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.