Appellate Court: FRAUD NO
It was not a complete surprise Thursday when a state court of appeals ixnayed the infamous fraud lawsuit against Pacific Lumber. It was more like a whimpering end note to a freshman District Attorney’s confrontation with power.
Filed in February 2003 (not 2002 as reported by the Times-Standard) by newly sworn District Attorney Paul Gallegos, the case sparked a seismic recall effort by Pacific Lumber’s parent company, Maxxam.
Back then, PL was pre-bankruptcy and at the height of ex-CEO Robert Manne’s reign of error. By solemnly singing its “why is everybody always picking on me” anthem, Maxxam drew support from die-hards who saw any questioning of the iconic timber company as an affront to an old-guard segment of the community that had roots or political allies in the business.
These days, support for the corrupt individuals in Texas and California that ground Pacific Lumber into the silt have few cheerleaders now that the long-predicted bankruptcy of the once-viable company has shown Maxxam for what it is.
But these things are aside from the issue of whether the court was right to uphold previous decisions that shut the case. Some locals, including lawyers, have expressed concern over how this decision will affect future permit applications. On that, we’ll have to wait and see.
It’s just a guess, but the probability of an appeal to the Supreme Court is unlikely. Gallegos doesn’t have the support, the ability, or the interest to carry on.
Leave a comment
Recent Comments
 | Anonymous on Eureka Police lose big in Mart… |
| Anonymous on A Performance Review for Phil… |
| i can T stop thinkin… on BLIND ITEM | |
| Anonymous on Hank Larrabee – Humboldt Count… |
| Anonymous on Hank Larrabee – Humboldt Count… |
 | Anum08 on Another “Golden rule… |
 | Adobe crack on Another “Golden rule… |
Top Posts & Pages
The Humboldt Herald 
What a two-bit phonies you all are, Heraldo, Ken, Mark, HWC–enviro frauds and posers. You write up a stupid lawsuit, hand it over to your boy in office, he runs with it, gets his ass creamed each time he does and you let him hang out to dry without even showing up in his day in court in S.F.
Typically, you’ll try to bury the lawsuit into the toilet news as quickly as possible so you can continue your other obsessions, like attacking the cops..
My, my. Let’s be divisive, shall we 12:45? The lawsuit’s purpose had disappeared anyway. Let’s see how nasty this thread can get – we may set some kind of record.
Let’s !
Pretty Lamo H.
Yeah Heraldo, I can’t believe you wrote such a shitty lawsuit.
(lol @ amess)
arielmessenger is Stephen Lewis by the way. He wrote a nearly identical post on my blog.
Heraldo writes: “It’s just a guess, but the probability of an appeal to the Supreme Court is unlikely. Gallegos doesn’t have the support, the ability, or the interest to carry on.”
Uh – like actually there is more. He doesn’t have the law or the facts either Heraldo. And what about the justices laughing at him? That is truly amusing.
As far as the ramifications of this….its for anyone to guess but it is sure something that the HWC/Miller etc should have thought about before pulling Gallegos’ political strings to file this POS. But none of you did think about it did you…in fact it never entered into you closed minds did it.
Your abysmal lack of thought about the the immediate and long term effects of this “loser” will be with this community for a long time.
and btw it is spelled “appellate” – it is NOT “appelate.”
Note: These comments are in reference to the comments on both this post and to the premature expostulators who inserted their gleeful capering into the “Hancock” post. Also, thank you to Attorney Kirk for the clarification as to the identity of arielmessenger as Stephen “Self-Flaggelator” Lewis. It helps to be able to discount the delusional mutterings from the serious commentators.
So my question here is: What is all the celebration about? Is it simply a declaration of vindication for those who oppose DA Gallegos? Is the contention of Ms. R and others that a more skilled litigator or an attorney with a specialty in corporate accountability (like the free one the Supes disallowed) would have been more successful? Is the idea that it is ethical to provide false information to the government or anyone else in a business transaction as long as there is some illogical technical loophole that allows for it? After all, there was never any argument made that false information was not provided, only that it was allowed.
Or is the happy-happy joy-joy attitude to be seen as some sort of vindication for the total depletion/infinite greed model of doing business as employed by C. Hurwitz and his Maxxam company? Does anyone believe that the condition of PL would be different if Maxxam had had a free hand over all these years? Is there a case to be made that the party would have lasted any more than an extra one to three years before ending in the same result (PL bankrupcty) if the (+/-) 6,000 acres of Headwaters and other critical habitats had been cut? Does someone have scientific evidence that the ecological requirement for biodiversity in order to mantain and ensure ecosystem stability is not real or that conversion of all forested habitats into monocultural tree farms will not harm said biodiversity? Is anyone seriously suggesting that salmonids are not in dire jeopardy across the region?
Maybe the overall belief of those with the virtual smirk on their virtual faces is that Maxxam has been good for Humboldt County?
I don’t see it. The arrival of Maxxam into Humboldt seems to have been an unmitigated disaster for timber dependent families just as it has been for fish, critters, water quality and downstream neighbors.
And I don’t get how this is a good outcome for anyone who lives here. It is just sad that our laws, too often bought and paid for by the powerful and greedy, are so Byzantine and ineffective at ensuring fairness and a common sense notion of what is right– that is that lying and providing false information should not be rewarded.
Just one more thing, for the purpose of prempting some of the predictable counters from our less creative responders– I don’t care or have any animosity towards the wealthy per se. That is a simplistic and lame argument designed for the purpose of self-ratification. I do have a problem with those who gain their wealth via unethical means. This includes polluters and other environmental destroyers, killers-for-hire, pimps, and liquidation corporate-raiders. It is not about how much money a person has, it is about how they got it. Surely no one would argue that the wealth of a drug cartel king pin is of a morally equal QUALITY to that of a hard working nurosurgeon (sp?).
I guess that this result only makes me sad. Of course it does not somehow convince me that Maxxam was right. That is an idiotic conclusion to draw.
Now I know why some readers were pissing themselves waiting for Heraldo’s two cents on this issue. Some people could not wait to blame Heraldo for something. What did H do? Did he really write the complaint that started this entire fraud suit. Is Paul G. really Heraldo’s boy??? I now see that the jackals and trolls wait in the weeds to lash out.
Eric, I am surprised Stephen did not mention something about Zionism in his comments, I guess he is trying to cover his tracks over here.
Larry, it has been too long since you last commented here at the Herald.
