Thursday, December 06, 2007
Meth campaign debuts new ads
ER Meth campaign debuts new ads
But will they be on a par with the Montana Meth Project?
(image from MMP's first campaign below) Follow that link, the new spots are just as powerful. "Our first campaign focused on the impact Meth has on the individual—the user. Our latest ads show the collateral damage that occurs to users' family and friends. This new concept is based directly on input from Montana teens."
Tom Siebel
Montana Meth Project Founder and Vice-chairman
But will they be on a par with the Montana Meth Project?
(image from MMP's first campaign below) Follow that link, the new spots are just as powerful. "Our first campaign focused on the impact Meth has on the individual—the user. Our latest ads show the collateral damage that occurs to users' family and friends. This new concept is based directly on input from Montana teens."
Tom Siebel
Montana Meth Project Founder and Vice-chairman
Three articles today
Three new articles on the Cheri Moore/possible Grand Jury indictments, including two excellent pieces from the Times Standard are posted below. I didn't edit or excerpt, so you'll have to do a bit of scrolling.
Other blog discussion:
Greg & Carol's Place
SoHum Parlance
...More from Eric... (I don't agree with Eric, post explaining why is in the works.)
Other blog discussion:
Greg & Carol's Place
SoHum Parlance
...More from Eric... (I don't agree with Eric, post explaining why is in the works.)
Negligence a key to involuntary manslaughter
URGENT ALERT! This case was TOSSED by the Judge - never made it to trial.
☛ ER http://eurekareporter.com/article/080826-judge-throws-out-douglas-zanotti-case
Feeney said the indictments the grand jury handed down to Douglas and Zanotti in December 2007 weren’t supported by probable cause. Insufficient evidence regarding the former leaders’ alleged failure to oversee other law enforcement was also presented to the grand jury, Feeney said, and instructions given on “exigent circumstances” were inadequate.
The grand jury should have also been instructed on justifiable homicide by law enforcement officials, Feeney said.
***
Original post: Negligence a key to involuntary manslaughter
Several experts interviewed about the Cheri Lyn Moore case and the indictments being handed up by the grand jury have remarked on just how unusual it is.
In particular, the officers directly involved in Moore's shooting are not being charged. The commanders who ordered the tactical operation are the ones being indicted for involuntary manslaughter. That's the unlawful killing of someone during a crime, or a legal act that leads to a death -- but one that is done negligently.
Peter Keane, a professor of law and dean emeritus at Golden Gate University School of Law in San Francisco, who has served as a legal analyst for CNN, the BBC and MSNBC, said it's clear the grand jury felt the commanders' decision was a negligent one.
”It seems clear the grand jury that indicted, and the district attorney that presided over it, feel the decision to enter the house was a faulty decision -- a wrong decision -- a negligent decision,” Keane said. “There must be some evidence from which the grand jury was able to determine the decision itself was a flawed one, and flawed to the extent of being negligent, and something a reasonable person would have known was going to result in death.”
The California Penal Code defines involuntary manslaughter as: “The unlawful killing of a human being in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony; or the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection.”
Involuntary manslaughter is punishable by imprisonment in state prison for two, three or four years.
It differs from voluntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter is killing intentionally, but without malice or premeditation. Generally that is a killing in the heat of the moment.
The 2007 Criminal Jury Instructions from the Judicial Council of California shows that to convict, the jury must find that the defendant:
* Committed a crime that posed a high risk of death or great bodily injury because of the way in which it was committed; or committed a lawful act, with criminal negligence.
And:
* The defendant's acts caused the death of another person.
Criminal negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness, inattention or mistake in judgment. It's when:
* The defendant acts in a reckless way that creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury.
And:
* A reasonable person would have known that acting in that way would create such a risk.
While Keane described negligence as “someone engaging in conduct that a reasonable person would not engage in,” he said the process of determining exactly what constitutes negligence varies greatly on a case-by-case basis.
”You can't really generalize,” he said. “You have to look collectively at the particular series of facts in each case.”
Times-Standard John Driscoll and Thadeus Greenson
Article Launched: 12/06/2007 01:27:31 AM PST
☛ ER http://eurekareporter.com/article/080826-judge-throws-out-douglas-zanotti-case
Feeney said the indictments the grand jury handed down to Douglas and Zanotti in December 2007 weren’t supported by probable cause. Insufficient evidence regarding the former leaders’ alleged failure to oversee other law enforcement was also presented to the grand jury, Feeney said, and instructions given on “exigent circumstances” were inadequate.
The grand jury should have also been instructed on justifiable homicide by law enforcement officials, Feeney said.
***
Original post: Negligence a key to involuntary manslaughter
Several experts interviewed about the Cheri Lyn Moore case and the indictments being handed up by the grand jury have remarked on just how unusual it is.
In particular, the officers directly involved in Moore's shooting are not being charged. The commanders who ordered the tactical operation are the ones being indicted for involuntary manslaughter. That's the unlawful killing of someone during a crime, or a legal act that leads to a death -- but one that is done negligently.
Peter Keane, a professor of law and dean emeritus at Golden Gate University School of Law in San Francisco, who has served as a legal analyst for CNN, the BBC and MSNBC, said it's clear the grand jury felt the commanders' decision was a negligent one.
”It seems clear the grand jury that indicted, and the district attorney that presided over it, feel the decision to enter the house was a faulty decision -- a wrong decision -- a negligent decision,” Keane said. “There must be some evidence from which the grand jury was able to determine the decision itself was a flawed one, and flawed to the extent of being negligent, and something a reasonable person would have known was going to result in death.”
The California Penal Code defines involuntary manslaughter as: “The unlawful killing of a human being in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony; or the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection.”
Involuntary manslaughter is punishable by imprisonment in state prison for two, three or four years.
It differs from voluntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter is killing intentionally, but without malice or premeditation. Generally that is a killing in the heat of the moment.
The 2007 Criminal Jury Instructions from the Judicial Council of California shows that to convict, the jury must find that the defendant:
* Committed a crime that posed a high risk of death or great bodily injury because of the way in which it was committed; or committed a lawful act, with criminal negligence.
And:
* The defendant's acts caused the death of another person.
Criminal negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness, inattention or mistake in judgment. It's when:
* The defendant acts in a reckless way that creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury.
And:
* A reasonable person would have known that acting in that way would create such a risk.
While Keane described negligence as “someone engaging in conduct that a reasonable person would not engage in,” he said the process of determining exactly what constitutes negligence varies greatly on a case-by-case basis.
”You can't really generalize,” he said. “You have to look collectively at the particular series of facts in each case.”
Times-Standard John Driscoll and Thadeus Greenson
Article Launched: 12/06/2007 01:27:31 AM PST
Untested waters: Case against police commanders likely to hinge on 'criminal negligence,' expert says
URGENT ALERT! This case was TOSSED by the Judge - never made it to trial.
☛ ER http://eurekareporter.com/article/080826-judge-throws-out-douglas-zanotti-case
Feeney said the indictments the grand jury handed down to Douglas and Zanotti in December 2007 weren’t supported by probable cause. Insufficient evidence regarding the former leaders’ alleged failure to oversee other law enforcement was also presented to the grand jury, Feeney said, and instructions given on “exigent circumstances” were inadequate.
The grand jury should have also been instructed on justifiable homicide by law enforcement officials, Feeney said.
***
Untested waters: Case against police commanders likely to hinge on 'criminal negligence,' expert says
The expected grand jury indictments of former Eureka Police Chief David Douglas and Lt. Tony Zanotti would be unprecedented ground for Humboldt County, and possibly the nation.
”This is the first time I've heard of an indictment of police officers in the command aspect of a situation who weren't actually involved in the shootings themselves,” said Golden Gate University School of Law Professor and Dean Emeritus Peter Keane, who has served as a legal analyst for CNN, the BBC and MSNBC and is former vice-president of the State Bar of California.
”Generally,” Keane continued, “when you do see prosecution of police for unusual use of force or manslaughter, it's the officers that are actually involved in the shooting.”
A source familiar with the grand jury proceedings told the Times-Standard Tuesday the jury will hand up indictments of involuntary manslaughter to Douglas and Zanotti, who are scheduled to be arraigned Monday. The source requested anonymity, due to the secrecy of the proceedings.
Messages seeking comment from Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos had not been returned as of Wednesday evening.
Moore, who had a history of mental illness, was shot and killed April 14, 2006, by Eureka police officers in her second story apartment at Fifth and G streets. During the preceding two hour standoff, Moore brandished a flare gun, threw things from her second-story window and threatened to burn down the building.
Police have said they believed Moore had put down the flare gun when the decision was made to storm her apartment. Upon entering, officers said they came face to face with Moore, who was pointing the flare gun at them. Officers shot Moore several times.
