If only HE could have gone and argued the case, surely the outcome would have been different. Surely.
At some point I will read the whole thing, I guess. I didn't get part the first couple sentences, and the "courageous" lawsuit. Yes. That one. The one Ken Miller wrote. The same one that was - literally - laughed out of court.
But let this record show, there was - and there is - nothing 'courageous' about an elected politician filing a lawsuit at the behest of his backers and handlers. 'COURAGE' would have been saying, "No, Ken. Sorry, it doesn't work that way."
Ken glosses over all the lies. Employs his spin doctored talking points, and his delusional version of reality. Even Gallegos knows it's false, if ever he were to admit the truth.
◼ Paul Gallegos restored honor to DA's office = Ken Miller's MY WORD in the Times-Standard
Now, if only he could restore our seasoned, trained, top-flight Prosecutors. He had 20 when he took office, right, Ken? How many prosecutors does he have now, not even counting whether they're experienced or not... six? seven?
Related: ◼ Good riddance to Paul Gallegos - Susan Dodd, Letter to the Editor/Times-Standard
Showing posts with label PL Lawsuit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PL Lawsuit. Show all posts
Saturday, December 14, 2013
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Vigilantism is not, no scratch that... Universal justice is not universally popular
◼ Gallegos campaign ad, I mean, "My Word"
◼ Universal justice is not universally popular
Paul V. Gallegos/For the Times-Standard
Posted: 06/24/2010 01:37:11 AM PDT
I want to send a heartfelt thank you to everyone who made our spring campaign a success. It would not have been possible without each and every one of you who volunteered, donated and endorsed. Thank you for all you have given and the many hours of hard work and dedication you selflessly gave over the last several months. It is the sum of your very efforts that made our campaign successful.
I am grateful for the votes and affirmation I received, and to those who did not vote for me, I want you to know that I have heard your voices and I intend to redouble my efforts to earn your votes in November.
Joanie and I moved here about 15 years ago, and fell in love with this remarkable community. Eight years ago I ran for district attorney on a platform of Justice For All -- including those historically neglected by the justice system such as children, victims of domestic violence, people of color, and victims of corporate fraud -- and for modernization. It's hard to believe now, but when I inherited the office, criminal case information was kept on index cards-- not computers.
Since then, my office has aggressively prosecuted the powerful -- even when it's been unpopular. My office prosecuted Maxxam/PL on evidence of fraud. We prosecuted Blue Lake's police chief for multiple felonies including illegal weapons. We prosecuted an oil company and won a major settlement to protect our drinking water.
But universal justice is not universally popular, and some would rather go back to how things used to be. This would be a mistake.
When I came to office, the murder of Blue Lake teen Curtis Huntzinger was still unsolved after 18 years. It was presumed to be unsolvable. But my investigators cracked the case and obtained a full confession from his murderer, Steven Daniel Hash.
During the campaign, one of my opponents made the disturbing accusation that I had let a child abuser off with a slap on the wrist. It was odd because she, under the previous office, had handled the case back in 2000, and should have known the original sentence was overturned on appeal; my office had to re-prosecute it anew in 2004, and the perpetrator was sentenced to eight years in prison.
I'll be the first to admit how much I've learned in the past eight years. Delivering justice to all is not easy. Behind the big publicity stories are thousands of small success stories and dozens of daily tragedies. We can't bring back loved ones -- but we can prosecute to the full extent of the law with the best evidence we have, which is what we do.
We cannot go back to how things were; the improvements and progress we've achieved over the last eight years are simply too precious to give up.
I ask for your support on my campaign as we move toward a November victory. For more information, go to votepaul.org.
Paul V. Gallegos is the Humboldt County district attorney.
Where to begin.
◼ Universal justice is not universally popular
Paul V. Gallegos/For the Times-Standard
Posted: 06/24/2010 01:37:11 AM PDT
I want to send a heartfelt thank you to everyone who made our spring campaign a success. It would not have been possible without each and every one of you who volunteered, donated and endorsed. Thank you for all you have given and the many hours of hard work and dedication you selflessly gave over the last several months. It is the sum of your very efforts that made our campaign successful.
I am grateful for the votes and affirmation I received, and to those who did not vote for me, I want you to know that I have heard your voices and I intend to redouble my efforts to earn your votes in November.
Joanie and I moved here about 15 years ago, and fell in love with this remarkable community. Eight years ago I ran for district attorney on a platform of Justice For All -- including those historically neglected by the justice system such as children, victims of domestic violence, people of color, and victims of corporate fraud -- and for modernization. It's hard to believe now, but when I inherited the office, criminal case information was kept on index cards-- not computers.
Since then, my office has aggressively prosecuted the powerful -- even when it's been unpopular. My office prosecuted Maxxam/PL on evidence of fraud. We prosecuted Blue Lake's police chief for multiple felonies including illegal weapons. We prosecuted an oil company and won a major settlement to protect our drinking water.
