Of course, now we know he finally HAS appealed the ruling...
DA Gallegos may appeal Palco ruling
By John Driscoll The Times-Standard
Article Last Updated: Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 6:16:09 AM PST
The Humboldt County district attorney called the ruling in the Pacific Lumber Co. fraud case "monumental," setting a bad precedent for businesses statewide.
DA Paul Gallegos said Wednesday "there's a good chance" that he'll appeal Judge Richard L. Freeborn's decision to toss out the case, which has marked Gallegos' term in his critics' minds.
Freeborn, while not agreeing with the DA's notion that Palco lied to the government during the Headwaters Forest negotiations, determined that the company was immune while lobbying for a favorable outcome. The ruling came Tuesday.
The DA held that Palco turned in bad data to the wrong state office at the last minute to sway the California Department of Forestry to approve a higher rate of cut over decades, under a sustained yield plan.
"Basically, the judge is saying that people are immune from lying to the government -- that someone can lie for monetary gain and they're completely immune," Gallegos said.
He also disagreed with Freeborn's view that Palco's participation in the negotiations was lobbying. Gallegos said lobbying is petitioning for changes in the law, not advantages under the law.
"I suppose it's not surprising that the other side puts a twist on this," said Palco attorney Edgar Washburn.
Washburn said the DA couldn't even make a case on the facts, and that even if Palco had lied the judge found the case unsustainable. He said CDF had a full record when it acted on the Headwaters agreement in 1999.
Palco was paid by the state and federal governments $480 million for 7,400 acres in the Headwaters Forest and for other smaller groves with old-growth redwoods. The company agreed to a rate of cut over decades -- though that plan was invalidated by a judge two years ago -- and to a plan that allows it to incidentally take endangered species.
Freeborn's ruling perpetuated the same divided feelings that persisted throughout the case. Supporters of Gallegos were dismayed. Detractors were thrilled.
Ken Miller, who provided much of the background for the DA's case prosecuted by Deputy District Attorney Tim Stoen, said there may be merit to Freeborn's opinion that the DA didn't strongly argue the competitive advantage exception to immunity.
"But if a timber company gains more cut -- that's an advantage," Miller said.
Miller said he believes Palco exploited a request from water quality officials to submit the false landslide report.
CDF spokesman Michael Jarvis said the agency wouldn't comment on a suit in which it wasn't named.
Second District Supervisor Roger Rodoni, long critical of the suit, called the ruling gratifying.
"These kinds of contrived cases might be flamboyant in the beginning," he said, "but the truth will kill that kind of approach."
Robin Arkley Sr., who initiated a recall effort against Gallegos that Palco bankrolled in 2003, said he was delighted.
"I think that Mr. Gallegos was out of his mind to even start it," Arkley said. "It cost the taxpayers of Humboldt County a lot of money."
Just how much isn't clear.
Freeborn threw the case out without room to refile it, and awarded Palco its court costs. Those costs are not legal fees, reported in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat as $150,000. Washburn said his firm is still adding up both its legal fees and its court costs, and could not give estimates for either.
The court costs are likely minimal, however, and Washburn said they "won't break the bank."
Gallegos said he and Stoen would have been on the payroll even if the suit didn't exist. The DA, Stoen and private attorney Steve Schectman -- who volunteered his time -- spent hundreds of hours on the suit, Gallegos estimated.
Jill Geist, 5th District supervisor, said the ruling Tuesday shook up the county.
"We have two and a half years of a county at odds," she said. "Now there's a finality and an ability to go forward."
Others held out that there may be more to come. Sharon Duggan, an attorney for the Environmental Protection Information Center, said it appears that the judge has condoned misrepresentation.
"I think it turns the law on its head when an applicant can play fast and loose with information and then when challenged say, "We're protected."
The full ruling can be read at: http://extras.times-standard.com/temp/palco_suit.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment