Sheriff Doug Thomas and PCSO Politics

These are my thoughts, and they are based on what was going on with Mike Gamberg before, during and after the murders. This information is based on articles in the Feather River Bulletin, so I guess you could say this information is VETTED.

I have said before, if your really interested in this case you need to subscribe to Newspaper.com to get all the information on what was going on at the time of these murders. You can subscribe for the 7 day free trial and you will not be disappointed.

7 Feb. 1974: Mike Gamberg, 27 of Chester joined the Plumas Co Sheriffs Dept. Feb 1. He was previously employed by Safeway in Quincy. He previously taught Judo and Jujitsu to the police officers in the Bay Area. He also worked with Juveniles in Freemont, Union City

1975:

Mike Gamberg, instructor for adult lessons in Judo at the FRC.

May 26, 1977

He is quoted as saying, in an article titled "County Law enforcers "back in the dark ages". I bring home $157.00 a week and a family cannot live on that protested Gamberg. The people in this community are making us second class citizens."

Oct 19.1978:

Mike Gamberg Fired: the reasons given are:

1. Failure to show interest in job. (lateness of reports, continual tardiness, questionable absenses, careless handling of weapons, failure to make required follow ups.

2. Conduct unbecoming an officer. (threatening citizens while in uniform in public places, tardiness in paying debts, carelessness involving weapons

3. Falsification of reports after warning.

Jan 11, 1979

Gamberg wins back job. The judge said the records clearing show he was an extremely poor "paper work" deputy. He also found Gamberg to be guilty of nine "minor incidents of censurable conduct." The hearing officer also discounted Gambergs claims that Sheriff Thomas' actions against him were political. (THIS HEARING TOOK PLACE IN SUSANVILLE)

March 4, 1981:

Mike Gamberg fired from Sheriffs Dept

Quote from Doug Thomas regarding the firing: "When you are personally involved like I was the last time this happened to Mike, it's hard to say it isn't political. This is the action of the superiors," Thomas claimed. They wrote him up for the report thing. He was told after the last time (termination) in writing that he would fill out reports properly, Thomas said. Just because you make a few big arrest, it doesn't mean you are excluded from routine things like filling out reports. I understand some of them had wrong dates, sometimes incorrect information, some were sloppily done or not done at all. Thomas said Gamberg had not worked for the past few weeks because of a job related injury. Thomas also went on to say he had filed workman's com. citing administration related stress.

April 1, 1981

He wrote an editorial on his unfair treatment by Doug Thomas.

HE WAS NOT EMPLOYED WITH THE POLICE DEPT. AT THE TIME OF THE KEDDIE MURDERS

July 14, 1982:

Jack brown has re opened the Keddie back door lounge recently once again offering complete cocktail service. According to Brown's manager MIKE GAMBERG of Quincy, most weekends will feature live music.

March 22, 1989:

I'll just refer to this as the cat story. Maybe I will copy and paste this story if I have time.

May 8, 1991:

Plumas Co Sheriff's Deputy Michael Gamberg has filed a civil lawsuit seeking $850,000 in damages in a slander suit.

Nov 17, 1993:

A conversation between new district attorney Jim Reichle and a reporter

Q:I appears that the old prosecuter had a lot of cases back up

A: Ha ha, that's an understatement... Its taken a good 6 months to work through the stuff he refused to file on. I characterize the pile as being some 5 or 6 feet deep that simply were not acted on. I think at this point we've taken care of all were going to be able to take care of.
He stated that he wouldn't touch anything that had the name (Detective Mike Gamberg) on it.

These are just a few articles I copied. I hope they are not too jumbled and you can follow them. He blamed Doug Thomas for his firing just like he has blamed the unsolved Keddie murders on Doug Thomas.

Great to hear from you JMO. Mike is now around 72 years old. I am gonna copy these articles involving him according to date.