But universal justice is not universally popular, and some would rather go back to how things used to be. This would be a mistake.
When I came to office, the murder of Blue Lake teen Curtis Huntzinger was still unsolved after 18 years. It was presumed to be unsolvable. But my investigators cracked the case and obtained a full confession from his murderer, Steven Daniel Hash.
During the campaign, one of my opponents made the disturbing accusation that I had let a child abuser off with a slap on the wrist. It was odd because she, under the previous office, had handled the case back in 2000, and should have known the original sentence was overturned on appeal; my office had to re-prosecute it anew in 2004, and the perpetrator was sentenced to eight years in prison.
I'll be the first to admit how much I've learned in the past eight years. Delivering justice to all is not easy. Behind the big publicity stories are thousands of small success stories and dozens of daily tragedies. We can't bring back loved ones -- but we can prosecute to the full extent of the law with the best evidence we have, which is what we do.
We cannot go back to how things were; the improvements and progress we've achieved over the last eight years are simply too precious to give up.
I ask for your support on my campaign as we move toward a November victory. For more information, go to votepaul.org.
Paul V. Gallegos is the Humboldt County district attorney.
Where to begin.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Another funny quote:
When Stoen talks about the PL suit, his complete confidence in its success is disarming. "I will win this case," he says. "If Paul's not recalled, I am guaranteeing you that we will win this case. I don't know what the penalties will be, but this case is as solid as a rock." ☛ NCJ Cover Story
Yeah. He also said he only needed two pieces of paper and a couple of expert witnesses and this case was a SLAM DUNK.
Yeah. He also said he only needed two pieces of paper and a couple of expert witnesses and this case was a SLAM DUNK.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Times-Standard editorial - Paul Gallegos
☛ TS Gallegos' case management
Humboldt County and its District Attorney Paul Gallegos have been through a lot together. When Humboldt County voters decided to oust longtime incumbent Terry Farmer in favor of the young surfer DA, it was with an eye on cultivating some fresh blood and adding an infusion of vigor and energy in the District Attorney's Office.
It was hoped that Gallegos would bring a new perspective, and challenge that status quo.
Gallegos has done that -- he's challenged entrenched powers, and he's certainly shaken up things in Humboldt County.
The problem, though, is that nearly every major undertaking by Gallegos has ended in failure, and with each of those has come a colossal waste of time and resources, as well as an increasingly divided community.
Whereas it was initially hoped that Gallegos would bring the community together by progressively representing the bulk of the county's voters, instead he has sponsored division and rancor in nearly everything he's touched.
The case against Pacific Lumber Co., which led to a huge battle in the community that included a recall effort against Gallegos? Dismissed. The case against Fortuna Councilwoman Debi August? The same.
The case against former Chief Dave Douglas and Lt. Tony Zanotti? Dismissed.
In hindsight, we fear that with each of these cases, Gallegos has tried to live up to his own progressive legend at the expense of critical thinking.
At times, Gallegos tries to hang major cases on legal minutiae, or rarely cited bits of law, that leave other legal scholars scratching their heads. Given the preeminence of his position, and the fact that he's gambling with public chips, he needs to proceed much more carefully in his remaining time in office.
He has wasted resources, directing attention away from his office's main task -- criminal cases -- and woefully divided the community with very little if anything to show.
This newspaper endorsed Gallegos in his last election, a decision we stand by given his competition at the time. But our support, and that of the public, will be much harder to earn the next time around, given that Gallegos sometimes appears too interested in attracting headlines for filing major cases that he almost invariably loses.
If he doesn't change his stripes and fast, a loss at the polls for Gallegos may be the only victory he can secure for the rest of us.
SoHum Parlance - Times Standard tears into Gallegos
heraldo - T-S gives Gallegos too much credit
Humboldt County and its District Attorney Paul Gallegos have been through a lot together. When Humboldt County voters decided to oust longtime incumbent Terry Farmer in favor of the young surfer DA, it was with an eye on cultivating some fresh blood and adding an infusion of vigor and energy in the District Attorney's Office.
It was hoped that Gallegos would bring a new perspective, and challenge that status quo.
Gallegos has done that -- he's challenged entrenched powers, and he's certainly shaken up things in Humboldt County.
The problem, though, is that nearly every major undertaking by Gallegos has ended in failure, and with each of those has come a colossal waste of time and resources, as well as an increasingly divided community.
Whereas it was initially hoped that Gallegos would bring the community together by progressively representing the bulk of the county's voters, instead he has sponsored division and rancor in nearly everything he's touched.
The case against Pacific Lumber Co., which led to a huge battle in the community that included a recall effort against Gallegos? Dismissed. The case against Fortuna Councilwoman Debi August? The same.
The case against former Chief Dave Douglas and Lt. Tony Zanotti? Dismissed.
In hindsight, we fear that with each of these cases, Gallegos has tried to live up to his own progressive legend at the expense of critical thinking.
