DA Stephanie Bridgett, Shasta County Named in Lawsuit
- Elisa Ballard
- 7 days ago
- 9 min read
the Filed by Former Supervisor, Patrick Jones
By Elisa Ballard, with contributions from Gary Peyrot
Former Shasta County Supervisor Patrick Jones appeared on Mountain Top Media’s Facebook post on December 19, 2025, to announce a lawsuit he is filing. Interviewed by Jon Knight, Jones explained his position on why he is filing a complaint through his attorney, Shon Northam, in Shasta County Superior Court. The complaint will seek $6 million in damages and punitive damages in the amount of $49.8 million. This article examines the claims raised by Jones and summarizes the details of the investigative report.
In a separate interview with our staff reporter, Jones elaborated on his allegations and referred to the county's investigative report on a related complaint from “Whistleblower ＃1”, describing it as poorly done and incomplete. Jones is alleging that District Attorney (DA), Stephanie Bridgett, committed theft, misuse, and embezzlement of taxpayer funds by using District Attorney staff to work on her campaign on or about January 2022 through December 2024. During this period, Jones claims an unusually high number of cases, approximately 800, were dismissed, based on records provided by former Superior Court CEO Melissa Fowler-Bradley (retired May 2025). He suggested this reflected reduced case handling due to campaign distractions, citing that the legal community was aware of this.
Jones, who ultimately became Whistleblower ＃2 in the case, said he had previously sought action through formal channels but was dissatisfied with the response. The case raises broader questions about the effectiveness of the county’s whistleblower system, potential failures in reporting alleged misconduct by a top elected official, and whether the use of taxpayer funds to defend former DA Bridgett in this matter is appropriate. The article also examines whether procedural irregularities and delayed transparency in addressing these claims may point to a deeper accountability gap within county leadership.
The Whistleblower Complaint – Investigation or Cover-Up?
An employee of the District Attorney’s office filed a complaint with the Director of Support Services, Shelley Forbes, on March 16, 2023. The complaint alleged that she effectively reported to Bridgett and was running her campaign in 2022, spending 80-90% of her time at work on campaign-related matters. She also witnessed Bridgett calling a group of attorneys into her office to discuss a campaign-related matter involving a report on the DA’s lack of response to a hazing incident at West Valley High School.
Jones said that, as Chair of the Board of Supervisors, no one had notified him of this complaint or that an outside firm was hired to investigate. He only found out in a chance conversation with newly hired County CEO David Rickert (who came on board June 2023). Jones says that the Board of Supervisors should have a say in the hiring of outside investigators and should be aware of all investigations of department heads and elected officials.
The acting Shasta County Counsel at that time, Matt McOmber, retained the The Law Office of John Beiers. Jones criticized the investigation as limited, noting it interviewed only five employees (including Bridgett) out of about 70. Jones emphasized the report's shortcomings, reinforcing his call for a more comprehensive review. Jones also questioned Beiers' selection, citing his background as a former county counsel who might be focused on minimizing liability to the county, leading to a less thorough probe.
Jones Becomes Whistleblower ＃2
Jones tried numerous times to have Shasta County Counsel initiate a more thorough investigation that would involve interviewing more DA office employees and reviewing their electronic messages. Failing that, Jones then became whistleblower ＃2 to start a new complaint against Bridgett in the spring of 2023.
According to a June 3, 2025, letter from Jones’ attorney to Shasta County, the Shasta County Auditor Controller referred the matter to the California Attorney General (AG). The state AG indicated they would not be pursuing the matter and the matter was effectively closed on December 19, 2024. Jones's attorney questioned the propriety of the AG's decision, noting that Bridgett’s former Chief Deputy joined the AG's office around the referral time.
Missteps in DA Office?
Whistleblower’s Allegations
According to the allegations of Whistleblower ＃1, she was not only instructed by DA Bridgett to spend most of her time working on the campaign, she also used a group of attorneys to strategize on a response to allegations of a poor response of her office to reports of hazing at West Valley High School in Cottonwood, California (part of the Anderson Union High School District). These had surfaced publicly in October 2020, with reports of an ongoing investigation by the Shasta County Sheriff's Office emerging around mid-October. On March 23, 2022, A News Café (an on-line news outlet) posted a critical article entitled “No Justice for Alleged Hazing Victims; No Consequences for Alleged Assailants”, by Doni Chamberlain. According to this article, no one from the DA’s office interviewed the alleged victims and was highly critical of the DA’s office.
The Report Findings
The August 3, 2023, investigative report indicated that Bridgett explained that the meeting with staff attorneys regarding the hazing article was a standard response and had no relation to her campaign strategy. She emphasized the need for confidentiality in juvenile cases of this sort. No particular findings were noted in the report.
The report concluded that Bridgett did not direct any employees to work on her campaign during normal work hours. Questions were raised in the report whether she had done so, and the investigator’s redacted report showed that Bridgett denied that she had instructed them to do so. She was non-committal when asked “if she expected her employees who were working on her campaign committee to only answer emails outside the workday” and her response was “I guess I can't even say that I thought it through that much… whenever they would get to it, they would respond.” However, the report did find that Bridgett conducted some campaign business using her personal email account during office hours during her breaks or while at lunch on County premises, which is a violation of a local personnel rule.