May 1987 FRB:

A criminal slander complaint has been filed against a local man for allegedly charging misconduct against the Plumas County Sheriffs Department. The Sheriff's Department said local businessman and relief disc-jockey for radio station KPCO Pete DeCaro is named in the complaint. According to Undersheriff Steve Wright, DeCara falsely claimed that Deputy Gamberg's son, Michael Jr., had been involved in an accident resulting from drunk driving and that Lamb and Gamberg covered the 3lUll(BJJJ(B incident up. "DeCaro alleged a 'white-wash.' After 20 days of investigation we found his allegations to be totally without fact," said Wright. He added that slander charges can be filed against a suspect for making false, malicious allegations. According to Wright, DeCaro contacted the Sheriff's Department with allegations of misuse of position by Deputy Mike Gamberg and Sergeant Robert Lamb. But DeCaro , said that he "never accused anybody of anything or made a complaint." Wright charges that DeCaro claimed that Sergeant Lamb did not give Gamberg Jr. a field sobriety test and that he took the 20-year old home without taking a report. Lamb was never at the scene, Wright added. DeCaro' s reported allegations were aired on radio station KPCO by station owner Ralph Wittick, Wright said. The results of the official investigation stated that Gamberg Jr. swerved to miss a deer on Chandler Road at about CONTINUED TO TWELVE

Slander... CONTINUED FROM PAGE ONE 12:30 a.m. March 6 and hit a rock wall on private property. His $350 car was totalled, but he was uninjured. Gamberg Jr. contacted the property owner and informed him of the property damage which amounted to knocking a few rocks from his wall. He repaired the wall the following day, Wright said. Gamberg Jr. phoned his father, who was on duty that evening. Gamberg arrived on the scene, not Sergeant Lamb as stated in DeCaro's allegation, Wright said. According to Wright, the tow-truck driver dispatched to the scene drove young Gamberg home. Both the landowner and the tow truck driver told the Sheriffs Department that Gamberg Jr. "snowed no outward signs of intoxication, and the tow truck driver reported there was no odor of alcohic beverage on his breath," Wright said. According to Wright, law officers are not required to administer field sobriety tests unless the suspect shows visible signs of intoxication. They are required to file a report with the CHP only if damage is more than $500. The car was only worth $350, and the property damage was negligible. "What disturbed us to a great degree was that Wittick said on the radio that according to his investigation there was substantiation to the allegations, and that the sheriff and I refused to return his calls. We're at a loss to explain why Wittick has such vehement opposition to the sheriffs office," Wright said. Wright added that the sheriffs office is seeking redress through the criminal courts. Wittick said he had interviewed Wright in April, and was told internal investigators were looking into the matter. He said Wright promised to return his call within a few days and never did so. Wittick added he had tried several times over a period of about two weeks to contact Wright, Sheriff MacKenzie and Gamberg, and that they wouldn't get back to him. Wittick called the slander allegations "ridiculous." He also said that DeCaro was neither his employee, nor his source for the information. But Wright said that they had been told independently that DeCaro had discussed the allegations thoroughly with Wittick. Deputy Gamberg will file civil charges, he said. District Attorney Tom Buckwalter said he had not yet reviewed the case and did not know whether criminal charges would be filed.

Sept 1987 FRB

Hide article text (OCR)
OA removed from slander case By Mark Michaels Staff Writer In a sometimes emotional hearing before Justice Court Roger Settlemire Sept. 22, Plumas County District Attorney Thomas Buckwalter was "recused," or removed, from the position of prosecuting attorney on the pending slander case against Ralph Wittick and Peter De Caro, both of Quincy. The two stand accused of criminally slandering sheriffs deputy Michael Gamberg in regard to a traffic accident his son, Michael Gamberg Jr., was involved in last March. The use of the criminal slander charge is, in the words of one attorney, "almost unheard of." In an earlier interview with Feather Publishing, Buckwalter said that he had "never heard of the section (of the Penal Code) until the complaint was brought to me." Representing Ralph Wittick and Peter De Caro, respectively, attorneys Rex Gay of Susanville and Richard Young of Reno called as an adversarial witness Linda Gamberg, wife of the alleged victim and a secretary in the district attorney's office. Gamberg, asked when she had become aware of the accident, testified that her husband had told her of it the day after it happened, and that her son had "told me that he had had about two beers prior to the accident." CONTINUED TO PAGE 12

