Ponta dos Rosais

It’s a warm and gray morning. A blanket of clouds covers the Azores, casting a blue-gray shadow across the Atlantic.

Some clouds creep slowly across the flanks of the towering volcano on the nearby island of Pico. A few appear anchored to the mountain’s peak. Clouds partially obscure the coastline of Faial, the other nearby island visible from the front porch of my cousin Paula’s holiday house near the village of Urzelina on the coast of Sao Jorge island.

My desk this morning is an old lava grist wheel placed horizontally on a steel post at the porch’s edge. The laptop’s clock is based on California time, and shows 1:45 a.m. But my mind and body after 10 days know it’s seven hours later here in the Azores, a nine-island archipelago 900 miles off the coast of Portugal.

What I write this morning comes haltingly, my thoughts as uncertain as the day about to unfold. It is the eve of our final weekend in this timeless place.

The past is everywhere. My grandfather’s family has lived on Sao Jorge since the 1500s. Our ancestors were among the “First Settlers,” a hardy group of Portuguese and Flemish people who carved out new lives on a cluster of previously unpopulated islands.

The settlers built houses from lava stones, and cleared land to grow yams, grapes, wheat and potatoes in a temperate maritime climate. On Sao Jorge, the earliest settlers harvested native plants for dyes to be used in Flemish tapestries. Over time the settlers experimented with a variety of agricultural pursuits until largely settling on producing milk from dairy cows to make a tangy Sao Jorge cheese that is now the dominant export.

Airports and greatly improved harbors in the last 50 years have ended centuries of isolation for the Azores, a self-governing island group under the Portuguese flag.

Still the islands remain rooted in their traditions, and a culture linked to the Portuguese mainland but uniquely its own.
Change comes slow.

A fledgling eco-tourist movement focusing on spectacular hiking trails, whale and porpoise watching, and underwater exploration in the deep Atlantic is stalled by global economic uncertainty. The visitor count is off 15 percent this year, according to recent government figures.

Those who come discover what Azoreans have always cherished – quaint towns, incredibly beautiful landscapes, and dramatic coastlines caressed by the deep blue Atlantic. National Geographic magazine two years ago ranked the Azores the second most unblemished chain of islands in the world.

Sons Luke and Sam this year joined me for a return visit, and since late June we’ve roamed familiar places on Sao Jorge we saw on our first visit last year. We are awed now as then.

At dusk Thursday we drove down a narrow dirt road to the very northern tip of Sao Jorge and an abandoned lighthouse at Ponta dos Rosais. The road slices through lush pastureland crisscrossed by miles of lava stone walls and hedges of blooming blue and white hydrangeas. The pastoral beauty is overwhelming. Besides the occasional herd of dairy cows it is all ours.

At Ponta dos Rosais, the island narrows into a ragged point resembling an arrow head. A sweeping view of the Atlantic underscores how Sao Jorge and the other islands are lonely volcanic outposts, the last between here and the North American continent.

A narrow band of light from the setting sun glistens on the horizon, and separates the calm ocean surface from dark, brooding clouds gathering above. Unexpectedly a golden shaft of light breaks through the cloud cover, illuminating a small patch of the ocean surface. It is truly one of nature’s great moments.

On our return drive to the port town of Velas, we marvel at the island’s beauty, its warm and welcoming people and a pace of life we find so appealing.

Mendocino County is my home, but I’m more aware then ever of the strong pull my Sao Jorge heritage has on my soul. I’m at peace here in ways that are difficult to explain.

We’re still five days from departure but those mysterious feelings the Portuguese call “saudade” are stirring. Saudade is something described as a “vague and constant desire for something that does not and probably cannot exist…a turning towards the past or towards the future.”

My grandfather left this island for America more than a century ago, and he never returned. My father was a native Californian. So am I. My wife Terese and our sons too.

Still, I ask: How can I feel such longing for a life I’ve never lived?

Tuesday’s sentencing left no one happy, least of all a circle of Vargas’ family and friends who waged a futile campaign to win the 32-year-old father’s freedom.

Superior Court Judge Ron Brown said to free Vargas would send the wrong message in a troubling case that’s received national attention.

Brown is right in that for whatever reasons, and whether intentional or not, the simple fact remains that an intoxicated Vargas shot Darrell McNeill in the stomach and then watched him die.

Newspaper accounts of the emotional sentencing hearing reported that Judge Brown said he felt the killing was intentional. Brown said evidence showed that Vargas shot McNeill “in the gut to make him suffer, kicking him and not letting (McNeill’s wife) call for help.”

For his part, Vargas admitted taking an old cap and ball revolver with him the night he confronted McNeill, the man he said began sexually abusing him when he was just age 11. Vargas said the sex didn’t end until he was an adult in his late 20s.

