Get real

On Measure T: "Large out-of-county corporations are corrupting the integrity of our local elections and undermining the confidence of citizens in our government," said Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, who is managing the campaign for the measure...

That was then.

Given what you know now - that Gallegos' Palco suit never passed muster, never made it to court, never had any legal merit whatsoever, and the influences that brought about the Palco suit...

Tell me. WHO is corrupting the integrity of local elections?

Hint... it ain't the corporations.

Courage? Not.

It's the end of the line for Paul Gallegos' famous Palco Lawsuit. And he doesn't even have the guts to sign his name. Makes an underling sign it.

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
IN RE SCOTIA DEVELOPMENT LLC, ET AL., Debtors

JOINTLY ADMINSTERED Case NO. 07-20027-C-11 Chapter 11

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF PROOFS OF CLAIM NOS, 560, 561, AND 562
FILED BY PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
The People of the State of California file this Notice of Withdrawal of Proofs of Claim Nos. 560, 561 and 562 (the "Notice"), and withdraw, with prejudice to refiling, each of the following proofs of claim filed against Salmon creek, LLC, Scotia Pacific Company, LLC and The Pacific Lumber Company filed in these jointly administered bankruptcy cases:
Proof of Claim No. 560 filed in an unliquidated amount;
Proof of Claim No. 561 filed in an unliquidated amount; and
Proof of Claim No. 562 filed in an unliquidated amount.

Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of May, 2008

Paul V. Gallegos, SBN 161408
Humboldt County District Attorney

signed (NOT BY PAUL GALLEGOS HIMSELF)
NO. Signed by poor
Christa K. McKimmy, SBV 215785
Deputy District Attorney
825 5th Street, 4th Floor
Eureka, CA 95501
Tel: (707) 445-7411
Attorneys for the People of the State of California

Case 07-20027 Document 3012 Filed in TXSB on 05/28/2008 Page 1 of 1

Nice. Make her wear it. Notice to any future readers who come here because they googled HER name... she did not lose this case. This case was brought by Tim Stoen, largely written, it is said, by a campaign supporter, it was pursued by Stoen and Gallegos with much pomp and circumstance, much bluster, a massive effort was put in place to keep this suit alive, and it never even got into court, never passed demurrer. Callegos appealed its tossing, and lost. Gallegos appealed to the California Supreme Court, and lost again. Christa McKimmy's misfortune is that she works for this man - and, while he takes credit for any wins, any losses are passed down to underlings. Paul Gallegos bears sole responsibility for bringing a POLITICALLY MOTIVATED SUIT that never had any merit. NEVER HAD ANY MERIT WHATSOEVER.

In case you missed it

Failed Gallegos lawsuit one more obstacle for community to overcome

Dear Editor,

On April 24, the California Supreme Court put an end to District Attorney Gallegos’ lawsuit against the Pacific Lumber Company. This, after five years of litigation including: 1) having the suit thrown out by the trial court for failure to meet minimum standards to be allowed to go to trial; and 2) a unanimous decision by the appeals court explaining at length why the suit could have no merit as filed. It was a political prosecution and citizens should look at the nature and cost of this exercise.

Gallegos touted himself as courageous in this fight — but no, this quality was lacking as seen in his decision to duck charging the Arkley/Glass matter, sending it to the attorney general instead. The fight was also billed as one against corruption, but the courts resoundingly disagreed.

The most obvious cost is the scores of thousands of dollars in salaries and other expenses paid for by taxpayers. More subtle is the opportunity cost of having these prosecutorial resources not spent on other things — for instance, sexual, child or elder abuse cases, innovative programs to fight drug abuse, or consumer fraud. These forms of corruption are more insidious, and strike at everyone.

The greatest cost, however, was the reckless shredding of the fabric of the Humboldt County community. The greater the power, the greater the need for humility and restraint in its exercise. With PALCO now prostrate in bankruptcy, the lingering bitterness engendered by the Gallegos lawsuit will be one more obstacle for our community to overcome.

Paul Hagen
Eureka

Paul Hagen's "My Word" in TS today

worth reading - Why DA's Palco suit was ill-advised

Former environmental prosecutor Paul Hagen explains the flaws in Gallegos' Palco suit, the reason why it failed to make it into court, what was wrong with the reasoning behind Gallegos' Appeal of that rejection, the subsequent rejection of his Appeal (made a published Opinion), and the CA Supreme Court's final nail in the Palco suit coffin, a final rejection.

