Home › News › Local News
Man faces charges in threats to prosecutor
He allegedly tells attorney that her 'life was over'
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from Local NewsA Santa Barbara man remains in jail under $1 million bail for allegedly leaving phone voice messages threatening a Ventura County prosecutor.
Michael Jon Helman allegedly made a series of threatening phone calls to Deputy District Attorney Karen Wold on Aug. 27 and left three voice messages.
Attorney Todd Howeth, with the Public Defender's Office, said in an interview that his client has pleaded not guilty to the charges. He said he recently received his client's case and is reviewing it.
Ventura County Superior Court Judge Edward Brodie set the next hearing for Oct. 25.
Initially, Helman's bail was set at $100,000. Brodie increased the bail last week to $1 million at prosecutors' request.
Wold got a restraining order this month against Helman, ordering him to have no contact with her and not come within 500 yards of her.
Helman, 45, told Wold that she had messed up his life eight years ago and "her life was over," according to a declaration by prosecutor Jarrod Wilfert in support of a motion to increase Helman's bail.
Prosecutors declined to elaborate on the relationship between Helman and Wold.
Six years ago, Helman allegedly threatened Ventura County Superior Court Judge Colleen Toy White and demanded that she withdraw another criminal case against him. Helman left nine voice messages on the work phone of White's secretary, Wilfert's declaration states.
"Pull it off calendar, now. If not, she (Judge White) won't be making it to court ... " one message allegedly said.
Court records show that Helman has been charged with two felony counts of criminal threats and two felony counts of threatening state officials.
The criminal case against Helman is being prosecuted by Douglas Wilson, deputy attorney general. He declined to comment on the details of the case.
In Wilfert's declaration, he said Helman was arrested Sept. 22, 1990, for allegedly battering two victims without provocation at a Camarillo bar.
In 2001, two people were granted restraining orders against Helman, court records show.
In April 2001, Bruria Alon said she got 20 threatening phone calls from Helman.
A month later, Angela Mohan, an investigating social worker for child protective services assigned to investigate Helman for allegedly abusing his child, also got a restraining order.
"... he threatened to blow up the child protective services building," Wilfert's document states.
"There can be little doubt that the defendant is a tremendous danger not only to DDA (Deputy District Attorney) Wold but also the public at large."
Posted by potatoebay on September 18, 2007 at 5:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's sad that people like this have the ability to breed
Posted by jimmyd2 on September 18, 2007 at 6:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
angelz61: He battered two people outside a Camarillo bar and a social worker had to get a restraining order to prevent him from abusing his child. There is nothing in his current legal case that has set him off more than anything else.
He is clearly a threat to any one of us and especially the people we count on to keep us safe (DDA Wold and Judge Toy White).
Posted by wildbill on September 18, 2007 at 6:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's fascinating to me how the Star could take a simple story involving an angry criminal who threatens prosecutors and judges and leave the impression that there is some sinister back story.
What kind of line is this?: "Prosecutors declined to elaborate on the relationship between Helman and Wold." Is this the kind of nonsense they teach in journalism school nowadays?
**Note to the Star: sometimes cops, prosecutors, judges and probation officers put some very bad dudes away that don't exactly appreciate it.
Posted by ca4ever on September 18, 2007 at 7:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jimmyd2 - thank you for posting the reason, he sounds like a complete jerk who needs to be put away before someone seriously gets hurt.
Posted by tofurr on September 18, 2007 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
wildbill-
Yes, that's what they teach in journalism school. The fact is, the D.A.'s office (Prosecutors) would not tell the Star why the accused would have reason to be pissed at DDA Wold. Now, we can assume she prosecuted some case against him in the past, but the fact is, the Star couldn't get that information from the D.A.'s office, so the statement is factually accurate.
Now, if you want to question as to why the D.A. would decline to provide that information, I suspect that there are a variety of reasons, not the least of which is because its an ongoing investigation, and they don't want to provide any information that might taint a jury pool and cause a mistrial.
Posted by diaz1mari on September 19, 2007 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bo0o0o0o0o!!!
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.