as a positive force
by Ron Fritzsche, 2/10/2006
Dear Editor,
As a marine biologist and member of Humboldt Baykeeper, I continue to be disappointed in the actions of Humboldt Baykeeper as reported in the local media.
I was duped into thinking that it was an organization that would be a positive force for Humboldt Bay. I soon found out that Humboldt Baykeeper is willing to collect money but does not involve the “members” in any way. The director does have a self-appointed advisory board that is “available for us to consult with from time to time,” according to the Humboldt Baykeeper.
Interestingly, there isn’t a single Humboldt State University faculty member on the board. One would think that faculty from disciplines such as chemistry, oceanography, and environmental resources engineering would be important to an organization concerned about water quality and contamination issues. Scientific input and peer review is the key to providing validity and credibility to statements and positions taken by the organization.
Additionally, Humboldt Baykeeper has acted in a manner opposite to what was indicated would be the case. Rather than being an organization that would help facilitate the identification, cleanup, and remediation of possible contamination, Humboldt Baykeeper seems intent on hindering the process by threatening lawsuits or making grandstand statements that appear to serve a need to gain publicity. The Humboldt Baykeeper had stated publicly that litigation would be the last resort after all attempts to work with the landowner to resolve identified problems had failed.
I have decided not to renew my membership in Humboldt Baykeeper. I recommend that others consider doing the same.
Ron Fritzsche
Friday, April 20, 2007
Here we go again w/update
Suit against PALCO alleges fraud
'Whistleblower' suit against Palco moves ahead
WHISTLEBLOWER SPARKS LAWSUIT AGAINST MAXXAM, HURWITZ (heraldo)
Akron Beacon Journal
Chronicle
Examiner
The never-ending story.
I'm sure Ken Miller is "stunned."
Is "whistleblower" just a buzzword? Another carefully constructed linguistic device concocted by a PR firm? More of that easy rhetoric that sells your story in under 3 seconds?
UPDATE on the Palco bankruptcy proceedings
Texas judge keeps bankruptcy case in Texas
Maybe this case was written by Ken Miller, too. Or maybe the Texas judge looked at the shenanigans here and decided not to trust anyone in California.
And, from ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ "...forests in the northern hemisphere are contributing significantly to the global warming "emergency".... according to Researchers from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
'Whistleblower' suit against Palco moves ahead
WHISTLEBLOWER SPARKS LAWSUIT AGAINST MAXXAM, HURWITZ (heraldo)
Akron Beacon Journal
Chronicle
Examiner
The never-ending story.
I'm sure Ken Miller is "stunned."
Is "whistleblower" just a buzzword? Another carefully constructed linguistic device concocted by a PR firm? More of that easy rhetoric that sells your story in under 3 seconds?
UPDATE on the Palco bankruptcy proceedings
Texas judge keeps bankruptcy case in Texas
Maybe this case was written by Ken Miller, too. Or maybe the Texas judge looked at the shenanigans here and decided not to trust anyone in California.
And, from ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ "...forests in the northern hemisphere are contributing significantly to the global warming "emergency".... according to Researchers from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
"Mr. Schwartz called us" w/update
Apparently, Jeff "yougofree.com" Schwartz isn't happy with all the requests for gag orders that have occurred lately. If the quote below is accurate, he called the Times Standard to alert them to his concerns.
Perhaps he doesn't realize it is the DA's job to talk to the media, not his. Or perhaps he realizes Gallegos isn't up to the job. Perhaps he can't break his 'defense attorney' habits.
I have mixed feelings because I certainly appreciate the more-informative coverage of late. It seems Schwartz, Dollison and Klein all enjoy talking to reporter Kara Machado, filling her in on all the details, and more power to her. She's been doing a great job.
But, though none of these men are trained prosecutors, they should know that talking about their cases potentially prejudices the public, and the jury pool, they should know that doing so may irreparably damage a (possibly) innocent man's reputation, and they should be aware that excessive publicity, particularly in a child abuse case, may make it more difficult for the victim, and the victim's family, may prevent other witnesses from coming forward for fear of being dragged thorugh the mud.
It's going to be tough enough on the victims and their families, made even tougher by the virtual loss of the Victim/Witness program advocates, and the virtual dismantling of the Child Abuse Services Team, and the loss of an experienced child interview specialist.
