Palcos Response Palco responds to DA’s request for review by state Supreme Court
Attached please find documents filed with the California Supreme Court on the subject of Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos’ recent petition for review and request for de-publication of the appellate decision regarding his 2002 lawsuit against the Pacific Lumber Co. Following is the company's official response to those requests. “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,” said Palco Vice President and General Counsel Frank Bacik. “Mr. 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.” Bacik continued, “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 cited as an example the statement 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,” Bacik said, “it hardly presents a reasoned legal argument. 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.” Thanks, Heather Muller |
3.5.08
Humboltd County District Attorney Paul Gallegos letter to the California Supreme Court (PDF)
Peoples Pettition for Review (PDF)
Sierra Club Letter to the Supreme Court (PDF)
Pacific Lumber et al Letter to the Honorable Chief Justice Ronald M. George (PDF)