Friday, January 11, 2008

This morning's papers

TS Gallegos' Palco case smashed by appellate court
ER Appeal court upholds dismissal of fraud suit against PALCO

My observation, the Eureka Reporter got it right and the Times Standard is wistfully wondering "what comes next?" for the suit, though their headline said it all in no uncertain terms. Let's hope it is dead. Let's hope Gallegos doesn't take it to the CA Supreme Court. Though that might be even more entertaining than this last one.

And over at Hank's blogthing - Ken Miller Says: The court’s decision means that a corporation, or any entity, has the right to lie in pursuit of a government permit, with immunity from prosecution by a DA.

Some will celebrate because Gallegos lost, when really it is the public that loses.

No, Ken - it means that both sides get to present their case in any dealings with public entities - without fear of judgement by biased officials or predatory litigants like yourself.

You say they lied. That doesn’t make it true. It's your opinion, your spin.

And the justices point out in no uncertain terms that this case in particular had plenty of review, took place in full public view with loads of public comment and oversight and negotiation by and between numerous governmental agencies resulting in 80,000 pages of documents. They found it unlikely that one document, submitted AFTER the filing period, and corrected voluntarily shortly thereafter, still BEFORE the decision was rendered, likely had no effect on the outcome.

They said that even after three tries, Gallegos case not only had no merit but wasn’t even salvageable.

The “right to lie” rhetoric made the justices laugh, Ken.


  1. You lose again Ken ! ha ha ha

  2. Rose, I think Heraldo had a stroke. He just can't figure out how to spin this one. Pretty silent on his front.

    As for Ken, we all know he is deranged. This may just send him over the falls also.

  3. They're looking for the spin. How are they going to regain 'control of the debate?'

    I find it fascinating that ken Miller keeps putting himself on the line with this "right to lie" crap - does he fail to see how it applies to him?

    Could you not argue that his statement that he does not prescribe pot, a distinction he employs so as to avoid trouble with the feds could be seen as exercising his "right to lie?"

    Is he not practicing semantic deception? To make money, no less.

  4. You almost have to feel sorry for Gallegos. Ken and Mark, HWC, and EPIC hung him out to dry down in S.F. by all by his lonesome when they knew their case was headed for the toilet.

  5. I don't feel sorry for him. Karma.

  6. I think you can expect to hear about the Courts always favoring the rich, greedy corporate plunderers with their high priced attorneys. Poor, longsuffering David had no chance against this sinister Goliath.

  7. I almost felt sorry for him, Stephen, for one second when I saw him in the courtroom. I actually didn't recognize him. He looked so small and that military buzzcut, he looked shrunken. I ended up sitting across the aisle from him, unintentionally.

    But that twinge passed immediately because I thought of all the people who have been hurt, who have lost their jobs, uprooted their families, been prosecuted unneccessarily - so many things, so many people with so many stories, so much that can't even be shared here.

    Oh no. I have no sympathy for this man. He is rotten to his core.

  8. Yes, to his very core.


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