(RSS)
Norm Ryan Sentencing Delayed
Former Haven Humane Society CEO Norm Ryan’s sentencing has been postponed until Aug. 28 to give a new attorney (his third) time to brush up on the case in the event Ryan decides to appeal.
On that date, the court is scheduled to handle the judgment, sentencing, and if necessary, a motion for a new trial, it was decided on Tuesday.
Last month Ryan was found guilty on all five felony counts against him charging that he ripped off about $1,400 from Haven Humane Society. The jury deliberated about six hours before announcing its decision inside Judge Monica Marlow’s Shasta County Superior Courtroom.
Ryan worked at the shelter for less than a year before he was fired by the board in April of 2008, After Ryan’s departure from the animal shelter, he was the focus of a Redding Police Department investigation which led to the felony charges including identity theft, grand theft and embezzlement by a public officer.
But Ryan has a Plan B.
He has dumped Joe Gazzigli and retained Henry Salcido from Ryan’s hometown of Long Beach. You may recall that John Kucera, Ryan’s first attorney to represent him in the Haven matter, removed himself from that position after months of work on the case, stating via email at the time, “Due to a conflict of interest that arose based on my representation of a prosecution witness, I advised the court that I could no longer represent Mr. Ryan. The case was continued for Norm to obtain new counsel.”
Ryan dismissed Gazzigli shortly after the trial.
When asked for a statement regarding his change of legal counsel, Ryan said via email on Tuesday, “I am no longer represented by Joe Gazzigli and have retained the services of the Henry Salcido Law Group. Mr. Salcido and his associates have the experience and skills I will need as this case goes to the next stage. He was referred to me by a retired Superior Court Judge as one of the best - if not the best - criminal defense attorney in the state.”
Outside the courtroom, assistant D.A. Erin Dervin, the trial’s prosecutor, seemed nonplussed.
“It’s not unusual,” she said when asked for her reaction to the continuation caused by Ryan’s new attorney’s need for additional time.
“Many defendants seek motions for new trials following a guilty verdict.”
Although Ryan’s new attorney, Salcido, was not in court for his client’s ultimately continued sentencing, Salcido’s assistant, Joseph A. Weimortz, Jr., was there on Salcido’s behalf.
Weimortz declined to comment on Ryan’s case, and referred all questions to Salcido.
Background:
anewscafe.com reported when Norm Ryan was found guilty on all five counts.
Click here to read all related stories.
Click here to read the Redding Police summary of evidence.
1,151 views
Doni…What a snake in the grass this creep is. If he keeps changing lawyers, maybe he’ll get a better deal. The evidence is all there, the jury found the crook guilty. Let the thief go to prison and serve his well earned time.
This man has gotten too many chances. Put a jump suit on the dude and ship him to High desert for three hots and a cot.
Reply
Actually, this is his 4th attorney. I hope he hires attorneys until he finds one that will get to the bottom of the shenanigans at Haven. We still don’t know why Haven is “broke” do we!
Reply
somebodysafool Reply:
June 16th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
There will always be someone who thinks there are “shenanigans at Haven. So, who are you ontheroadagain? Someone denied an adoption? Were you a former fired employee? A former contracted trainer that can’t make all their $$$ using Haven’s building but not paying a cent for it’s use? Come on!! Get off your soap box and stick to the subject!! Norm’s a slimeball that stole not only from Haven, but the public and animals as well. He needs to take his punishment like a man and not the perverted little scumbag he’s proven himself to be.
Reply
ne1 Reply:
June 17th, 2009 at 11:03 am
We don’t know why Haven is broke.. It just seems oh so convenient to blame Mr. Ryan for all of their woes. An audit was done and no evidence of wrondoing was found in relation to Ryan. What’s up?? If Haven hadn’t so insanely brought in the “big guns” (and expensive ones, I mighty add) instead of dealing with this problem internally, than their reputation and finances wouldn’t be ruined, would it? I’m sure donations are down because of the bad publicity and the bad economy. But, all the people that talk about Ryan ruining Haven, should look at the root of the problem. Haven has choices on how they deal with any personnel issue. The board behaved very poorly and unprofessionally in this instance. I think the situation snowballed for Haven and turned into a public relations nightmare. You can’t blame it all on Ryan. I’m still not convinced that the Board (past or present) has their hands clean in this debacle. The Board created these problems for Haven. I think more than we know. Ultimately, how sad for the poor homeless animals–Board of Directors YOU are supposed to safeguard them. Instead you look to CYA for your bad handling of personnel matters.
Reply
It seems Norm is out to show Long Beach that everyone in Redding is wrong here except him. He originally came up to Redding to interview for the city treasurer job and when he didn’t get that he was selected for Haven’s CEO although there was a qualified animal shelter applicant.