Part of what is interesting about the grand jury's decision, according to Keane, is that it chose not to indict EPD officer Rocky Harpham and Sgt. Michael Johnson, who fired the fatal shots.
In an interview Wednesday, Eureka Police Chief Garr Nielsen said he felt that decision was the right one. But, like Keane, Nielsen said in his almost 30 years in law enforcement he has never heard of indictments being handed up to commanding officers after an officer-involved shooting.
”I think that this decision by the grand jury is going to have far-reaching impacts on command personnel in tactical operations all over the state, and maybe even the nation,” Nielsen said.
While Nielsen said this can serve as an important reminder to command officers in tactical situations of the possible effects of their decisions, he said losing a human life is enough to hammer that point home.
Nielsen said he is confident the decisions Zanotti and Douglas made did not amount to a criminal act, and he has faith in the justice system.
”We need to remember there is a presumption of innocence,” Nielsen said. “Even though it is a drain to have this potential indictment hanging over us, they are innocent until proven guilty by a jury.”
Nielsen said he felt his organization had turned a corner in recent months, but this has picked at old wounds and had an impact on morale. He made clear Wednesday he stands by his officers, saying he would not place Zanotti on administrative leave.
”In no way do I believe he is a threat to the community,” Nielsen said, adding his only change would be to keep Zanotti out of the role as a site commander. Even that decision, Nielsen said, has nothing to do with his confidence in the lieutenant, and is only intended to protect him.
Also reached Wednesday, Eureka City Attorney Sheryl Schaffner said she hadn't received any official word on the indictment from the DA's office.
”Until we do, it's just speculation,” she said.
But generally speaking, she said the City Council is authorized -- but not required -- to provide for the defense of an active employee who was acting in the course of his duties. That would mean hiring a criminal defense attorney to defend them, she said.
Zanotti may also be a member of the Police Officers Research Association of California, which has a legal defense fund. An e-mail inquiry to the association's president, Ron Cottingham, was not returned by deadline.
Humboldt County Sheriff's Department spokeswoman Brenda Godsey said she had no response to the indictment, at least until it's made officially public.
Gordon Kaupp, an attorney representing Moore's son, David Moore, in a civil case against the city and the involved officers, said news of the indictments came as a surprise to David Moore, who had essentially lost faith in the DA's office.
While he said he felt the individual officers involved should also face indictments, Kaupp said he felt the decision to indict the commanding officers was a good one.
”The thing here is the grand jury recognized that they should have never stormed the apartment,” he said, adding that, if anything, Moore's putting the flare gun down should have been seen as a sign of de-escalation rather than reason to move in. “Clearly, the decision makers put the shooters in the position to shoot when they had them in the position to enter the apartment.”
Down in San Francisco, Keane had a similar take.
He said it is likely the grand jury felt officers should have waited it out longer, made more attempts to negotiate or tried using non-lethal means, like tear gas.
”Once there was that decision to enter into the house, and there is someone in there with the possession of a weapon, it's almost a certainty that they are going to have to kill that person,” Keane said.
Arcata Police Chief Randy Mendoza was surprised by the news, saying he'd heard of civil lawsuits against police leadership, but not criminal charges against commanding officers. Mendoza said he's not intimately familiar with the facts of the case, but expected indictments in such a situation could create concerns for law enforcement.
”It's hard enough to fill police chief jobs in California,” Mendoza said.
Thadeus Greenson and John Driscoll The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 12/06/2007 01:32:04 AM PS
☛ ER http://eurekareporter.com/article/080826-judge-throws-out-douglas-zanotti-case
Feeney said the indictments the grand jury handed down to Douglas and Zanotti in December 2007 weren’t supported by probable cause. Insufficient evidence regarding the former leaders’ alleged failure to oversee other law enforcement was also presented to the grand jury, Feeney said, and instructions given on “exigent circumstances” were inadequate.
The grand jury should have also been instructed on justifiable homicide by law enforcement officials, Feeney said.
***
Untested waters: Case against police commanders likely to hinge on 'criminal negligence,' expert says
The expected grand jury indictments of former Eureka Police Chief David Douglas and Lt. Tony Zanotti would be unprecedented ground for Humboldt County, and possibly the nation.
”This is the first time I've heard of an indictment of police officers in the command aspect of a situation who weren't actually involved in the shootings themselves,” said Golden Gate University School of Law Professor and Dean Emeritus Peter Keane, who has served as a legal analyst for CNN, the BBC and MSNBC and is former vice-president of the State Bar of California.
”Generally,” Keane continued, “when you do see prosecution of police for unusual use of force or manslaughter, it's the officers that are actually involved in the shooting.”
A source familiar with the grand jury proceedings told the Times-Standard Tuesday the jury will hand up indictments of involuntary manslaughter to Douglas and Zanotti, who are scheduled to be arraigned Monday. The source requested anonymity, due to the secrecy of the proceedings.
Messages seeking comment from Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos had not been returned as of Wednesday evening.
Moore, who had a history of mental illness, was shot and killed April 14, 2006, by Eureka police officers in her second story apartment at Fifth and G streets. During the preceding two hour standoff, Moore brandished a flare gun, threw things from her second-story window and threatened to burn down the building.
Police have said they believed Moore had put down the flare gun when the decision was made to storm her apartment. Upon entering, officers said they came face to face with Moore, who was pointing the flare gun at them. Officers shot Moore several times.
Part of what is interesting about the grand jury's decision, according to Keane, is that it chose not to indict EPD officer Rocky Harpham and Sgt. Michael Johnson, who fired the fatal shots.
In an interview Wednesday, Eureka Police Chief Garr Nielsen said he felt that decision was the right one. But, like Keane, Nielsen said in his almost 30 years in law enforcement he has never heard of indictments being handed up to commanding officers after an officer-involved shooting.
”I think that this decision by the grand jury is going to have far-reaching impacts on command personnel in tactical operations all over the state, and maybe even the nation,” Nielsen said.
While Nielsen said this can serve as an important reminder to command officers in tactical situations of the possible effects of their decisions, he said losing a human life is enough to hammer that point home.
Nielsen said he is confident the decisions Zanotti and Douglas made did not amount to a criminal act, and he has faith in the justice system.
”We need to remember there is a presumption of innocence,” Nielsen said. “Even though it is a drain to have this potential indictment hanging over us, they are innocent until proven guilty by a jury.”
Nielsen said he felt his organization had turned a corner in recent months, but this has picked at old wounds and had an impact on morale. He made clear Wednesday he stands by his officers, saying he would not place Zanotti on administrative leave.
”In no way do I believe he is a threat to the community,” Nielsen said, adding his only change would be to keep Zanotti out of the role as a site commander. Even that decision, Nielsen said, has nothing to do with his confidence in the lieutenant, and is only intended to protect him.
Also reached Wednesday, Eureka City Attorney Sheryl Schaffner said she hadn't received any official word on the indictment from the DA's office.
”Until we do, it's just speculation,” she said.
But generally speaking, she said the City Council is authorized -- but not required -- to provide for the defense of an active employee who was acting in the course of his duties. That would mean hiring a criminal defense attorney to defend them, she said.
Zanotti may also be a member of the Police Officers Research Association of California, which has a legal defense fund. An e-mail inquiry to the association's president, Ron Cottingham, was not returned by deadline.
Humboldt County Sheriff's Department spokeswoman Brenda Godsey said she had no response to the indictment, at least until it's made officially public.
Gordon Kaupp, an attorney representing Moore's son, David Moore, in a civil case against the city and the involved officers, said news of the indictments came as a surprise to David Moore, who had essentially lost faith in the DA's office.
While he said he felt the individual officers involved should also face indictments, Kaupp said he felt the decision to indict the commanding officers was a good one.
”The thing here is the grand jury recognized that they should have never stormed the apartment,” he said, adding that, if anything, Moore's putting the flare gun down should have been seen as a sign of de-escalation rather than reason to move in. “Clearly, the decision makers put the shooters in the position to shoot when they had them in the position to enter the apartment.”
Down in San Francisco, Keane had a similar take.
He said it is likely the grand jury felt officers should have waited it out longer, made more attempts to negotiate or tried using non-lethal means, like tear gas.
”Once there was that decision to enter into the house, and there is someone in there with the possession of a weapon, it's almost a certainty that they are going to have to kill that person,” Keane said.
Arcata Police Chief Randy Mendoza was surprised by the news, saying he'd heard of civil lawsuits against police leadership, but not criminal charges against commanding officers. Mendoza said he's not intimately familiar with the facts of the case, but expected indictments in such a situation could create concerns for law enforcement.