-boy
Bravo! Author! Author!
Corporations do not have souls, or morals, or ethics. Corporations are inhuman paper entities, morally neutral. Lay-offs and environmental damage are byproducts of producing corporate profiits. Corporate decisions are driven by the requirement that dividends and equity grow continually. We live in a world fuelled by speculation. What would Jesus do?
I would put Larry Evans in charge of liquidating PALCO and build an Indian Casino on the Balloon Tract. Thanks for asking.
To answer you Larry is simple:
“What is all the celebration about? It is about justice being served without the bullshit rhetoric. Is it simply a declaration of vindication for those who oppose DA Gallegos?”
A: – No on all counts although it would be appropriate under the circumstances.
“Is the contention of Ms. R and others that a more skilled litigator or an attorney with a specialty in corporate accountability (like the free one the Supes disallowed) would have been more successful?”
A: No, because there was NO CASE according to the law and historic legal authority. So it doesn’t matter that this idiot is lazy and incompetent.
“Is the idea that it is ethical to provide false information to the government or anyone else in a business transaction as long as there is some illogical technical loophole that allows for it? After all, there was never any argument made that false information was not provided, only that it was allowed.”
A: (Well actually Larry, the court sort of said that the fact that wrong information was provided and then the corrected info submitted before any decisions were made sort of torpedoes the idea that this is fraud…at least for both Freeborn and the First District.)
“Or is the happy-happy joy-joy attitude to be seen as some sort of vindication for the total depletion/infinite greed model of doing business as employed by C. Hurwitz and his Maxxam company? Does anyone believe that the condition of PL would be different if Maxxam had had a free hand over all these years? Is there a case to be made that the party would have lasted any more than an extra one to three years before ending in the same result (PL bankrupcty) if the (+/-) 6,000 acres of Headwaters and other critical habitats had been cut? Does someone have scientific evidence that the ecological requirement for biodiversity in order to mantain and ensure ecosystem stability is not real or that conversion of all forested habitats into monocultural tree farms will not harm said biodiversity? Is anyone seriously suggesting that salmonids are not in dire jeopardy across the region?”
A: you are ranting and this is irrelevant. The question before the court was if this complaint stated a legally sufficient cause of action. Whether Hurwitz, Maxxam or Palco is good or bad is absolutely irrelevant to the LEGAL QUESTIONs.
“Maybe the overall belief of those with the virtual smirk on their virtual faces is that Maxxam has been good for Humboldt County?
And I don’t get how this is a good outcome for anyone who lives here. It is just sad that “our laws, too often bought and paid for by the powerful and greedy, are so Byzantine and ineffective at ensuring fairness and a common sense notion of what is right– that is that lying and providing false information should not be rewarded.”
A: again Larry, do you have a problem with our courts and our elected officials following the law? If so why? Are you saying that Judge Freeborn or Justices Horner, Pollak and Simmons have been bought? Have you ever heard of indirect contempt? Actually, how elitist of you to know more than the First District Court of Appeal. Do you not think that they read the record? Are you saying that Justice Pollak, a Davis appointee and a very environmentally sound justice, just because he knows the law and doesn’t buy your unskilled interpretation of the law and facts is stupid or corrupt?
As for the rest of your rant, this was about whether a legally sufficient case was brought by Gallegos (and yes Larry it was written by Miller and HWC.)
Do I think justice was done? Well that is a yes and no answer. You don’t file charges against people or entities because you think that they are evil or that you don’t like them. You only bring charges that are based on the law and that can be proved. You folks wanted PALCO so badly that you disregarded this fine precept of jurisprudence. It was personal and had nothing to do with the law. Justice was only served when the demurrer was granted and then upheld on appeal. Whenever justice is served it is a good day.
You thought the end justified the means and I am glad that you have been soundly told NO by two courts now. Please do not confuse this statement and think I am a PALCO apologist. Nothing could be further from the truth. What I do believe in is equal justice and truth, both of which you easily dismiss when it comes to your enemies Larry.
Hopefully the FPPC will rule on the obvious conflict of interest complaint soon.
Larry, why do you have to do the enviro character assassination, eh? Could it be because you and Heraldo and Mark and Eric and HWC and EPIC all have no other way to attack my opinions? Certainly you do not have environmental protection on your side seeing how you are part and parcel of the whole enviro disinformation campaign meant to keep radical activists in pay while subverting environmental protection on the Northcoast by directing environmental concern away from the major eco-problems, the negative impact of 10,000+ homesteaders, i.e., people like you.
Larry, the court simply found what was glaringly obvious from day one – that the deal did not happen in a vacuum, that there was tons of input, oversight, negotiating, pontificating, manipulating involved – they point out the 80,000 pages of input etc – and that even IF you could argue that Ken Miller’s one little snail darter piece of paper had any meaning at all, it was, in fact submitted AFTER the filing period had closed, and the corrected data was submitted BEFORE the decision was rendered.
In short the system worked and people like you who seek to subvert the system and use the courts like a panzer unit have been set straight.
That’s what it means.
You can spin it all you like, but your “right to lie” is nothing more than two parties offering their separate views of a situation, which they have every right to do, FREE from penalties for expressing their opinion – even if it disagrees with their opponents – or YOU.
Why all the happy-happy-joy-joy? Because the system works.
Some people ask if we should feel sorry for Gallegos. No. We should not. Because as he was doing this, he has dismantled the DA’s Office, lost the county’s experienced prosecutors, run down the programs that serve victims and families, lost crucial grants and personnel, pursued cases against people who opposed him, plea bargained away felony charges of people whose family members contributed to his campaign… achhh – what’s the use? You don’t care a whit.
For me at this point in time, I have to question the worth of such decisions as it applies to our tax monies and how well or not they are being spent?
Could have all that money been spent more wisely?
More than just the money, how about the time and energy drawn away from the D.A.’s Office because of this case and several other bic ticket cases that have become anvils for splitting mauls, chopping at the communities’ patience and virtues?
I wonder what Gallegos’ campaign staff feel like. I do not remember them advertising our D.A. would lose the case. I hope it works out for the best at this point.
Anyone have the updated figure for taxpayers’ monies spent on this case? Is the money going to be drained from the Headwaters Fund to pay the rest of the legal bills? Just concerned questions.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
Hello, boys and girls. This is your old pal, Stinky Wizzleteats. This is a song about a whale. No! This is a song about being happy! That’s right! It’s the Happy Happy Joy Joy song!