Vargas testified that he only intended to warn McNeill to stay away from him, his family and other men who said they too were victims.

“I wanted to scare him,” Vargas said. “I wanted to tell him to stop touching me, and anyone else, anymore.”

Vargas’ family rallied supporters to his cause through a campaign that spread nationwide. The notoriety subsided after county prosecutors decided to back off from trying Vargas for murder, in part because nearly a dozen men or their family members had come forward with sordid tales of more sexual abuse committed by McNeill.

Brown on Tuesday sentenced Vargas to nine years, with credit for more than 18 months he has already served in county jail.

Whether the nine-year prison term is just is certain to be debated for years to come. Vargas family almost immediately said they will appeal Brown’s sentencing.

Sadly I don’t think it matters what message Brown’s decision sends, or how many years Aaron Vargas actually spends in prison.

The harsh truth is that when it comes to sexual abuse of children, communities, law enforcement, church leaders and public figures across the U.S. and around the globe still tend to look the other way.

Further I think the troubling truth of the Vargas case was woven through the testimony of Santa Rosa psychiatrist Donald Apostle, who was among those advocating probation for Vargas.

Seeing Aaron Vargas set free always seemed an impossibility in my mind. But a few quotes attributed to psychiatrist Apostle jumped out in the newspaper accounts I read about his sentencing.

Vargas, said Apostle, has been “stuck in time by a dark, shameful secret that prevented him from maturing and functioning normally.”
Stuck in time. Never able to mature or function normally.

Strikes me as a hellish life that won’t quit.

And I can understand why Vargas’ family and friends are chilled by the court’s decision to lock him up for several years with some of the most violent people anywhere.

Consider one more assessment offered up by the psychiatrist about Vargas:

“I think he’s been in prison his whole life.”

***
Enjoy our free stories? Subscribe to theAVA.com for just $25 a year and get access to the entire site.

Unlike the DA’s race, the voting outcome was clear in a closely watched race for a seat on the Mendocino County Superior Court bench.

Attorney Ann Moorman trounced challenger Caren Callahan by a 66-34 percent margin. A negative last-minute Callahan campaign attack on Moorman may have backfired, based on voting results county-wide.

Moorman, consistently ranked professionally as one of Northern California’s best attorneys, has a wide circle of support including judges, law enforcement groups and political leaders across the political spectrum.

In Lintott’s case, Tuesday’s election results cast doubt about her ability to win in the November run-off.

While Lintott led in unofficial results with 38 percent of the votes cast in a three-way race, she was closely followed by Eyster and former county prosecutor Matt Finnegan.

In short more than 60 percent of county voters favored Eyster, who grabbed 32 percent of Tuesday’s vote, or Finnegan, who finished close behind with 30 percent.

That outcome doesn’t forebode well for Lintott.

She’s likely to have a hard time rallying Finnegan supporters to her side between now and November. Two years ago Lintott fired Finnegan as a deputy DA in a nasty office brouhaha that’s still having repercussions.

Yet Lintott is a scrappy political survivor, based on her tortuous run for DA four years ago.

Then Lintott challenged populist incumbent DA Norm Vroman, whose unexpected death early in their run-off campaign created a legal, financial and political quagmire. She eventually slogged through despite unexpected campaign costs, a stiff challenge from former Vroman protégé Keith Faulder and the withdrawal of endorsements from The Press Democrat and other former supporters.

Still Tuesday’s results suggest Lintott’s political career may be short-lived.

Lintott as DA has come under fire for being a poor administrator, and faces accusations that her prosecutorial performance has been propped up by Jill Ravitch, her chief deputy. Ravitch, a Santa Rosa resident, was elected Sonoma County District Attorney in Tuesday’s voting.

In addition, Lintott’s personal bankruptcy may hamper her ability to finance an effective campaign against Eyster in the November run-off.

Lintott and her husband filed for bankruptcy in early March, citing more than $1 million in debt despite a combined annual income of more than $200,000. Lintott has said part of her financial woes stemmed from her costly 2006 campaign for DA.

Eyster is expected to reach out to Finnegan and his supporters, as he did with former prosecutor Faulder early in his campaign.
A Finnegan endorsement could enhance Eyster’s chances in November, along with support from Faulder and former Vroman supporters.

In Mendocino County, there’s a long history of former DA prosecutors challenging their bosses.

Eyster is among them. A veteran prosecutor, Eyster was a chief prosecutor for former DA Susan Massini until they had a falling out that rocked the courthouse. Massini fired Eyster in a celebrated case that marked the turmoil during her tenure, and led to her eventual ouster by Vroman.

Finnegan was a popular prosecutor in Lintott’s office, but he too ran afoul of his boss and was fired. Finnegan challenged Lintott’s leadership, and the role prosecutor Ravitch, an outsider and Santa Rosa resident, played in the Mendocino office while she plotted her campaign to run for Sonoma County DA.

