SHON NORTHAM IS A “DEFENSE” ATTORNEY IN SHASTA COUNTY. THIS PAGE IS DEDICATED TO HIM AND SEVERAL OTHER ” DEFENSE” LAWYERS IN SHASTA COUNTY. SHON NORTHAM WAS ASSIGNED TO REPRESENT ROBERT GIBBS IN HIS CRIMINAL CASES. NORTHAM HAD GIBBS’ CASE FOR APRROXIMATELY 17 MONTHS. NORTHAM FAILED FOR THE ENTIRE SEVENTEEN MONTHS TO PUT TOGETHER A SIMPLE DEFENSE FOR HIS CLIENT. IN FACT, NORTHAM DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AS HIS CLIENT SAT IN THE JAIL, INOOCENT OF MULTIPLE FELONIES THAT AMOUNTED TO A POLITICAL PROSECUTION BECAUSE GIBBS’ HAD MADE GENERALIZED THREATS AGAINST LAW ENFORCEMENT. GIBBS’ MADE THESE THREATS BECAUSE HE HAD ALREADY BEEN FALSELY ARRESTED (PROVABLE-DISMISSED AT ARRAIGNMENT) AND SHERIFF’S DEPUTEES WERE LYING IN COURT AND HIDING BEHIND IMMUNTIY LAWS AND LAWYERS INSTEAD OF ADMITTING THE ARREST WAS FALSE. GIBBS’ MADE THESE THREATS PRIVATELY ON A TELEPHONE CALL WITH A LAWYER ASSIGNED TO GIBBS’ CIVIL SUIT AGAINST THE DEPUTEES. GIBBS WAS ALSO HAVING SEVERE MENTAL PROBLEMS (P.T.S.D., POST-PARTUM DEPRESSION, SUICIDE IDEATION ETC.) AND FELT LIKE HE WAS ESSENTIALLY BEING ATTACKED BY LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. ATTORNEY SHON NORTHAM ACTED FRIENDLY TOWARDS GIBBS, OFTEN HUGGING HIM AND ONCE EVEN BROUGHT FOOD TO GIBBS HOUSE. HOWEVER, DESPITE NORTHAMS’ OUTWARD INTERACTIONS WITH GIBBS, HE WAS ALSO ALLOWING GIBBS TO GO UNDEFENDED THE ENTIRE TIME. GIBBS HAD VERY CLEAR DEFENSE PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS FOR NORTHAM AND EVEN PROVIDED HIM WITH MANY CASE CITES THAT SUPPORTED GIBBS DEFENSE. GIBBS ALSO HAD WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS DEFENSE AND REPEATEDLY ASKED NORTHAM TO INVESTIGATE THIS EVIDENCE. BECAUSE GIBBS WAS FACING SO MANY SERIOUS CHARGES, LYING WITNESSES, CORRUPT COPS AND A COMPLETELY BIASED PROSECUTOR, HE WAS AFRAID TO GO TO TRIAL WITHOUT FIRST PREPARING AN ADEQUATE DEFENSE. NORTHAM REPEATEDLY BELITTLED THE CASE LAW GIBBS SHOWED HIM AND GIBBS CHOSEN LINES OF DEFENSE. GIBBS DEFENSES INCLUDED ACTUAL INNOCENSE, LACK OF INTENT REQUIRED BY STATUTE, SELF-DEFENSE AND OTHERS. ALL OF THESE DEFENSES ARE WELL-ENSCONSED IN THE LAW AND WHOLLY APPROPRIATE DEFENSES. NORTHAM TRIED TO FORCE GIBBS TO PLEAD INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL AND REFUSED TO PREPARE ANY DEFENSE FOR GIBBS OR SPEAK TO ANY WITNESSES. HE REPEATEDLY TOLD GIBBS “THE JUDGE WON’T BELIEVE YOU” OR ‘THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WON’T CARE“. IT IS VERY BASIC LEGAL PRACTICE TO SPEAK TO WITNESSES AND TO GATHER EVIDENCE FIRST