At times, Gallegos tries to hang major cases on legal minutiae, or rarely cited bits of law, that leave other legal scholars scratching their heads. Given the preeminence of his position, and the fact that he's gambling with public chips, he needs to proceed much more carefully in his remaining time in office.
He has wasted resources, directing attention away from his office's main task -- criminal cases -- and woefully divided the community with very little if anything to show.
This newspaper endorsed Gallegos in his last election, a decision we stand by given his competition at the time. But our support, and that of the public, will be much harder to earn the next time around, given that Gallegos sometimes appears too interested in attracting headlines for filing major cases that he almost invariably loses.
If he doesn't change his stripes and fast, a loss at the polls for Gallegos may be the only victory he can secure for the rest of us.
SoHum Parlance - Times Standard tears into Gallegos
heraldo - T-S gives Gallegos too much credit
Friday, September 05, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Truths' out.
At the time there were denials from the Neely camp. Richard Marks adamantly stated that Bonnie Neely had gotten in bed with Richard Salzman. Getting re-elected was more important to her than anything else... As a guest-writer this week's Town Dandy, Eric Kirk proves Richard Marks was right on the money...
excerpt: ...Transcendence be damned. Nuances notwithstanding, most politics can be reduced to stereotypes of liberalism vs. conservatism. When I moved to Humboldt County in the ’90s, the ideological lines of the North Coast were clear and pronounced. Fresh on the heels of Redwood Summer, none of the politics surprised me. Rallies at Stafford. Tree sits. Pepper spray. “U.S. out of Humboldt County.” Wal-Mart. Marijuana. It all culminated in 2002 with the first election of Paul Gallegos as District Attorney, revealing progressive politics as a burgeoning force countywide, as conservatives dug in for a siege.
But the siege never came, and politics have never been the same.
At first the lines held strong. Bonnie Neely, longtime Republican pol and wife of the vanquished D.A. Terry Farmer, jumped all over Gallegos in the aftermath of the initial filing of the Palco suit. “You’re all alone,” she told him coldly at a meeting stacked by Palco employees who had circled the Courthouse in a demonstration with images reminiscent of the Chilean truckers strike, circa 1972 — as the Board voted to decline Gallegos leave to farm the case out to private counsel.
But then came the recall. Robin Arkley, Sr., ponied up five grand to prime the Palco cash pump. But then Arkley, Jr., no raving liberal, trumped him with 12 g’s to oppose the recall. Palco and its parent Maxxam threw down $85K for a campaign that went down in a thud with numbers so convincing that one has to assume at least a portion of the “old guard” had broken solidarity. Conservatives, who had not voted for Gallegos, and would not vote for him in the subsequent election, didn’t like recalls, or perhaps distrusted Palco more than they despised the upstart.
A minor, and perhaps fleeting, shift. But it didn’t end there.
Three years later Bonnie Neely embraced Gallegos at his reelection party. She also celebrated her own victory taking her to a runoff election with a fellow Republican, beating out the lone Democrat with the blessing of local Democratic Party activists. She was deemed the “liberal” candidate. In that same election moderate Republican Virginia Bass was elected Mayor of Eureka with the help of a progressive activist campaign manager (who had opposed Wal-Mart) on a de facto slate opposite Neely’s coalition, in which Neely informally caucused with unmistakable liberals like Larry Glass and Chris Kerrigan....
Let's not forget, only a short time ago, this is what Eric's camp was saying about Neely:
>On Friday, March 5, 2004, at 03:10 PM, Michael Twombly wrote:
>> Sacramento Insider Poop: Confidential
>> 1. Not too late to derail Neely appointment
>> Neely is all out for this appointment, balls to the wall.
>> Her support with Gov. Arnold comes from Tracy Walsh (wife of Danny Walsh and Maria S. chief of staff) and from Red Emerson (big $$$ to Arnold). Other than that, no support for Bonnie with Arnold.
>> 2. DA Recall could play BIG in Coastal Commission appointment (John W. A WINNER, Bonnie a loser.)
>> Gov's office is laughing over Maxxam/PL's stupidity and big loss; Flanigans are a joke; Obviously Reeps and Demos voted against Neely and the recall. Neely's star sinking. Let's help it. Tie Neely to Recall. Keep her losing.
Also: Looking back... One thing you do have to admit, Eric (and all of your "proggggrressive" camp - now that every single court that has touched Gallegos'/Ken Miller's wretched PL suit has tossed it for lack of merit, after the 1st Distrcit Court of Appeals laughed at Gallegos' arguments, after the Supreme Court refused his requests... you have to admit that the Board of Supervisors did the right thing in recognizing it for what it was, a piece of shit...
excerpt: ...Transcendence be damned. Nuances notwithstanding, most politics can be reduced to stereotypes of liberalism vs. conservatism. When I moved to Humboldt County in the ’90s, the ideological lines of the North Coast were clear and pronounced. Fresh on the heels of Redwood Summer, none of the politics surprised me. Rallies at Stafford. Tree sits. Pepper spray. “U.S. out of Humboldt County.” Wal-Mart. Marijuana. It all culminated in 2002 with the first election of Paul Gallegos as District Attorney, revealing progressive politics as a burgeoning force countywide, as conservatives dug in for a siege.
