Shasta County Superior Courthouse.
It takes a strong person to go up against an entire county, its CEO, and board, but that’s exactly what former Shasta County Public Defender Jeffrey Gorder did yesterday inside Shasta County Superior Court.
Honorable Shasta County Judge Benjamin Hannah presided over the Thursday morning hearing that featured plaintiff Gorder and defendants Shasta County, Shasta County CEO David Rickert and the Shasta County Board of Supervisors.
Hannah started with a disclosure that his spouse works for the Shasta County District Attorney’s office, but had no involvement with this case in any way.
The crux of Gorder’s complaint was that Chriss Street’s appointment as Shasta County’s healthcare consultant was both illegal and wasteful.
Street is best known in Shasta County for his leadership position with the New California State secessionist organization, his close ties with District 1 Supervisor Kevin Crye, and his editorial position with North State MAGA media group, Mountain Top Media.
Chriss Street, Shasta County’s controversial healthcare consultant. Photo by Mike Chapman for A News Cafe.
The plaintiff, retired attorney and former Shasta County Public Defender Jeffrey Gorder, worked in the legal system long enough to recognize that the County’s recent process to hire Chriss Street for healthcare consultant was fraught with missteps, favoritism and county contract violations that didn’t pass the legal sniff test.
Gorder’s first shot across the bow was to request an immediate restraining order in an attempt to return Shasta County to status quo, and bring Street’s employment to an immediate stop to prevent further potential financial blood-letting, redundancy, corruption and organizational damage.
‘Delicate judicial power’
Shasta County Judge Benjamin Hannah
However, Judge Benjamin Hannah denied Gorder’s complaint, not on the merits of the case, but because of Gorder’s request for a TRO as a means to remove Street from his new county gig. Hannah explained that Gorder’s allegations of the county’s misuse of $40,000 in public funds for Street’s contract did not rise to the level of a TRO’s “delicate judicial power, to be exercised with great caution.”
Hannah further characterized it as potentially irresponsible for the court to grant a TRO against Shasta County. He said that in effect, a court-ordered TRO against Shasta County would be asking the judicial branch to interfere with or stop an action made by Shasta County Board of Supervisors, an executive branch.
“Then that would send the message to everyone in the community that every single decision that an executive branch makes is subject to judicial review,” Hannah said.
“Again, Mr. Gorder’s case may have merit, but at this stage, I really have to have that type of irreparable harm that would justify me issuing a temporary restraining order,” Hannah said.
“Basically, anybody who’s a Shasta County taxpayer, not just Mr. Gorder, has an interest in seeing (public) funds are spent properly,” Judge Hannah continued. “The plaintiff — Mr. Gorder — surely has an interest in governance and making sure his tax dollars aren’t wasted.”
Shortly before the hearing was adjourned, Judge Hannah left a window of opportunity ajar for Gorder by mentioning “potential remedies that are available down the road,” such as disgorgement, or on a notice basis in a preliminary injunction issued in advance of the ultimate finding on the merits of a case.
Thursday’s hearing focused more on TROs, and less about Gorder’s case. Consequently, what never came to light in Hannah’s courtroom was the full extent of Gorder’s voluminous collection of highly odiferous examples of Shasta County misgovernance regarding Street’s hiring.
On May 8, Gorder filed a lawsuit against named defendants Shasta County CEO David J. Rickert, the County of Shasta and the Shasta County Board of Supervisors. Gorder’s complaint chronicles a host of suspicious behaviors, wasteful spending, cronyism and violations of the County’s own competitive contract guidelines. Gorder maintains that the defendants’ actions were motivated by a premeditated scheme, led by Shasta County Board Chair Kevin Crye, to secure county employment in some capacity for controversial political extremist Chriss Street.
Under Crye’s control, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors majority voted to authorize CEO Rickert to sign the personal services agreement for Street. Before Street was formally hired in February, CEO Rickert jumped the gun and publicly proclaimed during a board of supervisors meeting his support of Street as the County’s healthcare consultant.
Outside counsel represents Shasta County
Joanna Gin
During the hearing, Shasta County Counsel Joseph Lamour sat mutely by as Joanna Gin, an outside attorney with Best Best & Krieger, did all the talking to represent the County and its defendants. Gin is a member of BBK’s Municipal Law practice group. She joined BBK in 2018 and serves as assistant city attorney for the City of Winters.