AND THEN, AND ONLY THEN, TO EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE. IN FACT, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS SAID ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THAT AN ATTORNEY WHO DOES NOT GATHER EVIDENCE FIRST CANNOT POSSIBLY KNOW THE VALUE OF THAT EVIDENCE AND THEREFORE IS INEFFECTICE AND DENIES HIS CLIENT ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION REGARDLESS OF THAT ATTORNEY’S “ASSESSMENT” OF THAT EVIDENCE. GIBBS ARGUED WITH NORTHAM FOR SEVENTEEN MONTHS, AS HE SAT IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN THE JAIL AND AS WITNESSES EITHER MOVED AWAY, DIED OR STARTED FORGETTING FACTS. GIBBS TRIED TO FIRE NORTHAM APPROXIMATELY FIFTEEN TIMES USING THE COURTS “MARSDEN” PROCESS. YOU CAN READ THE TRANSCRIPTS FROM THESE HEARINGS UNDER THE “HABEAS CORPUS” TAB ON THIS SITE. AS ONE CAN EASILY SEE FOR THEMSELVES, GIBBS DEFENSES AND WHAT HE WAS ASKING NORTHAM TO PREPARE FOR TRIAL NEVER WAVERED AND WERE QUITE REASONABLE. GIBBS REPEATEDLY CITED RELEVENT CASE LAW AND ARTICULATED HIS DEFENSE QUITE WELL DESPITE HAVING NO LAW DEGREE IN THESE HEARINGS. JUDGE DAN FLYNN REPEATEDLY MISTATED THE LAW, ARGUED AND TRIED TO TALK OVER GIBBS IN THESE HEARINGS. FLYNN REPEATEDLY MADE EXCUSES FOR NORTHAM AND REFUSED TO REPLACE HIM WITH ANOTHER ATTORNEY. IT TOOK AT LEAST FIFTEEN MARSDEN HEARINGS AND SEVENTEEN MONTHS BEFORE THE JUDGE FINALLY ALLOWED GIBBS TO FIRE HIS ATTORNEY. BY THAT TIME, GIBBS CASE WAS ALREADY PREJUDICED AND EVIDENCE WAS NO LONGER AVAILABLE. IT WOULD TAKE SEVERAL MORE ATTORNEY’S BEFORE ONE WOULD REMOVE JUDGE FLYNN FOR BIAS. SUBSEQUENT LAWYERS WERE NOT MUCH BETTER. GIBBS’ DEFENSES AND THE CASE LAWS THEY WERE BASED UPON SEEMED BEYOND THE UNDERSTANDING OF THESE PRACTICING ATTORNEYS. FOR INSTANCE, GIBBS PRIMARY AND MOST SERIOUS CHARGES WERE FOR “CRIMINAL THREATS” ( CAL. P.C. 422). THE CRIIMINAL THREATS STATUTE CALLS FOR A “PERSON” WHO DELIBERATELY THREATENS ANOTHER “SPECIFIC PERSON”, WITH THE SPECIFIC INTENT THAT THAT THREAT BE INTENDED TO BE A THREAT OF “GREAT BODILY INJURY OR DEATH”. IN GIBBS’ CASE, HE WAS ACCUSED OF THREATENING SPECIFIC PEOPLE, BUT IT WAS PROVABLE THAT HE DID NOT. FURTHERMORE, GIBBS WAS SPEAKING PRIVATELY AND NOT TO THE ALLEGED “VICTIMS”. THE CASE LAW SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT THE PROSECUTION MUST PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT SOMEONE SPEAKING TO A THIRD PARTY INTENDS FOR THAT PERSON TO RELAY THE ALLEGED THREATS. ATTORNEY’S IN GIBBS’ CASE IGNORED THE ELEMENT OF INTENT ENTIRELY. 