”It's hard enough to fill police chief jobs in California,” Mendoza said.
Thadeus Greenson and John Driscoll The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 12/06/2007 01:32:04 AM PS
Grand Jury leaks
URGENT ALERT! This case was TOSSED by the Judge - never made it to trial.
☛ ER http://eurekareporter.com/article/080826-judge-throws-out-douglas-zanotti-case
Feeney said the indictments the grand jury handed down to Douglas and Zanotti in December 2007 weren’t supported by probable cause. Insufficient evidence regarding the former leaders’ alleged failure to oversee other law enforcement was also presented to the grand jury, Feeney said, and instructions given on “exigent circumstances” were inadequate.
The grand jury should have also been instructed on justifiable homicide by law enforcement officials, Feeney said.
***
Original post: EPD officers to face indictments in death of Cheri Moore?
Officials in the Eureka Police Department and District Attorney’s Office would not confirm Wednesday two EPD officers are to be indicted and arraigned Monday by the criminal grand jury investigating the death of Cheri Lyn Moore.
The Times-Standard reported Wednesday, citing an anonymous source familiar with the grand jury proceedings, that the jury will be indicting former Eureka Police Chief Dave Douglas and Lt. Tony Zanotti.
As reported in The Eureka Reporter, Moore, 48, was shot and killed April 14, 2006, by Eureka police officers after brandishing a flare gun during a standoff that lasted approximately two-and-one-half hours.
Assistant DA Wes Keat said if an indictment was made, it is still secret.
“It’s a crime, in fact, to reveal such material until it has been made public,” he said.
Keat said he couldn’t go into particulars of the case and was unable to comment how revealing an indictment could potentially effect the investigation.
If an indictment does come to court, the DA’s Office will be able to comment, he said.
Eureka Police Chief Garr Nielsen said he was not aware of the indictments, only what he had read in the newspaper.
Nielsen said if it is true Zanotti and Douglas are indicted, it will have a potentially far-reaching impact.
In 30 years of law enforcement, Nielsen said this would be the first time he is aware of commanders in a situation like the Moore case being charged in a criminal grand jury investigation.
Even if they are indicted, they are still innocent until they go to trial and are proven guilty, he added.
“All it is at this point is an allegation,” he said.
Nielsen said the Moore incident has been difficult for the department, but said the department has been on a positive track for the past several months.
He said he can’t imagine the announcement of the indictments having an impact on the grand jury proceedings unless it came from someone who had been admonished by a judge.
“I think this is going to be, certainly, a very important case,” Nielsen said, relative to the ability for the department to make decisions in similar situations.
Humboldt County Grand Jurors Association President Allan Edwards, who said he is not involved with the Moore criminal grand jury investigation, said impartiality is compromised when proceedings are revealed.
“In the past, grand juries have dismissed people for having loose lips,” he said.
☛ ER http://eurekareporter.com/article/080826-judge-throws-out-douglas-zanotti-case
Feeney said the indictments the grand jury handed down to Douglas and Zanotti in December 2007 weren’t supported by probable cause. Insufficient evidence regarding the former leaders’ alleged failure to oversee other law enforcement was also presented to the grand jury, Feeney said, and instructions given on “exigent circumstances” were inadequate.
The grand jury should have also been instructed on justifiable homicide by law enforcement officials, Feeney said.
***
Original post: EPD officers to face indictments in death of Cheri Moore?
Officials in the Eureka Police Department and District Attorney’s Office would not confirm Wednesday two EPD officers are to be indicted and arraigned Monday by the criminal grand jury investigating the death of Cheri Lyn Moore.
The Times-Standard reported Wednesday, citing an anonymous source familiar with the grand jury proceedings, that the jury will be indicting former Eureka Police Chief Dave Douglas and Lt. Tony Zanotti.
As reported in The Eureka Reporter, Moore, 48, was shot and killed April 14, 2006, by Eureka police officers after brandishing a flare gun during a standoff that lasted approximately two-and-one-half hours.
Assistant DA Wes Keat said if an indictment was made, it is still secret.
“It’s a crime, in fact, to reveal such material until it has been made public,” he said.
Keat said he couldn’t go into particulars of the case and was unable to comment how revealing an indictment could potentially effect the investigation.
If an indictment does come to court, the DA’s Office will be able to comment, he said.
Eureka Police Chief Garr Nielsen said he was not aware of the indictments, only what he had read in the newspaper.
Nielsen said if it is true Zanotti and Douglas are indicted, it will have a potentially far-reaching impact.
In 30 years of law enforcement, Nielsen said this would be the first time he is aware of commanders in a situation like the Moore case being charged in a criminal grand jury investigation.
Even if they are indicted, they are still innocent until they go to trial and are proven guilty, he added.
“All it is at this point is an allegation,” he said.
Nielsen said the Moore incident has been difficult for the department, but said the department has been on a positive track for the past several months.
He said he can’t imagine the announcement of the indictments having an impact on the grand jury proceedings unless it came from someone who had been admonished by a judge.
“I think this is going to be, certainly, a very important case,” Nielsen said, relative to the ability for the department to make decisions in similar situations.
Humboldt County Grand Jurors Association President Allan Edwards, who said he is not involved with the Moore criminal grand jury investigation, said impartiality is compromised when proceedings are revealed.
“In the past, grand juries have dismissed people for having loose lips,” he said.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Day 603
Grand Jury will indict two police commanders, says source
Arraignment on involuntary manslaughter charges expected Monday
EUREKA -- The criminal grand jury convened to look into the death of Cheri Lyn Moore will hand up indictments against former Eureka Police Chief David Douglas and incident commander Lt. Tony Zanotti, according to a source familiar with the proceedings.
Zanotti and Douglas are scheduled to be arraigned Monday on charges of involuntary manslaughter, according to the source, who requested anonymity because of the secrecy of the proceedings. If convicted, Zanotti and Douglas could face up to two to four years in prison.
District Attorney Paul Gallegos, who convened the grand jury, did not immediately return a late-evening phone call on Tuesday seeking comment.
Moore, who had a history of mental illness, was shot and killed April 14, 2006, by Eureka police officers in her second-story apartment at Fifth and G streets. During the preceding two-hour standoff, Moore brandished a flare gun, threw items from her window and threatened to burn down the building.
Police have said they believed Moore had put down the flare gun when the decision was made to storm her apartment. Upon entering, officers said they came face to face with Moore, who had the flare gun aimed at them. Officers then shot Moore multiple times.
Neither of the two officers who fired the fatal shots, former EPD Officer Rocky Harpham and Sgt. Michael Johnson, were indicted by the grand jury.
Diane Karpman, an ethics columnist for the California Bar Journal, said the charges suggest jurors found an absence of appropriate leadership in the incident. She said she wasn't surprised that the officers who actually shot Moore weren't indicted, since they were following orders. However, she called an indictment of the commanding officers in such an incident highly unusual.
”It's incredibly rare,” Karpman said.
During a coroner's inquest held in September 2006, Douglas and Zanotti testified about their involvement. Zanotti is still with the Eureka Police Department, while Douglas has since retired.
Douglas testified he did not take over command at the scene, but was ultimately responsible. He said there were concerns about a fire from the flare gun, and that it could move quickly because of a crawl space above Moore's apartment.
Zanotti also testified that he believed Moore's threats to burn down the building to be real, and that they needed to be taken seriously.
”There was a determination that we would have to ... she was an immediate threat to human life, to the building, to the officers and to the civilians surrounding the area,” Zanotti said during the inquest.
Zanotti, who acted as the incident commander, testified that several plans of action were made based on Moore's actions, but there was no discussion about bringing mental health personnel to the scene.
Former Massachusetts State Police commanding officer for ballistics and expert witness Ronald R. Scott said he'd never heard of similar charges being brought against incident leaders who made decisions that led to a shooting.
Most manslaughter charges against police officers are the result of a fatal crash during a high-speed chase, or a spur-of-the moment shooting, he said. Scott said he has reviewed the Eureka case and found the circumstances substantially different.
”This is where the department had control,” Scott said. “This wasn't a spontaneous incident.”
Scott said the case, once resolved, could help other police departments train to prevent similar incidents.
Arraignment on involuntary manslaughter charges expected Monday
EUREKA -- The criminal grand jury convened to look into the death of Cheri Lyn Moore will hand up indictments against former Eureka Police Chief David Douglas and incident commander Lt. Tony Zanotti, according to a source familiar with the proceedings.
Zanotti and Douglas are scheduled to be arraigned Monday on charges of involuntary manslaughter, according to the source, who requested anonymity because of the secrecy of the proceedings. If convicted, Zanotti and Douglas could face up to two to four years in prison.
