Perhaps someone looked at Gallegos' brief and realized how absolutely pathetic it was, and took pity on him, so submitted this amicus brief to try to bail him out,
S.F. comes to county's defence
The San Francisco city attorney added a chapter to District Attorney Paul Gallegos’ alleged fraud case against Pacific Lumber Co. Tuesday, when he filed an amicus curiae brief with the appellate court.
Gallegos said that an amicus brief is usually filed by a third party interested in the outcome of a legal case as a “friend of the court.” The purpose of such briefs is to comment on issues not raised in the appellant’s opening brief, or lend additional weight to those arguments.
He said the filing of such briefs is common practice, mentioning the fact that his office wrote a similar brief for a case in Los Angeles, which may limit the ability to enforce regulations on long-term care facilities.
Gallegos confirmed that he sent confidential e-mails to district attorney’s offices throughout the state soliciting comment on the PALCO case.
The amicus brief, submitted by San Francisco City Attorney Daniel Herrera, focused on the trial judge’s use of Noerr-Pennington doctrine to justify PALCO’s alleged fraud as free speech.
Noerr-Pennington doctrine is a legal expansion of the First Amendment right to petition the government. The amicus brief states that while Noerr-Pennington may apply, what is relevant is the sham exception to the doctrine.
The sham exception, which alleges that fraudulent speech cannot be used while petitioning the government, has been upheld in federal court, according to the brief.
Danny Chou, San Francisco’s chief of appellate litigation, prepared the amicus brief.
“We were concerned with the trial court’s finding,” Chou said. “Because petitioning, like the right to free speech, is not absolute.”
“Specifically concerning fraudulent statements to administrative agencies that affect their decisions,” he said, “our concern is less related to particular facts and more concerned with the general legal concept.”
The trial court ruled in favor of PALCO in June 2005. Gallegos later filed his appeal, which alleged that PALCO committed fraud by submitting faulty documents and lying to state and federal agencies during the Headwaters negotiations in 1999.
Gallegos said his briefs have been filed with the appellate court and he is waiting for the announcement of a date to begin oral arguments.
The district attorney reiterated his position that Noerr-Pennington does not apply in this case, but recognized how the amicus brief is helpful in addressing that aspect.
“When you deprive an administrative agency of their ability to do their job (by allowing fraudulent speech), you render that process a sham,” Gallegos said. “If the trial court’s ruling is correct, then it really limits law enforcement, district attorneys and the Attorney General’s Office from enforcing honesty and candor in administrative procedure.”
Edgar Washburn, attorney for PALCO, had little to say when reached Wednesday. He said his office will respond to the brief within the required 20 days, but that he hasn’t had time to review it.
by Steve Spain, The Eureka Reporter, 11/1/2007
Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka Reporter. All rights reserved.
“He said the filing of such briefs is common practice, mentioning the fact that his office wrote a similar brief for a case in Los Angeles, which may limit the ability to enforce regulations on long-term care facilities.”
ReplyDeleteUh - I think not. Actually “his” office filed that brief but did not write it. Try the Needham firm as they had a civil suit pending against a long term care facility here and then got Gallegos to file a 17200 type of case for them so they can sit back and have the taxpayers finance their lawsuit. Since Los Angeles had filed something similar, they weighed in on it since it would effect the local lawsuit. Didn’t work however. I believe they lost anyway.
And did you read that brief. It is obvious that there is no TPZ in SF as the dim wit clearly didn't have a clue what transpires during the SYP process.
Holy shit - you don’t get the real implications of all of this do you Rose?
ReplyDeleteWhat they are asking the court to do is to do away with free speech before any administrative body. So you go to a planning commission meeting or board of supes meeting, advocating for your project. There are shit loads of opposition - both expert and non-expert. The planning commission and/or board grants your application for your project. Your opponents then use the DA’s office to go after you by saying that the information you presented is a lie based upon what the opposition had to say.
What a way for them to go after anyone they disagree with.
If I can see it, so will the court. Evidently, the trial court got it.
I see exactly what you are saying. And one problem - and it is a big one - that I see is that no reporter up here has any idea of the intricacies of the law and the cases that are so much a part of this whole story.
ReplyDeleteThe papers up here need an on-staff or contract lawyer to help them understand and report accurately. Maybe they need two, because if one of them is a defense attorney in favor of Gallegos' opinion, they need another one to say, "Wait just a minute there!"
How many people read that story that SF had joined Gallegos with an amicus brief understand or even think beyond that simple statement? Who has time? And even if you have time, how would any lay person even begin to know what questions to ask.
I'm sure Mark Lovelace/Ken Miller/Michael Shellenberger will ahve a nice set of talking points to convince everyone that this is, once again, the gallant little Emperor with his fancy new clothes defending against "The right to lie."
What you have to realize is that their rhetoric more accurately reflects what they are up to than anything else.
Humboldt. Media. Understand and report accurately. Right, that's a priority for our mainstream media.
ReplyDeleteAgain, the times standard was never so understanding and so accurate as when it hailed
PVG as
one of us.
I disagree. The vast majority of people are intelligent and caring. They have been duped, but they will not allow this grotesque situation to go on. IF they are told the truth - about the decimation of the office, the decline in service, the rise in unjustifiable plea bargains, and the abuse of the power of that office - people will do the right thing.
ReplyDeleteOdd, my earlier response seems to have disappeared despite the "your message has been saved" response.
ReplyDeleteLet's try again, and be prepared to go elsewhere with a copy.
The majority of voters didn't. The Eye and the Journal laid out all the facts about the disaster overtaking the DA's office. The majority of the minority who bothered to vote voted for PVG.
PVG is not the only reason people leave the DA's office, and DDA's are not the only people leaving Humboldt. PVG is a symptom, not a cause. Landlords can't rent, cops can't cop, dopers get a pass, shooting at cops is not a crime ...
sounds like a community that has
chosen its path. Twice. They must
mean it.
Must be a blogger glitch - It's happened to me a few times the past couple of days.
ReplyDeleteI fear you may be right, however.