Wednesday, April 23, 2008

CA Supreme Court Denies Paul Gallegos' Petition for review & depublication request(s)

Down in flames! Again. NEVER EVEN MADE IT TO TRIAL.
TS High court won't hear Palco case 4/24/08
TS Supreme Court won't reverse Palco case decision
ER District Attorney Paul Gallegos' fraud lawsuit halted by California Supreme Court

Docket (Register of Actions) PEOPLE EX REL. GALLEGOS v. PACIFIC LUMBER Case Number S161003

04/23/2008 - Petition for review & depublication request(s) denied
02/19/2008 - Petition for review filed
.....The People, appellants by Christa K. McKimmy, Deputy District Attorney
02/19/2008 - Request for depublication (petition for review pending)
.....The People, appellant by Paul V. Gallegos, District Attorney
02/21/2008 - Record requested
02/27/2008 - Received Court of Appeal record
.....file jacket/briefs/loose papers/one box
02/27/2008- Opposition filed
.....The Pacific Lumber Company, et al., respondents to request for depublication filed by appellant by Edgar B. Washburn, counsel
03/06/2008 - Request for depublication filed (another request pending)
.....Office of the Attorney General Deputy Attorney General Daniel A. Olivas
03/06/2008 - Request for depublication filed (another request pending)
.....City and County of San Francisco by Danny Chou, Chief of Complex and Special Litigation, Office of the City Attorney
03/10/2008 - Answer to petition for review filed
.....The Pacific Lumber company, Scotia Pacific Company LLC, and Salmon CreekLLC, respondents by Edgar B. Washburn, Morrison & Foerster LLP, counsel
03/12/2008 - Opposition filed to Depub request by Respondents
.....The Pacific Lumber company et al, to California Attorney General's request by Edgar B. Washburn, Morrison Foerster, counsel
04/15/2008 - Time extended to grant or deny review
.....The time for granting or denying review in the above-entitled matter is hereby extended to and including May 19, 2008, or the date upon which review is either granted or denied.
04/23/2008 - Petition for review & depublication request(s) denied George, C.J., was absent and did not participate.

Poor Ken Miller. Poor It ain't over until it's over - Ken Miller. Ya know, Ken - it is finally over.


  1. This makes me sad.



    You can tell someone is trying to save face, because someone is in court trying to bolster a case in which the star witnesses can't remember anything about the events, or are under a court order to be there.

  2. No, no, he'll explain soon how this is a win-win for the county, thanks to his valiant pursuit of justice for all.
    Maybe he should have given someone at PL immunity . . . . .
    Or charged them with trespassing.

  3. Hmm, seems the Supreme CT of CA didn't need a lot of time to mull this one over. Could that be because the case was as bad as every lower court said it was?

    Hey, DA, don't feel bad, you had that gofer from the SF county counsel on your side. Call in a moral victory, go surfing to celebrate. Take a friend along.

  4. The DA was a pawn. Ken Miller thought he had a chance to be an eco-hero and now we have a very bad ruling on the books. I mean, the right to lie. Very bad folks. Think it through. You may be right about Miller, he's done nothing good for Humboldt County. But think what this ruling means. Is it good?

  5. My God! Rose,can you believe it? They eat their babies,their gurus,even their grandpas.

  6. Relax, 6:04. It NEVER was about 'the right to lie' that is SPIN.

    It is about your right to advocate your own positions, however politically unpopular, to present your side, to argue your points, present your own appraisals and the like.

    It means just because a Ken Miller or a Paul Gallegos has decided they don't like your position, they cannot run roughshod over you. It means they cannot use your statements as a snail darter.

    It means the law works - it means the local judges were correct in their interpretation of the law. It means the visiting judge was correct in his interpretation of the law. It means the Appeals Court justices were correct in their interpretation of the law. You should see this as a good thing.

    It also means Paul and Miller were dead wrong. Not just them but the bonehead for San Francisco who inexplicably signed on to this thing in an attempt to bolster Gallegos' hideously flawed position.

    The people of San Francisco have a problem on their hands - they ought to be looking into that guy.

    So - there's something bad for ya.

  7. I don't get it. Is the fire supposed to exemplify Charles Hurwitz' ownership of PALCO? All reports from that Bankruptcy court in Corpus Christie point to PALCO being absorbed by MRC, and the GAP heirs. That is the real story. Not this garbage you are selling. Sure maybe Paul's lawsuit did not succeed in what its stated goals were, but running Hurwitz out of town, and causing him to lose the company is a pretty important result, that even you Paul enemies would be hard pressed to say is a bad thing. Hurwitz destroyed the company, bankrupted it, and has endangered the pensions of thousands of Humboldt citizens. Exorcising Hurwitz from PALCO is a good result from the lawsuit, but if you refuse to look through the "looking glass" you won't see it. Oh well, you will when it is a reality, which is very soon.

