Thursday, January 10, 2008

DOWN IN FLAMES - Gallegos has lost his appeal.



Gallegos Loses, Hank has it first. TS has it, Eric's also picked it up, Nothing - zip zero nada from heraldo.
The First Appellate Court has just weighed in on the landmark fraud suit brought by District Attorney Paul Gallegos against Pacific Lumber. Gallegos has lost. The trial court decision to toss the case on demurrer was affirmed in full.

The Mother of All Long Term Projects has come to an end.There's a CD of the proceedings. More to come. You should all hear it.

Case information P. ex rel. Gallegos v. Pacific etc. 1/10/08
PDF file
Source, doc file also available

In concluding, the Appeals Court found that:
Given the undisputed presence of disinterested decision-makers at the CDF as well as other state agencies, the extensive independent review and analysis of Pacific Lumber’s proposed harvesting plan, the public hearing open to all interested persons and agencies, and the review process that was available for correcting any identifiable errors including misrepresentations) in a timely fashion, we are thus disinclined to conclude the CEQA proceedings were rendered illegitimate by Pacific Lumber’s alleged submission of raudulent data – which indeed was corrected over a month before issuance of the CDF’s ultimate decision.

In reaching this decision, we agree with the State that the trial court had no discretion to weigh the evidence in ruling on Pacific Lumber’s demurrer. However, “while the court does not weigh evidence, it must determine whether plaintiffs have demonstrated evidence which, if credited, would justify their prevailing at trial.” (Blanchard v. DIRECTV, Inc. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 903, 921.) Here, for the reasons discussed above, we conclude the State’s evidence, even if credited, would not justify its prevailing at trial. Further, we conclude the State has failed to prove, on its third try, a reasonable possibility that the operative pleading’s defect can be cured by amendment. Blank, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318.) As such, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.

***
See Gallegos' Complaint and Appeal in the sidebar for links to all the filings, amendments and briefs, as well as the decision.
***

How long before he files a Petition For Review before the California Supreme Court?

11 comments:

  1. What's interesting about this opinion is that the panel upheld the trial court on the first issue (the activity came under the 47(b) litigation privilege) but then goes on to trash every other argument raised in the appeal. That's fairly unusual - if one issue is initially dispositive, courts rarely go on to deal with remaining contentions - they've got enough to do without generating pages of dicta. Way to go, Dickie Freeborn!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think that the court wanted to set a precedent to make sure that this didn't happen again. I also think that the court wanted to make sure that nobody made this into a right to lie case. It is clear that the court even rejected Gags and Ken Millers bullshit twisting of the facts.

    What this is not - it is not about fraud.

    What this is - it is about the law and getting rid of bogus lawsuits that have no basis in either law or fact.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I wonder if PL can ask that their attorney fees be reimbursed to them for being required to defend such a worthless and baseless lawsuit.

    How much will this DA cost Humboldt County? (salary, retirement, loss of talented attorneys, attorney fees for baseless cases)

    And, how many times will the masochistic citizens of Humboldt County re-elect him?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I just read it, talk about screwing the pooch. Or should I say pulling a Nifong.

    Way to go Ken Miller, way to go Gallegos and way to go Tim (aka kool aide) Stoen.

    And I believe that PALCO can get their attorneys fees - and I for one would support it in this circumstance because there was no legal basis for Gallegos filing this POS. Now I would feel differently if this were a criminal case, but where as here it is politically motivated and legally and factually baseless, the attorney fees provision will help deter other future dumbass da's from doing the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  5. even unto 70 times 70 sayeth the good book

    ReplyDelete
  6. YAWNNN... ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz

    ReplyDelete
  7. Finally, this is over. Who is going to chauffeur Gags out of town. He needs a different job that is less challenging for his limited abilities.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Yawn. ZZZZzzz" Uh huh.

    And who is going to go back and put right all the wrongs that have resulted from this piece of shit lawsuit ripping this county apart?

    ReplyDelete
  9. You can't right all those wrongs in less than 10 to 15 years.

    A decent person would be sooooo embarassed.

    I read the whole thing. It was a beat down. they wanted to make an example of him.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You might be right 10:19

    But this might also just lift the veil high enough that many of his non-zealot supporters, who were happy to vote for the progressive dope lawyer, to think again next time.

    Just perhaps, this time his own base will see him for the unprincipled, political hack that he has thus far been, with impunity. And perhaps, for this time the Salzman, Miller, Kerrigan, Gallegos, Neely machine will be seen for the corrupt abomination that it is.

    Rose has been on it all along.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Let's hope so 10:33 PM

    PVG's own support group must be either really PO'd or cringing. When the indictment of the police is out in the open I think it too will be dismissed and Gallegos will once again exposed for the "unprincipled, poliitical hack" that he is.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open. Play nice.