Finnegan took to calling Ravitch the “rat bitch,” according to testimony during a contentious civil service hearing into his firing. His dismissal was eventually upheld by an administrative law judge.

For Burrell, Tuesday’s decision allows him to finally get on with his life and teaching career after more than two years in legal limbo.

But prosecutors’ move in Mendocino County Superior Court to dismiss charges against Burrell marked yet another confusing chapter in the saga of DA Lintott.

Deputy DA Scott McMenomey cited “insufficient evidence” in asking Judge Clay Brennan to drop charges.

Just three months ago Lintott’s office forged ahead with plans to prosecute the 52-year-old Burrell even though there was no public announcement of any new evidence.

Lintott, fighting for her political life in the June 8 election, was accused by challenger David Eyster – Burrell’s attorney – of making an “extreme” decision for potential political gain. Eyster during his campaign has criticized the DA’s office for confusing and ineffective marijuana prosecution policies.

Eyster at the time said he couldn’t help but wonder if Lintott wasn’t seeking to draw political attention to his legal defense of a defendant accused in a commercial marijuana growing operation.

Eyster said then and again Tuesday that no new evidence had developed since 2008 in the Burrell case, so why file felony charges and then just as abruptly dismiss them a week before the June 8 election.

“I’m gratified that my evaluation there was no case against Jeff Burrell two years ago was finally confirmed,” said Eyster.

Lintott’s move in March to charge Burrell stunned the well-known teacher, his family and wide circle of friends. It also raised questions about the DA’s motives.

For example, Eyster said he wasn’t personally notified of the DA’s decision to finally charge Burrell as is typical in criminal cases.

Instead Burrell learned of the pending felony charges after reading a three-paragraph letter dated Feb. 25 from Lintott under the signature of prosecutor Dan McConnell.

The letter stated Burrell was being charged with felony cultivation of marijuana and possession of marijuana for sale, and ordered him to appear for an arraignment in late April.

A similar letter was received by Burrell friend Steve Laino, who was arrested at the same time. Their cases, however, are being treated independent of each other.

Eyster and others familiar with the Burrell case have questioned the DA’s rationale.

“They sat on the case for two years, and ignored our requests for information, investigative reports and other related documents,” said Eyster in March.

Eyster said he has long suspected that there in fact was no new evidence in the two-year-old case

For Burrell the DA’s action in March returned him to the unwelcomed public spotlight he had avoided since his arrest, and his return to teaching last year.

Burrell was on leave from arrest in 2008 through the end of that school year. When the DA took no action, the school reinstated him for the 2008-2009 school year and he has continued since.

But since the filing of charges in March by the DA, the teacher’s case was rehashed in the local media, and became fodder for a debate over how effective the county’s marijuana prosecution policies are.

The Burrell dismissal is the second Lintott action in recent weeks to make local headlines.

In April county residents learned that Lintott had filed for personal bankruptcy, contending she and her husband couldn’t make payments on their Redwood Valley residence, a rental house in Fort Bragg, college tuition loans and credit card debt despite $200,000 in combined annual income.

Sheriff Sgt. Glen Van Patten’s on-air suggestions that the 2009 shooting death of businessman Darrell McNeill at the hands of Vargas may have been the result of a “lover’s quarrel” has enraged Vargas’ supporters just two weeks before his sentencing.

Van Patten said investigators believe Vargas and McNeill had engaged in sex for at least “two to four years” before the killing.

Van Patten’s notion that a child sexual abuse victim could voluntarily become his molester’s lover when he grew up sickened some viewers, and nationally known abuse experts.

“In my opinion Van Patten needs to be fired,” declared the wife of a Dallas, Texas police officer.
Another angry viewer in Seattle wrote theava.com, “Sgt. Van Patten is treating this as a sexcapades with Vargas and McNeill.”

Iowa resident Susan Huseman wrote, “To have a law enforcement officer say on national television that a victim of child-sexual abuse was consensually involved with his abuser is an outrage.”

Yet even Aaron Vargas during his exclusive interview with ABC’s 20/20 acknowledged he knows some people think he’s a “fag” for engaging in extended sexual relations with a friendly neighbor who began abusing him when he was 11-years-old.

Vargas told viewers that no matter how hard he tried to keep his distance from McNeill, the cycle of abuse would begin again and he would somehow be lured back.

Vargas said sometimes the sex happened only a couple of times a year, usually on fishing trips with McNeill. There was always a lot of drinking involved.

Other times, including in the weeks leading up to the shocking killing, Vargas said, “He’d call almost daily.”

Vargas said the fear that McNeill might actually molest his infant daughter finally drove him to a drunken confrontation, and the fatal shooting.