District Attorney Paul Gallegos, who convened the grand jury, did not immediately return a late-evening phone call on Tuesday seeking comment.
Moore, who had a history of mental illness, was shot and killed April 14, 2006, by Eureka police officers in her second-story apartment at Fifth and G streets. During the preceding two-hour standoff, Moore brandished a flare gun, threw items from her window and threatened to burn down the building.
Police have said they believed Moore had put down the flare gun when the decision was made to storm her apartment. Upon entering, officers said they came face to face with Moore, who had the flare gun aimed at them. Officers then shot Moore multiple times.
Neither of the two officers who fired the fatal shots, former EPD Officer Rocky Harpham and Sgt. Michael Johnson, were indicted by the grand jury.
Diane Karpman, an ethics columnist for the California Bar Journal, said the charges suggest jurors found an absence of appropriate leadership in the incident. She said she wasn't surprised that the officers who actually shot Moore weren't indicted, since they were following orders. However, she called an indictment of the commanding officers in such an incident highly unusual.
”It's incredibly rare,” Karpman said.
During a coroner's inquest held in September 2006, Douglas and Zanotti testified about their involvement. Zanotti is still with the Eureka Police Department, while Douglas has since retired.
Douglas testified he did not take over command at the scene, but was ultimately responsible. He said there were concerns about a fire from the flare gun, and that it could move quickly because of a crawl space above Moore's apartment.
Zanotti also testified that he believed Moore's threats to burn down the building to be real, and that they needed to be taken seriously.
”There was a determination that we would have to ... she was an immediate threat to human life, to the building, to the officers and to the civilians surrounding the area,” Zanotti said during the inquest.
Zanotti, who acted as the incident commander, testified that several plans of action were made based on Moore's actions, but there was no discussion about bringing mental health personnel to the scene.
Former Massachusetts State Police commanding officer for ballistics and expert witness Ronald R. Scott said he'd never heard of similar charges being brought against incident leaders who made decisions that led to a shooting.
Most manslaughter charges against police officers are the result of a fatal crash during a high-speed chase, or a spur-of-the moment shooting, he said. Scott said he has reviewed the Eureka case and found the circumstances substantially different.
”This is where the department had control,” Scott said. “This wasn't a spontaneous incident.”
Scott said the case, once resolved, could help other police departments train to prevent similar incidents.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Neely says TPZ hearing should be delayed
Humboldt County Supervisor Bonnie Neely said Monday she will recommend postponing an anticipated Dec. 11 hearing about development on timberland.
A temporary moratorium on building in timberland production zones -- or TPZ -- sponsored by Neely and Supervisor Jill Geist sparked a major controversy in October. The moratorium was brought in response to the Pacific Lumber Co.'s proposal to divide 22,000 acres of its timberland into 160-acre exclusive ranchettes as part of its bankruptcy reorganization plan, they said.
Initially supported 4-1, the moratorium was allowed to expire. The matter was passed on to the planning commission, which has wrangled with proposals for a new ordinance that would fit within the new general plan. The commission didn't finish its deliberations on the issue at the end of November, and won't take it up again until Dec. 20.
”I'm recommending to the board that the TPZ hearing schedule for December 11th be continued,” Neely wrote in an e-mail. “The planning commission should be able to complete their deliberations before making any recommendations to the Board of Supervisors.” Neely says TPZ hearing should be delayed
Update: The item was pulled.
A temporary moratorium on building in timberland production zones -- or TPZ -- sponsored by Neely and Supervisor Jill Geist sparked a major controversy in October. The moratorium was brought in response to the Pacific Lumber Co.'s proposal to divide 22,000 acres of its timberland into 160-acre exclusive ranchettes as part of its bankruptcy reorganization plan, they said.
Initially supported 4-1, the moratorium was allowed to expire. The matter was passed on to the planning commission, which has wrangled with proposals for a new ordinance that would fit within the new general plan. The commission didn't finish its deliberations on the issue at the end of November, and won't take it up again until Dec. 20.
”I'm recommending to the board that the TPZ hearing schedule for December 11th be continued,” Neely wrote in an e-mail. “The planning commission should be able to complete their deliberations before making any recommendations to the Board of Supervisors.” Neely says TPZ hearing should be delayed
Update: The item was pulled.
Monday, December 03, 2007
You'd pay money for this?
County to join climate council?
Among the items on the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors’ Tuesday agenda is the county’s joining the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives....
The ICLEI has a five-step program recommendation and offers technical assistance to members for carrying out the program’s activities, the release stated.
The county’s membership cost would be $1,750. agenda item
...New U.S. Star Community Index to help local governments measure, declare "green" status
Starting in 2008, the Start Community Index will provide local governments with a standardized framework to plan, track and claim their environmental and sustainability work....
Oh goodie. A ticket to more regulation.
Among the items on the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors’ Tuesday agenda is the county’s joining the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives....
The ICLEI has a five-step program recommendation and offers technical assistance to members for carrying out the program’s activities, the release stated.
The county’s membership cost would be $1,750. agenda item
...New U.S. Star Community Index to help local governments measure, declare "green" status
Starting in 2008, the Start Community Index will provide local governments with a standardized framework to plan, track and claim their environmental and sustainability work....
Oh goodie. A ticket to more regulation.
Well said, Mr. Morris. w/update
Pat Higgins arrogant statements following the recent election were only topped by those of the triumphant Moneykee--- I mean "Baykeeper" Pete Nichols. HIs declaration of a mandate for his candidate, and his not-so-thinly-veiled threats to local politicians who endorsed Charles Ollivier - that they better get on his bandwagon or else did not go unnoticed. Now one candidate is speaking out.
Oil spill column was all wet
Pete Nichols wrote a recent Forum article titled “Reflections on the San Francisco oil spill.” Mr. Nichols really used his article to trash the elected officials in our county rather than teach us something new about the environment of the Humboldt Bay.
First, the more I read, hear and learn about Humboldt Baykeeper, the more I realize that they are a political group disguised as environmentalists. I know this because I am a guy who used to belong to the Sierra Club.
Win or lose an election, most candidates gracefully thank their supporters and the other candidates for a well-run race that helped to bring out the issues to the voters (that last part is called good sportsmanship). Although Mr. Nichols was not running for office, a candidate he supported was running. During that election, Mr. Nichols and his supporters wrote and said whatever they wanted, but that was not enough. Now, Mr. Nichols comes out after the election and further trashes the former incumbent and other elected officials as if they were responsible for the recent San Francisco Bay oil spill. He implied that it is incumbent Commissioner Ollivier’s kind of thinking that will eventually cause the same thing to happen here.
What? The incumbent losing the election wasn’t good enough for Mr. Nichols? He seems to have a need to keep blaming Mr. Ollivier and other officials for action they had nothing to do with. I’d say that’s bad sportsmanship.
Let’s just forget about the good service these elected men and women have given to our community in their efforts to create sustainable and consistent jobs. They do not agree 100 percent with the Humboldt Baykeeper political agenda, so let’s just work on getting anyone who even slightly disagrees with Baykeeper out of office.
It is my hope that Nichols and his newly elected candidate-elect will instead use this golden opportunity to work with those around them. This time, try working with all those who have a vested interest in the bay and the economy, and not just your agenda. Do not use this time you been given to point fingers at others who do not agree with a “no-growth” policy for our community, and thereby continuing to further polarize residents of this community.
If this does not work for you, then perhaps, Mr. Nichols, you should try running for office yourself. Maybe that is what you are thinking about in any case. On the other hand, maybe you should stick with being Humboldt Baykeeper executive director and point fingers at others because from what I now know about your group, it is the only thing — besides suing those who disagree with you — that you seem to be good at.
Let me be the first to say that you and your candidate-elect have already made one mistake. You and he interpret the recent election results as a mandate from the people of Humboldt County to stop all development on the bay. I suggest you step back and take a good look at what happened in the election. If not, I think your newly elected candidate will find himself out of office in four years.
I further suggest that you and your candidate-elect take the time to learn to work with those other elected officials in and around the bay. If you do not, you may soon find that winning a skirmish (this month’s election) is not the same as winning the war (the future of the bay).
Lastly, Mr. Nichols, I personally worked very hard in the military overseas to protect your right and mine to freedom of speech. That freedom comes with responsibility and accountability to tell the truth and not to use scare tactics or, as your candidate did, promise the good people of this county something he will not be able to deliver.
by Steven Morris, 12/2/2007 (Steven Morris lives in Fortuna.)
Salzman/"Baykeeper's" blogger "heraldo" trashes Mr. Morris. Aside from "heraldo's" characterization of this as "sour grapes" - I don't see him disputing any of the statements Mr. Morris makes. What? Can you pretend Higgins/Baykeeper is for jobs? Working people? The Labor Unions all recognized the truth, and endorsed Higgins' opponent, longtime incumbent Charles Ollivier.
