Monday, October 29, 2007

The Mother of all Long Term Projects

Here is an explanation of the school homework policy:
Students should not spend more than 90 minutes per night. This time should be budgeted in the following manner:

☛ 15 minutes looking for assignment
☛ 11 minutes calling a friend for the assignment
☛ 23 minutes explaining why the teacher is mean and just does not like children
☛ 8 minutes in the bathroom
☛ 10 minutes getting a snack
☛ 7 minutes checking the TV Guide
☛ 6 minutes telling parents that the teacher never explained the assignment
☛ 10 minutes sitting at the kitchen table waiting for Mom or Dad to do the assignment

LONG TERM ASSIGNMENTS

These are given the night before they are due, you understand. This explains the name "long term." It is a long term commitment to time that begins at 9:30 PM and ends at 11:50 PM - or later, the night before it is due. It is important that the whole family is involved in the project. It is imperative that at least one family member races to Walmart/KMart for posterboard, and that at least one family member ends up in tears (does not have to be the student).

One parent needs to stay up and complete the project. The other parent needs to call the school and leave a message that the student is out sick. It is not necessary to have the student's name on the assignment.

THE MOTHER OF ALL LONG TERM ASSIGNMENTS:

While most "LongTerm Projects" are, say 2-6 weeks in reality - ending of course, the night before they are due... this one is, depending on how you look at it - four years and seven or eight months total, or two years and 4 or 5 months...

That's how long Paul Gallegos has been working on his "get Palco lawsuit." Once the judge threw his case out - with prejudice, he had to decide whether or not to appeal that decision. The PR machine kicked into gear, screaming about "the right to lie," but it died down, and almost looked like Gallegos was going to let it die a quiet death. But that would not satisfy his handlers, so he ended up filing his appeal, and recently filed his reply brief, which was due to the First District COURT OF APPEAL September 20th.

Which is why on September 17th - the following plea was sent to 127 other DAs and DOJ, EPA and others around the state in an unrelated email chain:

9/17/2007 2:28 PM

I have some questions re our appeal on the PALCO lawsuit:

Can anyone cite any case that stands for the assertion that applying for a timber harvest plan is "lobbying" and/or "petitioning government" under Noerr-Pennington? What about any authority that says it isn't?

It seems absurd to me that submitting false information in seeking regulatory approval is lobbying or petitioning government and is, therefore, protected from prosecution under the noerr-pennington doctrine. Any thoughts and/or assistance in this matter would be appreciated.

I am in a bit of a deadline... Thursday... so if you can provide any help before then it would be appreciated,

If anyone wants to see our opening brief and their response I would be happy to fax it. Please only ask if you want to assist in this inquiry though.

Your assistance is appreciated.

Paul Gallegos


***

You can't blame this one on the dog.

9 comments:

  1. Whoa- he's only now asking for help? Didn't he check with any of his more experienced elected DA's as to what they thought of the idea in the first place?

    Be interesting to see if anyone
    besides the San Francisco City Attorney piles in.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I would have bet on Ventura County.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Totally lame. Ever see him in court? He tries cases the same way. Perhaps that explains why his cases return on appeal.

    ReplyDelete
  4. For those who are new to this blog, and for those who are reading from out of the area - the lawsuit in question is a lawsuit filed by Gallegos at the behest of his handlers. An immediate and powerful PR campaign accompanied its filing. It has ripped this County apart, it resulted in a failed Recall effort against Gallegos, who was portrayed as the gallant young David against the evil Goliath (Palco/Maxxam/Hurwitz).

    During the Recall campaign it was revealed that one of Gallegos' handlers, a longtime anti Palco activist, was in the DA's Office helping draft the suit.

    The suit ultimately failed to pass demurrer, Thrown out - with prejudice.

    Yet the effort continues - to use the public judicial system as a panzer unit in pursuit of the activist agenda.

    It is Gallegos' sole reason for being, the excuse by which he skates on all of his transgressions - from the decimation of the office and its many programs, to plagiarism and outright lies.

    Much of the explanation is in the early posts on this blog, and key stuff is linked in the sidebar to make it easy to find.

    A prosecutor's job is to evaluate cases fairly - not to act in pursuit of an agenda, seeking any means possible to use the power of the law against the target. That is a job for the EPIC goons, for whom getting Gallegos to do their bidding is a stupendous accomplishment.

    ReplyDelete
  5. He is despised in most DA’s offices as being both incompetent and an extortionist which makes the rest look bad. I will also be interested to see if anyone but the SF City Attorney joins in on this bozo suit. From the looks of it, he didn’t get a reply to his cry for help at the last minute. Don’t you think that he should have had an answer to his question

    1. Before he filed the case?
    2. After the first demurrer?
    3. After the second demurrer?
    4. After the third demurrer?
    5. Before he filed his notice of appeal in 2006?
    6. Before he filed for his extension on his opening brief?
    7. Anywhere in the year that transpired when he couldn’t seem to write his opening brief? (And I will point out that most other appellants only have 60 days to write their briefs)
    8. At least when he filed his opening brief?

    Oh but no - the lazy candy ass couldn’t even figure that one out. Please god, shoot this case and put it out of its misery so we can all move on.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Really, even tho he's going to win, his next campaign will be a hoot. I mean, some of this has to hit the newspapers and debating circuit at some point?

    ReplyDelete
  7. He doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of winning anything but dog catcher.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Point to who's going to run againts him. He has run off everyone with experience, he fired the only ones with balls, and that leaves . . . no one. Believe it or not, there isn't a crowd of dedicated experienced intelligent responsible honest trustworthy prosecutors lining up to run that office.
    Maybe Dennis Kucinich wants the job.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The case is dead. The demurrer was affirmed in full.
    Gallegos has lost his appeal.

    Case info

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open. Play nice.