Happy Happy Joy Joy
Happy Happy Joy Joy
Happy Happy Joy Joy
Happy Happy Joy Joy
Happy Happy Joy Joy
Happy Happy Joy Joy
Happy Happy Joy Joy Joy!
I don’t think you’re happy enough! That’s right! I’ll teach you to be happy! I’ll teach your grandmother to suck eggs! Now, boys and girls, let’s try it again!
Happy Happy Joy Joy
Happy Happy Joy Joy
Happy Happy Joy Joy
Happy Happy Joy Joy
Happy Happy Joy Joy
Happy Happy Joy Joy
Happy Happy Joy Joy Joy!
If’n you ain’t the granddaddy of all liars! The little critters of nature… They don’t know that they’re ugly! That’s very funny, a fly marrying a bumblebee! I told you I’d shoot! But you didn’t believe me! Why didn’t you believe me?!
Happy Happy Joy Joy
Happy Happy Joy Joy
Happy Happy Joy Joy
Happy Happy Joy Joy
Happy Happy Joy Joy
Happy Happy Joy Joy
Happy Happy Happy Happy Happy Happy Happy Happy Happy Happy Joy Joy Joy!
3:44,
To clarify, I posited no opinion that this was or was not an unsound legal opinion under the law. As you point out, I am not a lawyer. I simply opined that there seemed no reason to celebrate the victory of maxxam. I hold to that point. Do you believe otherwise? Do you see the maxxam corporation as one of the poor, suffering, picked upon multi-billion dollar corporate liquidators just out in the world doing good? Apparently their tactics and practices in this situation pass legal muster but their impact on the county offers no reason to celebrate that I can see. Lots of things have been allowed under the law at various times in history (slavery, segregation, etc.), but that doesn’t make them right.
Justice implies fairness and sound reasoning. If false information is submitted to a public process and the public is not able to comment based on accurate information, thereby rendering a flawed decision by a notoriously inept/corrupt (take your pick) agency like CDF, is that justice? Specifically, the decision by CDF to certify the so-called Sustained Yield Plan (SYP) is clearly flawed since any reasonable definition of sustainable would extend beyond ten years and this one clearly did not (witness the bankruptcy). Also, the same court system whose wisdom you are praising in this case has termed the actions of CDF as “rubber-stamping” in their approval of THP’s. This meant that they applied no judgement or discretion in their approvals, only a procedural bias to facilitate whatever was put before them.
Of course I have no problem with the courts and agencies following the law. I have spent considerable time and effort as an adult working to ensure that they do. I reread my first comment and there was nothing in there that I could possibly imagine as suggesting that I have a problem with following the law, that the judges ruling in this case are corrupt or that I possess more legal knowledge than any of the judges. I did state that the legislative process is corrupted by money which often renders bad laws. This usually takes the form of election donations by monied interests that gain undue influence in the laws that are proposed, supported or opposed, based on the effects of those laws on those narrow monied interests. The condition of our legislative process represents a truly elitist situation. In applying that term to what you misperceive as a legal opion that I did not provide, you seem to have misunderstood the definition of the word: [Elitist– the belief that government or control should be in the hands of a small group of privileged, wealthy, or intelligent people, or the active promotion of such a system]. Given the outcome of this case and the fact that false information was ratified by this court decision, I am concluding that the law under which the decision is based is a bad law. Apparently you disagree.
By the way, Gray Davis as governator was a very poor conservationist in my opinion so, while others might disagree, it carries no weight with me to point to his judicial endorsement as proof of green credentials. Perhaps there are other reasons on which you base this characterization of Pollack, but the one you present doesn’t pass muster. Moreover that is irrelevant to whether he rendered a good decision under the law. Again, I have no basis to make such a judgement of the validity of this opinion under the law and I did not offer such an opinion.
As well, I never contended that the ends justifies the means. I made the point that opposing maxxam wrong doing was and is, a reasonable position to take. Apparently, under the law this suit did not meet that test. Not every prosecution is successful. An example– OJ was acquitted though many believe he is guilty. Does the acquittal render the prosecution un-reasonable? The actions of maxxam in this case were interpreted to be illegal by the DA. Providing false information seems wrong to me on the level of common sense but apparently under the law as it stands, it is okay.
Obviously you dispute the decision of DA Gallegos to bring this case but is that because you are a lawyer and that is your legal opinion? If not why do you dispute the decision? Because you don’t like DA Gallegos or you support maxxam (though I see that you say you do not and I accept that statement lacking evidence otherwise)? Or do you hold that the only cases that should be prosecuted are the sure fire winners?
Remember that half of all parties in litigation come out on the losing side. What you seem to be trying to express is that you think this was a frivolous lawsuit. That is a matter based on a persons opinion, not a matter based on the outcome of a case, unless you hold to the opinion that any lawsuit that fails is automatically frivolous. I reckon that for a lawsuit to be frivolous it must be based on a patently ridiculous notion of what is reasonable–e.g. millions of $ for lost pants. What is unreasonable about an expectation that honest information should be tendered in a business deal/regulatory negotiation?
As I stated at the beginning of my first comment, I asked why the joy? At this point it is indisputable that under the law this is not seen to be a fraud, but I see no reason for joy. The modus operandi of the maxxam corporation is indisputably destructive and their victory in this case does nothing to mitigate the damage done to Humboldt County. My exposition of the nature of the damage done to environmental and economic stability IS relevant to my question as to why anyone would feel vindicated in their support of the maxxam victory.
Finally, you use the word “rant” a couple times and I was wondering what part of my comments qualify as a rant to your mind. I tried to make several points about my regret at the failure of this lawsuit and the fact that it seems wrong to be able to provide false information. While you clearly disagree with my arguments, it seems a gratuitous attempt to trivialize my comments by characterizing my statements as a rant. How did you imagine that your choice of verbage would help to further a civilized discussion?
Humboldturtle. The Sierra Club is a multi-billion dollar corporation. In that case I agree with your post. Heraldo, your a chicken-shit and Gallegoes is the worst thing to happen to Humboldt County during my 21 years living there.
JJ Conroy
Chula Vista, CA
I hear where you’re coming from, Larry, but…
Or defeated three times on demurrer, maybe? Like, before they even got around to the facts of the case?
We all have to take Jeff Lytle’s point seriously.