***
ER 12/8/2007 Port shipping feasibility report draws standing-room-only crowd
Also during Thursday’s meeting, commissioners and district staff honored outgoing Commissioner Charles Ollivier for his 16 years of service to the board.
Ollivier downplayed his personal contributions to the district, saying that his accomplishments had been a collaborative effort with staff that “helped make him look good.”
“It was a team effort all the way,” Ollivier said.
Ollivier, who spent 30 years on the waterfront as a longshoreman, was lauded by fellow commissioners for his unwavering passion and support of Humboldt County’s port, which he said he will never give up on.
Oil spill column was all wet
Pete Nichols wrote a recent Forum article titled “Reflections on the San Francisco oil spill.” Mr. Nichols really used his article to trash the elected officials in our county rather than teach us something new about the environment of the Humboldt Bay.
First, the more I read, hear and learn about Humboldt Baykeeper, the more I realize that they are a political group disguised as environmentalists. I know this because I am a guy who used to belong to the Sierra Club.
Win or lose an election, most candidates gracefully thank their supporters and the other candidates for a well-run race that helped to bring out the issues to the voters (that last part is called good sportsmanship). Although Mr. Nichols was not running for office, a candidate he supported was running. During that election, Mr. Nichols and his supporters wrote and said whatever they wanted, but that was not enough. Now, Mr. Nichols comes out after the election and further trashes the former incumbent and other elected officials as if they were responsible for the recent San Francisco Bay oil spill. He implied that it is incumbent Commissioner Ollivier’s kind of thinking that will eventually cause the same thing to happen here.
What? The incumbent losing the election wasn’t good enough for Mr. Nichols? He seems to have a need to keep blaming Mr. Ollivier and other officials for action they had nothing to do with. I’d say that’s bad sportsmanship.
Let’s just forget about the good service these elected men and women have given to our community in their efforts to create sustainable and consistent jobs. They do not agree 100 percent with the Humboldt Baykeeper political agenda, so let’s just work on getting anyone who even slightly disagrees with Baykeeper out of office.
It is my hope that Nichols and his newly elected candidate-elect will instead use this golden opportunity to work with those around them. This time, try working with all those who have a vested interest in the bay and the economy, and not just your agenda. Do not use this time you been given to point fingers at others who do not agree with a “no-growth” policy for our community, and thereby continuing to further polarize residents of this community.
If this does not work for you, then perhaps, Mr. Nichols, you should try running for office yourself. Maybe that is what you are thinking about in any case. On the other hand, maybe you should stick with being Humboldt Baykeeper executive director and point fingers at others because from what I now know about your group, it is the only thing — besides suing those who disagree with you — that you seem to be good at.
Let me be the first to say that you and your candidate-elect have already made one mistake. You and he interpret the recent election results as a mandate from the people of Humboldt County to stop all development on the bay. I suggest you step back and take a good look at what happened in the election. If not, I think your newly elected candidate will find himself out of office in four years.
I further suggest that you and your candidate-elect take the time to learn to work with those other elected officials in and around the bay. If you do not, you may soon find that winning a skirmish (this month’s election) is not the same as winning the war (the future of the bay).
Lastly, Mr. Nichols, I personally worked very hard in the military overseas to protect your right and mine to freedom of speech. That freedom comes with responsibility and accountability to tell the truth and not to use scare tactics or, as your candidate did, promise the good people of this county something he will not be able to deliver.
by Steven Morris, 12/2/2007 (Steven Morris lives in Fortuna.)
Salzman/"Baykeeper's" blogger "heraldo" trashes Mr. Morris. Aside from "heraldo's" characterization of this as "sour grapes" - I don't see him disputing any of the statements Mr. Morris makes. What? Can you pretend Higgins/Baykeeper is for jobs? Working people? The Labor Unions all recognized the truth, and endorsed Higgins' opponent, longtime incumbent Charles Ollivier.
***
ER 12/8/2007 Port shipping feasibility report draws standing-room-only crowd
Also during Thursday’s meeting, commissioners and district staff honored outgoing Commissioner Charles Ollivier for his 16 years of service to the board.
Ollivier downplayed his personal contributions to the district, saying that his accomplishments had been a collaborative effort with staff that “helped make him look good.”
“It was a team effort all the way,” Ollivier said.
Ollivier, who spent 30 years on the waterfront as a longshoreman, was lauded by fellow commissioners for his unwavering passion and support of Humboldt County’s port, which he said he will never give up on.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Marijuana Club Starter Guide
Marijuana Club Starter Guide
Everything you ever needed to know about how to start a medical marijuana compassion club. Your guide to profits in the legitimate marijuana market.
How much does it cost to start a marijuana club?
How much money can a marijuana club make?
How much money does a marijuana grower make?
$$ LetUsPayTaxes.Com $$
The Marijuana Producers and Distributors of California Ask: Let Us Pay Taxes!
What is this all about?
California is in trouble (again) with its budget. As this is written (August, 2007), there are plans to cut one billion dollars from important rapid transit projects. There are also plans to cut back welfare for the elderly and disabled and to cut back drug treatment programs for prisoners. Cutting back on important programs will simply cause more problems in the future -- with higher demands on the budget.
In order to try to make up the shortfall, the state of California is in negotiations with Indian casinos for a portion of casino revenues. The amount of money to be gained is between $200 million and $500 million per year. However, this battle has been going on for years with no quick resolution in sight -- and it wouldn't fill the budget gap, anyway.
We offer a solution.
The producers and sellers of marijuana offer the state of California at least one billion dollars in additional tax revenue every year -- and nobody is arguing.
What will this do?
It can fill the current California budget gap all by itself. No more disputes about what to cut and the legislators can take the summer off.
It can fund rapid transit.
It can fund welfare for the elderly and disabled.
It can fund drug education programs in schools and other drug abuse prevention efforts.
It can fund prisoner treatment programs, thus reducing crime and saving even more tax dollars in the future.
It will stop needless prosecutions of sick people for marijuana offenses.
It can provide for safe and well-regulated medicinal marijuana supplies for the sick.
It will stop the transfer of billions of dollars per year to foreign criminal gangs.
It will boost local economies.
It will get marijuana out of the criminal underground.
It can provide for regulations on product quality, content and warning labels, and product liability insurance.
It will save billions of tax dollars currently spent on useless criminal prosecutions for marijuana.
It will free up police and courts for addressing real crime issues.
It will help the balance of foreign trade and boost the value of the dollar internationally.
The Marijuana Producers and Distributors of California make a simple request:
TAKE OUR MONEY PLEASE!
A sensible marijuana policy can make big changes in our society. It can produce a big reduction in government costs and a huge increase in taxes.
Please show your support and linksign the petition to Let Us Pay Taxes.
Let Us Pay Taxes
Please sign the petition to let marijuana producers and distributors pay taxes
hat tip: RS
Everything you ever needed to know about how to start a medical marijuana compassion club. Your guide to profits in the legitimate marijuana market.
How much does it cost to start a marijuana club?
How much money can a marijuana club make?
How much money does a marijuana grower make?
$$ LetUsPayTaxes.Com $$
The Marijuana Producers and Distributors of California Ask: Let Us Pay Taxes!
What is this all about?
California is in trouble (again) with its budget. As this is written (August, 2007), there are plans to cut one billion dollars from important rapid transit projects. There are also plans to cut back welfare for the elderly and disabled and to cut back drug treatment programs for prisoners. Cutting back on important programs will simply cause more problems in the future -- with higher demands on the budget.
In order to try to make up the shortfall, the state of California is in negotiations with Indian casinos for a portion of casino revenues. The amount of money to be gained is between $200 million and $500 million per year. However, this battle has been going on for years with no quick resolution in sight -- and it wouldn't fill the budget gap, anyway.
We offer a solution.
The producers and sellers of marijuana offer the state of California at least one billion dollars in additional tax revenue every year -- and nobody is arguing.
What will this do?
It can fill the current California budget gap all by itself. No more disputes about what to cut and the legislators can take the summer off.
It can fund rapid transit.
It can fund welfare for the elderly and disabled.
It can fund drug education programs in schools and other drug abuse prevention efforts.
It can fund prisoner treatment programs, thus reducing crime and saving even more tax dollars in the future.
It will stop needless prosecutions of sick people for marijuana offenses.
It can provide for safe and well-regulated medicinal marijuana supplies for the sick.
It will stop the transfer of billions of dollars per year to foreign criminal gangs.
It will boost local economies.
It will get marijuana out of the criminal underground.
It can provide for regulations on product quality, content and warning labels, and product liability insurance.
