The whole Paul Hagen/CDAA thing is frustrating enough, but today Governor Schwarzenegger settled a suit filed by one of his alleged groping victims. The agreement? Everybody keeps quiet. Does the gag order protect her, hor him?
The suit was actually a slander suit based on allegations made by Schwarzenegger that she had forced herself onto him. Her account was, according to the L.A. Times:
Schwarzenegger had appeared on Richardson’s late-night show in December 2000 to promote his movie “The 6th Day.” Richardson said that after the taping, Schwarzenegger pulled her onto his knee and told her, “I want to know if your breasts are real,” and then groped her left breast.
According to the woman’s attorney the settlement seems to have made everybody happy.
The AVA’s Bruce Anderson once asked about one of the gag-stipulated settlements with the parents of an alleged victim: “How much money would you accept to allow Michael Jackson to rub your son’s balls?” So how much for a grope? Inquiring minds want to know.
Editing do to my own attention deficit disorder – okay, he paid (presumably) for an alleged lie rather than an alleged grope. Sue me.
Matt Stoller has some interesting east-coast perspectives on California politics in general, including the settlement and the race.
28 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 28, 2006 at 2:34 am
Steve Lewis
eric, maybe if you’re really damned sick of gag orders you might ask Michael Jacinto why he put one on Don Brenard and me when we had a KMUD show lined up for our Heartlands Project. Michael caved into Bear River’s Casino manager John McGinnis (of softball umpire bashing fame) request that neither Don, me or Wayne Moon talk about Bear River when we talked about our Heartlands Project.
This was virtually impossible to do as both Don and Wayne are Bear River tribal members with Wayne being the former Vice Chair of the B.R. Tribal Council whose authority we worked under for three years.
Do KMUD listeners know why there’s no more Steve Lewis show? Has anyone complained about this abuse of power by Michael Jacinto? Michael and I have been at odds before but this stunt he pulled is so off-base for a “community radio station” as to be a sick joke. But it happened and I don’t have a show anymore on KMUD and none of KMUD listeners got to hear the latest developments of the Heartlands Project.
Censorship sucks..
August 28, 2006 at 4:17 am
Eric V. Kirk
I asked the question on this blog, which is frequented by a number of KMUD listeners and a few staff. I don’t know about Michael. But I have to talk to him about something else, so I’ll ask him.
August 28, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Anonymous
Eric, have you ever been a party to a gag agreement?
August 28, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Eric V. Kirk
A few. In lawsuits I’ve been involved in discovery where we’ve requested proprietary information and agreed not to release it or use it for any purpose beyond the lawsuit itself. And when discovery in lawsuits could violate the privacy of a third party. And of course mental health records.
I can only think of one lawsuit in which the settlement was contingent upon silence, though my partner has been through a few. And I’ve also ran headfirst into these agreements when conducting discovery in subsequent cases. Very frustrating.
August 28, 2006 at 5:13 pm
ED Denson
I had a case in Mendocino County where the cop claimed to be able to recognize drug use from visual inspection. I asked the DA for the educational background that allowed such virtuosity – a standard request. Most cops have a sheet of paper listing the courses they have taken, which they attach to search warrant applications etc. to explain how they come to know whatever they are claiming. The DA refused and we had to go to court. There the judge ruled that I could have the information, but since it was from the officer’s personell file, I could have it in one copy only, which I could not copy and which I had to destroy at the end of the case. I doubt that these restrictions would hold up, but I agreed and got the info. Then in a hearing the cop got on the stand and put on the public record all of the information that I had obtained with such restrictions. Sometimes I think we’ve gone a bit nuts.
August 28, 2006 at 6:44 pm
Eric V. Kirk
A few years ago I had a false arrest case against the CHP in which I was trying to obtain the CHP handbook provisions pertaining to guidelines for a proper arrest. The Judge determined that the interest in keeping the sacred text from public hands exceeded the value of the material to my case – even though the officer had referred to his alleged compliance with the guidelines in his deposition. I asked only for those guidelines, and would have signed an order keeping them under wraps. No go.
The only explanation I can find for the secrecy is that they don’t want to be held to the standards those guidelines might establish. If we’d lost the case, I would have brought the question to the appellate court.