Sex abuse cases stagger communities, and raise troubling questions about how we view victims and perpetrators.

Experts say typically a lot of sexual abuse cases taper off within 3-4 years, largely because the perpetrator loses interest or the victim finally figures out how to stand up to the aggressor.

But that’s not always the case, according to Dr. Richard Gartner. Gartner is a widely known Manhattan expert in sexual abuse, and a former 20-year director of the clinical psychology program at Columbia University.

Gartner in a telephone interview said he’s become aware of the national notoriety surrounding the Vargas case, but he said his knowledge of the case was too general for him to discuss any specifics.

However, Gartner said what Vargas says happened between he and McNeill over the past 20 years is “not that unusual.”

“Young victims are groomed in these issues by people who they see as mentors,” said Gartner.

Gartner said as victims become more isolated because of their shame and a growing fear of discovery, “they feel branded.”

“In their tormented state, sometimes sex is a small price to pay,” said Gartner.

Dr. Michael Welner, a forensic psychiatrist, told 20/20 that McNeill’s tight hold on Vargas could have easily continued into his adult years.

“You take someone who is vulnerable, and you get them formative, and you attach to them all through their development, and you get in their DNA,” said Welner.

Welner said, “And that’s how you have people, who even in adulthood are doing things totally unacceptable to them. And yet at the same time they’re powerless to break away from it.”

McNeill’s secret life involving a dozen or more young Fort Bragg men including his own step-son only came to light after Vargas killed him.

Vargas told the nation that he regrets killing McNeill. “It’s not up to me to decide someone’s fate.”

He said he still struggles with the reasons why.

“Sometimes, I guess people can take control over you in ways that you would never imagine,” Vargas told television viewers.

Vargas killed a man, intentionally or not. He must pay the price for that action no matter how much sympathy his case stirs.

Yet somehow I can’t escape the conclusion that thanks to a cold, calculating perpetrator, Aaron Vargas will always be a victim. That in the end Aaron Vargas’ punishment may be far greater than his sins no matter what the outcome is in the courtroom next month.

That was the question racing through my mind the other night while attending a benefit dinner in honor of Sister Jane’s 80^th birthday. Her body weakens with each passing year, but Sister Jane’s mind is as sharp as ever. Too sharp for the boys in Rome.

Sister Jane did the right thing more than a decade ago by blowing the whistle on a church cover-up involving then Bishop G. Patrick Ziemann, an errant priest named Jorge Hume, and local leaders of St. Mary’s Church in Ukiah who bowed to the bishop’s demand for “silence.” At the time Sister Jane thought Hume was a thief who had possibly sexually abused young Latino parishioners. Ziemann removed him from the Ukiah church, and assured everyone involved that he would take care of the matter.

Sister Jane and others were aghast when Hume 18 months later was re-assigned to a Napa parish. Not even Sister Jane knew then that Bishop Ziemann in return for protecting Hume from police and parishioners was engaging in sex with the young South American priest.  The sordid Ziemann-Hume affair capped a long, tawdry decade of exposure of sexual abuse cases that eventually cost the Diocese of Santa Rosa more than $6 million. Hume pocketed $535,000 and disappeared into South America.

That was 10 years ago.

Today I read that Pope Benedict XVI is finally acknowledging the on-going sexual abuse crisis engulfing the Catholic Church worldwide, calling it  “truly terrifying.”

For the first time the pope suggested that maybe the origins lie with abusive priests and highly placed church officials.

He spoke of “the sin inside the church.”

Really?

Too bad the Pope didn’t feel that way a decade ago when he and other church leaders blew off Sister Jane’s efforts to go through church channels to bring attention to the woes in the Santa Rosa diocese, and flagrant cover-ups going on. At the time the Pope was known as Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In short the body is the powerful arm of the church, making sure Catholics around the globe practice what Rome tells them.

When he was elected Pope, Ratzinger appointed former San Francisco Archbishop William Levada to succeed him as the church’s chief enforcer. Levada as the most influential Catholic prelate in Northern California had been well versed in Bishop Ziemann’s transgressions. Ziemann had privately confessed his sins to Levada and church authorities, insisting the sex between he and the priest had been “consensual.” He submitted a written letter of resignation but Levada and other church leaders did nothing about Ziemann until public disclosure of priest Hume’s sex case in 1999 forced the issue.

Ziemann’s resignation as bishop was belatedly announced, amid church praise for his “holiness.”

Stung by public criticism. Levada and other church leaders a few months later came to Ukiah and admonished angry parishioners at Ukiah’s St. Mary’s church for making “rash judgments” about the bishop, and the church cover-up.

For those there that night it was a moment to remember when Sister Jane confronted Levada, wagging her finger at him and demanding that church authorities acknowledge their own sins.