It will save billions of tax dollars currently spent on useless criminal prosecutions for marijuana.
It will free up police and courts for addressing real crime issues.
It will help the balance of foreign trade and boost the value of the dollar internationally.
The Marijuana Producers and Distributors of California make a simple request:
TAKE OUR MONEY PLEASE!
A sensible marijuana policy can make big changes in our society. It can produce a big reduction in government costs and a huge increase in taxes.
Please show your support and link
Let Us Pay Taxes
Please sign the petition to let marijuana producers and distributors pay taxes
hat tip: RS
Saturday, December 01, 2007
Buyer's remorse...
MENDOCINO COUNTY - Proposal takes aim at liberal pot rules
'Criminal element' spurs group to try to get initiative on ballot
UKIAH -- There was a time when Mendocino County residents winked at the county's relaxed attitude toward "mom-and-pop" marijuana growers.
Cash earned from urban buyers was welcomed in poor, rural communities with long histories of chronic poverty.
But those days are gone.
"It's become a big hoax. The criminal element that so-called medical marijuana has attracted to our neighborhoods is scary," said Dennis Smart, a 31-year resident of a rural area south of Ukiah.
Now in a backlash to the county's national reputation as a haven for bogus medical marijuana growers, a proposed local ballot initiative seeks to sharply limit soaring pot production.
Proponents of "Sensible Medical Marijuana" are circulating petitions countywide to secure the 3,083 signatures necessary to put the measure up for a local vote. County Clerk Marsha Wharff said Thursday the June 2008 primary is the earliest the issue could be placed on the ballot.
Further underscoring county unrest with current medical marijuana enforcement, the state Attorney General's Office is being called on to step in and review conflicting county regulations and assist local law enforcement agencies in implementing uniform guidelines statewide.
County Sheriff Tom Allman said Thursday he'd welcome such state action.
"There is no law of the land now when it comes to medical marijuana. There's 52 variations across the state of California," Allman said.
In Mendocino County, a perennial leader in pot production statewide, the number of marijuana plants seized by law enforcement agencies has nearly doubled in five years to 227,019. The actual amount being grown is estimated to be 10 times higher, accounting for what local authorities have described as an underground $5 billion-a-year cash crop.
Critics contend local pot problems escalated after state voters in 1996 passed Proposition 215, which sanctioned marijuana use for medical reasons. Four years later, Mendocino County voters took it a step further by becoming the first in the nation to decriminalize pot growing, allowing up to 25 plants per person for medical use.
But for Dennis Smart, his neighbors and even some local users who rely on marijuana to bring them relief from chronic ailments, the county's pot scene has since changed for the worse.
Smart said balmy fall weather used to mean sitting on his deck Sunday mornings enjoying a cup of coffee. But he said this past marijuana harvest season, gunshots growers fired to scare off potential intruders or marauding wildlife in their gardens marred the neighborhood peace.
"We'd have to go inside to protect ourselves," he said.
In May, two Santa Rosa men were arrested and accused of pistol whipping a Ukiah-area woman in her home, and then robbing her of marijuana. Their black BMW crashed during a high-speed chase before the father-and-son team was arrested. At the time, it was the county's third pot-related home invasion within 37 days.
Such incidents have set off alarms, resulting in new pressure on local and state officials to crack down. And high-profile cases are also emerging.
Mendocino County community activist Laura Hamburg is facing felony marijuana-related charges in December following a raid on her rural home, where authorities say an estimated 50 pounds of processed pot and about $10,000 in cash were found.
On Nov. 16, sheriff's deputies seized 39 pounds of dried pot from the Redwood Valley home of Sherylin Young, the budget and finance officer for the Mendocino County District Attorney's Office. She remains on leave.
County supervisors have struggled all year with how much medical marijuana to allow individuals to grow. A boardroom showdown looms Dec. 11. Earlier this year, the board voted 3-2 to allow 25 mature plants per licensed local medical marijuana card holder, but it's now reconsidering that action.
The proposed ballot initiative would slash the number of plants to just six, and ban all medical marijuana gardens from residential areas.
County Supervisor Mike Delbar said the initiative drive and the call for state action are understandable.
"A lot of people have had it with what's going on under the guise of medical marijuana," Delbar said. He supports a clampdown in general, whether through county board action, at the state level or in the local voting booth.
"The time has come," he said.
The newly proposed Mendocino initiative doesn't take specific issue with medical marijuana.
"Cannabis sativa (marijuana) is a beneficial plant with respectable medicinal uses," the measure declares.
State authorities recommend the six-plant limit, but they have never acted to implement uniform enforcement statewide.
Adding to the legal confusion surrounding medical marijuana enforcement is a long-standing federal refusal to recognize the state law.
Redwood Valley resident Jimmy Rickel is organizing the new Mendocino initiative drive.
"I believe that a lot of people who supported medical marijuana 11 years ago have changed their minds based on what's going on today," Rickel said.
Ukiah attorney Susan Jordan, widely known in state and federal legal circles for her criminal defense work, said solutions to contentious medical marijuana issues really rest with the state.
"Our legislators and attorney general are avoiding this one like a hot potato," Jordan said.
But Jordan said in fact Proposition 215 empowers the Attorney General's Office to conduct public hearings, solicit medical and scientific opinions, and set "uniform and fair limits" statewide.
"The attorney general should do this soon," Jordan said.
By MIKE GENIELLA THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
New pot growing rules before council
In an effort to battle the commercial marijuana growers within city limits, the Ukiah City Council will begin discussions Wednesday night about amending the city's current marijuana cultivation ordinance to include more enforcement options for those violating the ordinance, and changes to the way the court determines what to do with the marijuana seized. The ordinance was created by a City Council subcommittee comprised of members Benj Thomas and Vice Mayor Doug Crane with help from Ukiah Police Chief Chris Dewey, Code Enforcement Office Chris White and City Attorney David Rapport.
"My understanding is that the police department has felt relatively unempowered to take preventative action, and this should enable them to do it," Thomas said Monday. "What I would anticipate is that we would have a change in the climate and the prevalence of marijuana grows in the city."
Dewey agreed with Thomas' ideas explaining that the creation of the amendment -- which will not change the number of plants allowed to be grown -- was discussed as a means of adding more enforcement tools while also helping to improve the safety for the city's code enforcement officer and its residents.
"More than the majority of residents voluntarily comply with the existing city ordinance of 12 plants per parcel, but what we've found is that a few people do violate the ordinance," Dewey said Monday. "Typically those cases are handled by code enforcement. What we found -- especially over the last year -- is more cases where the zoning officer has found vicious dogs and people being abusive. Then, once the police have been involved in warrant situations we've seen a high increase in the number of locations where marijuana is cultivated and weapons are present.
"One of the facts that remains is that we're a highly-concentrated residential area. There is a lot of concern in the community. There's a feeling the people doing that are creating a sense of danger, so we looked for ways to improve the current ordinance. It's because of these threats of violence that we began looking at ways we could work with the council and figure alternatives to the current ordinance," Dewey said.
The current ordinance was passed after a summer of meetings filled with discussions and presentations about enforcement and punishment options for those in violation of the ordinance. The council finally amended the ordinance in July to include an abatement procedure.
The abatement procedure begins with a notice from code enforcement. After receiving the notice, the person who is growing the marijuana, be it tenant or owner, will have three business days to appeal the notice. If the appeal is not filed within three business days, the violation becomes final. As well, a hearing, which is to be held before the city manager or a designated hearing officer, must take place with at least five days notice to the tenant or owner of the property.
Dewey said that the new ordinance has been useful and although many medical marijuana growers within city limits have remained in compliance, commercial marijuana growth and distribution is still a problem that lead to the investigation of 15 different commercial grows this year.
Commercial grows can result in UPD seizing large amounts of marijuana, and without unlimited storage space, something had to be done to properly dispose or return the marijuana. The amendment to the ordinance would include a section of the specific guidelines for disposing the seized marijuana in compliance with the California Health and Safety Code for the seizure and destruction of marijuana.
"The rules aid the officer in how they seize the marijuana, how it's given back to the person or how the marijuana is destroyed if the case has been adjudicated," Dewey said. "It also allows for the destruction --- in the case of an extremely large grow -- of a portion of that marijuana with samples to be taken for evidence. In the typical case we seize the marijuana, we store it and then wait for the court's recommendation."
Thomas said Monday he hoped the ordinance would be a jump start to diminishing the number of commercial marijuana grows within Ukiah.
"I have always been sympathetic to the concerns of medical marijuana users, and have made it clear that if we can get to a place where the needs of the users are met without endangering public safety that it would be my ultimate goal," he said. "I think we are moving closer to this with this ordinance. I expect that opposition from it would not come from those who legitimately desire to have medical marijuana."