The Appeals Court found that the state has failed to prove, on its third try, a reasonable possibility that the (complaint)'s defect can be cured by amendment.”

Hagen's own credentials dwarf Gallegos' - and he notes: I would like to make it clear that I in no way approve of Palco's behavior. I personally prosecuted them twice criminally (obtaining literally every last penny available as penalties under the 15 counts I charged collectively) and once civilly (against Scopac, actually), receiving $80,000 in a settlement, $35,000 of which I sent to schools in the Van Duzen watershed.

And I found Palco's behavior in the recall election astounding and shameful, an incredibly bad set of decisions to fund petition signers and more in an effort to drive out an elected official.

That said, Gallegos' decision to prosecute Palco was a political one, make no mistake. Political prosecutions are never a good idea.

Within days of taking office, Gallegos directed his chief investigator to conduct an investigation. When his investigators reported they could not find evidence of a crime, the suit was filed civilly instead. The day before it was filed, a member of a local watchdog organization sat in the DA's library and read the complaint.

Paul Hagen is one of the rare few with the courage to speak out. It cost him his job.

ER Failed Gallegos lawsuit one more obstacle for community to overcome 5/3/08

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.

Gallegos tries appeal to the CA Supreme Court

Ya just have to laugh.

DA petitions Supreme Court

Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos is asking the California Supreme Court to review his fraud lawsuit against Pacific Lumber Co. that has failed three times to pass legal muster.

Gallegos said this time the influential environmental group Sierra Club is also asking the court to hear the case.

“We’ll see what happens,” Gallegos said in a phone interview Monday.

The district attorney’s case, filed in 2003 in Humboldt County Superior Court, and subsequent amended suits were dismissed on demurrer, which effectively throws out the suit on a lack of legal merit.

After hearing legal arguments from Gallegos and a city of San Francisco attorney on his behalf in December, the California Appellate Court justices blasted his case and concluded in a rare 23-page published ruling and opinion in January that Gallegos failed to prove — on his third attempt — any “reasonable possibility” that his case could be corrected to move forward.

Gallegos confirmed Monday that he has petitioned the state’s top court seeking judicial review of the Appellate Court’s ruling, which he wrote is in “clear error” and effectively denies the government a platform to prosecute cases where the underlying administrative proceedings were corrupt.

In addition to seeking judicial review, Gallegos is asking the Supreme Court to order the depublication of the appeal court’s opinion, which would prevent other courts from citing it as case law.

Gallegos’ suit alleges that PALCO intentionally committed fraud in an effort to increase timber harvesting by manipulating watershed sediment reports during the environmental review that led to the signing of the controversial Headwaters Deal in 1999.

But the courts have maintained that PALCO’s submission of an allegedly erroneous report and the subsequent resubmission of corrected data was protected by the “litigation privilege” that protects communications made as part of a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding.

Gallegos argues that to grant immunity to an applicant who submits false information erodes the integrity of the system and disempowers the administrative agencies from fulfilling their mandate.

Except in certain death penalty cases, the California Constitution affords no automatic right to appeal before the Supreme Court, which is only granted as a matter of discretion, according to the Supreme Court Web site.

In his letter to the California Supreme Court, Gallegos said the “reasons why courts must shield litigants from derivative litigation are the very same reasons why courts must allow an exception to these evidentiary shields when the path to truth was muddied beyond the point of recourse.”

“In such an instance, a collateral attack under the (Unfair Competition Law) is the only form of equitable relief through which the government can stop an ongoing fraud,” Gallegos wrote.

In a response, PALCO Vice President and General Counsel Frank Bacik described Gallegos’ new filings as “vague assertions that everybody is wrong except Paul Gallegos.”

“The trial court is wrong, the court of appeal is wrong, Palco is wrong,” Bacik said.

Bacik said Gallegos argues that the Supreme Court should carve out an exception to the company’s constitutional right to petition administrative agencies, and also create a special provision for criminal prosecutors who feel like reopening final administrative and environmental review proceedings in order to have the last word on the accuracy and truthfulness of the process.

“His filings contain a series of slogans that lack reason, explanation or basis for either de-publication of the appellate court’s opinion or grant by the Supreme Court for a review of that opinion,” Bacik said.