422 P..C. IS AN “INTENT-SPECIFIC” CRIME, WHICH MEANS THAT IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO SIMPLY SHOW ALLEGEDLY “THREATENING” SPEECH, BUT THE PROSECUTOR MUST PROVE WHAT THE INTENT OF THAT SPEECH WAS AND WHETHER EVEN IF THE SPEECH ITSELF MET THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. NORTHAM (AND ALL BUT ONE OF GIBBS’ TWELVE LAWYERS) GAVE THE PROSECUTION A PASS ON THESE REQUIREMENTS. THIS ALLOWED THE PROSECUTION TO CONTINUE TO PROSECUTE GIBBS FOR WHAT AMOUNTED TO PROTECTED SPEECH. JUST BECAUSE GIBBS SAID HE WANTED TO KILL COPS AND THE COPS WERE PISSED OFF DID NOT MEAN GIBBS VIOLATED 422 P.C., ULTIMATELY, BECAUSE GIBBS’ LAWYERS FAILED MISERABLY TO DEFEND HIM AND HE SPENT THREE AND A HALF YEARS IN JAIL BEING ABSOLUTELY ABUSED, GIBBS PLED NO-CONTEST TO TWO OF THESE CHARGES. GIBBS NOW HAS TWO “STRIKES” AND CAN BE GIVEN LIFE IN PRISON FOR ALMOST ANY FUTURE VIOLATION. AGAIN. THIS IS FOR BEING ANGRY AT COPS FOR THEM FALSELY ARRESTING HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE AND DEFENDING HIMSELF FROM CORRUPT COPS. IMAGINE GETTING A SERIOUS CRIMINAL RECORD FOR PROTESTING OR DEMANDING JUSTICE FOR YOURSELF. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED TO GIBBS, WHILE HIS LAWYERS FAILED TO EVEN FIGHT. NORTHAM NOW CLAIMS THAT GIBBS IS “UNGRATEFUL” FOR HIS EFFORTS. THIS IS TYPICAL FOR DEFENSE LAWYERS IN GENERAL. THEY ALLOW THEMSELVES TO BE OVER-ASSIGNED, THEY FAIL TO FIGHT HARD AND DILLIGENTLY REPRESENT THEIR CLIENTS, BUT THEY STILLL EXPECT THEM TO BE THANKFUL. IT’S LIKE THEY WANT AN “E” FOR EFFORT EVEN WHEN THEIR INCOMPETENCE PUTS A CLIENT IN JAIL (OR WORSE). THIS IS WHY GIBBS HATES LAWYERS AND DISTRUSTS THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN GENERAL. IT HAS NO SKIN IN THE GAME. IT’S YOUR LIFE THEY ARE SCREWING AROUND WITH, NOT THEIR OWN.

ANOTHER LAWYER THAT SHOULD BE SINGLED OUT IS RYAN BIRSS. RYAN BIRSS HAD MR. GIBBS CASE AT THE VERY END FOR FOUR MONTHS. BIRSS DID NOTHING TO PREPARE A DEFENSE, DESPITE BEING FULLY AWARE THAT GIBBS’ PREVIOUS LAWYERS HAD NOT PERFORMED. BY THAT POINT, GIBBS HAD BEEN IN JAIL (FIGHTING THE ENTIRE GOD-DAMN SYSTEM) FOR THREE YEARS. THINK ABOUT HOW LONG THREE YEARS IS. IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT. BEING ABUSED BY JAIL GUARDS, DENIED VISITATION WITH HIS YOUNG DAUGHTER, DENIED BASIC MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE. REMEMBER, THAT THE LAW SAYS A DEFENDANT HAS A RIGHT TO GO TO TRIAL WITHIN 60 DAYS OF ARREST OR CHARGE. THAT MEANS THAT RYAN BIRSS HAD TWICE THE AMOUNT OF TIME, HIMSELF, TO