Levada, now a cardinal, is the highest ranking American official in the Vatican.

With Levada at his side in Rome, it’s no wonder the Pope is only now acknowledging what’s been obvious to most church parishioners for a decade or more.

Just a few weeks ago the Pope whined about the church being targeted by outsiders. He suggested Catholics were being “persecuted.”

But now the Pope says he’s seeing things differently.

“Today we see in a really terrifying way that the great persecution of the church does not come from the enemies outside, but is born from the sin in the church,” the Pope declared.

Yeah. Well, Sister Jane and other good Catholics knew that  years ago. They intuitively did the right thing. 

It’s too bad, and probably too late, that it’s taken the Vatican this long to get it.

Lintott’s precarious personal finances drove her and husband Scott Shaver, a city of Ukiah employee, to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection on March 29, according to court documents. The action for now bars creditors from garnishing the couple’s wages, or taking other legal action to collect the debt.

Just 10 days after filing bankruptcy, Lintott and husband Scott Shaver petitioned a federal bankruptcy judge to lift a Wells Fargo bank freeze on two personal checking and savings accounts totaling $7,284.53 so they could “buy groceries and pay monthly bills,” according to court documents. The judge agreed because Wells Fargo is not a creditor.

The disclosure of Lintott’s personal money woes comes at a time when her re-election campaign finances are lagging significantly behind her two challengers in the June primary.

As of March 22 Lintott had collected only $11,051 in contributions, and had just $1,629 in cash on hand to continue her campaign into the final weeks. Records show Lintott is still $22,000 in debt to herself from her campaign to win the DA’s seat three years ago.

In comparison challenger David Eyster during the same period reported $17,778 in contributions. He had $7,960 in cash remaining after paying campaign expenses.  Candidate Matt Finnegan, who started out with a $25,000 campaign war chest underwritten largely by family members, still had $19,478 in cash to spend.

The bankruptcy documents filed by Lintott and her husband showed they couldn’t meet monthly expenses of $12,695 despite earning a combined $204,713 in 2009.  Lintott earned $140,618 last year as DA, and Shaver, a computer technician for the city of Ukiah, was paid $64,095.

Lintott said the bankruptcy filing was unavoidable.

“We were in an untenable position, as are many people in today’s economy,” said Lintott.

Lintott said she’s never financially recovered from the high cost of her long and legally complicated campaign to win election as district attorney in 2007. Incumbent Norm Vroman died suddenly in the middle of his bid to defeat Lintott, triggering a costly legal battle over whether his chief assistant Keith  Faulder could enter the race. Faulder won the challenge, forcing Lintott to mount a new campaign to finally win election.

Lintott spent $22,000 of her own money during that campaign, documents indicate.

After finally taking office, Lintott moved from the Mendocino Coast to Redwood Valley and bought a house to be nearer the county courthouse in Ukiah. But Lintott said she was unable to sell the family’s Fort Bragg home as planned.

“We’ve been making mortgage payments on two places,” said Lintott. Together the monthly mortgage payments total $5.715.10.

Lintott also said that during the same period she had to borrow $44,438 in student loans to help pay for her children’s college education.

Documents on file in the Santa Rosa bankruptcy court show that Lintott and Shaver have assets valued at $785,550 including the two houses but that they owe creditors a total of $1,040,838.

The list of creditors is headed by Citi Mortgage, Inc. of Nevada, which is owed $725,000. The debt is secured by notes on the Fort Bragg and Redwood Valley properties.

Creditors with unsecured claims are owed a total $290,613.

An Arizona computer services company has an unpaid bill of $27,372, but the bulk of Lintott and Shaver’s unsecured debt is owed to banks and credit card affiliates.

The list includes $57,300 to Bank of America, and three individual Chase accounts of $22,128, $14,614, and $2,495. Also owed is $30,890 to Citi bank, $17,258 to Citi Cards, and $11,960 to Capital One. In addition, Sears MasterCard and Sears Premier MasterCard are owed in excess of $7,000.

Lintott and Shave are asking the bankruptcy judge to exempt $60,550 in personal assets – furnishings, vehicles, and some retirement accounts – from creditors.

Lintott and Shaver have hired Santa Rosa attorney David Chandler to represent them in the bankruptcy proceedings.

Lintott filed under Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code, which means creditors are automatically barred from filing collection actions, wage garnishments or even telephone calls demanding payments. The goal for a debtor is to retain exempt property, and eventually be freed of debt through a court-approved liquidation of assets.

Finnegan’s ouster capped a bitter struggle between he, chief deputy prosecutor Jill Ravitch and DA Meredith Lintott over the prosecutor’s role in a changing office, and his sometimes stormy relations with some co-workers. He had wanted the job Ravitch was given by Lintott. Ravitch, a veteran prosecutor, in 2008 landed the Mendocino job in between her on-going political campaign to become DA in Sonoma County.