Mr. Conroy of Chula Vista,
As you can see from the excerpt I pulled out of an old Sierra Club Annual Report and pasted below (45 seconds effort via Google), your statement that the Sierra Club is “a multi-billion dollar corporation” is patently and ridiculously false. Granted, this is a few years old but I seriously doubt they have managed to pull together the minimum of $1.911 billion dollars required to bring your bombastic lie into the realm of reality.
You sir are a liar! Perhaps you were not aware of that fact and were simply speaking from your ass. Perhaps you were aware of that fact and made this false statement purposely. Either way it is clear you are a fool who either does not know what he is talking about or you are simply too simple to tell even a convincing lie. Get your facts straight. Moreover, there is an obvious qualitative difference between a non-profit organization and a business- both under the law and in the values of the American people. Your implication is that the Sierra Club is the same as Chevron Oil. By that logic the Red Cross is the same as Halliburton. Us regular folks don’t usually see it that way.
“San Francisco, April 25, 2003
TREASURER’S LETTER
The fiscal year 2002 marks the Sierra Club’s eighth consecutive year of achieving a positive contribution to net worth. The Club’s total revenues were $83,993,600 with total expenses and losses of $83,369,700, and at year-end 2002, the Sierra Club had 742,600 members. The positive financial results are significant because they occurred despite losses in the investment market and rising insurance premium expenses.
In 2002, allocations to chapter programs were $5,038,100 computed with $4,415,200 in 2001. The increase was a result of improved fundraising performance and membership recruitment as well as increases in specific program expenses to support the chapters In 2003, however, our grassroots will be presented with some new challenges.”
Try again chuckle-head.
Hank,
I won’t disagree with the fiscal post-mortem. My original point was not to praise or damn the suit, only to suggest that the glee from Rose and others was misplaced. It seems that their “issues” with the DA seem to be driving their opinion of every thing he does or doesn’t do, regardless of the merits of those actions.
Secondarily I see that a point of law that allows the rendering of false information probably isn’t a good law.
The decision to do the case is clearly not a great one based on the fact of this decision but I don’t know if that is because the DA missed something obvious or if this is just one of those whacky points of law that defies logic.
Nice “talking” with you Hank.
Larry,
I’m not sure anyone is hopping up and down singing happy happy joy joy about Maxxam, but, especially here, on this blog, where everything that went on with Pacific Lumber was demonized and conspiracy theories abound when it comes to PALCO, its hard not to respond in kind…
Especially when many of us have loved ones and family who have worked at the mill over the years.
I suppose that if I have any satisfaction regarding this, it’s that the rule of law prevailed over a politcally biased (imo) witch hunt.
I think where many of us on this blog would agree is that it would be a good thing if the Mendocino mill was able to purchase the mill up here, and sustainable logging (and living wage jobs) continued into the future…
Larry, what you fail to realize is that my opinion of Gallegos came about because of actions he took upon his election, and subsequently. In January of 2003, I had no real opinion of him, he looked to be a bright rising young star. In February of 2003, I had no negative opinion of him. In March of 2003, I was introduced to something big going on with respect to that precious lawsuit of yours, and at first, I thought the poor little bugger was being used, and that he could extricate himself from this mess. Later I came to realize he was not just part of the problem, but a very very serious problem in his own right – and all of the facts point to this, Larry.
Glee? I am happy that bullshit does not carry the day. One of Gallegos’ favorite phrases “At the end of the day” (which in his case always precedes a bit whopper) – At the end of the day, Larry, the fraudulent lawsuit failed.
There’s a big question of who was perpetrating fraud here – I say it is the DA who pursued a case that he could not prove.
And I would say Ken Miller ought to be careful postulating the “right to lie” rhetoric. Given his own choice of semantics to guard himself from possible prosecution.
It’s time to let it die, Larry. You’ve killed Palco anyway. Move on to your next target.
And Larry,you are responsible for the death of Kaiser Aluminum.
rose, putting the blame of Palco’s demise on enviros rather than Maxxam is evidence of your inability to see past the two sides of your black and white political world. Palco was “killed” by Maxxam. Only a fool or benefactor fails to see this, and I doubt you are a benefactor.
Yeah Larry, and I blame you for bankrupting Simplicity Pattern, too.
Heraldo, your world seems to be pretty black and white as well…
Bravo, Larry Evans!
and I am really getting sick of seeing and hearing “environ” used as if it was an evil word.
Don’t change the subject mresquan.
Just wait, Palco will be asking for legal fees soon…………good-by Headwaters Fund.
JJ, on review it is pretty obvious I was writing about for-profit corporations. No need to continue based on your tone.
But what should I do about Edwards? Should I shift over and support Obama, or stick with my principals and risk splitting the vote and giving it all to Hillary?
(and my princiPLES, too)
Larry needs to lighten up some, maybe he ought to go one size up on his pantyhose !
One more time people…..H. is a she…not a he.
Thanks for that again Brian, but you are certainly mistaken on this one. Heraldo is a Spanish first name that is gender sensitive and would have to be Heralda if Heraldo were a she. I hope I have straightened this out once and for all.
Also, I have to say I’m 100% with Auntie on this one. “Environ” seems so harsh and denigratory. I much prefer “Watermelon” which even when used as a derogatory term, some how does not have the same offensive tenor as “environ” and tends to make me hungry.
Being green on the outside and red on the inside provides a much better visual also
I like Heralda
Who said that’s HER real name clueless..opps seedless…….go smoke some more dope.
Peace be with you.
First, why the hell does Helraldo’s gender matter?
Second, Larry should, in order to be fair, should also be held responsible for the Hurwitz 1.6 billion dollar S&L bail out too.
Third, though I have yet to look at the courts denial, Gallegos inferred that it was a “first amendment” argument. I guess lying to the public is sanctioned free-speech. It might of been different if the BOS had let a lawyer experienced in civil law prosecute the case. Gallegos and the DA’s office in general are trained, experienced, and practiced in criminal law, while PL ALWAYS uses the most expensive law firms to run it’s “civil cases.”
Also the PL CEQA process may have been “legal,” but it still doesn’t make it right. Again the courts have proven that money, not justice, rules our jurisprudence. I’m proud we have a DA with the courage to take on big corporations who cost everyone of us our children’s future. We all lost – our forests are destroyed.
Lastly I don’t know how spellcheck started working on this here comment box, but thanks I need that.
love eternal
tad
Peace be with you.