But then in another case, the CHP produced the guidelines for establishing probably cause for suspicion of drug use. It was in attached to their summary judgment motion, and though I defeated the motion by the skin of my teeth, we settled the matter because of serious difficulties with the case and how my client’s physical symptoms matched those guidelines (he tested zero for any drugs, but the issue is of course probably cause).
But it seems that the importance of the secrecy of that handbook bears a direct relationship to whether it helps or hurts them in any particular case.
There was no gag agreement though Ed. If you ever need what I have I can dig it up. I’m surprised the handbook isn’t on the Internet somewhere by now.
August 29, 2006 at 5:22 am
Anonymous
damn you guys are soooo good ?
August 29, 2006 at 7:00 am
Eric V. Kirk
Well, I can talk about some of the cases that went south if you want some balance.
August 29, 2006 at 5:57 pm
Anonymous
sure why not ! ?
August 30, 2006 at 4:40 am
Anonymous
So what do you guys think of Gallegos’ response to not filing on the animal abuse case ? Mr. Paul doesn’t seem to give a shit about animal cruelty. What kind of guy can condon being mean/violent to pets ?
August 30, 2006 at 8:44 am
Anonymous
I’m waiting for a response to 9:40 pm !? I read the T/S article ! Reminds me of that old saying …. someting like “opening your mouth before engaging your brain”.
Eric, what are your thoughts on this one ? In the news yet no comment ? You’re the PG can do no wrong dude.
August 30, 2006 at 4:38 pm
Eric V. Kirk
I started a post on it last night, but ran out of time. It sounds like his deputy may have dropped the ball, but I haven’t seen the evidence that was presented to him. The ER article was lacking in that department.
In any case, if a DA deputy does screw up, Gallegos has to stand by his man. It’s pretty much required.
But I would also trust the animal rights groups to know the law and they wouldn’t attack Gallegos like this without good reason. Let’s see how the story develops.
August 30, 2006 at 5:44 pm
Anonymous
Wow Eric
” I would also trust the animal rights groups to know the law and they wouldn’t attack Gallegos like this without good reason”
Common sense and logic shining through, wow.
It would seem that whenever something goes south in the press for the DA’s office PG passes it off to someone else. Often times Wes Keats, his assistant DA and favorite scapegoat. PG is the boss, the supervisor, the leader (in theory anyway). If a Deputy screws up I would expect PG to stand by that person but take steps to correct any problem. As the DA PG takes credit for the crime rate going down (of course the cops had nothing to do with it) and anything good that happens but fails to acknowledge his role and responsiblility when things don’t go well. Poor leadership, or maybe non existant would be a better way to describe it.
PG lacks the experience for his position and it is continuing to show. He doesn’t display any leadership traits or abilities. Just because he was elected doesn’t mean he is a good manager or that he is a leader. PG needs a lot of work in these areas, maybe too much.
How often does “the Buck stops Here” seem to apply at the DA’s office?
How many dogs,horses could have been saved, or at least spared the extreme suffering, if PG would have done his job?
It’s a shame and a disgrace.
August 30, 2006 at 9:02 pm
Eric V. Kirk
Well, I don’t see that he’s passing the buck. He’s standing up for his deputy, but for all we know he’s chewing him out behind the scenes. Happens a lot with police misconduct according to a retired officer friend of mine. Publicly they round the wagons, but behind closed doors somebody’s telling the officer to clean it up or accept a desk job.
I would like to know what evidence was presented to Keats at the time. It would shed more light on the matter. However, the response that you need intent to prove criminal neglect is simply false.
August 30, 2006 at 9:14 pm
Anonymous
Shit eric…Gallegos said you have to prove “intent to neglect” – how stupid can he be? That office has been flushing cases for 3 years. Here we get to see the effect – 50-100 starved dogs who resulted in cannabalizing each other. If he had prosecuted her in 2004, all of her animals would have been siezed and hopefully adopted from a rescue service. At least they wouldn’t have been tortured for 2 more years. Christ, this was a stupid and callous f–k up
August 30, 2006 at 9:26 pm
Anonymous
You have a retired police officer friend ??? Is this like the anonymous phone call tip ? I heard from a good friend, I can’t remember his name but he’s a good friend ………….