The 36-page confidential report, a detailed review of Finnegan’s unsuccessful bid to appeal his firing, makes clear he proved no match for Ravitch.

Especially after Finnegan was accused by fellow prosecutor Heidi Larson of calling her a “motherfucker” because he suspected her of “ratting” on him to Ravitch. Finnegan told an outraged Ravitch that he believed he had called Larson a “buddyfucker” instead.

The candid document was prepared by a veteran East Bay hearing officer with experience in reviewing dozens of sensitive personnel cases for public civil service commissions statewide.

Hearing Officer Barry Winograd of Oakland not only concluded Finnegan’s firing was justified, he questioned Finnegan’s “fitness to serve as a prosecutor.”

The report is dated March 9 but its findings have been kept under wraps by the county Civil Service Commission because Finnegan at the last minute dropped his appeal, choosing instead to focus on his campaign to oust Lintott in the upcoming June election. Former prosecutor David Eyster is the third candidate in the race.

Finnegan in his appeal contended that the professional lapses cited by Lintott and Ravitch were manufactured in some instances, and overstated in others. He also contended that his on-the-job abilities were burdened by a too heavy case load.

Winograd rejected all of Finnegan’s contentions following three days of testimony from a dozen different witnesses. Costs to the county are  estimated to be in excess of $20,000.

Wineograd said he believed there was a bigger issue at stake besides professional performance and office politics.

“Ultimately the perspective exhibited by Mr. Finnegan about his prosecutorial errors, and his relations with others in the office whom he disliked, notably females, calls into question not only his testimony but, most important, his fitness to serve as a prosecutor.”

According to testimony, Ravitch didn’t respond openly to Finnegan’s name calling but she began to closely scrutinize his work habits. Finnegan, concluded Ravitch, was a “shoot-from-the-hip attorney.” Ravitch said Finnegan failed to adequately prepare for trials, and to follow office policies to involve victims as much as possible in the prosecution process.

Ravitch’s findings ultimately were incorporated into Lintott’s formal firing notice to Finnegan in March, 2009.

While the critical report focuses on Finnegan’s professionalism, it also offers a glimpse inside a troubled office led by an incumbent who was once reduced to tears by staff criticism of a failed office bake sale that she thought would improve morale.

According to the report, Finnegan and his supporters derided the Lintott bake sale proposal as “frivolous,” and he jokingly told some co-workers that he would “break fingers” if they took part.

Lintott was described as being “emotional” and “tearful” during a follow-up staff meeting, and she lashed out at deputies who opposed her new management policies. Lintott specifically singled out Finnegan “as someone who was acting in an inappropriate manner.”

But the report makes clear the final straw for Lintott and Ravitch came in February, 2009 with the name calling Larson reported to her bosses.

Finnegan attempted during the hearing to justify his remarks by contending that use of foul language inside the DA’s office is not uncommon.

“Mr. Finnegan and other deputies testified that Ms. Larson frequently used foul language or sexual references herself. Ms. Lintott also was described as having engaged in passing in inappropriate banter or sexual allusions,” the report stated.

Still, the report found that Finnegan was way out of bounds.

And while Winograd found that Lintott and Ravitch in some instances had “overstated” their allegations of poor performance against Finnegan, “These problems … pale in comparison to the larger picture that was presented.”

Finnegan’s explanations were subject to “significant doubt because his testimony at the hearing showed he uniformly blamed others for his shortcomings.”

Finnegan also failed to “acknowledge errors or mistakes in judgment despite telling evidence of repeated deficiencies in his handling and preparation of cases, and in his treatment of others,” said Winograd.

Winograd said Finnegan, for example, not only showed a disregard for office policies regarding victims’ involvement in prosecution efforts, he displayed a “cavalier attitude toward teenage victims of sexual wrongdoing.”

Citing a specific case – one of a dozen or more detailed by Ravitch – Winograd found that “In Mr. Finnegan’s mind, occasional attempts to arrange a meeting by relying on a victim advocate were sufficient to meet his obligations. Yet, for a professional prosecutor, his recalcitrant approach, standing alone, would be sufficient basis for major discipline if not summary discharge.”

Finally, Winograd noted that Finnegan’s explanations at the hearing “were marked by antagonistic and truculent attitude that was plainly influenced by his dislike of Ms. Lintott and other high level managers.”

Finnegan conceded under cross examination that in conversation with other prosecutors he once declared Lintott “doesn’t know what the fuck she is doing.”

The judge said he chose not to dismiss Finnegan’s remark as a one-time incident because evidence showed “Mr. Finnegan’s disparagement of Ms. Lintott was not unique.”