DA... CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 Her statement was the first testimony that Gamberg Jr. had been drinking on the night of the crash. In response to questions by Young, Gamberg said that she had been upset by rumors she had heard regarding the accident, and about the conduct of her son and her husband, and had experienced anger at the defendants. When asked if she was convinced that people were making false statements about the case, she replied, "Most definitely." Young then asked her to describe the size and physical configuration of the district attorney's office. In response, Linda Gamberg said that the staff shared "very small quarters" and that "the whole office was probably less than 15 feet" from one side to the other. When asked by Young if a person in the office could overhear the conversations of other employees, including those of the district attorney and deputy district attorney when their doors were open, she said, "Most definitely." Gamberg testified that she had mentioned the circumstances surrounding the remarks allegedly made about the conduct of her husband and son to the five female staff members of the district attorney's office, and that at one point she became quite upset about the situation: "I began crying in the office and they (the female staffers) consoled me." When asked if she had discussed the circumstances with either Buckwalter or Deputy District Attorney Mike Jamison, her response was "No sir, not as I recall." Rex Gay then asked Gamberg if she knew that her husband, Deputy Gamberg, had talked to the district attorney about filing a complaint: "I just know that he talks to the district attorney quite frequently." She testified that she had processed some of the paperwork in opposition to the defendants' motion for reclusal. When asked by Gay if she felt like "an unnamed victim," she replied, "I didn't feel that way until today." Under cross-examination by Deputy Attorney General Clayton Tanaka, representing the district attorney, Gamberg said that she had had no contact with either Buckwalter or Jamison regarding the case. Of Buck-waiter, she said "I've never known him to do anything but come to his own conclusions." Tanaka then put Buckwalter on the stand. He testified that he had had no contact with Linda Gamberg about the case, and said that he had filed the action against Wittick and De Caro "for the same reason I file any criminal casebecause I had received a police report indicating that a statute might have been violated." Cross-examined by Rex Gay as to a possible conflict of interest in his prosecuting the case, Buckwalter firmly replied, "As far as any question of conflict of interest, there is none." Gay then asked, "Your ethics are such that you would not become involved in a case where there was an appearance of conflict?" Visibly angry, Buckwalter said "My ethics are such that I would prosecute my own brother if the facts supported it." In closing arguments, Richard Young said that the small size of the district attorney's office, the close relationship between a relative of the victim and the district attorney's staff, and the closely knit nature and size of the community would give at least the appearance of a potential conflict of interest. "She (Linda Gamberg) has intimate knowledge and her coworkers have intimate knowledge of this case," said Young, pointing out that, by her testimony, Gamberg considers herself a victim of the alleged slander. "She has had direct involvement in the preparation of papers related to this case... A first-year law student would say, Gee, this looks bad'." Rex Gay reasserted that there was a reasonable possibility of conflict of interest, and that that was grounds enough for the reclusal of the district attorney. He praised Buckwalter as an honest and ethical man, but said that the district attorney could be influenced by those who work closely with him: "Tom is a human being like everybody else." In his arguments, Clayton Tanaka said that the people of the state of California, not Deputy Gamberg, were the clients of the district attorney. Tanaka added that the mere fact that a relative of the victim of the alleged crime worked in close proximity to Buckwalter was not enough cause to recluse the district attorney. Buckwalter told the judge that before he had become district attorney, he had filed civil suits against the Sheriff's Department, and repeated that "there is absolutely no way" that Funds... CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 are generally not that high as to create a major problem with a reduced teacher staff. "Some schools like Pioneer (in Quincy) are almost, full, but others like Quincy Elementary are not full at all," he said. He added that Plumas school district is also luckier than some districts which have no reserve funds at all this year. Warren placed the blame for lack of school revenues from the state upon Deukmejian. "The governor and (state) Superintendent of Education (Bill) Honig got into a battle," he said. "The governor could have given the surplus to education, but he wouldn't bend. Your Hideaway Resort Motel Completely refurnished Daily - Weekly - Monthly R.V. Parking Available Quiet - Secluded - Off Hwy. 89 W&jmy Round Valley Reservoir Road, Greenville (916) 284-7915 he would allow himself to be pressured by anyone, including a deputy sheriff, to pursue a case if he didn't believe the case had merit. After hearing arguments from both sides, Judge Settlemire ruled that he had found sufficient grounds to grant the reclusal motion. "It is almost impossible for someone in Mr. Buckwalter's position not to feel some emotional excitement and interest" in a case involving someone who worked in his office, said Settlemire, who added that he felt it would be impossible for Buckwalter to "insulate himself from the case when he is working hand-in-hand with Mrs. Gamberg." Settlemire granted the motion for both defendants, and set Oct. 10 at 10 a.m. as the time for a pretrial conference. A representative from the California attorney general's office will be assigned to prosecute the case in place of the district attorney.