  8. Wow, that is a healthy perspective. Even though they didn't break the law, you put them out of business. Very enlightening.

  9. Yes. That is a very very fascinating - and revealing - statement.

  10. Well Rose, you Hurwitz tool. Have you ever bothered to read the MRC plan? It doesn't really look like it will put PALCO out of business. It might put Hurwitz out of business. In the long term that will be good for Humboldt, and PALCO will be run by responsible owners, and not corporate raider types like Hurwitz.

    Why don't you on your own time, read the MRC plan? Oh, I am sorry. I guess Mr. Hurwitz doesn't pay you for reading the enemy. Right. Well at least your other readers can.

  11. Sure maybe Paul's lawsuit did not succeed in what its stated goals were, but running Hurwitz out of town, and causing him to lose the company is a pretty important result, that even you Paul enemies would be hard pressed to say is a bad thing.

    The lawsuit caused the bankruptcy???

    C'mon, now!

  12. One more time - I am not paid to blog in any way shape or form by any person, business, or any kind of entity or alien being.

    My only opinion of Hurwitz, prior to this, was formed by all of the propaganda that has been spoon fed to the people here, and throughout the world now.

    I no longer trust what I read. I have learned to look behind the facade, and ask the questions, and see who is connected to who, and have discovered a remarkable trail - the creation of a myriad of phony groups masquerading as grassroots citizens, yet are really only a small few who use those groups to pretend they are a "growing coalition of grassroots groups."

    They use the judicial system as a panzer unit, and getting Gallegos to file that suit was an incredible new weapon.

    They were so dedicated to keeping that suit alive that they schemed to set up a "Trust Fund" so that they could privately fund a public prosecution. No less than Joe Cotchett would have been complicit in that perversion of the public judicial system.

    It's not ok.

    It's that simple.

    As for Mendocino Redwood - we will soon see if it was really just about Hurwitz, or whether the other logging companies will now be under the same concerted attack. And you can already see the indicators. Simpson will be next.

    It will only end when the people stand up and say enough is enough.

    The activist orgs have to be brought into some kind of regulation - some kind of oversight to prevent the kind of manipulation that has occurred here.

  13. Hank's right, you are giving Paul way to much credit.

    But you can give him credit for wasting a whole shitload of money and time on a lawsuit that never had any merit. As has been clearly demonstrated.

    In case you haven't noticed, everyone seems to be in favor of the Mendocino Redwood possibility.

  14. Gallegos accomplished nothing but proving definitively that he's a moron. The suit had no impact on the company whatsoever except as something to laugh about over the water cooler. Nice though to see his idiot followers already trying to spin it as a win and take credit for Hurwitz's self-destruction.

  15. Rose claims that:

    "It is about your right to advocate your own positions, however politically unpopular, to present your side, to argue your points, present your own appraisals and the like."

    Presenting information to regulatory agencies and the courts is not the same as advocacy for a position Rose. I think you are smart enough to see the difference.

    When you submit information in order to get a permit to do something (log a forest, build a bridge, develop a new drug, and so on) the data must be factual. If you present data that is not factual it is fraud.

  16. 7:45 - you are about as dense as a rock. The courts have clearly disagreed with your position that presenting information to regulatory agencies and the courts is not the same as advocacy for a position. Guess you just refuse to read what they had to say.

    And they clearly said this was advocacy and clearly said this was not fraud. Now get over it an move on.

  17. Rose

    Thanks for keeping us informed on this issue from the start and all the way to the end.

    Once again Gallegos has been confirmed a moron and a trainwreck of a lawyer.


    Ha ha ha

  18. Hey you defenders of the village idiot. Read below....this is one of my favorite Gallegos quotes because it truly reveals the depth of his stupidity:

    “One is that I do everything to make people happy which means I don’t stand for anything except for just something,” he said. “The other is I stand for something and I try to be a leader and take some people, a group of people, a community someplace and I say guess what folks, this is who I am. I stand for your beliefs. We share these beliefs or we don’t. You get the option to judge that. This is who I am and I am committed to leading us this place, wherever it is...."

    Eureka Reporter Gallegos defends record, looks ahead 7/3/2005

  19. Heh. That's always been one of my favorites - I used to have it posted in the sidebar. I call it his "wandering in the desert" quote.

  20. Rose - that guy's brain is a desert.

    By the way, what ever happened to the Gundersen preliminary hearing. Last I heard, there was testimony last thursday and nothing more? Got any news?

  21. Haven't heard anything. But everyone is in shock over losing Roger Rodoni. It's hard to focus on anything else.


Comments are closed.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.