Given Gallegos' deteriorated relationship with the media follwing his plagiarism debacle and other slips, you can see why he doesn't want to talk to the press. But he needs to do his job. He was quick to say what a DA should do, crowed about his prowess, bragged about doing both the DA's job AND trying cases himself. He was the one issuing "gag orders" when he took office, but his reasons for not wanting his attorneys to talk to the press had more to do with protecting himself and his handlers than anything else. It seem he doesn't care when it is only affecting defendants, and victims.
At this rate, look for him to try hiring a "public relations" person for the office, so he can further abdicate his responsibilty.
"...Schwartz said he is disappointed that gag order requests have been routine lately on the part of the Public Defender’s Office.
“I think the Public Defender’s Office is filing gag order requests without a basis and as a matter of routine, which is offensive to the freedom of speech clause in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution,” Schwartz said. “Other (potential) lawyers (in the Davis case) may be more respectful of it and may decide not to request a gag order.
“I’m disappointed in the media for not taking an aggressive stance on the issue.”
When asked if the The Eureka Reporter is going to address the recent multiple gag orders on various cases, Managing Editor Glenn Franco Simmons said, “We are looking into the matter.”
“I agree with Mr. Schwartz’s criticism regarding the Public Defender’s Office’s requests for gag orders; I also have grave concerns about those orders’ effects on our First Amendment right,” Franco Simmons said. “As for his criticism of local media, I can’t speak for other media, but we are attempting to determine our options at this point and we will know more soon.”
Rich Somerville, managing editor for The Times-Standard, said the issue of gag orders can be serious; if the requests are becoming routine, they can be dangerous; and that The Times-Standard is “not afraid to challenge First Amendment issues in court.”
“Gag orders should only be used in the most extreme circumstances and when they get to be routine, it’s encroaching upon a serious threat to the First Amendment right, which is the public’s right to know the functioning of its government,” Somerville said. “Indeed, it’s true that Mr. Schwartz called us and alerted us to his concerns, but, really it’s only been a relative few days ago, and we’re in the process of seeing how serious this is and pursuing it either as a story or perhaps also sitting down and talking with the judges about this issue.”
Oh, this could get really interesting.
###
UPDATE:
California Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 5-120. Trial Publicity
(A) A member who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the member knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.
(B) Notwithstanding paragraph (A), a member may state:
(1) the claim, offense or defense involved and, except when prohibited by law, the identity of the persons involved;
(2) the information contained in a public record;
(3) that an investigation of the matter is in progress;
(4) the scheduling or result of any step in litigation;
(5) a request for assistance in obtaining evidence and information necessary thereto;
(6) a warning of danger concerning the behavior of a person involved, when there is reason to believe that there exists the likelihood of substantial harm to an individual or the public interest; and
(7) in a criminal case, in addition to subparagraphs (1) through (6):
(a) the identity, residence, occupation, and family status of the accused;
(b) if the accused has not been apprehended, the information necessary to aid in apprehension of that person;
(c) the fact, time, and place of arrest; and
(d) the identity of investigating and arresting officers or agencies and the length of the investigation.
(C) Notwithstanding paragraph (A), a member may make a statement that a reasonable member would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the member or the member's client. A statement made pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to such information as is necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity.
###
The American Bar Association Rule 3.6 reads the same.
Then there's the American Bar Association - Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor
The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:
(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;
(b) make reasonable efforts to assure that the accused has been advised of the right to, and the procedure for obtaining, counsel and has been given reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel;
(c) not seek to obtain from an unrepresented accused a waiver of important pretrial rights, such as the right to a preliminary hearing;
(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal;
(e) not subpoena a lawyer in a grand jury or other criminal proceeding to present evidence about a past or present client unless the prosecutor reasonably believes:
(i) the information sought is not protected from disclosure by any applicable privilege;
(ii) the evidence sought is essential to the successful completion of an ongoing investigation or prosecution; and
(iii) there is no other feasible alternative to obtain the information;
(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.
###
Thanks for the tip, Anon 8:AM
Perhaps he doesn't realize it is the DA's job to talk to the media, not his. Or perhaps he realizes Gallegos isn't up to the job. Perhaps he can't break his 'defense attorney' habits.
I have mixed feelings because I certainly appreciate the more-informative coverage of late. It seems Schwartz, Dollison and Klein all enjoy talking to reporter Kara Machado, filling her in on all the details, and more power to her. She's been doing a great job.