But the siege never came, and politics have never been the same.
At first the lines held strong. Bonnie Neely, longtime Republican pol and wife of the vanquished D.A. Terry Farmer, jumped all over Gallegos in the aftermath of the initial filing of the Palco suit. “You’re all alone,” she told him coldly at a meeting stacked by Palco employees who had circled the Courthouse in a demonstration with images reminiscent of the Chilean truckers strike, circa 1972 — as the Board voted to decline Gallegos leave to farm the case out to private counsel.
But then came the recall. Robin Arkley, Sr., ponied up five grand to prime the Palco cash pump. But then Arkley, Jr., no raving liberal, trumped him with 12 g’s to oppose the recall. Palco and its parent Maxxam threw down $85K for a campaign that went down in a thud with numbers so convincing that one has to assume at least a portion of the “old guard” had broken solidarity. Conservatives, who had not voted for Gallegos, and would not vote for him in the subsequent election, didn’t like recalls, or perhaps distrusted Palco more than they despised the upstart.
A minor, and perhaps fleeting, shift. But it didn’t end there.
Three years later Bonnie Neely embraced Gallegos at his reelection party. She also celebrated her own victory taking her to a runoff election with a fellow Republican, beating out the lone Democrat with the blessing of local Democratic Party activists. She was deemed the “liberal” candidate. In that same election moderate Republican Virginia Bass was elected Mayor of Eureka with the help of a progressive activist campaign manager (who had opposed Wal-Mart) on a de facto slate opposite Neely’s coalition, in which Neely informally caucused with unmistakable liberals like Larry Glass and Chris Kerrigan....
Let's not forget, only a short time ago, this is what Eric's camp was saying about Neely:
>On Friday, March 5, 2004, at 03:10 PM, Michael Twombly wrote:
>> Sacramento Insider Poop: Confidential
>> 1. Not too late to derail Neely appointment
>> Neely is all out for this appointment, balls to the wall.
>> Her support with Gov. Arnold comes from Tracy Walsh (wife of Danny Walsh and Maria S. chief of staff) and from Red Emerson (big $$$ to Arnold). Other than that, no support for Bonnie with Arnold.
>> 2. DA Recall could play BIG in Coastal Commission appointment (John W. A WINNER, Bonnie a loser.)
>> Gov's office is laughing over Maxxam/PL's stupidity and big loss; Flanigans are a joke; Obviously Reeps and Demos voted against Neely and the recall. Neely's star sinking. Let's help it. Tie Neely to Recall. Keep her losing.
Also: Looking back... One thing you do have to admit, Eric (and all of your "proggggrressive" camp - now that every single court that has touched Gallegos'/Ken Miller's wretched PL suit has tossed it for lack of merit, after the 1st Distrcit Court of Appeals laughed at Gallegos' arguments, after the Supreme Court refused his requests... you have to admit that the Board of Supervisors did the right thing in recognizing it for what it was, a piece of shit...
Friday, June 13, 2008
Who paid?
Remember Bob Martel, who said his suit against Palco cost him $250,000 and took five years of research?
When he lost, The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered him to pay the company legal fees of more than $110,000. And he said he hadn't earned "more than six thousand dollars in a year in recent memory"
And you wonder - who paid those bills? Who paid the $250,000 that he couldn't possibly have afforded? Plus the more than $110,000. Has he been making monthly payments all this time?
Well, here's another one - This June 4, 1993 article in the New York Times says that Bill Bertain who spends most of his time and much of his money on the legal battle with Mr. Hurwitz was "more than a half-million dollars in debt. At times he has been unable to meet his house payments, and his health has deterioriated."
Bill, did you have to absorb those costs yourself? Or was there help and support? And if so from whom? From what entity(ies)?
That was 1993. How much longer did that battle go on, and what was the total cost? Again, how did you pay for it? I mean it's fair to say that it could have gone on for another 10 years, up until Gallegos took over.
How many lawsuits were there? Yours. Martel's. EPIC's, I've heard tell of some smaller ones with some interesting connections. Hundreds? Thousands? And who paid?
When the history of what happened here is told, will these questions be answered?
When he lost, The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered him to pay the company legal fees of more than $110,000. And he said he hadn't earned "more than six thousand dollars in a year in recent memory"
And you wonder - who paid those bills? Who paid the $250,000 that he couldn't possibly have afforded? Plus the more than $110,000. Has he been making monthly payments all this time?
Well, here's another one - This June 4, 1993 article in the New York Times says that Bill Bertain who spends most of his time and much of his money on the legal battle with Mr. Hurwitz was "more than a half-million dollars in debt. At times he has been unable to meet his house payments, and his health has deterioriated."
Bill, did you have to absorb those costs yourself? Or was there help and support? And if so from whom? From what entity(ies)?