As an example, Bacik cited Gallegos’ statement to the court that “the clear errors that the trial court committed and the appellate court affirmed obstruct not only the sanctity of 211,000 acres of Humboldt forest timberland, but also the very ‘paths which to lead to [sic] the ascertainment of truth.’”

“Whatever that means, it hardly presents a reasoned legal argument,” Bacik stated. “We’re eager to hear what the California Supreme Court makes of it, and interested to see how long Mr. Gallegos intends to continue beating this long-dead horse at considerable expense to the taxpayers of Humboldt County.”

It is unclear how much the five-year legal battle has cost taxpayers because Gallegos indicated in an e-mail correspondence previously that his office doesn’t keep such records.

“We have an overall budget,” Gallegos wrote. “There are attorney hours, which we don’t keep. I do not believe we had any other costs.”

Gallegos indicated he is still waiting to receive PALCO’s claim of costs, which the court ruled the county would have to pay.

PALCO officials declined to disclose the amount of legal fees it has incurred defending the lawsuit.
***
TS Gallegos asks Supreme Court to review Palco ruling

Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos is asking the state Supreme Court to review an appellate court's ruling that allowed his fraud suit against the Pacific Lumber Co. to be tossed out. He also is requesting that the Supreme Court order “depublication” of the opinion.

”We would like the court to review it,” Gallegos said Monday.

Palco Vice President Frank Bacik said in a news release that the “filings contain a series of slogans that lack reason, explanation or basis for either depublication of the appellate court's opinion or grant by the Supreme Court for a review of that opinion.”

”The new filings appear in the form of vague assertions that everybody is wrong except Paul Gallegos. The trial court is wrong, the court of appeal is wrong, Palco is wrong,” Bacik said.

The lawsuit, filed in February 2003, claimed Palco submitted faulty studies during the Headwaters Forest negotiations to get the California Department of Forestry to adopt a less restrictive long-term logging plan. Gallegos' second amended complaint was thrown out of Humboldt County Superior Court by visiting Judge Richard Freeborn, a ruling upheld by the appeals court.

The logging plan was part of the agreement to sell the 7,400-acre Headwaters Forest and other groves for $480 million. Gallegos argued that the company secured it by submitting false data on landslides in one watershed and not submitting a correction until the last minute.

The appeals court judges determined that Palco's lobbying efforts with the state were the real force behind CDF's decision to drop the stricter logging plan and adopt a less restrictive one. They found the California Environmental Quality Act proceedings during the Headwaters discussions were the appropriate venue to consider if any evidence presented was false.

Those lobbying efforts are privileged under state unfair competition laws, the ruling reads. The court also determined that Palco is protected by the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine that shields anyone petitioning the government or government agencies against civil liability, unless they are engaged in a “sham.”

Palco's efforts didn't meet the definition of a sham, the judges wrote in the ruling.
***
The best commentary so far Gallegos seeks stinging rebuke from even higher court Humboldt Mirror
Or, this from the Onion - Plan 'L' Switched To :) Enjoy.

You've gotta be kidding.

The activist's are getting their money's worth with Gallegos. Even though his case has been tossed again and again and again, and even though the Appellate Court justices laughed at him, and said in no uncertain terms that even though he has amended his case three times, it has no hope of success, no basis in law - Gallegos has filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court.

I'm told he has also filed for depublication of the Appellate Court decision. but no verification as of yet.

02/21/2008
Service copy of petition for review received. Filed by plaintiff/appellant People of State of California
02/27/2008
Record transmitted to Supreme Court.

How much more time and money is going to get wasted on this piece of shit?

Hank had it first
Eric has a thread going...

Looks like Ken Miller and crew are pushing Gallegos into appealing his piece of shit Palco suit.

It's not enough that the case has been thrown out, what is it, three times now? Miller & Co. won't give up. How else do you explain Jeffrey "yougofree.com" Schwartz buttering Gallegos up, telling him (and you) how fabulous he looks in those silky golden, jewel-encrusted robes they have created for him, in the hopes that he will parade into court yet again without realizing he is buck-naked.

This nauseating piece of - ummmm, fiction demands a response. It's time to make the real record clear. I'm going to need more than 750 words, Mr. Somerville.

Where do I start?