Lame
You don’t know what happens alot in police misconduct cases. You don’t know much about anything. What happened to FACTS.
I cannot get over the guy that is always, and I mean always, going off about FACTS, FACTS, give me facts but you seldom provide facts to support some of the BS you put out.
Amazing,
August 30, 2006 at 10:47 pm
Eric V. Kirk
anon 214 – It was certainly a silly comment to make.
anon 226 – No, I’m not going to give you the name of the retired officer.
August 30, 2006 at 11:22 pm
Anonymous
NO ERIC it wasn’t a “silly comment to make.” It was false and it was a f–k up! quit trying to make it less than it is because it diminishes your credibility. Just call it what it is – a truly huge incredible stupid f–k up and cover up.
August 31, 2006 at 1:50 am
Anonymous
Eric I wasn’t asking for the name of the “alledged” retired cop. It doesn’t matter.
August 31, 2006 at 2:09 am
Eric V. Kirk
anon 422 – Calm down. The campaign doesn’t start for almost 4 years.
anon 650 – then why did you bring it up?
August 31, 2006 at 2:54 am
Anonymous
I didn’t bring it up, at least no inquiry about the guys name. Maybe you ought to re-read it.
Given your particular viewpoint on things I wouldn’t think many cops, retired or not would be a good buddy of yours.
As far as your comment to someone else about the election being 4 years away. You’re assuming PG will still be in office in 4 years and will want to run again.
August 31, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Anonymous
Eric – I don’t give a shit about any campaign in 4 years. I do give a shit about letting over a hundred animals starve and die over a two year period and I do give a shit that you “friend” could have stopped it if he had done his job. But go ahead and make excuses for him.
Say 10 hail mary’s and 10 our fathers and then make a big donation to Miranda’s Rescue you putz.
August 31, 2006 at 7:26 pm
Eric V. Kirk
Given your particular viewpoint on things I wouldn’t think many cops, retired or not would be a good buddy of yours.
You assume falsely on two couts:
1. All cops are politically conservative; and
2. Everyone share your view that political views are intrinsic to personal character and thus write off anybody who holds views in opposition to theirs.
Two huge presuppositions, and flat out wrong.
I personally, I wonder how many Gallegos haters would give a rat’s ass about the dogs if it wasn’t just another excuse to slam Gallegos. All I know about the case I read in the Eureka Reporter. I’m willing to bet that Gallegos and his team screwed up. But unlike the average Gallegos hater, I’m not an expert on something I know nothing about.
August 31, 2006 at 8:47 pm
Steve Lewis
I’ve never met Gallegos but I can tell by his political choices and his office’s campaign against Palco that he hasn’t the wisdom to rise above the Salzman/AEB/Local Solutions/Progressive Party line when it comes to fair and equal treatment under the law.
Also, I tend to trust the people I know who have worked directly with Paul or under Paul none of whom paint a very flattering picture of the guy. How many times have you seen and talked with Paul face to face, eric? The people who work in the DA’s office deal with Paul in terms of hours far more than even his wife does. Are we to ignore these people’s opinion and go with your comparatively minor knowledge of how well Paul gets along with others.
Here’s a challenge that would go a long way to convince Paul’s the good guy with integrity you say he is. Ask Paul who was he swimming with when he had his accident and ended up in the hospital? Was it his friend, Michael Shellenburger or his girlfriend on the side? You see I’ve heard from people who were at the hospital when Paul was there and there’s a different story there than the one the public read or heard in their news media.
August 31, 2006 at 10:53 pm
Anonymous
eat me eric – now your sounding like bitter self righteous loser.
Alot of people do care a great deal about the vulnerable in our community that have gotten screwed by the incompetence and laziness of your buddy. How predictable that you then accuse those who point out the truth as being “Gallegos Haters”, not giving a rats ass and using this as an excuse. Frankly, I don’t hate Gallegos, I just consider him dishonest, lazy and incompetent which is much different.
September 1, 2006 at 12:07 am
Anonymous
Oh my, Steve is starting to make lost of sense ? What’s happening to ME?
September 1, 2006 at 6:03 pm
Steve Lewis
You’re recognizing truth when you see someone stating it clearly.
September 1, 2006 at 8:09 pm
Anonymous
I agree – thanks steve.