Gallegos, Tim Stoen and Ken Miller's suit against Pacific Lumber Co. did not pass demurrer. This doesn't just mean that his case doesn't have merit. It means it has no foundation in law. Despite this, Gallegos filed this appeal.
APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF - THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs. PACIFIC LUMBER COMPANY
RELATED:
- DA's webpage
- PEOPLE'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER
- RULING RE DEMURRER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
- SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES AND OTHER RELIEF
- SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
For more information:
The People v. Pacific Lumber Co. et al. Division 3 Case Number A112028
Case summary
Sign up for email notification of any progress in this case:
E-mail Notification 1st Appellate District
Whaaaaaa?
ReplyDeleteWhat moron wrote that the case is now "at issue" in the facts section. This ain't no trial it is an appeal and this makes NO SENSE.
And arguing in the facts section - what a joke.
And what happened to the facts - the court is never gonna know what the sam hell this is about.
Thank you for posting this Rose.
Actually, it's quite common to argue in the factual summary. You don't want to lose the judge/justice's attention before you get to the argument. The key is to argue without looking like you're arguing.
ReplyDeleteAnd while the case being at issue is a procedural rather than substantial fact, it's not inappropriate to include that in the facts.
It's a pretty straightforward appeal actually. The DA could prevail.
I'm curious as to the lawsuit's fate in light of bankruptcy proceedings however. Normally, suits for damages are stayed pending bankruptcy, but I don't know if that applies to the appellate process.
Thank you for posting this Rose!
The DA could prevail ? Yes and I "could be" the next president of the United States ! Possible ?? In theory but not in reality. And Mr. Kirk knows this but he can always be counted on to defend Gallegos no matter how much he has messed up.
ReplyDeleteAnd if he wins this appeal, you can always chalk it up to the corruption of liberal justices, right?
ReplyDeleteIf he wins I should pack my bags for D.C.
ReplyDeleteIf this suit has merit, why was it filed as a civil matter? Could it be the lower standard of proof (probable cause vs. beyond a reasonable doubt?) I know for a fact (because he told me) that Paul Hagen thought the suit was nonsense - which is why the only person in the office with any expertise in the area never touched it. I also find it interesting that after being fired by CDAA, Mr. Hagen was not immediately hired by Mr. Gallegos, (the office is perpetually short-staffed and has a continuous opening on CDAA's employment website) as unlike Mr. Gallegos or Mr. Stoen, Mr. Hagen had succesfully prosecuted PL for rnvironmental crimes. Go figure.
ReplyDelete8:58 is a genius. Staring us all in the face the whole time. Yes, Mr. DA, WHY didn't you hire Hagen?
ReplyDeleteAs if we don't all know why. Because he was behind the firing. Moreover, Hagen is out of short pants, knows his stuff, has never been a defense attorney, and is not a mewling sycophant, so he lacks essential qualifications for new hires in our progressive DA's office.
Merit is not decided on demurrer. The judge had to make his decision while assuming all allegations were true. Merit is yet to be determined.
ReplyDeleteThe ruling basically says that it is ok to lie while applying for a permit as "lobbying". If you think that is legal or the intent of the law then don't appeal.
ReplyDeleteBut what if this was now applied to all permit processes. Then why not lie on a building permit? Or a driver’s permit? Would this also not be considered "lobbying"?
If this behavior were allowed to stand then the integrity of all state permitting processes, including CEQA, would be in question.
This appeal should clear up if there is a problem in the law and/or if it needs to be fixed. This is actually important question for the entire state, not just Humboldt County and PL.
Of course Mr. Gallegos was behind the termination of Paul Hagen! Mr. Hagen was based in Humboldt, for one thing. In Del Norte, Hagen had a trial starting the Monday after the Friday he was canned, which kinda rules out Del Norte (And despite being canned I hear he went ahead and did the trial). The DA (Gary Luck) in Lake, the third county in which he worked, found out Hagen had been terminated when a DDA who saw it in an online article asked Hopkins, the assistant DA, what happened to Hagen. Luck had no idea that Hagen was being fired and was not informed by CDAA until after the fact. Which leaves....As for motive, Hagen was on the Democratic Committee, and during the recent election, suggested that instead of blindly anointing Mr. Gallegos, that it would be more appropriate to have some sort of process to decide which of the two nominal Democrats the party should endorse, or even if the party should endorse anyone in a nonpartisan local election. Could it be that this, although it was eventually ignored, was percieved by Mr. Gallegos and his followers as disloyalty? So Hagen had to go, because, apparently, the cult of Gallegos was more important then results.
ReplyDeleteYes, results. And what results he is achieving now that the office is just about pared down to all his hires. Walk proud, Humboldt voters. Proof that blue staters can be every bit as pig ignorant as red.
ReplyDeleteIf this suit has merit, why was it filed as a civil matter?
ReplyDeleteAs explained a couple of years ago when the suit was first filed, Terry Farmer had blown the statute on criminal charges. The civil statute was going to run mere weeks after Gallegos came to office. He had to make a quick decision.
HaHaHaHAHAHAHA - oh geez, eric. Sorry. But that is BS.
ReplyDeleteCome on. WHO had to make a quick decision? What did Gallegos have to do with the drafting of the suit? It was Stoen who said he would have to give Ken Miller the bad news that there was no way the suit was going to fly - then came back a few days later and said he ahd figured out a way to make it fly.
The MYTH is so powerful it persists despite their own words telling you the truth.
Farmer didn't blow any statute of limitations. He had no intent of filing any bullshit disaster of a case. Gallegos had to deliver on his promises to his supporters and string pullers. Look at the record, he has filed several overblown cases, taken the quick headline/soundbite, and counted (correctly) on the ignorance and attention-deficit of the media and the public to let him get away with it. He filed totally bogus perjury charges against Gainey, the useless case against August, the pending grand jury against EPD, all to maintain his "progressive" image, which
ReplyDeletepeople like Eric tirelessly maintain. The record, however, is becoming more and more clear, and the spin cycle cannot last forever. Not all the people, all the time.
Mr. Kirk, please identify the authority for your conclusion that Mr. Farmer had "blown the statute on criminal charges." That is, what was the applicable statute of limitations, in your opinion? Also, what section of the CCP do you believe applies in terms f filing in a civil action of this kind? And what do you believe are the relevant dates?
ReplyDeleteEric can't. He knows it's BS.
ReplyDeleteFarmer, not my favorite person by the way, wasn't about to file such a dog of a case. Gallegos went on with the case, as planned by Ken Miller. Gallegos was advised against the filing the case by those that reviewed it. Those more knowledgable that Gag's. Gallegos, Stoen, Stectman, Miller, and ?? did it anyway. All that money, all those man hours, all that controversy .. and for what.
No Eric Kirk you can't blame this one on Farmer. Gallegos got elected, he beat the recall, and he was re elected but, he has done more damage to Humboldt County that any of us can really understand, yet.
Oh well. I do hope Rose continues to document Gallegos and his group (supporters/backers). I have no doubt that there will be more issues, more drama, more shady deals, more ???????????????
Please, No More!
ReplyDeleteEric your are so full of shit when you write that "it is common to argue in the factual summary."
ReplyDeleteYou obviously have not written shit from shinola on appeal.
You first state the record on appeal. Then the statement of the case. Then the Nature of Action and relief sought. Then a statement of facts. Then a summary of argument and then a standard of review. Quit blowing smoke up our asses. You never, I repeat never, stick any argument in your statement of facts....why because an argument is not facts.
What an idiot.
Gee 8:33 - you sure shut the idiot up with that one.
ReplyDelete