In particular, Winograd found Finnegan’s hostility escalated after Ravitch was selected as chief deputy over him.

“Instead of striving to learn from a more experienced attorney admired as a fine prosecutor and trial lawyer by even Mr. Finnegan’s friends and co-workers, Mr. Finnegan mounted what can fairly be described as a campaign of character assassination against Ms. Ravitch.”

The judge scoffed at Finnegan’s contentions that his role as a union leader made him a target of Lintott and Ravitch.

“There was no showing on Mr. Finnegan’s behalf that his comments were made in the context of labor relations discussions, rather than simply as personal and mean-spirited sniping.”

Winograd expressed amazement that Finnegan, when given an opportunity on cross-examination to express whether he believed his depiction of Ravitch as “rat bitch” was disrespectful, replied, “I don’t know.”

“Beyond this showing of remarkable insensitivity, Mr. Finnegan expressed no regret for having used this gross, disparaging characterization, which he continues to profess to the present.”

***

Enjoy our free stuff? Subscribe now to TheAVA.com for just $25 a year and get access to the entire site.

Much has been written during the past two decades of the abuse suffered by young Catholic boys at the hands of errant priests, a minority among many to be sure. The Diocese of Santa Rosa, which stretches from Santa Rosa to the Oregon border, was a hotbed of widely reported abuse cases. Story after story out of Santa Rosa, and across the U.S. and Europe confirmed what victims already knew – church leaders knowingly protected the perpetrators.

Sister Jane Kelly, an Ukiah-based nun whose whistle blowing led to the downfall of then Bishop Patrick  Ziemann, was shunned by church leaders for going public about problems within the Santa Rosa diocese. The diocese’s sad story turned even more bizarre when Catholics learned Bishop Ziemann confessed to engaging in sex with a former Ukiah priest. The priest said he was forced to disrobe for the bishop to keep from being turned over to police for suspected sexual abuse of young Latino men and theft of church money.

Church leaders knew of the bishop’s confession but kept secret his letter of resignation for nearly a year until a civil lawsuit forced his case out in the open. Only then did the bishop step down, and relinquish the authority granted to him by the Vatican in Rome.

So it’s no surprise to me or anyone else even remotely connected to tawdry tales of  Catholic Church cover-up that victims of sexual abuse like Aaron Vargas often feel they have no place to turn for help.

What is disturbing, however, is how little those in power have learned over the past 20 years.

In Aaron Vargas’ case, it’s now known that other alleged victims including a stepson had years earlier told local police of their abuse at the hands of slain businessman Darrell McNeill. McNeill was never a priest, but he had enjoyed a similar position of trust as a Boy Scout leader on the Mendocino Coast.  It seems no formal law enforcement investigation into the allegations against McNeill was ever launched despite the complaints.

As the Easter religious celebration approached, we witnessed the sad spectacle of church leaders at the Vatican defending Pope Benedict XVI for his handling of abuse cases while serving as a cardinal in his native Germany.

I think columnist Jon Carroll summed the situation up best in a commentary published Monday in the San Francisco Chronicle, calling it an outrage that the Vatican, for example, is “still blinded by its own self-righteousness.”

Carroll wrote about the moving Catholic ceremony in which church leaders including the pope wash the feet of a dozen men, “following the footsteps of Jesus and demonstrating the humility that he both taught and practiced.”

“Wouldn’t it be amazing – follow me here – if the pope would wash the feet of the men who had been abused by priests? It would be ecclesiastical in nature, not legal. It would be an expression of love; no documents would be signed. It would indicate that the pope understands his position; that he is a servant of the church, and not its master.”

But Carroll knows, and so do I, that most people in positions of authority do not see themselves anymore as public servants.

Wrote Carroll, “The pope is a big shot; he acts like a big shot; he is protected by lesser but still powerful big shots. This is power politics; this is about protecting the church. The victims of the abuse are secondary. Protect the institution.”

At the last minute Aaron Vargas is being offered a deal that will let him plea to voluntary manslaughter in McNeill’s death. Vargas faces up to six years in prison if he accepts.

We can’t ignore the fact that Aaron Vargas killed a man, whether it was intentional or not.

Had we listened earlier, however, to the voices of Aaron Vargas and the other victims this might not have happened. Why is that so difficult for the Vatican or any other authority figure to understand?

***

Enjoy our free stuff? Subscribe now to TheAVA.com for just $25 a year and get access to the entire site.

What has me bellied up to the bar of disbelief is the persistence of a cadre of Northern California activists to demean anyone who raises questions about anything related to the saga of Judi Bari, the late Earth First organizer who survived a 1990 car bombing only to die of breast cancer seven years later.