Oh yea, I forgot to tell you the real lesson we learned from this:
When you get arraigned Instead of “pleading not guilty, not waiving your right to a speedy trial, not waving your right to have a formal reading of the charges against you, not waving your right to council,” you MUST insist on your right to DEMURE at arraignment. “Your honor I reserve my right to demure.”
love eternal
tad
Very true. I think we’d be in a different place had the Supes let go of their grudge and allowed expert help in the case.
First, why the hell does Helraldo’s gender matter?
Who knows? Maybe Brian is looking for a date.
-boy
Peace,
Is Brian she or he? Is Heraldo Brian? Would cheese be green on the moon? Detracting isn’t it?
love
tad
Please, do explain “THE GRUDGE”. Which Supes deserve vindication on this issue? Do we need “Closed Door Session archives? Oh, I forgot, the public does not get to see those archives. The Grand Jury should be able to though. What say you?
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
Think back to February 2003. The grudge was that Gallegos had won the election and was now district attorney.
There are several posts here on the Herald about the closed-session Falor pay-out decision if that’s what you’re hinting at.
I’m convinced that brian is Heraldo’s evil twin. They were separated at birth and lived apart until they found each other back on this blog. Brian is a laid off palco logger and Heraldo is Julia Butterfly.
Oh and brian, you’re right I do smoke, but l don’t inhale. You should try it with a little scotch or whatever you loosen up with.
Henchman, love the moniker, how did you come up with it?
Heraldo, I just want to understand which Supes back then truely endorsed the D.A. and….currently, which Supes who support the D.A. today? Was there a grudge because Gallegos was elected, or a grudge because all the Supes did not want him to be helped on this issue because of conflicting legal opinions?
I’m sorry, what was the truth, again?
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
“For me at this point in time, I have to question the worth of such decisions as it applies to our tax monies and how well or not they are being spent?”
“Henchman” writes this sentence/paragraph, and so many others like it, and then wants to know why I think that he’s a torturer of English.
Tad – you are clueless.
Yeah – heraldo explain the “grudge.” You cannot seriously be trying to blame the Supervisors. Hah! Could it be that even back then, you could see that Ken Miller’s suit was fatally flawed? Could it be that your boy Stoen claimed that this was a “slam dunk” case, that he only needed a few pieces of paper and a couple of expert witnesses and this case was over? Could it be that they said “hmmm, why does he need outside help, then?”
Put the blame where it belongs.
You have my permission to fix any grammatical errors, of course, only after I get to see a draft copy for sign off.
Thanks for the assistance.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
I hold “Heraldo” aka Ken Miller, Mark Lovelace, Humboldt Watershed Council, responsible for the demise of Palco, and so should all of you. EPIC too should be held responsible.
Most people do not know that Humboldt Watershed Council founders, Ken Miller and Bob Martel, twice went out of their way to sabotage the Bear River tribe’s Heartlands Project who’s forest management plan was second to none in terms of old-growth protection and sustainable forest practices. Bob Martel was acting for EPIC when he pressured the Rose Foundation to cancel our Heartlands Project members appearance at a major environmental fundraiser event.
If enviros had helped instead of torpedoed the Heartlands plan, Palco would be in the hands of Palco workers today and every single last old growth tree would be saved.
Enviros are dangerous not only to working people’s jobs but to our environment because they’ve let politics overwhelm environmental protection responsibility by mounting fruitless political attacks on Palco where environmental problem solving should have taken precedent.
As the spin machine is searching for some traction, now you’re falling back on blaming the Supervisors for not letting Gallegos bring in Cotchett to head up Ken Miller’s lawsuit.
Go back and check the record – Gallegos/Stoen brought a faxed draft copy of a proposed contract with Cotchett before the Board.
The Board expressed concern that this had not been reviewed by County Counsel. Among the questions asked (which then NCJ editor Keith Easthouse deemed irrelevant) was whether or not their decision that day to deny it precluded Gallegos from making the necessary corrections, and coming BACK in with a final (not a draft) proposal that addressed the questions.
The answer was that nothing was stopping him from coming back. The answer was that he was free to come back.
HE NEVER DID.
Peace be with you Rose.
I certainly did not intend to purvey the idea that the BOS is to blame. I just said “if” the supes felt millions of dollars scammed from the HW deal was “in the interest of the people,” the perhaps a lawyer closer to the scale and field of expertise of PL’s dream-team type lawyers could better articulate the point in court.
If PL didn’t feel the same way, why did they feel threatened enough to bankroll a recall?
Also, I never gave Gallegos very good odds at beating Hurwitz. He has bought influence at the top levels of government (local and federal), and his past record says he wouldn’t pay even if he lost.
Paul has a history of wishy-washing towards the oppressive state so often, give him credit for at least making a slight effort towards helping the county regain at least some of what Hurwitz stole from us.
And if by clueless you mean “I have my own opinion,” then so be it.
love eternal
tad
No, Tad. I mean – in this case – you are clueless.
You should be asking what Gallegos has cost us. Answer, far more than you know. Experience, personnel, grants, programs designed to help victims, respect across the state… and then there is the financial tally.
But Tad, what do you think about Gallegos dressed up in his SWAT gear going out to bust car burglars?
Fantasies about Gallegos in SWAT gear add nothing to this conversation.
Hey Tad, why doesn’t Attorney General Brown want to help out. Must be in the corporate pocket.
Fantasies about Gallegos in SWAT gear add nothing to this conversation.
Only if this conversation was taking place at Chocolate Covered Xanax.
-boy
Well, then heraldo, you missed another chance to swat (pun intended) at the Eureka Reporter for leaving something out of their story (‘course the Ts did, too) – but rumor is Gallegos dressed up in his SAT gear and went out knocking on doors to bust car burglars – a job that belongs to his investigators. Playing cop is not in his job description.
It’s just as relevant as you bringing up the Supervisor’s decision 5 years ago, which occurred before your boy filed his lawsuit.
Perhaps you should ask yourself – why, if it was SO important – he didn’t spend more time on his brief, so that he wouldn’t have to send out an email begging for help a few days before it was due…
Like I already said, Gallegos doesn’t have the support, the ability, or the interest.
If there’s a rumor that he dressed up in SWAT gear I hadn’t heard it.
Fair enough.
Peace be with you Rose.
