From: Paul Cienfuegos
Date: Friday, May 02, 2003 12:28 PM
Subject: Humboldt County (California) urgently needs your help
Dear friends across the United States, from the people of Humboldt County
struggling against Maxxam Corporation,
As many of you probably already know, we have a world-famous case here
of corporate fraud and environmental destruction caused by Maxxam
Corporation, which is headquartered in Texas (CEO: Charles Hurwitz) and is
chartered in Delaware. In November of 2000, in an upset election that
toppled the good-old-boy power structure here, a dissident District Attorney
was elected by the people of our county to replace a D.A. who had been
looking the other way for years as Maxxam Corp violated the law literally
hundreds of times. Just weeks after taking office, Paul Gallegos stunned
everyone by filing a major fraud lawsuit against the corporation. That event
set off a firestorm across California's north coast. And because Maxxam
still runs the county politically, its allies have responded by quickly
organizing a recall campaign to oust our new D.A. as quickly as possible
before he shakes things up too badly.
The reason that I'm writing to all of you is that WE URGENTLY NEED YOUR
HELP HERE TO DEFEND OUR NEW D.A. FROM THE RECALL CAMPAIGN WHILE
SIMULTANEOUSLY SUPPORTING HIS BOLD MOVE TO SUE MAXXAM FOR FRAUD.
Below, you will find a brief note from Richard Salzman who is
coordinating the local campaign to support the D.A. and his historic
lawsuit. Justice will not be served in this county unless we can raise
substantial amounts of money to at least try to match what the corporation's
supporters are already raising in their already vicious media campaign
against Gallegos. THUS I AM ASKING YOU TO CONSIDER MAKING A GENEROUS
DONATION TOWARD THIS CAUSE.
Also below, you'll be able to read an Op-Ed written by our D.A. in our
local daily last week, followed by two major articles about the issue from
the Los Angeles Times and the Daily Journal.
Please respond not to me, but to Richard Salzman.
Thanks in advance,
Paul Cienfuegos
Arcata, CA
Co-director, Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a note from Richard Salzman to our supporters across the nation)
Last year the residents of Humboldt county, on California's redwood coast,
elected Paul Gallegos, a man of the people, not beholden to any special
interest as District Attorney in an upset victory against the incumbent DA
of 20 years, best known for his authorization of the use of pepper spray as
a pain compliance technique on non-violent protesters. Eight weeks after
taking office and one day before the four year statue of limitations ran
out, he filed a lawsuit alleging fraud against Maxxam corporation's wholly
owned subsidiary Pacific Lumber. Pacific Lumber's apologists have now
launched a recall of the district attorney in hopes of removing him from
office in order to avoid answering these charges in a court of law.
This is clearly a David and Goliath story when viewed from the national
stage. A community faced with having exercised true democracy now being
subverted in the most overt manner by an out-of-state corporation using all
the worst tactics of instilling fear in their workers and promoting
hate-mongering against any who dare oppose them. We will need the support of
concerned citizens from throughout the country if we are to keep Maxxam from
buying this election. We have invested all we have on producing a series of
nine commercials which we are now putting into rotation.
In order to buy the air time to run the whole series, we will need to raise
some $30,000 (what their campaign had already raised by the time they served
Paul the notice of recall) over the next few weeks/months. In addition to
financial support we are asking voters around the country to write to their
representatives as well as to ours, urging their support of our beleaguered
DA. We need elected officials nationwide to speak up in outrage over this
attempt to circumvent justice and buy an election. This story has been
covered in both the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times as well as the
San Francisco Chronicle and papers in DC and elsewhere. We encourage people
to speak out wherever they live in opposition to this attempt to circumvent
justice.
Yours in solidarity,
Thanks for your support.
Richard Salzman - coordinator
Alliance for Ethical Business
po box 387
Eureka Ca 95502
707.845.3700
aeb@inreach.com
"The Alliance for Ethical Business is a citizens group working to ensure
that corporate fraud and illegal business practices are prosecuted in a
court of law."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MY WORD
All people are equal under the law
by Paul Gallegos
27 April 2003
Eureka Times-Standard
To the people of Humboldt County:
One of the primary goals of our society is to realize the
unfulfilled promise that all people are equal before the law. I
was elected district attorney by the people of Humboldt County
because they share my commitment to fulfilling this promise.
Shortly after taking office we became aware that Pacific Lumber
Co. may have engaged in fraudulent conduct. We had a duty to
investigate the matter and did. As a result of that investigation
and the evidence we uncovered, we filed a lawsuit against them.
Because it is a matter which will be resolved in court, I do not
wish to discuss the details of it here. Nor will I engage in a
discussion about the possible outcomes. As with all court cases,
the pleadings which have been filed are public records and are
available for public inspection. For convenience we have placed a
copy of the complaint and other documents of public interest at
our web page at http://www.co.humboldt.ca.us/distatty/.
However, I would like to explain what this case is not about. It
is not about whether Pacific Lumber Co. is being properly
regulated by the government. Nor is it about forestry and water
laws. It is not an attempt to put any company out of business or
to end logging. Clearly the wealth of our county is tied to the
wealth of our people. Rather, it is about fraud and, ultimately,
whether our laws apply to all or just some of us.