Bari was a rowdy character who reshaped the North Coast environmental movement, pushing aside the boys in Earth First to gain control over a wobbly series of public protests against corporate logging practices. She loved to project a tough image, but insiders knew of her insecurities and her tendency to swagger despite doubts. Bari, in short, shared the traits of most leaders: idealistic yet pragmatic, brash and brainy but capable of breaking under stress, and at times brutally honest, cleverly manipulating, and yes, on occasion, deceitful.

It’s also true that despite Bari’s shortcomings, no one since her death has ever come close to achieving her notoriety, and her accomplishments in radical environmental politics on the North Coast.

Bari to her credit privately disdained much of the fawning that went on around her. She knew she wasn’t a “hero,” that her successes were limited and due largely to the tenor of the times. Corporate timber companies and their excesses were easy targets, and redwoods, the trees of exploitation, are still beloved icons in the national psyche.

She also knew activists’ antics sometimes played into the hands of corporate interests, drumming up political support for the public purchase of private timberlands–lands that netted corporate renegades hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money. Texas billionaire Charles Hurwitz for one walked away with at least $300 million in cash for Headwaters Forest, far more than his soon-to-be bankrupt Pacific Lumber Co. could have ever pocketed if every last tree in the now protected 3,000-acre ancient forest had been chain sawed.

Still the Bari myth-making continues – the most recent push to canonize Bari is a Facebook web site called “In Memory of Judi Bari” – along with the bashing of anyone questioning the farce.

For the uninitiated, Bari was seriously injured in a 1990 car bombing in Oakland. Police investigators contend that if the crude device had exploded as designed, Bari could have been killed.

Incredibly on the eve of the 20th anniversary of the bombing, the true facts of the incident remain elusive.

In a Feb. 15 blog posted on theava.com entitled “Looking for Truth, Finding Myths,” an obvious question was once again asked. Who bombed Judi Bari?

I observed that “its mind numbing to think someone has been living with the secret for two decades while moving among us.”

“Sadly, two decades of myth-making among Bari supporters, government agents and the media have not helped serious fact finders,” was the conclusion.

After several days of silence, a ragtag band of Bay Area radicals lashed out.

“The real issue is not the identity of the bomber,” pontificated Steven Ongerth, a self-described labor organizer and ferry boat captain. Ongerth lists Bari on a very long list of “heroes.”

Ongerth, an Alameda resident, says he’s written a book on Bari’s ties with timber workers, a developing relationship that he and others believe led to an attempt on her life. He’s also one of the honorary “administrators” of the “I Remember Judi Bari” web site. Most are familiar North Coast names: Darryl Cherney, Betty and Gary Ball, Alicia Littletree, Nick Wilson, and the two Bari daughters, Lisa and Jessica.

Ongerth in a posted response to theava.com dismissed the call for the Bari bomber to be finally identified.

In the larger scheme of things, Ongerth said “the identity of the bomber is not particularly significant.”

And in characteristic fashion for Bari loyalists, Ongerth called theava.com blog “garbage” and “yellow journalism.”

But as typical of the “We are right, you are wrong” crowd, Ongerth urged true believers “to respond to this garbage, but please do so respectfully and honestly. Debate the content on its merits. Refrain from name calling or stooping to the level of mudslinging.”

Oh. Okay.

Still Ongerth and the web site promoters weren’t done.

“The level of intellectual dishonesty and revisionist history on the part of those claiming to be “looking for truth, and finding myths” is staggering. The title of this blog entry should have been “running from truth and creating myth. Shameful indeed!”

Gene Lawhorn, another so-called site “administrator,” berated Anderson Valley Advertiser Publisher Bruce Anderson, and publicly asked, “So did Geniella drink Bruce Anderson’s kool-aid or was he always an asshole?”

Not surprisingly Ongerth and other Bari worshippers described themselves as “ethical and intellectually honest.”

Of course.

So I’m asking them to truly honor Bari 20 years after the bombing by helping get to the truth of the matter.

Here are the known facts:

A pipe bomb was planted under the driver’s seat in Bari’s Subaru. Someone a few days later wrote a letter under the pen name of the “Lord’s Avenger” and claimed responsibility. Bomb-making experts, citing the accuracy of the letter’s contents, concluded that the author of the Lord’s Avenger letter either assembled the device, or was there when it was.

DNA testing was done later, and the results showed a man and woman had handled the envelope. The woman sealed the flap with her saliva, and the man licked the stamp and placed it on the envelope for mailing.

If we knew who these people were, we’d have the answer we all seek.

But we’re not likely to know anytime soon because the cast of characters surrounding this incident won’t voluntarily submit DNA samples to narrow the list of possible suspects.

So the bomber and accomplice will continue to hide among us, basking in the knowledge that people like Ongerth don’t think their identities are really all that “significant.”