Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Watching Paul

I'm pretty sure that if the justices laugh when you are presenting your "case" it isn't a good thing. And I think you are supposed to argue points of law and not campaign slogans, but ya know... whaddu I know.

Today Gallegos argued his "case" before the First District Court of Appeals. I kinda thought Ken Miller would be there to lend him moral support. But no.

Back in 2005, Gallegos said that when the judge tossed his precious Palco suit, the judge sent a signal that Pacific Lumber was "totally immune from lying. People out there are getting permits all over the place, thinking they have an obligation to tell the government the truth," Gallegos said. "This is not the law, in my opinion, and if am wrong, it is an outrage because it rewards deceit." This is all part of the "Right to Lie" talking points he was given.

That's essentially the same thing he said today, that unless the demurrer was overturned "These proceedings will never have legitimacy... Because anyone can commit fraud ...Because people cannot seek redress, if they can't no one can..." ...and more along those lines. I'll post whatever transcripts I can get hold of, my notes are woefully incomplete..

The Court of Appeals now has 90 days to render a decision. God help them, now that they know that if they rule the wrong way the whole system will disintegrate.


  1. When and where will transcripts be available? Did any of the local
    "media" cover the argument? If not, why not?

  2. Can you comment Rose on why the "whole system will disintegrate"?

    Thank You

  3. There were no reporters.

    As to "why the whole system will disintegrate" you'll have to ask Paul. it's his argument, something to the effect that now you'll be able to lie on your driver's license and building permit applications.

  4. Holy shit, god forbid if DMV find sout that I am really not 130 pounds

  5. there were no reporters.

    This case has roiled and continues to roil the county economically and politically and no paper or radio or tv station shows up?


  6. Gallegos came into the office today and boy was he in a bad mood. Looks like Rose is right and he made a jackass out of himself.

  7. Yes, the "Timber Yes, Fraud No" "Justice for All" suit that you all voted to keep him in office to protect. And there he was all alone, with his appeal that he tried to write a few days before the deadline, the appeal he put out a plea for help for a few days before the brief was due. The precious Palco suit, the gallant David-pretender abandoned by all of his supporters.

    If it wasn't so funny it would be sad. They laughed.

  8. The judges haven't ruled. Who's to say PVG won't have the last laugh? but if he doesn't, it will be interesting to see how he apportions "credit" here. Like Bush's war on Iraq, this is a fight
    he chose, not a fight forced on him by events. And it's all his, his and Stoen and Schechtman and
    all the behind the scene progressives of epic proportions.
    He can't put this on anyone else.

    And where are the CAST documents?

  9. He may have the last laugh and win the right to go to trial. Then things'll really get interesting.

  10. Gee wiz, I feel sooooo bad that PVG was in a bd mood today.

    What a colossal screwup. both PVG and the case.

  11. I've been disappointed with Paul, but I'm with him on this one. He may be doing a terrible job, but at least he's doing it.

    If conservatives weren't so intent on protecting PALCO we might actually be able to come together and elect a better, smarter, tougher DA. And if it wasn't for the recall we might actually have someone else in there right now. Paul's popularity would have totally fizzled if it hadn't been for that mess. As it is, a lot of people -- myself included, at least to some degree -- feel like they need to stand with him even though they can't stand him.

    Give me a smarter, more talented candidate for DA (that part shouldn't be hard) that is willing to go after drug dealers and rapists, as well as Pacific Lumber, and I'll give that person my vote.

  12. The people had a smarter, more talented candidate in the last election, but for whatever reason the majority chose PVG. While I agree that the recall was a mistake (compunded by the ham-fisted manner in which it was conducted) the problem is that going after Palco should not be a part of any DA's agenda. DAs should go after law-breakers, they should not target individuals (or individual entities) and try to figure out a way to get 'em. The result is what we have here, half-assery at its best. The whole point of the demurrer is that even if everything PVG says in the complaint is true, the conduct does not constitute wrongdoing. It is worth noting that Paul Hagen the only person in that office who had any expertise or experience in environmental law, advised PVG not to file the suit and refused to have anything to do with it. In short, targeting Palco, bad; targeting criminals, good. If you can prove Palco committed a crime, good, go get 'em. If you can't you shouldn't waste everyone's time and resources.

  13. Shane, I believe Paul Hagen had already won a suit against Palco. It's not like the DA's Office hadn't been going after them - or other businesses when warranted. It's one of the great myths that Paul sprang untainted from the ground and introduced all these novel concepts like prosecuting PL.

    If you read the (very) original complaint, it reads like Tim Stoen's Help Wanted ads for the DA's Office. It was later revised. If you remember the plan was to get the DA to file it and then hand it over to Cotchett. then there was the judge shopping and the character assassination as Salzman fought to make sure that case was protected...

    I can understand your wanting to stand up against what appeared to be Palco trying to buy their way out of a lawsuit. But now that you know more about what was really happening, I don't understand how you would feel a need to continue to stand behind this man whose conduct so clearly renders him unfit for the office.

    You hold yourself to higher standards, and you are a far more principled individual. At least hold him to your own standards. He is in a position to put people away - he ought to be held to higher standards. You accept plagiarism, cheating at Pelican Bay, lying to the press, and setting up to subvert the judicial system - I don't get it.

  14. Rose -- I don't support everything he does or everything that he has done. I certainly WON'T endorse him or vote for him ever again. You can hold me to that. I'll even add that I was wrong to support him in the last election; I just shouldn't have voted for anyone at all in that race.

    Overall, he has been a huge disappointment. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on the Palco issue. But that's small potatoes in the whole scheme of things. You and I would probably agree on more than we disagree on when it comes to Gallegos' overall performance.

    Maybe Hagen should run next time. I don't know what kind of experience he has -- so obviously I would have to learn more -- but he's the only name I've heard that people on both the Right and the Left seem to respect. Not that political views should matter much when it comes to upholding the law, but clearly they do.

  15. Shane - I agree with everything you just said.


Comments are open, but moderated, for the time-being. Good luck.