Hank has nailed it in his response. Bread and Circuses (Town Dandy, Feb 7, 2008)

Joke of the day

The tribal wisdom, passed on from generation to generation, says that when you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount.

In modern education and government, however, a whole range of far more advanced strategies are often employed, such as:
1. Buying a stronger whip.
2. Changing Riders.
3. Threatening the horse with termination.
4. Appointing a committee to study the horse.
5. Arranging to visit other countries to see how others ride dead horses.
6. Lowering the standards so that dead horses can be included.
7. Re-classifying the dead horse as "living impaired".
8. Hiring outside contractors to ride the dead horse.
9. Harnessing several dead horses together to increase the speed.
10. Providing additional funding and/or training to increase the dead horse's performance.
11. Doing a productivity study to see if lighter riders would improve the dead horse's performance.
12. Declaring that as the dead horse does not have to be fed, it is less costly, carries lower overhead, and therefore, contributes substantially more to the bottom line of the economy than do some other horses.
13. Re-writing the expected performance requirements for all horses.
14. Promoting the dead horse to a supervisory position.

OR -

15. If you are Ken Miller/heraldo/Salzman et al, when admitting you're riding a dead horse means losing your cash cow - what do you do? You post - "Unlike the T-S, the Humboldt Herald is disinclined to declare the fraud suit saga “over.” In response to the recent appellate ruling, other action prepares itself behind the starting gate.... Developing…"

I am blown away by this editorial

An end to the saga

The suit by the Humboldt County District Attorney's Office against Pacific Lumber Co. appears to have reached its end, after years of strife and division.

It seems so long ago when District Attorney Paul Gallegos and his then right-hand man, Assistant District Attorney Tim Stoen, announced the suit in 2003. For skeptics and enemies of Palco, the suit seemed like justice riding to the rescue -- the government taking on corporate power gone awry.

For others, though, the suit was seen as ill-thought-out attack on Humboldt County's historical way of life, and on one of the county's main economic engines.

Across the board, the suit split the county into various sides and ultimately led to the attempted recall of Gallegos, an effort that failed but brought even more division, more angst and more political bloodbath.

Gallegos survived the recall, but lost the suit.

Filed in February 2003, it claimed Palco submitted faulty studies during the Headwaters Forest negotiations to get the California Department of Forestry to adopt a less restrictive long-term logging plan. Gallegos' second amended complaint was thrown out of Humboldt County Superior Court by visiting Judge Richard Freeborn, a ruling upheld by the appeals court.

The logging plan was part of the agreement to sell the 7,400-acre Headwaters Forest and other groves for $480 million. Gallegos argued that the company secured it by submitting false data on landslides in one watershed and not submitting a correction until the last minute.

Palco's lobbying efforts with the state were the real force behind CDF's decision to drop the stricter logging plan and adopt a less restrictive one, the appeals court judges determined. The California Environmental Quality Act proceedings during the Headwaters discussions were the appropriate venue to consider if any evidence presented was false, they wrote.

Those lobbying efforts are privileged under state unfair competition laws, the ruling reads. The court also determined that Palco is protected by the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine that shields anyone petitioning the government or government agencies against civil liability, unless they are engaged in a “sham.”

Palco's efforts didn't meet the definition of a sham, the court wrote.

At this point we have to ask whether the suit was worth the cost, both monetarily and in the social repercussions that split this community so violently down the middle.

When Gallegos initially ran for office, he was criticized by some for -- to say it plainly -- not being a very good attorney. The results of this case don't do much to help his case.

He says now that he does not regret bringing the case. Should he? There's no easy answer there, but once voters make that determination in their own minds, the next question is whether Gallegos should pay the price with his job come next election.

On this case rested Gallegos' legacy as the Humboldt County district attorney. While some would uphold him as a visionary and a fighter, all we have seen after more than a term in office is that he brings division under the name of high ideals, and then fails to deliver on that promise.

It makes us wonder if the real motivation behind this suit was self-aggrandizement, rather than the well-being of Humboldt County residents.

THANK YOU, Times Standard.

The last word

Gallegos' infamous politically motivated lawsuit slips beneath the waves. Gallegos is done.