She, like Hannah, said Gorder didn’t meet the TRO threshold, and there’s no proven irreparable harm, or immediate danger to Gorder. Also, she said a valid contract exists between Street and the county as approved by the board of supervisors. She requested that the court recognize that validity. She reasoned that if the court granted the TRO, it would bring all other county contracts to a “complete halt.”
About those merits
Retired attorney/former Shasta County Public Defender Jeff Gorder. Photo by Mike Chapman for A News Cafe.
As Gorder noted, Judge Hannah did not address the merits of Gorder’s lawsuit, but rather, the judge focused upon the TRO.
Here, our focus is on Gorder’s complaint. You can read Gorder’s entire complaint here.
Gorder’s 23-page complaint against Shasta County, Shasta County CEO David Rickert and Shasta County Board of Supervisors was filled with dramatic, often damning information.
Here are some highlights:
• Street had advanced notice of the County’s intent to seek the services of a healthcare consultant, which put Street at a competitive advantage over other prospective consultants. This is in violation of of the County Contracts Manual which requires true competitive bidding for personal services.
• Gorder believes that District 1 Supervisor Kevin Crye first met Street during Crye’s campaign for supervisor, and that Crye encouraged Street to apply for several county jobs. Street subsequently unsuccessfully applied for several county jobs, beginning with the CEO position, which seemed destined for Street, until the background check. Once the background check was complete, the full board rescinded the CEO employment offer to Street without explanation.
• Gorder says that following Street’s inability to secure the CEO job, Street went on a vendetta against the County with false accusations, such as that the County engaged in at least one illegal financial transaction, and that the County was covering up severe financial crisis. Street filed a letter with the board in which he accused the County of racism during the CEO recruitment process, claiming he was asked during his interview about his ethnicity, which is Hispanic. Street claimed the County discriminated against him during the hiring process because the County feared his Hispanic ethnicity would somehow lead him to uncover pervasive corruption and racism at the Shasta county Sheriff’s Office and Board.
• Street claimed that former District 3 Supervisor Mary Rickert conspired with others to frame him at the YMCA by initiating a “sting” operation involving an underage female so he wouldn’t be hired as CEO.
• Gorder believes that despite Street’s obvious animus toward the County, and Street’s unsubstantiated claims against County officials, Street continued to work with Crye on a number of projects and issues from April 2023 to the present.
• Gorder believes that in 2023 Crye attempted to pressure CEO Rickert to hire Street for a position within the County, which was ultimately unsuccessful due to push back from County staff. Also, CEO Rickert told then-supervisors Rickert and Tim Garman that he would never hire Street for a position in the County.
• In 2024 Street applied to be the Chief Financial Officer for Shasta County’s HHSA. Crye and Rickert tried to pressure County staff to hire Street, but staff pushed back because staff believed that such an agreement was intended as a quid pro quo for personal services Street had provided Crye, and was therefore illegal.
• Crye made it known to County staff that he wanted to get Street a position with the County in order to compensate Street for work he’d been doing for Crye.
• Between February 22, 2025, to March 2, 2025, Gorder sent three emails to CEO Rickert, none of which were ever answered. The emails indicated to CEO Rickert that Gorder was considering filing a lawsuit challenging Street’s consulting agreement, and requesting any explanation as to why Street’s scope of work was dated on December 2, 2024, eight days before the healthcare consultant recruitment was announced publicly. Gorder also asked why CEO Rickert did not attach Street’s scope of work to the board packet for the meeting when the board was asked to approve Street as the healthcare consultant.
• Gorder says that Street was chosen as a consultant because of his relationship with Crye, and Crye’s intention to commit the County to (Dr. Paul) Dhanuka’s plan to build a medical school and a chemical-dependency treatment center, as well as to reward Street for his work for Crye over the previous two years.
• Street’s scope of work could have been efficiently and effectively undertaken by current County staff in the HHSA and Public Health Department, without the necessity of utilizing additional County funds to hire an outside consultant.
• CEO Rickert rejected the proposal submitted by a far more qualified healthcare consultant, Facktor, a nationwide healthcare consultancy firm with over 70 consultants and a proven track record of healthcare consultancy work.
• The County’s decision to enter into the Agreement with Street constitutes an illegal act and a waste of and/or injury to the County’s funds and/or property. The Board and CEO Rickert authorized the Agreement with Street despite the fact that Street had demonstrated himself to be a potential liability to the County, and despite the fact that Street had apparently received advanced notice of the County’s intention to hire a healthcare consultant. As Gorder put it during his statements before Judge Hannah Thursday, “the fix was in.”