PREPARE GIBBS CASE, NOT TO MENTION ALL THE OTHER LAWYERS AND ALL THE OTHER TIME GIBBS SPENT IN JAIL, PRE-TRIAL. BY THE TIME BIRSS WAS ASSIGNED, THERE WAS VERY LITTLE IF ANY EVIDENCE OF GIBBS INNOCENSE LEFT. THAT MEANS GIBBS’ DEFENSE WAS PREJUDICED AND THE LAW SAYS THE CASE MUST BE DISMISSED. DID BIRSS FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS? OF COURSE NOT. REMEMBER, THEY HAVE NO SKIN IN THE GAME. YOUR CASE, GIBBS CASE. ANYONES CASE IN ACADEMIC TO THEM. IT’S THEIR JOB, BUT NO-ONE MAKES SURE THEY DO IT RIGHT. DID BIRSS FILE A MOTION TO RECUSE GIBBS JUDGE FOR BIAS (EVEN THOUGH HE ADMITTED SHE WAS)? OF COURSE NOT, NO-ONE IS GETTING THEIR CASE THROWN OUT NO MATTER HOW SCREWED UP IT IS. JUST LOOK AT THE CASES WHERE DEATH ROW INMATES ARE EXONERATED AFTER THIRTY OR MORE YEARS. LOOK AT HOW HARD THOSE PRO-BONO LAWYERS MUST FIGHT AND HOW MANY LEVELS OF APPEALS THEY MUST GO THROUGH TO EXONERATE AN INNOCENT DEFENDANT WHO HAS BEEN INCARCERATED FOR DECADES. DO YOU THINK GIBBS CASE IS ANY DIFFERENT? NO, GIBBS WILL BE FORCED TO FIGHT FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE TO PROVE HIS INNOCENCE BECAUSE HIS GOD-DAMN LAWYERS DIDN’T BOTHER TO DO THEIR JOBS THE FIRST TIME. GIBBS MADE ALL THIS VERY CLEAR TO BIRSS FROM THE MOMENT HE WAS ASSIGNED. GIBBS TOLD BIRSS THAT IF BIRSS COULD NOT PUT A DEFENSE TOGETHER IN THE TIME ALLOWED BY LAW (60 DAYS), THEN GIBBS WAS GOING TO PLEAD GUILTY (NO-CONTEST) TO SIMPLY GET OUT OF JAIL AND GO ON WITH HIS LIFE (YOU REALLY SHOULD READ GIBBS’ HABEAS CORPUS PETITION ON THIS SITE-IT’S VERY INTERESTING). GIBBS TOLD BIRSS THAT HIS PLEA WOULD BE FULLY COERCED BY THE BIASED COURT AND WOULD BE COMPLETELY ILLEGAL, BUT THAT HE FELT HE HAD NO CHOICE BECAUSE NO LAWYER WAS GOING TO PREPARE HIS CASE FOR TRIAL. BIRSS DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FOR 60 DAYS. SO GIBBS GAVE HIM ANOTHER 60 DAYS. BIRSS DID NOTHING. GIBBS AGAIN TOLD BIRSS THAT HE WAS GOING TO ALLOW HIS PLEA TO BE COERCED IF BIRSS WOULD NOT PREPARE. BIRSS ADMITTED NOT ONLY THAT HE HAD DONE NOTHING, BUT THAT EVEN GIVEN MORE TIME WOULD PROBABLY FAIL TO PREPARE GIBBS CASE. BIRSS FULLY AGREED WITH GIBBS THAT HIS PLEA WOULD BE COERCED AND ILLEGAL AND FULLY AGREED WITH GIBBS THAT IT WAS PROBABLY THE BEST OPTION. AFTER THREE AND A HALF YEARS OF DEALING WITH INCOMPETENT, IMMORAL AND APATHETIC ASSHOLES LIKE RYAN H. BIRSS AND SHON MICHAEL NORTHAM, GIBBS GAVE UP AND PLED NO CONTEST, TO SERIOUS FELONIES HE DID NOT COMMIT AND CAN TO THIS DAY PROVE HE DID NOT COMMIT BECAUSE HIS “LAWYERS” WOULD NOT JUST DO THEIR FUCKING JOB.