But, though none of these men are trained prosecutors, they should know that talking about their cases potentially prejudices the public, and the jury pool, they should know that doing so may irreparably damage a (possibly) innocent man's reputation, and they should be aware that excessive publicity, particularly in a child abuse case, may make it more difficult for the victim, and the victim's family, may prevent other witnesses from coming forward for fear of being dragged thorugh the mud.
It's going to be tough enough on the victims and their families, made even tougher by the virtual loss of the Victim/Witness program advocates, and the virtual dismantling of the Child Abuse Services Team, and the loss of an experienced child interview specialist.
Given Gallegos' deteriorated relationship with the media follwing his plagiarism debacle and other slips, you can see why he doesn't want to talk to the press. But he needs to do his job. He was quick to say what a DA should do, crowed about his prowess, bragged about doing both the DA's job AND trying cases himself. He was the one issuing "gag orders" when he took office, but his reasons for not wanting his attorneys to talk to the press had more to do with protecting himself and his handlers than anything else. It seem he doesn't care when it is only affecting defendants, and victims.
At this rate, look for him to try hiring a "public relations" person for the office, so he can further abdicate his responsibilty.
"...Schwartz said he is disappointed that gag order requests have been routine lately on the part of the Public Defender’s Office.
“I think the Public Defender’s Office is filing gag order requests without a basis and as a matter of routine, which is offensive to the freedom of speech clause in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution,” Schwartz said. “Other (potential) lawyers (in the Davis case) may be more respectful of it and may decide not to request a gag order.
“I’m disappointed in the media for not taking an aggressive stance on the issue.”
When asked if the The Eureka Reporter is going to address the recent multiple gag orders on various cases, Managing Editor Glenn Franco Simmons said, “We are looking into the matter.”
“I agree with Mr. Schwartz’s criticism regarding the Public Defender’s Office’s requests for gag orders; I also have grave concerns about those orders’ effects on our First Amendment right,” Franco Simmons said. “As for his criticism of local media, I can’t speak for other media, but we are attempting to determine our options at this point and we will know more soon.”
Rich Somerville, managing editor for The Times-Standard, said the issue of gag orders can be serious; if the requests are becoming routine, they can be dangerous; and that The Times-Standard is “not afraid to challenge First Amendment issues in court.”
“Gag orders should only be used in the most extreme circumstances and when they get to be routine, it’s encroaching upon a serious threat to the First Amendment right, which is the public’s right to know the functioning of its government,” Somerville said. “Indeed, it’s true that Mr. Schwartz called us and alerted us to his concerns, but, really it’s only been a relative few days ago, and we’re in the process of seeing how serious this is and pursuing it either as a story or perhaps also sitting down and talking with the judges about this issue.”
Oh, this could get really interesting.
###
UPDATE:
California Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 5-120. Trial Publicity
(A) A member who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the member knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.
(B) Notwithstanding paragraph (A), a member may state:
(1) the claim, offense or defense involved and, except when prohibited by law, the identity of the persons involved;
(2) the information contained in a public record;
(3) that an investigation of the matter is in progress;
(4) the scheduling or result of any step in litigation;
(5) a request for assistance in obtaining evidence and information necessary thereto;
(6) a warning of danger concerning the behavior of a person involved, when there is reason to believe that there exists the likelihood of substantial harm to an individual or the public interest; and
(7) in a criminal case, in addition to subparagraphs (1) through (6):
(a) the identity, residence, occupation, and family status of the accused;
(b) if the accused has not been apprehended, the information necessary to aid in apprehension of that person;
(c) the fact, time, and place of arrest; and
(d) the identity of investigating and arresting officers or agencies and the length of the investigation.
(C) Notwithstanding paragraph (A), a member may make a statement that a reasonable member would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the member or the member's client. A statement made pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to such information as is necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity.
###
The American Bar Association Rule 3.6 reads the same.
Then there's the American Bar Association - Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor
The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:
(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;
(b) make reasonable efforts to assure that the accused has been advised of the right to, and the procedure for obtaining, counsel and has been given reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel;
(c) not seek to obtain from an unrepresented accused a waiver of important pretrial rights, such as the right to a preliminary hearing;
(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal;
(e) not subpoena a lawyer in a grand jury or other criminal proceeding to present evidence about a past or present client unless the prosecutor reasonably believes:
(i) the information sought is not protected from disclosure by any applicable privilege;
(ii) the evidence sought is essential to the successful completion of an ongoing investigation or prosecution; and
(iii) there is no other feasible alternative to obtain the information;
(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.
###
Thanks for the tip, Anon 8:AM
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)