"Hysteria" in the DA's Office During the Campaign Season
Even though only five employees were questioned in the report, the investigation conducted by Beiers’ firm included statements from one employee who was upset about the “hysteria” in the office during the campaign. He confirmed, in part, the situation that the whistleblower alleged in her complaint, that Bridgett had called a group of attorneys out of a leadership meeting to discuss the response to an allegation against the office that came up regarding hazing incidents at West Valley High School. The attorneys may have been in Bridgett’s office for approximately two hours while discussing how they would respond to the issue. He was quoted as saying “I was upset. Sure. I mean, we're there to work on the leadership skills” and “these attorneys and people feeding into this election and letting it impact them on such a personal basis, and then running to the DA and crying, and there were people crying… I was mad about it.” In spite of the partial corroboration with the whistleblower, this employee viewed the interruption as simply a response to the news report rather than pure campaign work.
Response from DA Bridgett's Office:
In response to an inquiry from Shasta Unfiltered, DA Stephanie Bridgett's office had this response:
"Patrick Jones’ allegations have no merit. As previously stated, the operations of the DA’s were not impacted by the 2022 election. An independent investigator, hired by the county, did a full and complete investigation of the allegations and had very clear findings. The investigation found that I did not require, approve or implicitly authorize anyone in my office to work on my campaign during regular county hours. In fact, all employees were directed, by me, to not engage in campaign related activities inside the DA’s Office. In summary, the investigation found no violations of law. The only true finding was that I used my personal electronic devices, like my cell phone, while inside the DA’s Office to check campaign messages. This is against county policy not a criminal violation. It had no impact on the operations of the DA’s Office.
"I want the community to know that I remain committed to the exceptional work being done in my office to protect the citizens of Shasta County through fair, honest and ethical prosecutions. This has been my mission since I began working as a prosecutor in this office over twenty years ago and continues to be my focus as your District Attorney."
The Public Needs to Decide
While this lawsuit is being adjudicated, Shasta County residents will be weighing the options. Jones speculates that Bridgett utilized County resources for her campaign because she was caught unprepared with the entry of well-funded and organized Erik Jensen into the race for DA in early 2022, and that she quickly had to assemble a campaign team to meet the challenge. But the whistleblower allegations were serious, even though only one of them was sustained in the investigation. In the Mountain Top Media interview, Jones alleges that he saw the DA office employees posting campaign related messages on Facebook, that they were constantly at events and Board of Supervisors meetings on work days, and that Bridgett has downplayed the findings of the investigation report saying that the report cleared her of any wrong doing, which he says it did not.
Should the County Pay to Defend DA Bridgett?
Jones believes the County should not have to pay for Bridgett’s defense since these were acts she allegedly committed outside of the scope of her duties as DA. According to Government Code Section 995.2 (a) A public entity may refuse to provide for the defense of a civil action or proceeding brought against an employee or former employee if the public entity determines any of the following: (1) The act or omission was not within the scope of his or her employment. (2) He or she acted or failed to act because of actual fraud, corruption, or actual malice.
County Counsel Joseph Larmour apparently is advising the current Board of Supervisors that the County must defend Bridgett in this lawsuit. Jones believes Larmour is giving the Board a wrong legal opinion. Jones plans to ask the Court to make a legal determination in this case because he does not wish the County to have to incur legal expenses to defend Bridgett. Jones’ goal, as stated to the reporter, is to have Bridgett resign from her position so that the County will be saved the expense or distraction of a lawsuit.
Crusader or Disgruntled Employee?
Patrick Jones was concerned about the choice of Beiers for the investigation, citing his background as a former county counsel focused on minimizing liability to the county. Jones was concerned that this might provide motivation to conduct a less-than-thorough probe, but it could have also lead to a desire to discredit the whistleblower to protect a former boss. From the report, we know that:
After taking a trip to Idaho with DA Bridgett to pick up service dogs for the DA victim witness program, the whistleblower alleged "strained relations" between them. Shortly thereafter she went out on medical leave, prior to filing the complaint on March 16, 2023.
The whistleblower said that this negative treatment led to her going out on medical leave for stress but the investigation said that this allegation was not sustained.
There was an internal audit of her work
During her absence, other employees accessed her files, reportedly to continue her responsibilities, and allegedly found “many errors” in grant billing over several years.
This retroactive discovery was then used in the investigation to portray her as incompetent or under performing.
DA Bridgett made comments about her hiring
Bridgett reportedly said she had been advised not to pass the whistleblower through probation due to concerns about her learning curve.
Bridgett overrode that advice, calling the employee a “nice person,” but later expressed disappointment and implied unmet expectations.
While not explicitly framed as “retaliation” in the report, this sequence raises red flags consistent with post-complaint retaliation of re-framing past performance issues after the complaint, not putting any protective measures in place, and shifting the narrative from a trusted employee to someone whose mistakes became central after she came forward.
Questions and Conclusions
This case raises serious questions.
Why was the Board of Supervisors kept in the dark about a whistleblower complaint and the hiring of an outside investigator?
Was this part of a plan to limit the scope, do damage control, and to discredit the whistleblower?
Patrick Jones’s decision to become Whistleblower ＃2 highlights the system’s failure to address internal reports of concerns or to protect those raising those concerns.
While most allegations against Bridgett were not confirmed by the investigator, the violation of personnel rules by conducting campaign activity on County premises was confirmed.
The County weighed whether to fund Bridgett’s legal defense back in June of this year when Jones' attorney sent the letter to the County Board threatening the lawsuit and the Board voted 4-1 to hire an outside attorney to defend the county, with Supervisor Kevin Crye casting the only dissenting vote (as reported by ShastaScout.org on June 24, 2025). Should the County re-examine this decision?
At Shasta Unfiltered, we want to develop an informed public that is empowered to make their voices heard. If you feel strongly about this issue and whether or not the Board should support our current DA in the face of allegations of a former Chair of the same board, then let them know. The Shasta County Board of Supervisors meetings are announced on their website at https://www.shastacounty.gov/board-supervisors/page/board-agendas-minutes-videos