That was 1993. How much longer did that battle go on, and what was the total cost? Again, how did you pay for it? I mean it's fair to say that it could have gone on for another 10 years, up until Gallegos took over.
How many lawsuits were there? Yours. Martel's. EPIC's, I've heard tell of some smaller ones with some interesting connections. Hundreds? Thousands? And who paid?
When the history of what happened here is told, will these questions be answered?
Friday, May 30, 2008
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 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.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
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
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
Thursday, May 01, 2008
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
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
Saturday, February 09, 2008
From One BILLION to SIX bucks...
$1,000,000,000 to $6
WOW! The latest lawsuit ends with a settlement of Six Bucks. PALCO will pay $6 in whistle-blower lawsuit...
Frank Bacik, PALCO vice president and general counsel, stated in a news release... “There was ample opportunity within that process to challenge testimony and exhibits, but these accusations were not raised until eight years later,” Bacik stated in a news release. “We’ve believed from the outset that the claims were without basis in law or fact, and this settlement supports that belief.” Wow. Deja Vu.
One by one, down in flames.
And look - Good Ol' Cotchett was in on this one - 'member him? The guy who wanted in on Paul's suit? The one the Board said NO to? Wonder what Cotchett's cut is? 30% A buck eighty?
Oh, but the neverending lawsuit may not be over...
***
RELATED:
Residents look to settle with Palco over flooding 01/18/2008
Update: New Blog in Town with a FUNNY, FUNNY take on this one: The Humboldt Mirror - Billion-dollar suit settled for two Happy Meals. Ouch! There's some other FUNNY stuff there!
h/t: Kym
WOW! The latest lawsuit ends with a settlement of Six Bucks. PALCO will pay $6 in whistle-blower lawsuit...
Frank Bacik, PALCO vice president and general counsel, stated in a news release... “There was ample opportunity within that process to challenge testimony and exhibits, but these accusations were not raised until eight years later,” Bacik stated in a news release. “We’ve believed from the outset that the claims were without basis in law or fact, and this settlement supports that belief.” Wow. Deja Vu.
One by one, down in flames.
According to the terms of the settlement, which has the approval of acting assistant U.S. Attorney General Jeffrey Bucholtz, Wilson and Maranto would receive $1 each from PALCO, Scotia Pacific and Salmon Creek.
And look - Good Ol' Cotchett was in on this one - 'member him? The guy who wanted in on Paul's suit? The one the Board said NO to? Wonder what Cotchett's cut is? 30% A buck eighty?
Bertain, along with attorney Philip Gregory from the Bay Area-law firm Cotchett, Pitre and McCarthy that also represents Maranto and Wilson in the whistle blower lawsuit, declined to comment on the matter.
Oh, but the neverending lawsuit may not be over...
ER Area attorney Bill Bertain, who represents the Elk River and Freshwater Creek residents, said previously those flood claim settlements were beneficial for his clients because they freed the matter from the Texas court and allowed them to move forward in Humboldt County against MAXXAM and Charles Hurwitz.
TS ”This should help the bankruptcy process,” said the residents' local counsel Bill Bertain. “And it will allow our clients' cases to proceed in Humboldt County Superior Court.”
***
RELATED:
Residents look to settle with Palco over flooding 01/18/2008
Update: New Blog in Town with a FUNNY, FUNNY take on this one: The Humboldt Mirror - Billion-dollar suit settled for two Happy Meals. Ouch! There's some other FUNNY stuff there!
h/t: Kym
Friday, February 08, 2008
By Hook or By Crook - Funny to look back...
When the Palco suit was tossed the first time - District Attorney Paul Gallegos was out of town and had not read the ruling when the Times-Standard contacted him. Gallegos said he would not comment until he saw the decision.
Deputy District Attorney Tim Stoen, who was trying the case, did not immediately return a phone call left at his office.
But Steve Schectman, a private attorney recently pulled in by Stoen to assist in the case, said he believes the decision should be appealed. However, he added that was not an official statement. He said the judge's ruling would encourage corporations to lie, and place a burden on administrative agencies to be truth-finders, like a court.
"If you get it by hook or by crook, you get a pass," Schectman said.
Richard Salzman, a key political supporter of Gallegos, said he didn't believe the ruling would hurt the district attorney.
"His office isn't about this lawsuit," Salzman said. "I think the leadership, the real leadership that Paul shows in the community is what is important to me." Source: TS Judge Axes PL Suit June 2005
Wonder what Schectman would say about LLCs and the right to lie...now, today?
Deputy District Attorney Tim Stoen, who was trying the case, did not immediately return a phone call left at his office.
But Steve Schectman, a private attorney recently pulled in by Stoen to assist in the case, said he believes the decision should be appealed. However, he added that was not an official statement. He said the judge's ruling would encourage corporations to lie, and place a burden on administrative agencies to be truth-finders, like a court.
"If you get it by hook or by crook, you get a pass," Schectman said.