Full Circle

The Journal You’d have expected sadness, grief, maybe anger. Nothing of it. When District Attorney Paul Gallegos called his mini-press conference last week to respond to the appellate court’s decision to kill, yet again, his massive fraud lawsuit against the Pacific Lumber Co., the DA himself was perfectly accommodating and upbeat. From Gallegos’ demeanor, you’d never have guessed that California’s First District Court of Appeals had, in a stroke, erased his whole reason for being.

Rightly or wrongly, Gallegos’ whole career as a prosecutor has been tied up with this suit, which he filed shortly after taking office in 2003. The backdrop was the Headwaters Forest deal, in which the state and federal governments bought the last remaining giant old-growth redwood stand in private hands from Palco and simultaneously set up a long-term harvesting regime for the company’s remaining holdings. In the suit, Gallegos and his then-assistant DA, Tim Stoen , with help from local activist and pot doctor Ken Miller , alleged that Pacific Lumber defrauded the public in the late ’90s when the company submitted incorrect data on the relationship between logging and landslides to California regulatory agencies. (The company corrected the data, but — alleged the DA — too late.) The false landslide data allowed the company to secure a much greater rate of harvest than otherwise would have been possible, the DA argued. His suit sought restitution to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

The suit set off a shitstorm that now, five years later, people would find difficult to credit. Pacific Lumber funded a massive recall attempt against the DA, bringing in all kinds of out-of-town sharpies to do some very dirty political work. Gallegos himself became a folk hero, acquiring an aura of sainthood to some and of deviltry to others. Everything in the county boiled down to a single question — were you for Gallegos, or were you for Maxxam? If you answered wrongly, you were secretly beholden to pure evil. This vibe stuck around for quite a while, long after the failure of the recall and even after a trial court threw out the suit against Palco, two and a half years ago. (See “Case Dismissed,” July 7, 2005.) When, in 2006, Gallegos was faced by a challenge from law-and-order-minded Deputy District Attorney Worth Dikeman , the three basic cases to be made for Gallegos were that: a) the cops didn’t like him, b) he had basically legalized pot and c) the Palco case was on appeal. Despite the office chaos endemic to Gallegos’ tenure as DA and the dissolution of programs like the Child Abuse Services Team, these three factors and the aura remaining around him from the recall fight were enough to put him over the top.

What’s left? As stated above, Gallegos didn’t seem very perturbed by the ruling. Though it had been out for a full day before the press conference, he said that he hadn’t read it until a couple of hours before the conference. He disagreed with the court’s ruling — that Palco’s actions fell under the First Amendment-guaranteed right to lobby the government, and probably didn’t affect the outcome anyway — but he said that he respected that this was apparently the law.

“Candidly, I get positive opinions, not negative ones,” Gallegos said. “You’ve got a good 40 percent of the population that says ‘See, I told you so,’ and you’ve got 40 percent that say, ‘Darn, it didn’t work.’”

All in all, Gallegos said, it was worth it. Reasonably, he argued that the case itself wasn’t divisive; it was, he said, “a flashpoint of preexisting divisiveness or animosity in this community.” True enough, as far as it goes. But it’s still shocking to go back over the last five years and tally up all the hatred, all the paranoia, all the frenzied dark energy expended on this lawsuit and on the Gallegos persona, both by his detractors and his supporters. And then to realize that is was all over nothing, in the end.

There is one thing missing here - and that is the story of the big money and out-of-town-sharpies brought in to do some very dirty political work on Gallegos' behalf. One of those was a North Coast Journal cover story.

Gallegos on KMUD

This "interview" is so bad I don't know where to start.
Friday 6:00 pm News Archive

It may not be over yet....

Surprise, surprise,

"The laws of California are the laws of California... and that's where we find ourselves," is the quote used on the Ch. 3 News.

Today's Eureka Reporter says...

At a news conference Friday, District Attorney Paul Gallegos adamantly defended his decision to pursue a fraud lawsuit against Pacific Lumber Co. that was dismissed twice because the court found it had no legal merit.

“I think it was right to file the case,” Gallegos said.

He acknowledged that a considerable amount of time and effort went into the legal battle that has spanned four years and the county was at risk to pay the legal fees and possibly PALCO’s attorney costs.

Gallegos hasn’t ruled out an appeal of the ruling to the California Supreme Court, but said he wanted to consult with his colleagues before deciding.

