Apr 172012
 

Help me with this puzzle. I’ve been struggling for a possible explanation as to why the Jackson Rancheria Casino decided to write out a $10,000 check to Jeff Seaton. Why does a Casino care who sits on a local bench?

Maybe the answer lies in the Dalton Family – the Dalton family got the Jackson Rancheria started – in particular Margaret Dalton.

Jeff Seaton represents many Daltons as it appears according to court records that the Dalton family has had frequent legal troubles  in Amador County. The Amador County court records are full of cases with the last name Dalton. They may not all be the same family – even in a tiny county like Amador, we shouldn’t make that assumption.

Now – it is the custom for the Casino employees and the Dalton family to write strings of $99 checks to support candidates – but this time the Rancheria itself has its’ name all over a $10,000 check to Jeff Seaton.

I had a look at Case# 01-CR-00198 2001. Dennis Dalton (yes a relation) was charged with domestic battery against his then-wife Della Dalton.

The case was given a DA’s Diversion on 12/7/2001 because the Crime victim (Della Dalton) could not be found! The presiding Judge… Richmond (who is now supporting Jeff Seaton) refused to give the DA’s office a continuance, which appears to have had the effect of letting Dennis Dalton get away with the alleged battery.

It does not stop there – Della and Dennis Dalton got a divorce that same year. Jeff Seaton was involved as attorney.

It would not be until 2006 in Civil Case 06-CVC-04251 when Dennis Dalton’s stepdaughter filed a lawsuit against both Jeff Seaton and Dennis Dalton. It was ugly. Jeff Seaton was sued for having a conflict of interest (again) – he apparently represented both sides of that Divorce that involved the Daltons.

The facts of the Civil case brought by Amanda Cortez alleged Sexual abuse by Dennis Dalton that included a whole bunch of acts that will not be repeated on this R-rated blog.

Jeff Seaton, in the course of trying to establish his innocence from the charge of a conflict of interest unwittingly got himself in a lot of trouble. (although, it appears no one caught on to it) He asserted in a declaration related to that lawsuit that he sat down with both Della and Dennis Dalton on December 10th, 2001 to negotiate the divorce settlement.

Have you made the connection yet?

Jeff Seaton met with a woman three days after her soon-to-be-ex-husband got away with Battery because she refused to cooperate with the DA! Did Jeff Seaton know where she was all along? If the lawsuit had merit – which it appears it did, evidence suggests Seaton may have known where Della Dalton was hiding all along.

The end to this bizarre tale was Della Dalton got greedy and attempted to extort $1million from Jeff Seaton and others. Apparently, Jeff Seaton recognized that this indeed was a crime and assisted in getting Della convicted for extortion (an example of support for victim’s rights ?). This, of course caused the daughter’s lawsuit to get destroyed.

Again, the judge in the criminal case?, Richmond. The defense attorney?, Jeff Seaton. The Divorce Attorney?, Jeff Seaton. Conflicts of Interest? You be the judge.

… and now the Dalton’s casino has written Seaton a $10,000 check for his campaign.

What is the connection to the Amador County Republican Party‘s attempted endorsement for Seaton and who gets what? Maybe the old adage of “follow the money” applies.

  3 Responses to “Jeff Seaton Update: Why the $10,000 from the Casino?”

  1. Update: Today (4/18/2012) the agenda for tomorrow’s Cent Com Meeting was emailed out and the re-consideration of the judge race endorsement is apparently on the agenda under the cover of another item related to the status of two committee members.

    As the Ione Representative for the Amador County Republican Central Committee I take personal umbrage at your last sentence that implies and implicates myself and other members of the Committee in wrong doing.
    Had you spent your time at the special meeting called for the purpose of endorsements you would have seen that 3 of the candidates for local office showed up to make presentations to the Committee in front of a crowd that filled our small room.
    Both Mr. Seaton and his opponent Mr. Hermanson were given an opportunity to speak as were Frank Bigelow and a spokesperson for Rico Oller for the AD-05 race.’
    AFTER all had given their presentations and answered the Committee’s questions and questions from those in attendance the room was cleared and the secret ballot’s for each race taken.
    We had a lively discussion concerning each person in each race before we voted and in neither race was there enough votes for any endorsement for any candidate.
    To suggest otherwise is an out right LIE and your dishonest characterization of the Amador Republican Central Committee is as full of malice and spite as if you were a mudslinging democrat operative.
    Which considering your obvious support of Ms. Emken you may well be.

  2. Clay –

    You missed or dodged the point of the posts – Jeff Seaton does not deserve anyone’s support for the reasons I have enumerated. You can construe what I have written as some sort of indictment if you want to, but the overarching point is that I have done extensive due dilligence on Mr. Seaton and more than what he said when invited to speak should factor into a decision to endorse.

    I hope this makes sense – I was not writing about your endorsement process. I am writing about Jeff Seaton the candidate and hopefully the antiseptic of truth about the man helps the Amador County Republican Party make a better informed decision.

    I have been told by several that you are meeting on Thursday in and amongst other things to re-consider an endosement. If this is not true and the matter is really dead for the duration of the election cycle I will retract the statement and apologize. Is the matter of endorsing in that Judge race dead for good or is it coming up again?

    Thank you for reading and I have more information coming about Mr. Seaton for your consideration.

  3. Mr. Sharp, are you denying there was a financial motive and a personal agenda to hold a closed door, late night meeting for an endorsement that was already voted on?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.