It has been suggested that we should not have filed this case
against the biggest business in Humboldt County. This suggestion
is troubling and perplexing, as it implies that we either do or
should have different rules for people based on their wealth or
political power. Clearly, this cannot be.
Nobody is above the law. This fundamental principle was at the
heart of the American Revolution more than 200 years ago. As
American citizens, we are not bound by race or religion but by the
beliefs enshrined in our Constitution and the Declaration of
Independence. I know we all share these beliefs and a commitment
to their fulfillment. I also know that it is our individual
conduct that gives meaning to these beliefs and that they will
only be realized by our commitment to fulfilling them.
Some people say that our suit against Pacific Lumber defined me.
My response is that it has not defined me, it is defining US. We
are all in this together. It is a painful process. But we will
come through it together and be better for it because all people
will know that in Humboldt County all people are equal under the
law and no one, not even the most rich or most powerful, gets
preferential treatment.
As your DA, I know where I stand. It is where I have always stood:
for equal treatment before the law. As readers of this paper know,
I wasn't the candidate predicted to win the election. I didn't
have nearly as much money as my opponent. I wasn't well-connected.
I had never before run for public office. However, I won because
the people of Humboldt County elected me. They elected me for the
very change that some seek to prevent.
I am honored and privileged to have the responsibility of serving
the people of Humboldt County. I am honored and privileged to have
the opportunity to work with the people at this office, who work
tirelessly to serve this community. I know that I can comfortably
speak for all of them when I say that we feel fortunate to have
the opportunity to work for you.
Thank you.
Paul Gallegos was elected district attorney in March 2002 and took
office in January. He lives in Eureka.
Copyright © 2003 Eureka Times-Standard
Reprinted for Fair Use Only.
------------------------------------------------------------------
D.A. in Hot Water After Taking on Logger
by Kenneth R. Weiss
Los Angelese Time Staff Writer, April 27, 2003
EUREKA, Calif. -- Barely three months in office, Dist. Atty. Paul
V. Gallegos faces a recall campaign, threats of lawsuits and court
sanctions -- all after he brought civil fraud charges against a
powerful timber company that has become a symbol of a beleaguered
way of life.
An emigre from Southern California, Gallegos is a political
neophyte in a north coast county that, since the mid-1980s, has
been a battleground over logging practices that imperil some of
California's last giant redwoods.
Although he doesn't view himself as an environmentalist and was
elected last year with broad support, he now finds himself
undercut by a local establishment that links him to the
anti-logging counterculture.
"Mr. Gallegos is stirring up trouble," said Robin Arkley Sr., a
former timber mill owner who pledged $5,000 to launch the recall
campaign. "He's threatening our way of life."
Arkley, 78, said he and other "good ole boys" are fed up with
Gallegos and his kind. "It's us against them," he said. "We're
going to take back the county from the ardent environmentalists,
the college community and the hippies."
Lawyers for the timber company, Pacific Lumber Co., known here as
"Palco," say the D.A.'s suit has no merit and have threatened to
countersue if he doesn't drop it. Officials of the two state
agencies responsible for overseeing logging practices also have
questioned the merits of the suit.
Gallegos said he thought he was doing what he had been elected to
do when he charged Pacific Lumber Co. in a civil action with
deceiving the California Department of Forestry by failing to
disclose that its timber-cutting plans could cause landslides.
Having concealed that information, Gallegos contended, Pacific
Lumber was allowed to cut 100,000 giant redwoods, profiting
handsomely at the expense of wildlife and downstream neighbors who
have suffered from mud flows, flooding streams and other damaging
effects of stripping redwoods off steep, unstable slopes.
In leveling such accusations, Gallegos has stepped into a
long-running fight in this community and taken on a formidable
adversary. Pacific Lumber has been engaged in a herculean struggle
to log as it sees fit on its own land -- 211,000 acres that are
home to the largest stands of ancient redwood trees that are not
in parks or preserves.
Pacific Lumber's owner, Houston financier Charles Hurwitz, has
made one major concession to anti-logging forces, and that was for
a handsome price. In 1999, the state and federal governments paid
Pacific Lumber $480 million to set aside a 7,500-acre Headwaters
grove of ancient redwoods. Gallegos' lawsuit may turn on language
in that deal that dictated how the company could log the rest of
its land.
Gallegos, 41, a USC graduate, moved to Eureka nine years ago after
he and his wife fell in love with the sparkling air and the beauty
of Humboldt Bay, with its backdrop of towering trees.
The upbeat district attorney, whose youthful exuberance puts a
bounce in his stride, is part of the latest wave of white-collar
newcomers to arrive in what was once a county dominated by fishing
and logging.
Humboldt County's economy today is driven by jobs in government,
tourism and service industries. Even Pacific Lumber's payroll is
down to 800 employees -- from a peak of 1,500 -- as it continues
to lay off workers and shift logging work to outside contractors.
Gallegos practiced criminal defense law, took up surfing and
coached T-ball and soccer in Eureka, where he lives with his wife
and three young children. Then he decided to run for district
attorney last year.