Oct. 1987 FRB

October 21, 1987 Slander charges dropped against KPCO owner By Mark. Michaels Staff Writer A misdemeanor charge of slander against Quincy radio station owner Ralph Wittick was dismissed by Justice Court Judge Roger Settlemire Oct. 13. The dismissal was requested by Deputy Attorney General George C. Spanos, who had been assigned to prosecute the case after Plumas County District Attorney Thomas Buckwalter had been removed from it due to a potential appearance of conflict of interest. Linda Gamberg, the wife of deputy sheriff Michael Gamberg, who is the alleged victim of the slander, is an employee in the district attorney's office. The case against Wittick stemmed from a radio broadcast on station KPCO during which 'If we had started out as the original prosecuting agency, probably we would not have decided to file charges against Mr. Wittick.' George C. Spanos the station owner allegedly commented in a slanderous manner on the actions of deputy Gamberg at the scene of an accident his son was involved in last March 6. Explaining to Feather Publications why he had requested the dismissal, Spanos said: "We took a real close look at the transcript of the radio broadcast along with all of the other factors involved --including the factor of 'can we win this case if it goes to trial.' We then determined that prosecution of Mr. Wittick was not advisible. "If we had started out as the original prosecuting agency," said Spanos, "probably we CONTINUED TO PAGE 11
Hide article text (OCR)
. Slander... CONTINUED FROM PAGE ONE would not have decided to file charges against Mr. . Wittick." Said Wittick of the dismissal: "All I did was report something that happened. I'm checking with my attorneys and there's a possibility that a claim against the county may be filed." Charges against Quincy resident Pete DeCaro, also charged with slander against Gamberg, are still in effect, Spanos said: "The situation with Mr. DeCaro - is somewhat different, in that he is accused of making slanderous comments on several occasions to several individuals, as opposed to the one allegedly broadcast by Mr. Wittick. "However, we are still looking at that case, and at this time, we've made absolutely no determination as to how we're going to proceed on the DeCaro case." DeCaro is due in court Oct. 27, when it is expected that Spanos will announce whether his office will pursue the case or move for dismissal.

In 1990 Mike was once again making headlines in Quincy

unauthorized background check by members of his department on district attorney candidate Michael Crane. Acting on advice from Plumas County Counsel Rob Shulman, McKenzie said he could offer no comment or response to the accusations made on Crane's behalf by San Diego attorney Roy R. Withers. In a letter dated Feb. 15 to Plumas County District Attorney Tom Buckwalter, Withers reported that Crane had been contacted by a friend on the Klamath Falls, Ore., Police Department regarding an inquiry into his past by Plumas County Deputy Sheriff Michael Gamberg. Withers said the request for information was being made by Gamberg, who reported it as being "in order to conduct a background check on Mr. Crane consistent with Mr. Crane's renewal application for a concealed weapons permit." Crane's current Measles reported in One confirmed case and two probable cases of Rubeola, or hard measles, have been reported to the Plumas County Health Department in the week. accused of unofficial concealed weapon permit expires April 21, but he insists he has not filed a renewal application. MacKenzie substantiated the claim last week, saying that no such application was on file for Crane, nor was there any current investigation involving Crane underway by his department. According to Withers, the inquiries by Gamberg about Crane's previous marriage (which ended 12 years ago) and his professional relations with the school board where he worked as a high school principal are "tantamount to invasion of Crane's privacy and were done under the color of authority." Wither's also commented in his letter to Buckwalter that Gamberg is the husband of the district attorney's secretary, Linda Gamberg. Crane is challenging incumbent Buckwalter, his former boss, for the position of Plumas County district attorney in the June election. In his Feb. 28 response to Wither's letter, Buckwalter wrote in regards to Gamberg's inquiries, "I have no authority to authorize one (background check) related to Quincy, California concealed weapons, nor have 1 done so, nor do I know any details about any background check conducted by the Sheriff's Department." Gamberg said last week that he could make no comment regarding Mike Gamberg county aged children should check their children's records. Children in school would have already been immunized ,t , 0'i 95971 (916) 283-uo his alleged background check on Crane. "When there's litigation involved," he said, "we (department employees) cannot comment without authorization, I don't have that authorization." Crane said that he feels that the motive behind the alleged background check was three-fold. "From all appearances it was a conspiracy," he said. "First, to prevent me from becoming a candidate, second, to prevent me from winning and third, to get me out of the DA's office." Crane disputes firing By Jane Braxton Little Staff Writer The Plumas County Board of Supervisors has fired Deputy District Attorney Michael A. Crane over allegations that he was insubordinate, dishonest, and misused power while in office. Crane's attorney, Roy R. Withers, blasted the termination as an action taken without verification and based on "outrageous accusations" with "absolutely no specificity." "They looked for something to hang Mike Crane with. They think they found it, and it's pretty petty," Withers said. Withers also suggested that the firing may have political overtones. "In a light most favorable, (the year o continuous publication. investigation The alleged background investigation by Gamberg was apparently initiated a month prior to Crane's filing his candidacy March 9 for the district attorney election. He added that he felt there was an "apparent relationship between Gamberg and the DA's office," he said. "He's up there sometimes twice a day for no apparent reason. I've brought this to Buckwalter's attention, but he apparently has chosen to do nothing about it. This is not a healthy situation, to have a sheriffs representative bivouaced Crane's involvement in that case also led to the supervisors' charges that he was dishonest and misused his power of office, according to documents made public by Board of Supervisors Chairman Bill Coates. Crane had purchased a $39.95 "Grunt" watch from Nolan which he claimed was defective. In a series of letters written on his personal stationary, Crane accused Nolan of misleading advertisement. The supervisors accused Crane of causing criminal prosecution against Nolan "when the District Attorney had personally determined that no crime had been committed," and when Crane him- see fired, page is Wednesday, April 11, 1990 in the DA's office. It questions the element of confidentiality." INQUIRY QUESTIONABLE Klamath Falls Police Patrolman Jack Piazzini confirmed Crane's allegations last week when he was contacted by this newspaper. He said that he had been requested information by Deputy Gamberg in early February. He returned a phone message left for him by Gamberg and he called See DEPUTY, page 15 Mchae Crane X:1 Y