I still don’t believe it is clueless because I see our county’s economics and personnel matters different from you. When we get good personnel in the DA’s office I might watch to see if they leave, but while we have an almost complete lack of any prosecution of cops and town bosses I disagree and think we haven’t lost enough. I also believe all grants should be scrutinized and eliminated if the “strings” are to restricting or “box” our departments into someone else’s paradigm. When your “boxed in” thinking outside of the box seems revolutionary, but it your free to be you own selves and/or town then thinking inside the box doesn’t even occur to you.
I still believe Gallegos did the right thing bringing the suit, albeit too little to late. Either remember the logger who got canned, or the nestling eagle he brought out of the Mattole, but remember Hurwitz owes Humboldt county a lot. The Headwaters deal and it’s “incidental take” language screwed the people of Humboldt County and though the lying is OK by virtue of the “ruling” the screwing feels real none the less.
love eternal
tad
the suit was ridiculous to begin with, always a lose-lose for Humboldt County. if he had won and the deal was deemed to have been put together with fraudulent data, would the entire deal not fall through? if it did, where would the HW forest end up? back in the hands of palco? where would the headwaters fund go? would palco have to pay the state back? surely the DA didn’t think they could prove the deal was based on fraud and then go ahead and keep the agreement in place. it seems it would reverse everything. it was doomed from the beginning, everybody but the DA and his yes-men could see this. rhetoric only gets you so far, at some point facts count.
It’s no fantasy H.
In fact the EPIC suit led to a ruling that the so-called SYP was both invalid and , in-fact, non-existent in that there was no actual plan document–only boxes of reference materials used to support the proposed cut levels. Question: is the information contained in those boxes true or false information?
This trial court ruling was later overturned at the appellate level. This appellate court decision was then accepted for review by the state supreme court (which only accepts 1 in ten cases petitioned for hearing) on a vote of all but one of the supreme court justices. The current status of this case is that it is fully briefed and ready to be heard but is currently inactive due to the bankruptcy. Assuming the original trial court decision is reinstated, I would imagine that an actual SYP would be required to be developed and adhered to. Hopefully maxxam is down the road by then and a responsible management is in place.
Just curious, Larry – is that the EPIC case that the justices mention in their ruling?
2 We grant Pacific Lumber’s unopposed request for judicial notice of this court’s opinion in Environmental Protection Information Center et al. v. California Department
of Forestry and Fire Protection et al. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1093. (Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (c), (d).) The California Supreme Court granted review April 3, 2006, and thus
depublished the opinion. The opinion reflects the fact that on March 31, 1999, the Environmental Protection Information Center and the Sierra Club filed a lawsuit in California court challenging the issuance of certain state permits in connection with the Headwaters Agreement. Somewhat ironically, the California Attorney General has vigorously defended the issuance of those permits on behalf of various state agencies in connection with that litigation, which is still pending in the California Supreme Court, case number S140547. We do not rely on the opinion as legal precedent. (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 8.1115.)
http://presscue.com/node/38692
bush says he will help israel nuke IRAN!
Ahh Rose
Let Larry be.
His arguments are circuitous and mainly off the mark. As usually always
He’s had a setback and is now needing to vent a bit. I admire his volume. But, as always, his content is lacking.
Give him a moment to chill. His principals have had a hard day…or two.
Wheregoes the spin today Larry?
Larry just needs to get back on his med’s !
Peace be with you gmf.
Wasn’t it Stalin and Hitler who proclaimed their political opposites “mentally ill?” Are you trying to uphold a long and embarrassing family tradition? Larry seems way too smart to take your Auschwitz pills.
love eternal
tad
Speaking of “meds” those Seroquel pills that the County hands out these days have a bad side effect – death. Who would have guessed? As a plus for Big Pharma they are expensive too.
Rose has declared you “clueless” Tad. You must be doing something right.
I kind of had a question regarding the “HE NEVER DID”, preclusion argument….Did not the Supervisors have the authority, under the circumstances, to MANDATE GALLEGOS COME BACK WITH THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS SO THE LEGAL ISSUES WOULD BE LESS CLOUDY, ALLOWING A MORE ACCURATE ASSESSMENT OF THE DIRE SITUATION?
It is not as if Gallegos could not have had answers within that day or two. “SPECIAL MEETINGS” are the “MECHANISMS” to deal with these issues, especially last minute ones. This is a huge deal and both sides knew of the “complexities and political intrigues”.
Therefore, for both sides to undermine their “elected responsibilities” by not undertaking more involvement within this process is confusing at best. This PALCO suit issue has had a “General Plan Process” feel to it.
Again, both sides were aware of the “complexities and political intrigues”. If you are of the mind of rational thought processing, then you could understand that this issue should have never been “light’s out”, regarding outside legal counsel.
If the Supes can “MANDATE” Planning (GIRARD) to come back with the answers, time and time again on hot button issues, why not this one regarding outside counsel, or any other unanswered thoughts? Answer……., in “Legal Issues”, extra time is not awarded for “Simple Procrastinations”. Everyone knew their time schedules, right?
I just do not find blame on one without the other. It is, poignantly speaking, a very real and political “SYMBIOTIC” relationship.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
No, Jeff, they do not have the ability to mandate anything to the DA. they can’t make him shape up, can’t make him do his job, can’t do anything. He is an autonomous elected official. Only the voters can tell him to get lost.
And with all due respect, Jeff, you do not have any idea what you are talking about when it comes to this topic. Drop your attempt to use this to get at the Sups. They are not at fault here. In fact, now that the suit has failed so spectacularly at every level, perhaps some recognition of that is due. They did the right thing.
Gallegos on the other hand, chose instead to go the Salzman route, launch a giant public relations blitz proclaiming he was about “justice for all,” when all he was about was furthering Ken Miler’s long standing agenda. Trying to force his way through. Unfortunately for him, bullshit does not carry the day in a court of law. And he tried, down there in front of the Court of Appeals.
He just didn’t have his facts right, didn’t have the law right (note footnote # 5, the one where the justices point out that the law he chose to cite was wrong, overturned by the CA Supreme Court.) He managed to get egg on both his own and the SF guy’s face.
Yes, I understand the position is an autonomously elected one, but I have to again ask the question…Boards’ ability to mandate some answers, which they can. Further, I implicated both sides on this issue.
I never mentioned anything about forcing him to do one thing or another except answer questions. He, as you stated, approached the Board regarding…..a contract and outside legal counsel… The board, as you stated, made a decision to deny something. They made a decision.