On Wednesday the council will also:
Return to discussions about the purchase of five security cameras the Corporation Yard.
Begin discussions about possible action regarding a request from Mendocino Solid Waste to consider an initiative banning the use of plastic bags at stores throughout the county.
To view a complete agenda or the staff reports, visit the Civic Center, 300 Seminary Ave., or on the Internet at www.cityofukiah.com.
By ZACK SAMPSEL The Daily Journal
Article Last Updated: 12/04/2007 08:35:41 AM PST
'Criminal element' spurs group to try to get initiative on ballot
UKIAH -- There was a time when Mendocino County residents winked at the county's relaxed attitude toward "mom-and-pop" marijuana growers.
Cash earned from urban buyers was welcomed in poor, rural communities with long histories of chronic poverty.
But those days are gone.
"It's become a big hoax. The criminal element that so-called medical marijuana has attracted to our neighborhoods is scary," said Dennis Smart, a 31-year resident of a rural area south of Ukiah.
Now in a backlash to the county's national reputation as a haven for bogus medical marijuana growers, a proposed local ballot initiative seeks to sharply limit soaring pot production.
Proponents of "Sensible Medical Marijuana" are circulating petitions countywide to secure the 3,083 signatures necessary to put the measure up for a local vote. County Clerk Marsha Wharff said Thursday the June 2008 primary is the earliest the issue could be placed on the ballot.
Further underscoring county unrest with current medical marijuana enforcement, the state Attorney General's Office is being called on to step in and review conflicting county regulations and assist local law enforcement agencies in implementing uniform guidelines statewide.
County Sheriff Tom Allman said Thursday he'd welcome such state action.
"There is no law of the land now when it comes to medical marijuana. There's 52 variations across the state of California," Allman said.
In Mendocino County, a perennial leader in pot production statewide, the number of marijuana plants seized by law enforcement agencies has nearly doubled in five years to 227,019. The actual amount being grown is estimated to be 10 times higher, accounting for what local authorities have described as an underground $5 billion-a-year cash crop.
Critics contend local pot problems escalated after state voters in 1996 passed Proposition 215, which sanctioned marijuana use for medical reasons. Four years later, Mendocino County voters took it a step further by becoming the first in the nation to decriminalize pot growing, allowing up to 25 plants per person for medical use.
But for Dennis Smart, his neighbors and even some local users who rely on marijuana to bring them relief from chronic ailments, the county's pot scene has since changed for the worse.
Smart said balmy fall weather used to mean sitting on his deck Sunday mornings enjoying a cup of coffee. But he said this past marijuana harvest season, gunshots growers fired to scare off potential intruders or marauding wildlife in their gardens marred the neighborhood peace.
"We'd have to go inside to protect ourselves," he said.
In May, two Santa Rosa men were arrested and accused of pistol whipping a Ukiah-area woman in her home, and then robbing her of marijuana. Their black BMW crashed during a high-speed chase before the father-and-son team was arrested. At the time, it was the county's third pot-related home invasion within 37 days.
Such incidents have set off alarms, resulting in new pressure on local and state officials to crack down. And high-profile cases are also emerging.
Mendocino County community activist Laura Hamburg is facing felony marijuana-related charges in December following a raid on her rural home, where authorities say an estimated 50 pounds of processed pot and about $10,000 in cash were found.
On Nov. 16, sheriff's deputies seized 39 pounds of dried pot from the Redwood Valley home of Sherylin Young, the budget and finance officer for the Mendocino County District Attorney's Office. She remains on leave.
County supervisors have struggled all year with how much medical marijuana to allow individuals to grow. A boardroom showdown looms Dec. 11. Earlier this year, the board voted 3-2 to allow 25 mature plants per licensed local medical marijuana card holder, but it's now reconsidering that action.
The proposed ballot initiative would slash the number of plants to just six, and ban all medical marijuana gardens from residential areas.
County Supervisor Mike Delbar said the initiative drive and the call for state action are understandable.
"A lot of people have had it with what's going on under the guise of medical marijuana," Delbar said. He supports a clampdown in general, whether through county board action, at the state level or in the local voting booth.
"The time has come," he said.
The newly proposed Mendocino initiative doesn't take specific issue with medical marijuana.
"Cannabis sativa (marijuana) is a beneficial plant with respectable medicinal uses," the measure declares.
State authorities recommend the six-plant limit, but they have never acted to implement uniform enforcement statewide.
Adding to the legal confusion surrounding medical marijuana enforcement is a long-standing federal refusal to recognize the state law.
Redwood Valley resident Jimmy Rickel is organizing the new Mendocino initiative drive.
"I believe that a lot of people who supported medical marijuana 11 years ago have changed their minds based on what's going on today," Rickel said.
Ukiah attorney Susan Jordan, widely known in state and federal legal circles for her criminal defense work, said solutions to contentious medical marijuana issues really rest with the state.
"Our legislators and attorney general are avoiding this one like a hot potato," Jordan said.
But Jordan said in fact Proposition 215 empowers the Attorney General's Office to conduct public hearings, solicit medical and scientific opinions, and set "uniform and fair limits" statewide.
"The attorney general should do this soon," Jordan said.
By MIKE GENIELLA THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
New pot growing rules before council
In an effort to battle the commercial marijuana growers within city limits, the Ukiah City Council will begin discussions Wednesday night about amending the city's current marijuana cultivation ordinance to include more enforcement options for those violating the ordinance, and changes to the way the court determines what to do with the marijuana seized. The ordinance was created by a City Council subcommittee comprised of members Benj Thomas and Vice Mayor Doug Crane with help from Ukiah Police Chief Chris Dewey, Code Enforcement Office Chris White and City Attorney David Rapport.
"My understanding is that the police department has felt relatively unempowered to take preventative action, and this should enable them to do it," Thomas said Monday. "What I would anticipate is that we would have a change in the climate and the prevalence of marijuana grows in the city."
Dewey agreed with Thomas' ideas explaining that the creation of the amendment -- which will not change the number of plants allowed to be grown -- was discussed as a means of adding more enforcement tools while also helping to improve the safety for the city's code enforcement officer and its residents.
"More than the majority of residents voluntarily comply with the existing city ordinance of 12 plants per parcel, but what we've found is that a few people do violate the ordinance," Dewey said Monday. "Typically those cases are handled by code enforcement. What we found -- especially over the last year -- is more cases where the zoning officer has found vicious dogs and people being abusive. Then, once the police have been involved in warrant situations we've seen a high increase in the number of locations where marijuana is cultivated and weapons are present.
"One of the facts that remains is that we're a highly-concentrated residential area. There is a lot of concern in the community. There's a feeling the people doing that are creating a sense of danger, so we looked for ways to improve the current ordinance. It's because of these threats of violence that we began looking at ways we could work with the council and figure alternatives to the current ordinance," Dewey said.
The current ordinance was passed after a summer of meetings filled with discussions and presentations about enforcement and punishment options for those in violation of the ordinance. The council finally amended the ordinance in July to include an abatement procedure.
The abatement procedure begins with a notice from code enforcement. After receiving the notice, the person who is growing the marijuana, be it tenant or owner, will have three business days to appeal the notice. If the appeal is not filed within three business days, the violation becomes final. As well, a hearing, which is to be held before the city manager or a designated hearing officer, must take place with at least five days notice to the tenant or owner of the property.
Dewey said that the new ordinance has been useful and although many medical marijuana growers within city limits have remained in compliance, commercial marijuana growth and distribution is still a problem that lead to the investigation of 15 different commercial grows this year.
Commercial grows can result in UPD seizing large amounts of marijuana, and without unlimited storage space, something had to be done to properly dispose or return the marijuana. The amendment to the ordinance would include a section of the specific guidelines for disposing the seized marijuana in compliance with the California Health and Safety Code for the seizure and destruction of marijuana.
"The rules aid the officer in how they seize the marijuana, how it's given back to the person or how the marijuana is destroyed if the case has been adjudicated," Dewey said. "It also allows for the destruction --- in the case of an extremely large grow -- of a portion of that marijuana with samples to be taken for evidence. In the typical case we seize the marijuana, we store it and then wait for the court's recommendation."
Thomas said Monday he hoped the ordinance would be a jump start to diminishing the number of commercial marijuana grows within Ukiah.
"I have always been sympathetic to the concerns of medical marijuana users, and have made it clear that if we can get to a place where the needs of the users are met without endangering public safety that it would be my ultimate goal," he said. "I think we are moving closer to this with this ordinance. I expect that opposition from it would not come from those who legitimately desire to have medical marijuana."