Hide article text (OCR)
Deputy. . . Continued from page 1 Gamberg at the Plumas County Sheriffs Department. "He (Gamberg) explained he was doing a background investigation in regards to Crane's concealed weapons permit which would soon be up for renewal," Piazzini said. "He asked about personal history," including Crane's relationship with his previous wife. Piazzini. also said that Gamberg told him he had contacted several people regarding Crane's background, specifically in the community of Tulclake, where1 Crane had lived before moving to Klamath Falls. Within days of his conversation with Gamberg, Piazzini received a phone call from Tulelake Police Chief Joe Galeoto. Apparently, he loo received a call from a Plumas County Sheriff's deputy requesting background information on Crane. Galeoto told Piazzini that the caller requested background information, but made no mention of a weapon's permit or application for renewal according to Piazzini. 'The caller," according to Piazzini, "asked only about Crane's stability or instability." Galeoto was unavailable for comment last week, but his staff reported that they "have received several phone calls regarding Crane, beginning a few months ago," with the majority of the requests for information coming from Plumas County. Shulman was unavailable for comment Friday, but Deputy Plumas County Counsel Mike Jamison said that the office would decline to comment on Crane's allegations at this time. District Attorney Buckwalter said that there has been no request made to his office to investigate wrongdoings within the Sheriff's Department regarding Crane's background check. "They would probably ask the AG (Attorney General's office)," he said. "There's no investigation to my knowledge underway." As to the allegation of an alleged conspiracy between his office and the Sheriff's Department, Buckwalter would only say, "I don't think it deserves a response." He also said that any request made to his office, by any citizen, to investigate the Sheriff's Department would be turned over to the attorney general.

Editor: If the charges against Mr. Crane have any merit, why did Mike Gamberg go to such great lengths and indulge in such low tactics as snooping into Mr. Crane's personal affairs? Is Mike Gamberg difacto Sheriff of Plumas County? If Mr. McKenzie didn't authorize or know of these activities, who did? Mr. Stoy, perhaps? Or is anyone, other than Mike Gamberg, in charge? Perhaps Mr. Crane is quite right, and this event may point out what appears to be a very unhealthy relationship between the D.A.'s office and whoever is running the Sheriffs department. Betty Hoffman Graeagle

More articles to come (along with the cat story)

Mike's wife, Linda was a Young.

This confused me. Did Jack Young run over the cat or did Randy Sharp run over the cat?

So many stupid lawsuits. No wonder everyone was bogged down.

And, why has Mike has been on this case for eleventeen thousand years and has done nothing? Makes a person wonder. Can't be for the money. Can't be for the glory. Only thing left must be saving face. Can't think of anything else?? Wish he'd come on here and say something. If he wants to see this solved, you'd think he would. If I was still being paid as a (what is he? private investigator? Consultant??) I'd be asking some questions. FFS Six people have more interest in this case than he has shown in his hundred years.

Get rid of him, Plumas. He's a drain.

Go to the Bahamas, Mike. Nobody cares.

Isn't it ironic? I'm glad you bumped this thread up.