Why are they considering commenting on a contract regarding outside legal counsel if the two entities are autonomously seperate? If the supes involve themselves, they are involving also the taxpayers. I think understanding the “full truth” is in order for this issue. I understand a friend of yours is a supervisor and all I ask is to set aside any biases. To your credit, I will understand your priviness to added information most common folk may not ever receive. This is just a matter of friendly anomolies. Unlike most of us, you are fortunate to ave a friend as an elected official that you can pick the brain of. I am sure many of us envy this, myself included.
Now, as I believe I asked the question about explaining “The Grudge”, I do believe that was a call for facts and light bearing.
Further, I believe I just gave some partial accolades when I asked for clarification on “The Grudge”. So, therefore, I am not using this issue as an attempt to discredit the Supervisors. They are doing a fine job of that on their own all too often.
And it is with due respect to the community that I ask again the question about demanding answers. Why even hear the man if you will make a decision that is irrelevent in the matter? The argument is not clear.
Lastly, if you mean that I know nothing because I do not have an up and operating blogging web site tracking Gallegos’ every move like a stalker, then I will admit, I do not know nothing. However, I will say this, it is advantageous when people underestimate or overestimate the knowledge they or others may or may not have…..Therefore, keep an open mind set as to who knows what and why.
P.S. No knock on your website or any others, just asking for less inequality in knowledge, that’s all.
Thank You Rose.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
Wow!
What worries me Jeffrey is that I understood your last post.
gotta cut down on the caffeine.
Sheesh
They had to approve or deny the contract with outside counsel, Jeff, because THAT is within their purview and because there is potential liability for the County involved – would they have had to pay Mr. Cotchett, for example, and how much, and what if he lost, what would the County be liable for?
Besides, Gallegos had just hired Tim Stoen as his Assistant DA, though the previous DA had never needed an Assistant. he was paying Tim Stoen full bore, and Stoen was to handle that case (and, it turned out, almost no others). I repeat, Stoen said this was a slam dunk case, that he could win it with a couple of expert witnesses and a few pieces of paper,,,,
And because Gallegos/Stoen came before them with a draft document, they denied his request, but allowed that he was free to come back when he had a complete proposal. They could not and did not DIRECT HIM to fix his mistake, that was irrelevant, since it was denied – I don’t know how else to explain it to you, Jeff.
Was it not important enough to agendize?
Further, the supes took time out of their schedule to entertain his thoughts and for what…A decision. My point is that everyone knew, both sides, that something was up….not right….red lights blinking…..
My point is that as an elected body of officials, it is the Supervisors’ duty, by their actions, to inform the public of the potential or undeniable troubles that may lie ahead….
To this point, I say both sides failed miserably. Again, why the heck are they entertaining an autonomously elected official’s position, intermixing a non-autonomously elected position (County Counsel) to consider whether or not to make a decision on what? Again, I am still unclear as there are grey areas, outside legal help?
Further, the liability never changed. It always and would have always been the taxpayers if the suit was unsuccessful. So, in reality, the Supervisors shied away from having the ability to hire outside counsel that may have helped win the case. Did the supes think it was a 50%-50% odds for a favorable outcome?
In addition, it is in reality that the Supervisors did not scream loud enough about why this part of the process was not important. I did not hear a continuous anti-Gallegos rally by our collective board of supes out in the openness declaring Gallegos is a lunatic on this issue.
Fact is, Supervisors had a part in the decision making process to decide whether or not it was in the interest of the taxpayers to spend a little more now, or spend a lot later.
Fact is, County Counsel could also had inquired for outside legal service for another seperate, but hopefully autonomous opinion telling Gallegos to back off, you can’t win, the cards are not in the deck. He did not even get to a setttlement hearing on this, did he?
You do not necessarily have to win the whole case, often times, a settlement is a win-win. I realise the complexity, but do not attempt to stifle “the truths”.
Lastly, it seems early on in this post, Heraldo mentioned something about Falor……., do explain.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
Peace be with you.
“Speaking of “meds” those Seroquel pills that the County hands out these days have a bad side effect – death. Who would have guessed?” Me!
I told this county many time during their MH plan process that drugs are deadly and cause an INCREASE IN SUICIDES! What’s the new MH director say we need to do about our high rate of suicides? Why “focus on prevention” aka CalMAP, aka forced drugging, aka more suicides. She further said due to privacy laws “getting information is hampered, so Stein and ‘others’ in her office ARE planning other methods of obtaining information,” that she knows she is not legally entitled too.
Better get used to it, Crandall said he wants to dope 30,000 Humboldt county residents. Millions upon millions in funds for MH and the problem keeps getting worse with every dollar. Bush calls less choices “New Freedom.”
love eternal
tad
J.T.F.
Yeah, I know, I tried to be a better, stronger, faster and quicker typer in grammar school, but as you can tell, I have not adapted very well….I think I remembered getting a C or C+, huge disappointment. I guess I stink at it, what can I say.
Oh well, not for a lack of effort.
Back to the grindstone.
Jeffrey lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
Well Jeff
I have to say that the request for funds for outside counsel, without a formal proposal is fiscal irresponsibility at its worst….not unlike this most recent, upcoming plea for preferential treatment for his ‘special’ employees. Personnel policies are not intended to promote favor or elite-tism. It’s a monumental disregard for the value of taxpayer money.
But not for a lack of effort.
Oh and Tad….I think that would be “fewer” choices.
Could not agree with you more, J.t.F.
Fiscal irresponsibility by elected officials when not considering all of the underlying issues, liablilities and impacts to the taxpayers is a concern for all.
Fiscal irresponsibility is as much borne from making decisions as it is as much born from not making decisions. It is a double-edged sword that seems self sharpening during display.
This is why we have doctors and drugs, I guess…l.o.l.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
Interesting observation.
Could be self-dulling as well.
Any decision-making exercise involves risk. But there is that strange phenomenon of personal responsibility which sometimes allows a little dust to settle on an issue or decision.
Democracy should be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner (Bovard)
That is why we have the opportunity to take the best shot and let time take care of the rest.
As you are now figuring out, elected officials are simple human beings subject to the same constraints as any other sad soul confronted with a hard decision. There is not categorical dismissal here. Just a call…and a couple of hungry wolves.
Sure you want this job?
Well, I am not figuring out how elected officials are simple human beings….I believe elected officials are held to a higher standard than the rest of us. They hold our trust and with that trust they control our destiny….
Why? They are put into a position where they have information that the rest of us do not. What an elected official does with that information is just as important when compared to what an elected official decides is irrelavent….