On Wednesday the council will also:
Return to discussions about the purchase of five security cameras the Corporation Yard.
Begin discussions about possible action regarding a request from Mendocino Solid Waste to consider an initiative banning the use of plastic bags at stores throughout the county.
To view a complete agenda or the staff reports, visit the Civic Center, 300 Seminary Ave., or on the Internet at www.cityofukiah.com.
By ZACK SAMPSEL The Daily Journal
Article Last Updated: 12/04/2007 08:35:41 AM PST
Strike three
A staff-proposed timberland production zone revision received literally at the last minute left the Humboldt County Planning Commission at a loss on Thursday on how to prepare a recommendation for the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors’ Dec. 11 meeting.
Commissioners commented at the meeting’s start that they had received the amended staff report minutes before....
The staff report on Thursday included a change in the permitting dynamic, as well as suggested creating the zones “TPZ exclusive” and “TPZ.”...
“The Planning Commission was going to continue the matter; there wasn’t any question about that in the beginning,” Deputy County Counsel Carolyn Ruth said on Friday.
She said in retrospect it might have been more productive to let everyone know that at the beginning of the hearing.
Ruth said the staff’s amendment “happened literally yesterday.”
“To a certain extent this has to be a dynamic process of responding and creating,” she said.
Some objections had been made that the new information wasn’t properly noticed.
Ruth said state law requires a notice “contain a general explanation of the matter to be considered.”
The commissioners agreed to consider the topic again on Dec. 20, the date for which a general plan update workshop had already been noticed but will be continued.
Ruth said the county counsel and planning department will recommend to the supervisors they continue their hearing until the commission can finish its deliberations.
Last-minute revisions stall Planning Commission's TPZ decision
This makes the third time that residents and property owners have been received little or no notice about decisions which have dramatic effects on their properties.
Though the Board of Supervisor's prior acts may have been technically "properly" noticed, the first came to light over a weekend through an article in the paper with a Monday holiday preceeding a Tuesday Board meeting, making it impossible for residents to contact Board members prior to the meeting IF they even received any warming about what was about to transpire, and the second agenda became available before 5:pm on a Friday before a Tuesday meeting.
This stands in stark contrast to the process that took place when the TPZ plans were initially considered and then put in place, where every affected resident and land owner was notified and contacted.
Property owners no longer trust the County's planning staff or the Board. This is very clear from the testimony at the hearings.
Commissioners commented at the meeting’s start that they had received the amended staff report minutes before....
The staff report on Thursday included a change in the permitting dynamic, as well as suggested creating the zones “TPZ exclusive” and “TPZ.”...
“The Planning Commission was going to continue the matter; there wasn’t any question about that in the beginning,” Deputy County Counsel Carolyn Ruth said on Friday.
She said in retrospect it might have been more productive to let everyone know that at the beginning of the hearing.
Ruth said the staff’s amendment “happened literally yesterday.”
“To a certain extent this has to be a dynamic process of responding and creating,” she said.
Some objections had been made that the new information wasn’t properly noticed.
Ruth said state law requires a notice “contain a general explanation of the matter to be considered.”
The commissioners agreed to consider the topic again on Dec. 20, the date for which a general plan update workshop had already been noticed but will be continued.
Ruth said the county counsel and planning department will recommend to the supervisors they continue their hearing until the commission can finish its deliberations.
Last-minute revisions stall Planning Commission's TPZ decision
This makes the third time that residents and property owners have been received little or no notice about decisions which have dramatic effects on their properties.
Though the Board of Supervisor's prior acts may have been technically "properly" noticed, the first came to light over a weekend through an article in the paper with a Monday holiday preceeding a Tuesday Board meeting, making it impossible for residents to contact Board members prior to the meeting IF they even received any warming about what was about to transpire, and the second agenda became available before 5:pm on a Friday before a Tuesday meeting.
This stands in stark contrast to the process that took place when the TPZ plans were initially considered and then put in place, where every affected resident and land owner was notified and contacted.
Property owners no longer trust the County's planning staff or the Board. This is very clear from the testimony at the hearings.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Date set
Court date: Wednesday, Dec. 19, at 9 a.m.
The People v. Pacific Lumber Co. et al.
Case: A112028 1st District, Division 3
Hank has it, too.
The People v. Pacific Lumber Co. et al.
Case: A112028 1st District, Division 3
Hank has it, too.
Compatible Use w/pdf docs
TPZ at county Planning Commission tonight
(NOVEMBER 29, 2007 6:00 p.m.
Board of Supervisors' Chamber County Courthouse, Eureka
There will be a break on or about 7:30 p.m.)
ER Humboldt County staff’s proposed revision of the timberland production zone is the only item on the Planning Commission’s agenda tonight. (agenda)
Humboldt County Deputy County Counsel Carolyn Ruth said she doesn’t expect to make a formal presentation during tonight’s meeting, but one of the issues, she said, for which commissioners might seek her opinion is a recent letter penned by Edgar B. Washburn of San Francisco law firm Morrison & Foerster LLP.
Through some research, The Eureka Reporter discovered Washburn’s firm as of Oct. 11 had served as special litigation and regulatory counsel to Pacific Lumber Co., Scotia Pacific Co. LLC and Salmon Creek LLC as is evidenced on a document that is part of the files for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi.
The county’s TPZ revisions were sparked by PALCO’s bankruptcy reorganization plan.
It includes a proposed sale of six old-growth redwood groves totaling 6,600 acres for conservation purposes and an adjacent 21,800 acres of second-growth, commercial timberland for developing 136 residential parcels titled “Redwood Ranch Development Project.”
The planning commissioners held a public hearing on Nov. 15 for the purpose of considering staff’s proposed TPZ revisions. It continued the hearing to tonight at 6 p.m. in the Supervisors’ Chamber at the Humboldt County Courthouse in Eureka.
Staff maintains the current TPZ regulations fail to address a state law that a residence be “necessary for the management of land zoned as timberland production.”
Washburn’s letter stated, in his opinion, staff’s interpretation of California Government Code 51104 (h) is incorrect. Further, he stated, staff’s interpretation of No. 6 in that section is wrong.
This section describes what can be considered a compatible use on TPZ land, and it shouldn’t “significantly detract” from harvesting timber. No. 6 of the compatible uses reads “a residence or other structure necessary for the management of land zoned as timberland production.”
Washburn argues the intent of No. 6 was that residences were to be included and with them other structures necessary for management could be considered.
***
TS Commission takes on TPZ again
***
Morrison-Foerster on treatment of residences as compatible use within TPZ land. an 8-pg pdf document
***
(NOVEMBER 29, 2007 6:00 p.m.
Board of Supervisors' Chamber County Courthouse, Eureka
There will be a break on or about 7:30 p.m.)
ER Humboldt County staff’s proposed revision of the timberland production zone is the only item on the Planning Commission’s agenda tonight. (agenda)
Humboldt County Deputy County Counsel Carolyn Ruth said she doesn’t expect to make a formal presentation during tonight’s meeting, but one of the issues, she said, for which commissioners might seek her opinion is a recent letter penned by Edgar B. Washburn of San Francisco law firm Morrison & Foerster LLP.
Through some research, The Eureka Reporter discovered Washburn’s firm as of Oct. 11 had served as special litigation and regulatory counsel to Pacific Lumber Co., Scotia Pacific Co. LLC and Salmon Creek LLC as is evidenced on a document that is part of the files for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi.
The county’s TPZ revisions were sparked by PALCO’s bankruptcy reorganization plan.
It includes a proposed sale of six old-growth redwood groves totaling 6,600 acres for conservation purposes and an adjacent 21,800 acres of second-growth, commercial timberland for developing 136 residential parcels titled “Redwood Ranch Development Project.”
The planning commissioners held a public hearing on Nov. 15 for the purpose of considering staff’s proposed TPZ revisions. It continued the hearing to tonight at 6 p.m. in the Supervisors’ Chamber at the Humboldt County Courthouse in Eureka.
Staff maintains the current TPZ regulations fail to address a state law that a residence be “necessary for the management of land zoned as timberland production.”
Washburn’s letter stated, in his opinion, staff’s interpretation of California Government Code 51104 (h) is incorrect. Further, he stated, staff’s interpretation of No. 6 in that section is wrong.
This section describes what can be considered a compatible use on TPZ land, and it shouldn’t “significantly detract” from harvesting timber. No. 6 of the compatible uses reads “a residence or other structure necessary for the management of land zoned as timberland production.”
Washburn argues the intent of No. 6 was that residences were to be included and with them other structures necessary for management could be considered.
***
TS Commission takes on TPZ again
***
Morrison-Foerster on treatment of residences as compatible use within TPZ land. an 8-pg pdf document
***
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)