Does Street + Crye = quid pro quo?
Former District 2 Supervisor Tim Garman.
Gorder is not alone in crying foul regarding Street’s appointment. In January then-District 2 Supervisor Tim Garman sounded the alarm in a letter to the editor about a potential quid pro quo situation that centered upon Crye and his possible obligations to Street.
“Now that a contract has been signed between Shasta County and Chriss Street, I believe a crime has been committed with quid pro quo,” wrote Garman in an excerpt of his letter.
“This can no longer be overlooked, and needs to be fully investigated by the District Attorney’s office, and anyone else who is interested. If this type of governance is allowed to continue for two more years, our beloved Shasta County will be in a dark, dark place. It will take decades to undo the damage that is being done.”
Former Hospital CEO reports County CEO’s deception by omission
Randall Hempling
Another person who’s been highly critical of Street’s hiring is Randall Hempling, former Shasta Regional Medical Center CEO. Hempling had such strong negative opinions about Street’s appointment that Hempling submitted a bluntly worded statement that was included with Gorder’s complaint.
In addition to being SRMC’s former CEO, Hempling’s expert information and insights on the Street healthcare consultant appointment came from his experience as CEO of five other hospitals in California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Kansas. What’s more, Hempling worked in healthcare planning and healthcare system design in Texas and Kansas.
Among Hempling’s more noteworthy observations were statements regarding CEO Rickert’s bizarre actions – or inactions – following Rickert’s attendance at a Shasta Health Assessment and Redesign Collaborative (SHARC) meeting:
“After the Shasta County Board of Supervisors voted on December 10, 2024 to explore the idea of hiring a healthcare consultant to address current healthcare needs in the County, County CEO David Rickert attended the December 13, 2024 SHARC meeting. At that meeting, CEO Rickert was educated about the tremendous efforts over many years that various healthcare organizations in SHARC had been engaged in to recruit physicians to the County. He was advised of the many challenges that rural counties like Shasta face when recruiting physicians; that this was not just a local problem but a nationwide problem. He was essentially told that everything was being done that could be done to recruit physicians and other healthcare workers to the County,” Hempling wrote.
“It is noteworthy that during his Board Report at the December 19, 2024 Board meeting, which was the first Board meeting after his meeting with SHARC, he made no mention of attending the SHARC meeting. In addition, during his Board Report at the next Board meeting on January 7, 2025, he mentioned that he had attended the SHARC meeting but said nothing whatsoever about what he had been told by the healthcare leaders present which was essentially that hiring a healthcare consultant was a waste of time and money because it would be redundant of all the work that was already being done and had been done for over a decade by Partnership, SHARC and the various healthcare providers that composed SHARC.”
‘A project that will never materialize …’
Former District 3 Supervisor Mary Rickert.
Former District 3 Supervisor Mary Rickert was among those who attended the Thursday hearing at the Shasta County Courthouse in support of Gorder’s efforts.
Later, she reflected upon Judge Hannah’s ruling.
“I was not surprised at the outcome of today’s proceedings,” Rickert said. “I’m hopeful that Mr. Gorder will continue to proceed with his efforts. I do believe there is merit to his case, and that the County General Fund dollars should not be spent on an unqualified consultant for a project that will never materialize.”
Gorder’s going strong
Jeff Gorder speaks during the public comment period at a Shasta County Board of Supervisors meeting. Photo by Mike Chapman for A News Cafe.
Gorder is aware of potential legal remedies at his disposal. Even so, Gorder said that although he was disappointed in Judge Hannah’s decision, he was not surprised.
“Showing that I would suffer ‘irreparable harm’ if the TRO is not granted, which was my burden at the hearing, is difficult when the main harm is the continued expenditure of tax dollars,” Gorder said.
“That doesn’t mean the case is weak, and the Judge made it clear his ruling denying the TRO had nothing to do with the merits of the case. We will soon begin the discovery phase of the litigation as we prepare for the trial, which is currently scheduled for next year.”
Gorder said that the trial should begin in April, 2026.
“Wheels of justice turn slowly,” Gorder said.
Editor’s note: This story was revised at 7:20 a.m. to include additional hyperlinks and to repair broken links. 10:25 update: This story’s headline was revised for accuracy.