It is not for a lack of effort or disclosure on the part of any elected official, it is for the lack of “full” effort or disclosure by any elected official to demand answers for issues within a process that they decide to entertain.
Notwithstanding, the taxpayers are the losers.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
Ah….I get it now
You are a conspiracy theorist. Ok that makes sense.
Do you really think that elected officials are some kind of super-beings? Thomas Jefferson had a different idea. The platform upon which we defer decision-making authority for those upon whom we extend the curse of doing those things that we do not choose to do for ourselves.
If you really want the job you’re going to have to do better than that.
But, I agree, the taxpayers have lost a hell of a lot of competence to political expediency.
It’s so easy to launch pot shots from the sidelines. If you reach that point of decision-making authority, and you get to decide who you are going to piss off today, perhaps the “little dust’ theory will make more sense. And, the dust of your moral outrage over some perceived absence of accountability will settle on you.
Or is this more than you wanted to take on today?
I suspect you’ll get to know me better.
J.t.F.
Who suspects I don’t already know you.
Besides, it is good to communicate, afterall, that is the role of leadership? Yes, it is hard and I won’t go there because it would be disingenuos to the times that good things are accomplished.
Further, conspiracy theorest? Is life what it appears? Some say, it is what you make of it. I’ll stick to the facts because that is all that is real. You can understand, I am sure.
As far as potshots, it is easy. I guess it is a human trait, you know, find the easy way out…The difference is that seeking answers is not necessarily the easy way out. Since an elected official does take claim and credit for their actions, I would think the same is true for the fabled follies.
It is true potshots can be off base; as it is true that potshots can be on base, and that it is inevitably left up to the listener to decide upon arguments of facts, personal expressions and opinions.
However, as judges are compelled to apply the laws, so are too elected officials to apply their “full representation”. Obviously in this issue with Gallegos, this bearence of responsibility seems to be at argument.
Again, it takes two sides to tango on this issue. I put blame on both sides and a little personal responsibility would be in order from both sides.
We will move on ………
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
What facts?
But I embrace your last paragraph entirely…both sides, if there are such things, are disingenuous
You agree?
Not always true, but again, objectively speaking….it is what it is and what we make of it. Personal responsibility would include genuinity; therefore, ask yourself as to what is right and what is wrong? This is what hopefully leads a decision maker down the path of least resistance, or at least until another hot button issue deflects public attention?
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th district
H: you are such a loser. This case was lost on 4 grounds –
1. THE LITIGATION PRIVILEGE PROTECTS EVERYBODY’S RIGHT TO COMMENT
2. THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTS EVERYONE’S RIGHTS TO COMMENT
3. AFTER 3 YEARS 80,000 PAIGES OF COMMENTS AND16,000 COMMENTER (SOME WHICH CONTRIDICTED THE SUPPOSED “ERRONEOUS” REPORT”, THERE WAS NO WAY THAT THE COURT WAS GOING TO BUY THAT THE WHOLE PROCESS WAS ILLIGITTMATE;
AND MOST IMPORTATLY……
EVEN IF THE COURT ACCEPTED THE ALLEGATIONS AS TRUE….THE “VILLAGE IDIOT” COULD NEVER PREVAIL IN ANY TRIAL.
THAT IS CALLED BEING BITCH SLAPPED!
iT IS AND WAS A LOSER – NOW DEAL WITH IT
BOO! .
Yes, I could not agree more…..this case is a lost cause @ 1:19 am. It is so true how you are correct about being a loser.
I am a loser….you are a loser….she is a loser…he is a loser…they are a loser….WE, THE COMMUNITY, ARE ALL LOSERS.
I can’t help but think how much we have lost because people refuse to answer direct questions….., or even consider asking them in the first place. I believe yourself, myself and many more people are concerned. Interested folks, including myself, ask questions when they are concerned that all facts or points have not been discussed over a topic or issue. My very first fact supporting question presented my angle, as well as my position.
Anyhow, of relevence is understanding whether or not this outsourced Contractual Agreement precursion event was an Agenda Item and if so, why was it put there if there is “NO” fiscal responsibility, fiduciary responsibility or Respondet Superior responsibility to the D.A., and most importantly, the taxpayers?
If Gallegos’ request was not an Agenda Item, I would think there is “NO” Supervisorial allegience to discuss the matter under the open public meeting laws if it were not on the Agenda, unless routed through “Public Comment” or individually brought up by an interested or concerned County Supervisor or County Counsel.
They heard the matter and I do not recall a unanymous rally by the Supes to plead with Gallegos to not go through with it after their get together. To credit the good, I will admit comments of concern being asked by people at that time, a recall effort, but not a huge Supervisor Rally pleading Gallegos to quit because he was going to cost the taxpayers more than just tax monies. Further, the Headwaters Fund may be more at risk for further funding something that is not of “Public Benefit”. Maybe, a bit more political nudging or persuasion to not undertake this PALCO case could have made a difference? Maybe not?
Another note is that if this was a Gallegos/Special Friendship & Interest Case against PALCO like many claim, then would not this information or accusation get back to at least ONE SUPERVISOR? If so, then surely the Supervisors would understand that protecting the “Public Interest”…the taxpayers… could really only be achieved by thwarting the lawsuit politically, right?
Since I am interested in understanding accurately the events surrounding this topic of discussion, all I ask is for some clarification regarding one supposed little moment in time…..but, then again, maybe it is not so little of a moment?
Thanks for the positive feedback!
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
what happened to Rose’s Brain? haven’t heard from it in a while…
It’s with Jane Doe. AWOL
Jeff you make no sence and only tell half truths. Supervisors Geist and Woolley work well together and Neeley will help you if onky you can handle the truth.
Hey, what is wrong with Jimmy and Roger?
…………I guess we only get 3/5 truths and not 5/5 truths.
2/5 truths = Agriculture and Fishing….important political bases, no?
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
Peace be with you Rose.
Do you have Jane locked in your computer somewhere? If not it brings me back to the question: “did Windy Butler get paid for blogging?”
love eternal
tad
Peace be with you 5:54.
It seems to me all the supes “work well together.” I’ve seem hundreds and hundreds of controversial items, that according to the Brown Act have not been discussed among the supes, get unanimously voted for with no discussion. Even when people pull consent items the supes just look at each other and go yea. The supes don’t run this county. Haven’t you heard? we’re nationalized.
love eternal
tad