To: Bruce Anderson
Anderson Valley Advertiser

From: Andrew Mansfield

January 5, 2002

Dear Bruce:

You are probably too well famililar with the litigation (and lack of criminal prosecution of the dog shooter, Donny Iversen) concerning the killing of Mary Geddry's dog here in Mendocino.  I will describe the current status of the litigation in some detail, below, but wanted to bring the latest outrage and abuse of the law to your attention.

The main problem in this case has been that the District Attorney's office refuses to prosecute Donny Iversen even though he committed multiple crimes on June 1, 2002 when he got out of his truck and admittedly shot his neighbor's dog twice with a shotgun filled with federal shot.  Robert Arbayo's report and the Sheriff's report indicate that Iversen fired a weapon from a public road onto private property -- a serious offense.  Those reports also counter any claim that the actions were taken in self-defense.   His shooting of Ms. Geddry's dog constituted cruelty to animals.  Finally, the Sheriff's Report indicates that Donny Iversen, when pulled over after he fled the scene, lied to the Sheriff and CHP -- a misdemeanor.  But Iversen is protected.  He comes from an old logging family with numerous local connections.  He is a friend of the local Deputy District Attorney, Mark Kalina, who may have been involved in the shooting.  Mark Kalina intervened with the Sheriff in the days following the incident.

There could not be a more clear-cut case for initiating criminal prosecution against Donny Iversen, yet Norm Vroman does nothing.

In the days after the shooting, Mary Geddry sought and obtained a protective order in court.  That order prohibits the Iversens from harassing her.  It also prvents them from carrying firearms within a certain distance of her property.  Ms. Geddry voluntarily agreed, in court, to modify that order to provide that she would keep her dog on leash.  At the time, the clause was meaningless because she had no dog.

She subsequently adopted another dog, Bach, from the Humane Society.  Bach "escaped" from Ms. Geddry's fenced and locked yard recently.  Bach ended up at the Iversens, under suspicious circumstances.  Ms. Geddry believes the Iversens took him from her yard to set her up for a violation of the court order. 

What happened next is astounding.  On December 30, 2002 Norm Vroman charged Ms. Geddry with CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COURT under Penal Code section 166(A)(1).  This single mother now has to report to the Sheriff's Detention Center in Ukiah and be booked and fingerprinted prior January 16, 2003.  She will then be criminally arraigned on January 16, 2003, again in Ukiah.  The choice of a distant court for this Mendocino resident is yet another attempt to harrass her.  The D.A. File Number on this outrageous contempt charge is M-2-52600-1.

Criminal contempt of court?  The charge against Ms. Geddry -- P.C. 166(a)(1) -- is as follows: "Disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior committed during the sitting of any court of justice, in the immediate view and presence of the court, and directly tending to interrupt its proceedings or to impair the respect due to its authority."  What this charge even relates to is a mystery.  It would have at least been facially rationale if the District Attorney had charged her with a violation of section 166(a)(4): "Willful disobedience of the terms as written of any process or court order."  Criminal contempt is a strong charge the proof of which is not easily met.  The bringing of criminal contempt against Ms. Geddry when NO CHARGES were brought against Donny Iversen is even more bizarre.

Some of this may be explained by the fact that Ms. Geddry filed a complaint with the County of Mendocino seeking compensation for the conduct of Norm Vroman in refusing to prosecute Donny Iversen.  The County could have either denied her claim, allowing her to sue in court, or granted her compensation.  Instead, the Board of Supervisors and County Counsel Peter Klein have engaged in an elaborate game of improperly denying Ms. Geddry's claim against Norm Vroman as "untimely."