After being fired from Haven, he filed to run for city treasurer, but evidently doesn’t get much support and drops out. He gets placed on the Police Building committee, but bails out of that because, yep, the other members and the city officials aren’t doing the right job. Interesting he was selected because of his precise accounting proceedures. Yep, the very thing he was found guilty of not doing at Haven.
I am sure he has now made himself popular with the local attorneys after firing the third one and going to one from his former residence.
Maybe they are the same ones who defended him in his suit against the city of Long Beach before he left there. Yep interesting what you can find on the internet.
It will be interesting to see what evidence his new lawyer will present that would justify a new trial. I wonder who might be sweating now?
Hopefully, some long asked questions regarding missing Haven monies might end up finally being answered. Let’s hope so.
Reply
Fight on! This whole case has stunk of vendettas and personal issues amongst those involved from day 1. This is absolutely nuts! Couldn’t the DA have better utilized her time? Perhaps on real criminals that are a danger to us all? Probation obviously feels it is necessary to waste more of our $. Think this one out. This whole case doesn’t smell right. It never has. Haven should have handled this internally for this piddly amount? According to Doni’s fabulous coverage on this case, the biggest accusations were swept away. From Doni’s detailed description of the trial (it’s like I was there–thanks Doni) it sounds like he didn’t have a vigorous defense. I think he is better off having an attorney from out of the area. It’s sad, but there are too many old relationships here in Shasta County that may have gotten in the way of justice for this guy. I’m not convinced that all parties are telling the truth, I think Preston and others are CYA-ing big time. There has to be more here. If any of us were in a situation where you were innocent and wrongly accused–you would fight, if you could (Mr. Budd Hodges get off your high horse and find your brain). It makes no sense at this point to continue fighting unless you are innocent. There has got to be something that we don’t know. Mr. Ryan, good luck to you–may your persistence pay off and the truth come out.
Reply
I am man enough to admit that I almost cried when I read about Mr. Ryan’s conviction. Doni’s coverage was pretty detailed so I can’t understand how the Jury decided as they did. I don’t want to hear that the Jury saw all the evidence (anyone who says this has never been in Court). The OJ jury saw most of the evidence, too - but I suppose people who insist that Mr. Ryan is guilty are equally insistent that Simpson did not kill Nicole and Ron, right?
Given that Mr. Ryan was home-towned by his first attorney, it is not a stretch to imagine that he could have been home-towned by his second. Call me crazy, but I suspect this “outsider” law firm is going to bring things to light without worrying about their “local” relationships. With this recent development I have gone from sad to glad. I predict that this will be quite the education on the establishment “good ol’ boys” workings here in Shasta County. - Matt
Reply
Dorine Catton Reply:
June 19th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
good old boy network, you couldn’t have said it any better than that. I am sick of them all, fat and smoking with their disablity placards!
Reply
ne1, why in the hell don’t you use your real name or are you afraid someone you know may read your dumb comments?
Dude, the man is guilty, has been found by a jury to be right on to commenting this public trickery of scaming money from a non profit.
What more do you want? Change lawyers several times and I may get a better deal and not, I’m pure and he can prove the big bad system wrong.
Norman is guilty, pure and simple, sentence him!
Next time use your real name.
Reply
ne1 Reply:
June 17th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Hey, Budd……..
You are a presumptuous individual. I would rather keep things clean and above board and don’t need to resort to name calling (as you have done with Mr. Ryan) or swearing (as you have done with me). You have a rather high opinion of yourself, and you do not present yourself well at all. Congratulations on using your “real” name, bud.
I stand by my opinion and gut instinct that something is very wrong with this whole case. Budd, guess what???? People lie on the stand, people get crummy attorneys, people get wrongly accused. Look at the stats. I hope something of this nature never happens to you. Even though I have a very low opinion of you, I still would not wish something like that on anyone. Did YOU go to the trial? Did you hear the evidence? What makes you so certain that all is well with this verdict? Budd, juries make mistakes. That’s why we have an appeal process, sir!
Get over your obsession and hatred toward your fellow man. It could be you next time.
Reply
I have read all his bad deeds and agree he smells but with all the crime out there why are they talking about five years of hard time? There are check bouncers that write checks for thousands of dollars that never see the darkness of a cell.
Am I missing something that a crime that amounts to less than $2000 amounts to that much jail time? With the California budget the way it is I can see him doing time served and communtiy servce work (like having to put all those poor animals in the gas chamber at the animal shelter. I can not imagine a worse thing to happen to anyone.)
People spay and neuter your pets! Shasta County has hundreds put to death every month. Check out Craig’s List if you want a cute kitten or puppy. Then spay or neuter it as soon as possible. Don’t let your dog or cat get pregnant just to experience the birth of a pet.
Reply
Hello Budd,
My name is Matt. Since I am using my real name (Before you have the opportunity to distract me with an immaterial tangent, yes, I was actually born Matthew), let me just say ditto to NE1’s comments. So do you want to argue her points (which are now my points) or continue to indulge in mindless invective?