Richard Salzman, a key political supporter of Gallegos, said he didn't believe the ruling would hurt the district attorney.
"His office isn't about this lawsuit," Salzman said. "I think the leadership, the real leadership that Paul shows in the community is what is important to me." Source: TS Judge Axes PL Suit June 2005
Wonder what Schectman would say about LLCs and the right to lie...now, today?
Thursday, February 07, 2008
My WORD!
sourceBread and Circuses (Town Dandy, Feb 7, 2008)
Staring down at the Times Standard Op-Ed pages over the last five years, it has often occurred to us that those columns could be vastly improved with the addition of a single exclamation point. Too often the guest opinions do not live up to the section header under which they run. The usual header - "My Word" - conjures up manly visions of fists pounding tables, straight talking guys and gals calling it like it is. Sounds good, but when your eye scans downward what you generally get are the frightened scribblings of flaks and fussbudgets.
A suggestion? Add the exclamation point. "My Word!" The mental image of a sweating, bonneted Aunt Bea fanning herself to ward off heresy is almost always more apropos. And such was the case on Tuesday, Feb. 5, when former Deputy District Attorney Jeff Schwartz took up pen to scribe an early Valentine's letter to his ex-boss, DA Paul Gallegos. The Schwartz "My Word!" piece was called "Paul Gallegos: The beginning of an era," and it takes to task both the T-S editorial board and your humble servant for daring to suggest that the final failure, last month, of Gallegos' massive, five-year lawsuit against Pacific Lumber Co. reflects poorly on the DA.
Before we continue, let's get to the disclosure. Schwartz is the husband of the Journal's "Media Maven" columnist, Marcy Burstiner. I've never met the man, but I'm looking forward to someday doing so. He was supposed to show up at the Journal's Christmas party but the whole family came down with the norovirus that day. Just about the only thing I know about him is that before moving to Humboldt County and becoming a senior prosecutor under Gallegos, he was a San Francisco defense attorney with a website called "YouGoFree.Com." That's all in the past, although since stepping down from the District Attorney's office he has hied to his old occupation.
The nut of Schwartz's argument is based on the somewhat tired and dated notion of the "goold old boy" network, which Schwartz believes is still working to keep Gallegos down. Why? Because he had the gumption to prosecute members of their tribe.
Have you noticed that the non-historical cases he brought -- the cases against Debbie August and Palco. to name two -- never got past Humboldt's historical power base (the judiciary, the newspapers and the local law makers) and thus never reached a jury, which would have been made up largely of people who elected him?
I'm not sure what Schwartz means by "non-historical" here - failed? - and I'm not quite sure how, as an officer of the court, he can deplore the fact that the judicisary doesn't automatically roll over for whatever strikes Gallegos' fancy. Leave those things aside, though. The more important thing is that Schwartz is flat-out wrong on the facts.
Take the judiciary, one of "Humboldt's historical power bases." But Humboldt County judges have nothing to do with the death of the Palco suit. The appellate court killed it last month on the grounds that it had no basis in law. Neither did the Palco case founder in front of any local judge when it was back in trial court. It's true that judge Christopher Wilson ruled for Pacific Lumber on an early demurrer, but he gave the DA and his assistant Tim Stoen, leave to amend the case. And when the case was amended, Stoen fought - successfully - to have it heard before an out-of-town judge. It was Lake County's Judge Richard Freeborn who threw the case out in superior court, way back in 2005.
So what of Schwartz's charge against that other "power base" - the newspapers? This sadly, is where Schwartz dissolves into ridiculousness. Every newspaper in Humboldt County - even the Eureka Reporter - supported Gallegos' right to bring the suit, and every paper in Humboldt County editorialized strongly against Pacific Lumber's recall drive against the DA. Speaking for our paper, we would certainly do so again. It was dirty and rotten and reduced the rule of law to the level of an Alabamian backwater.
But it's one thing to bring the case, and quite another to win it. If our only desire is that Gallegos bring cases against the elite, we would have done as well with any bum standing on the Plaza ranting about the perfidity of "the corporations." It's even likely that the bum's rhetoric would be zazzier than Gallegos'. But we fear that there is no distinction between effort and accomplishment in the mind of Schwartz, or in the mind of any of the many Gallegos supporters who still look on the man with starry eyes and imagine that he has claimed the county on their behalf. Schwartz writes that Gallegos has many accomplishments in the prosecution of white-collar crime. Sadly, he does not bother to list any.
That isn't to say Gallegos hasn't achieved positive things. It's easy to make the case that the DA brought some sense to the county's prosecution of marijuana crimes, even if he did so by de-criminalizing the drug de-facto. It's a strategy that is not without its own consequences, but it's arguably more senisble than what came before.
Anything else? Schwartz himself listed two high-profile, white-collar cases that Gallegos brought and lost. In the one, he sought $250 million in remedies and in the other he sought the removal from office of a member of the Fortuna City Council. Are there any white-collar cases of so high a profile that Gallegos has won? If so, Schwartz has not remembered them. And so, to date, the man's reputation is more grounded in failure than in success. Read the rest...