On December 19, 2002, the Board of Supervisors, through Kristi Furman, wrote a letter to Mary Geddry about her claims against Mendocino County concerning the shooting of her dog on June 1, 2002.  The Board of Supervisors asserted that her four claims were filed late.  Claims must be filed within six months of an incident giving rise to the claim.  Six months from the DATE OF THE DOG SHOOTING (not Norm Vroman's and the Sheriff's actions concerning that shooting) was December 1, 2002.  That fell on a Sunday, thereby making the date the claim must be "presented" to the County of Mendocino December 2.  Ms. Geddry mailed her claims on December 2, even though many of the events did not take place until well after June 1.  In other words, she actually had even more time in which to present her claims.

Instead of responding to the claim, allowing her to be compensated or sue, the Board of Supervisors, with the knowledge and consent of Peter Klein, rejected the presentation of the claim stating it was ONE DAY late.  The stated reason was the claim had not been presented on time.  What could the County mean?

Pursuant to Government Code section 915(a)(2), the “presentation” of a claim is made the date the claim is mailed.  That was December 2.  The claims were due to be presented on December 2 and they were presented on December 2.  Did the County get confused because it thought it had to receive the claim on December 2 (or even on Sunday, December 1)?  Pushing to one side the temerity of the County in attempting to reject the presentation on the basis of one day, Ms. Furman, the Supervisors and Mr. Klein misinterpreted the law and obviously did not take the time to look up Government Code section 915(a)(2).

Although Ms. Furman and Mr. Klein have received two letters from this office pointing out the illegality of their action, they have not responded.

Returning to the civil lawsuit Ms. Geddry filed against the Iversens and Kalinas, that case sits in limbo because the County of Mendocino has been unable or unwilling to obtain a judge to hear a simple motion for over THREE MONTHS.  The Defendants have undertaken every tactic to delay and frustrate the trial in this matter.  Mark Kalina, Deputy District Attorney, asserts that his role in the complained-of activities was one in which he was acting in his official capacity as a County employee.  Therefore, the County Counsel's office has come to his defense.  Mr. Kalina's defense costs for allegedly conspiring to shoot a neighbor's dog and then interfering with the police investigation are being born by County taxpayers.  Does that seem like a good use of County funds?

Ms. Geddry filed a response in which she argued that Mr. Kalina was not acting as a County employee and must defend himself as a private individual.  If Mr. Kalina is in automobile accident, and then uses his connections with law enforcement to influence the police investigation, does that mean that County Counsel would defend him in the civil litigation if such was brought by the other driver?  Certainly not.  The whole case has taken on an element of surreality.

But Ms. Geddry cannot even get a day in court on this simple motion.  The hearing on this was scheduled for September 25, 2002.  Judge Labowitz recused himself because of his personal relationship with Mark Kalina.  Judge Luther was then requested (he normally sits in Humboldt County).  At the last minute, Judge Luther recused himself because of his personal connections with Mark Kalina.  Judge Tauber, an exceptionally fair and unbiased visiting judge who normally sits in Willits, was then requested.  However, on the day that he came to Fort Bragg to hear the case Mr. Kalina asked him to lunch.  When the court convened in the afternoon, Judge Tauber realized that he was to hear a case concerning Mr. Kalina and Judge Tauber recused himself.  Since that occurred, the Mendocino County Superior Court has been unable or unwilling to get another judge to hear the motion.

I write to you in hope that you will spread the word on this injustice and the broader implications it has for justice and impartiality in Mendocino County.  Ms. Geddry has set up an Internet web site at www.justiceforjunior.org detailing her experience.  She also took out advertisements in your paper and the Mendocino Beacon / Fort Bragg Advocate News.  You will find amusing the fact that the Beacon / Advocate News required Ms. Geddry to edit and "tone down" her paid advertisement, stating that none of her allegations had yet been proven in a court of law.  If only Ms. Geddry could get a day in a court of law in Mendocino County . . .

Please call me with any questions.

Andrew S. Mansfield, Esq.
Mansfield Law Office, A Professional Corporation
45121 Ukiah Street
P.O. Box 2402
Mendocino, CA 95460
Tel: 707-937-0820
Fax: 707-937-0834