By your reasoning (and my previous argument) you believe that OJ Simpson did not kill Nicole and Ron. Further, the basis of your assessment of Mr. Ryan’s guilt means that (to be consistent) you would have heaped scorn on the Brown and Goldman family for continuing to seek justice after the jury had spoken.
Let me save you time and paraphrase your feelings:
“The evidence is all there, the jury found [the crook guilty] Mr. Simpson innocent. Let the [thief] innocent man go [to prison] and enjoy [serve] his well earned [time] freedom.”
“[Norman] OJ is innocent [guilty], pure and simple, [sentence] let him go!”
This is what you thought at the time of the Simpson Trial, right Budd? - Matt[hew]
Reply
To NE1
If you are a man, I apologize for calling you a “her”. But that is one of the hazards of using fictional names. If you are, in fact, female then let me just say, “Well spoken, Madam”. - Matt
Reply
Dorine Catton Reply:
June 19th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
You sound like one of the Shasta County Good Ole Boys, am I right Mr. Grant, (Marcia or Mr. Man)?
Reply
Matt-
You are perceptive. Thank you for your kind words. Yes, I am female. And, for your information as well as Budd Hodges–I never give my name on the internet on blogs or forums. There are a lot of freaks out there trolling the net and I don’t need any hassles or people looking me up. Paranoid? Maybe. But, better safe than sorry in the crazy internet world.
Reply
Ne1 Reply:
June 18th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Matt-
I just realized that I put your tag on my mail. I didn’t know you could do that. I am still trying to get the hang of the whole blog thing. It was not my intent to make you look like you were talking to yourself. Sorry about that.
Reply
To ne1,
I’m glad you explained that. I didn’t know you could put someone else’s “tag” on your responses. It was disconcerting to see my name on things I had not said/written.
Apology accepted. -Matt
Reply
Matt and the anon ne1…O.J. was found not guilty on the first go around by 12 of his peers but guilty by a civil court, Ron Goldman etal, but what does that have to do with Norman Ryan. His jury heard all the facts.
The man faked records and stole money from Haven. All the evidence was there, what more do you want?
And NE1…we can’t be to to careful about our real name, can we. Maybe your dumb thoughts should be confined to Redding.com where all the other weirdos hang out.
Reply
ne1 Reply:
June 20th, 2009 at 1:27 am
Did the jury hear all of the facts Budd? Were you there at the trial? Did you see and hear the evidence being presented? Did it all make complete sense to you? After sitting at the trial Budd (which you must have done to be so certain of his guilt), did you have any unanswered questions? You seemed to have made up your mind about Ryan’s guilt way before the trial began. You don’t like to be challenged, but you need to be. I will stay here and continue to take you to task when I feel you are being closed minded and unfair.
Reply
WOW, I cannot believe people who defend the GUILTY, they must be emotionally tied to that dude some how. He clearly ripped the place off, a place thats already suffering from money problems and overcrowding of unwanted pets in Shasta County.
We need an outside the box thinking judge, and make that dude shovel dog poop up all day at the Rescue for 5 years , along with paying a monatary restatution. Maybe even wear a shirt around town while shopping that says ” I am a thief”.
America needs to get tougher on crime, even these non-violent criminals like what’s his name. Se , he’s so forgetable, I already forgot the losers name….
Reply
I was at the trial for an afternoon. I listened to everything that was said. I paid attention. Really.
In the four hours of court time I witnessed I caught four places where the prosecution witnesses either contradicted themselves or contradicted the prosecutor. And Ryan’s attourney said nothing. I wanted to jump out of my seat, but that wouldn’t really go well. I’d probably still be in jail. Or something.
As for Ryan ripping off $2000 from Haven- that’s a load of crap. They threw every possible charge they could at him and everything but this fell apart. The identity theft charge? That was for impersonating himself. It didn’t make sense to me either. If a guy is well enough to do that he helped his employees pay their medical bills out of his own pocket, stealing two grand makes no sense. If there was a discrepancy with a plane flight (which was actually cleared up in court for those paying attention) and a two or three hundred dollars in expenses, this is not something that is uncommon and, if you paid attention, Haven actually OWED Ryan money at the end of the day.
I suspect that he stumbled on to something embarrassing for some board members (or he just decided to do things differently,-which is why they hired him I’ll point out) and they decided that the only way they could protect their skin was to nail him to a cross. And using the good old boy’s club (or rather, The Soccer Mom Network) they did just that.
Note that the evidence the (the police) found was AFTER the haven board had copied his non-password locked hard drive and had access to his office for a week. I could make the Pope look like a mass-murdering pedophile if I had a week with his office before I called the police.
This all stinks. And it stinks bad. I hope this gets cleared up. I’m horrified. Simply horrified.
Reply