***
Note: Schwartz doesn't even know how to spell Debi August's name.
OMG! The Media Maven's column in this same issue is titled Be Clear. She'd also advocate for a factual report. Obviously her advice hasn't rubbed off on Jeff "Yougofree.com."
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Ken Miller isn't done with Palco yet.
Talk about an obsessive personality! Here's Ken's latest...
Real value of DA's suit vs. Palco yet to come?
Ken Miller Opinion in The Times-Standard
Your editorial of Jan. 25, “An end to the saga,” criticizes Mr. Gallegos instead of the court's decision, or Maxxam.
It is ironic that the Times-Standard blames Mr. Gallegos for an “ill-thought-out attack on Humboldt County's historical way of life, and on one of the county's main economic engines.” Isn't it Hurwitz who is attacking? After all, the Headwaters Deal secured for Hurwitz a billion-dollar refinance that our watersheds could not afford, with bankruptcy of that venerable “engine” -- and our watersheds -- as the predicted results.
Does anyone doubt Pacific Lumber committed fraud? How else do you so deplete such a rich resource so rapidly, and wreak so much social, economic and environmental havoc, and get away with it?
The court's decision in the Pacific Lumber case crystallizes a frightening expansion of the “right to lie,” so that the successful cheater (as opposed to one who is caught during the proceeding) is immune from any legal consequences for lying in most government proceedings. The rationale is that the protection of free speech, and finality in permitting processes, are worth the damages resulting from undetected deception.
Responsible government agency personnel, already stretched beyond their limits, rely upon compliance with laws that deter, not encourage fraud.
PL is now trying to use the court's decision to stop the Water Board from regulating them. The court concluded that if any part of the state government agreed to the deal, all parts are presumed to have agreed, and therefore must defend it -- including the Water Board, which disagreed, and has been trying unsuccessfully to make PL do something about the nuisance flooding in Freshwater and Elk River.
Analogously, the court determined that as part of the government, the DA -- who never participated in any part of the Headwaters proceedings -- was obligated to have discovered the alleged fraud and to have acted during the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or forever defend, not attack, the deal. The implications of this are alarming, especially if fraud is involved.
It is also disturbing that the court's determination -- that PL's lobbying efforts, not the alleged fraud, resulted in the company's success in obtaining a sustained yield plan (SYP) with harvest volumes that finally finished off the company and our watersheds -- was based on fundamental misunderstandings of fact by the judges that could have been avoided in a fair trial.
PL allegedly hid significant new information that proved that their proposed SYP harvest rates would violate water laws, in order to avoid having to recirculate the DEIR, thereby allegedly depriving the public of a legitimate process.
PL had the information over six weeks prior to submitting it, according to the consultant who analyzed the actual data. When PL did turn it in, to officials uninvolved in the process, it was too late to influence the DEIR, which was therefore based on incorrect landslide data. The court did not understand the significance of this.
Recirculation would have meant that all the scientists, agencies, affected residents and interested public weighing in on PL's harvests rates, methods, and proposed mitigations, would have had powerful, irrefutable evidence from PL's own surveys and consultants that PL's proposed logging plans in the SYP were unsustainable and unlawful.
The Mutual Defense Pact (MDP) of the Headwaters Agreement bound the resource agencies to defend the agreement instead of the people, so our government personnel collaborated with PL to avoid the time-consuming recirculation, and keep the March 1 deadline.
Although the political momentum for a Headwaters deal was enormous, PL's lobbying efforts allegedly would have been thwarted by a reanalyzed EIR containing the “corrected” landslide conclusions from Jordan Creek, according to then California Department of Forestry (CDF) chief Richard Wilson.
Soon after the deal was signed, Jim Branham, a key figure in the Headwaters Deal for the California Resources Agency, and Craig Anthony from CDF, joined the PL team, both from lead agencies for the state in the EIR process.
The Appellate Court misconstrued the agencies' roles as independent and unconflicted; but in compliance with the MDP, these agencies have defended PL from the opposition of their critics, including affected watershed residents and others, agency personnel and the DA.
The real value of the suit, and of Mr. Gallegos' foresight in clarifying the damaging consequences of this immunity to our watersheds and workforce, will be if the Legislature makes a “successful” cheater liable, not immune, allowing government to protect us effectively. The court's decision included that advice from the state Supreme Court.
Ken Miller lives in McKinleyville. Oh, let's toot your horn just a little bit more, Ken - Pot Doc Ken Miller writes alot of 215 presecriptions, and he helped write the DA's lawsuit and is very unhappy that it got thrown out of court three times. Ken Miller is a founding member of BACH (Bay Area Coalition for Headwaters), he has several Palco attack groups including "Salmon Forever" and "Humboldt Watershed Council" (note, you should read that Palco Watershed Council). He and his buddies have been suing Palco since the earth was born, and he can't just let this one go. But the worst thing now would be if he is successful in his now apparent bid to OWN the Palco lands. And that is his ultimate goal, recently revealed by his (Humboldt Watershed Council) employee, Mark Lovelace.