According to its Web site, the Supreme Court must have an appeal served and filed within 10 days after the appeal court’s decision is final. Read the rest - Gallegos responds to appeal court ruling on fraud suit

The Times Standard says Gallegos is largely resigned to accept his defeat, and says, He said it was worth the cost, but did not have a figure on how much money or how many hours were spent pursuing the case.

Before considering a petition to the California Supreme Court, he said would consult with colleagues about it. But Gallegos said the issue may be something the Legislature should consider taking up.

Palco Vice President Frank Bacik said in a phone interview that the Supreme Court reviews only a small portion of significant or novel cases, and said the appellate court cited long-standing precedents in making its ruling.

”One would not expect them to be interested in reviewing this case,” Bacik said. Read the rest - DA largely resigned to Palco ruling

Which colleagues is Gallegos planning to "consult" with? Would that be all the other DA's, who he begged for help a few days before his appeal brief was due? Or would that be Richard Salzman, Ken Miller, Michael Shellenberger? I'm betting on the latter.

Guess Paul Gallegos will have gave a statement

You are invited to attend a Press Conference regarding PALCO's Decision,
today, Friday, 1/11/08 @ 3:30PM, at the D.A.'s Office, Courthouse Bldg,
825 5th St, 4th Floor.
Paul Gallegos
District Attorney
What? Not on the Courthouse steps?

TS has it as Breaking News

Gallegos unlikely to appeal fraud decision

Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos said he disagrees -- but respects -- a state appellate court's ruling allowing his hallmark fraud suit against the Pacific Lumber Co. to be tossed out.

At a press conference Friday, Gallegos said that the California Ist District Court of Appeal upheld privileges that originate in the First Amendment.

”Certainly I understand the public policy issues behind those privileges,” Gallegos said.

But he said that there is no societal value in fraud. While he believes the case looks into a new area of law, he said it is unlikely that he will petition the California Supreme Court in the matter.

The lawsuit filed in February 2003 claimed Palco submitted faulty studies during the Headwaters Forest negotiations to get the California Department of Forestry to adopt a less restrictive long-term logging plan. Gallegos' second amended complaint was thrown out of Humboldt County Superior Court by visiting Judge Richard Freeborn, a ruling upheld by the appeals court.

And of course, heraldo has the spin - Gallegos is just a "freshmen DA who had his first brush with POWER." In other words...

But even he admits - Gallegos doesn’t have the support, the ability, or the interest to carry on.

And Larry Evans is hopping mad - I guess EPIC has to take their ball back and try to put it in play even though it is now flat as a pancake.

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.

One question

Will the Court Of Appeals decision make the AP wire? Will the national reporters who published Shellenberger's press releases about the gallant David (Gallegos) now report that the Emperor had no clothes on after all...

Or is this like the guy who gets arrested, gets his name smeared all over the front pages, and when he is found innocent, doesn't even warrant a small paragraph clearing his name?

Your search - Pacific Lumber, court of appeals - did not match any articles between Jan 9, 2008 and today.

Everyone likes to come into town and say this is about the jack-booted loggers against the cool newcomers, the old boys versus enlightenment - how about a new angle this time -

There is an interesting pattern in the decisions rendered in Palco related cases. It is that the justices, in setting forth their judgements, go out of their way to express detailed opinions outlining the horrors of the so called “enviro”-litigant's actions.

It happened in the case of Bob Martel (Humboldt Watershed Council/Ken Miller, remember) where he was found to have no standing and ordered to pay substantial fees ($110,000.00, no less.)

It happened in Hurwitz's case against the FDIC where the judge ruled that the government had acted like the Mafia in trying to take his property.

It happened when Freeborn ruled on the demurrer, and it has happened again here.

The system does work. And the so called “environmental” groups who have attempted to use the court system as a Panzer unit are finding that out.  

The judges are not political animals, and the decisions are made quietly, without the fanfare that PACs bring. It's like the tree that falls in the forest - and in this case, no one hears.

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?

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.

Date set

Court date: Wednesday, Dec. 19, at 9 a.m.
The People v. Pacific Lumber Co. et al.
Case: A112028 1st District, Division 3

Hank has it, too.

Response to amicus curiae brief filed w/pdf file

The People v. Pacific Lumber Co. et al.
Case: A112028 1st District, Division 3

Response to amicus curiae brief filed.

***
PL's RESPONSE to the City of San Francisco's Amicus Brief a 23 pg pdf file