Real value of DA's suit vs. Palco yet to come?
Ken Miller Opinion in The Times-Standard
Your editorial of Jan. 25, “An end to the saga,” criticizes Mr. Gallegos instead of the court's decision, or Maxxam.
It is ironic that the Times-Standard blames Mr. Gallegos for an “ill-thought-out attack on Humboldt County's historical way of life, and on one of the county's main economic engines.” Isn't it Hurwitz who is attacking? After all, the Headwaters Deal secured for Hurwitz a billion-dollar refinance that our watersheds could not afford, with bankruptcy of that venerable “engine” -- and our watersheds -- as the predicted results.
Does anyone doubt Pacific Lumber committed fraud? How else do you so deplete such a rich resource so rapidly, and wreak so much social, economic and environmental havoc, and get away with it?
The court's decision in the Pacific Lumber case crystallizes a frightening expansion of the “right to lie,” so that the successful cheater (as opposed to one who is caught during the proceeding) is immune from any legal consequences for lying in most government proceedings. The rationale is that the protection of free speech, and finality in permitting processes, are worth the damages resulting from undetected deception.
Responsible government agency personnel, already stretched beyond their limits, rely upon compliance with laws that deter, not encourage fraud.
PL is now trying to use the court's decision to stop the Water Board from regulating them. The court concluded that if any part of the state government agreed to the deal, all parts are presumed to have agreed, and therefore must defend it -- including the Water Board, which disagreed, and has been trying unsuccessfully to make PL do something about the nuisance flooding in Freshwater and Elk River.
Analogously, the court determined that as part of the government, the DA -- who never participated in any part of the Headwaters proceedings -- was obligated to have discovered the alleged fraud and to have acted during the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or forever defend, not attack, the deal. The implications of this are alarming, especially if fraud is involved.
It is also disturbing that the court's determination -- that PL's lobbying efforts, not the alleged fraud, resulted in the company's success in obtaining a sustained yield plan (SYP) with harvest volumes that finally finished off the company and our watersheds -- was based on fundamental misunderstandings of fact by the judges that could have been avoided in a fair trial.
PL allegedly hid significant new information that proved that their proposed SYP harvest rates would violate water laws, in order to avoid having to recirculate the DEIR, thereby allegedly depriving the public of a legitimate process.
PL had the information over six weeks prior to submitting it, according to the consultant who analyzed the actual data. When PL did turn it in, to officials uninvolved in the process, it was too late to influence the DEIR, which was therefore based on incorrect landslide data. The court did not understand the significance of this.
Recirculation would have meant that all the scientists, agencies, affected residents and interested public weighing in on PL's harvests rates, methods, and proposed mitigations, would have had powerful, irrefutable evidence from PL's own surveys and consultants that PL's proposed logging plans in the SYP were unsustainable and unlawful.
The Mutual Defense Pact (MDP) of the Headwaters Agreement bound the resource agencies to defend the agreement instead of the people, so our government personnel collaborated with PL to avoid the time-consuming recirculation, and keep the March 1 deadline.
Although the political momentum for a Headwaters deal was enormous, PL's lobbying efforts allegedly would have been thwarted by a reanalyzed EIR containing the “corrected” landslide conclusions from Jordan Creek, according to then California Department of Forestry (CDF) chief Richard Wilson.
Soon after the deal was signed, Jim Branham, a key figure in the Headwaters Deal for the California Resources Agency, and Craig Anthony from CDF, joined the PL team, both from lead agencies for the state in the EIR process.
The Appellate Court misconstrued the agencies' roles as independent and unconflicted; but in compliance with the MDP, these agencies have defended PL from the opposition of their critics, including affected watershed residents and others, agency personnel and the DA.
The real value of the suit, and of Mr. Gallegos' foresight in clarifying the damaging consequences of this immunity to our watersheds and workforce, will be if the Legislature makes a “successful” cheater liable, not immune, allowing government to protect us effectively. The court's decision included that advice from the state Supreme Court.
Ken Miller lives in McKinleyville. Oh, let's toot your horn just a little bit more, Ken - Pot Doc Ken Miller writes alot of 215 presecriptions, and he helped write the DA's lawsuit and is very unhappy that it got thrown out of court three times. Ken Miller is a founding member of BACH (Bay Area Coalition for Headwaters), he has several Palco attack groups including "Salmon Forever" and "Humboldt Watershed Council" (note, you should read that Palco Watershed Council). He and his buddies have been suing Palco since the earth was born, and he can't just let this one go. But the worst thing now would be if he is successful in his now apparent bid to OWN the Palco lands. And that is his ultimate goal, recently revealed by his (Humboldt Watershed Council) employee, Mark Lovelace.
Friday, January 25, 2008
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 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.
Friday, January 18, 2008
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
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.
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?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)