He insists that he hadn't fallen in with any faction in Humboldt
County: the third-generation loggers, the Green Party and other
left-leaning interests associated with Humboldt State University
or the aging hippies who arrived during the 1970s'
back-to-the-land movement and established deep roots as
small-business owners or backwoods pot growers.
Gallegos opposed a recently stepped-up tree-sitting campaign, and
he prosecutes trespassing activists who try to save old redwoods
from Pacific Lumber's chainsaws by scampering up the massive
trunks and locking themselves to the trees' boughs.
Gallegos refrains from calling himself an environmentalist,
although he said he is concerned about the sustainability of
"lifeboat Earth" and the "need to do everything in a sustainable
fashion so our kids will have a place to live."
His campaign for district attorney focused on a fair and practical
application of the law, and didn't bring up the environment --
although his campaign did receive some assistance from Green Party
members. He upset 20-year incumbent D.A. Terry Farmer and won 52%
of the vote.
Within days of taking office in January, say Gallegos and his top
assistant, Timothy Stoen, they were presented information by a
local landowner about Pacific Lumber that raised a suspicion of
corporate malfeasance rather than violations of environmental law.
According to the D.A.'s lawsuit, Pacific Lumber submitted false
data showing that intensive logging on steep slopes would not
cause landslides and lobbied the director of the California
Department of Forestry to allow more logging on unstable slopes.
Under the terms of the Headwaters deal, logging that could cause
such damage was prohibited.
The deception, the lawsuit said, helped Pacific Lumber step up the
rate of harvest and earn an extra $40 million a year. Prosecutors
seek $250 million in damages for the allegedly illegal harvesting
of an estimated 100,000 trees on unstable slopes.
Jared Carter, Pacific Lumber's longtime attorney, said, "No effort
was made to suppress" information. "There has been no harvesting
on these unstable areas." The district attorney, Carter said, is
being "misled" by a group of environmental activists on a crusade
to halt Pacific Lumber from harvesting timber on its own land.
"What do you expect us to do, other than take every action to
defend ourselves?"
The D.A.'s defenders scoff at the idea that the lawsuit is merely
a tool of tree-sitters or less radical activists bent on saving
every last ancient redwood.
"We're not eco-environmental freaks," said Kristi Wrigley, a
third-generation apple farmer. "We've never spoken out against
logging. We're speaking up for clean water."
She seethes over the silt and mud flowing down the Elk River that
has sullied her source of fresh water, flooded her farm five times
this past winter and smothered the roots of what were once her
most productive apple trees.
The district attorney, she said, is "right on the mark," but she
fears "he will be strangled by politics, just as politics have
strangled us. Money is going to win."
Pacific Lumber's detractors say the company has a history of
reckless logging practices. Twice in the late 1980s, the state
Department of Forestry suspended the firm's license to cut timber,
citing more than 100 violations of the state Forestry Practices
Act. Most were for careless logging operations during wet weather
and a failure to control erosion.
For Gallegos, the first sign of a backlash came when he arrived at
work one day last month and found the Humboldt County courthouse
surrounded by logging trucks and a picket line of loggers carrying
placards that read: "Recall the D.A."
It was later that day in mid-March that the county Board of
Supervisors, in an auditorium full of rowdy loggers, rejected the
district attorney's attempt to hire a lawyer from out of town to
help prosecute the civil fraud case.
Supervisor Roger Rodoni, a cattle rancher who leases 2,000 acres
of grazing land from Pacific Lumber, led the 4-1 majority against
paying the expenses of Joseph W. Cotchett, a Burlingame attorney
with a record of winning corporate fraud cases.
Since then, the district attorney has received a letter from
another firm on Pacific Lumber's legal team, threatening to sue
him and the county. He recently was served with legal papers
saying Pacific Lumber would seek court-imposed sanctions to
recover legal bills that, Carter said, have climbed quickly to
more than $100,000.
To Cotchett, who still wants to join the prosecution, the scene is
unfolding like a Jimmy Stewart movie in which a fresh-faced
reformer confronts powerful vested interests.
"It's clear they are trying to intimidate him," said Cotchett, who
believes the case has a lot of merit. "If those facts, as alleged,
are true," he said, "then Pacific Lumber has a big problem."
But the company also has allies.
Recently, both the California Department of Forestry and the state
Department of Fish and Game, in letters sent to the Humboldt
County supervisors, have questioned the D.A.'s fundamental
assertions.
Both agencies assert that the steep slopes most susceptible to
landslides have been protected under other provisions of the
Headwaters deal, and thus the incorrect information didn't put
these areas in jeopardy.
Yet both of these agencies, which approved the Headwaters deal,
acknowledge they are bound by a paragraph-long "mutual defense
pact" tucked inside the voluminous document by Pacific Lumber's
lawyers. It requires them to join with the firm to defend the
Headwaters deal, including the company's timber harvesting plans,
which have been targeted by other lawsuits from environmental and
labor groups.
Blocked from hiring outside legal help, Humboldt's district
attorney approached California Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer for
assistance in the prosecution. That help has yet to materialize.
Lockyer declined to comment, but aides pointed out a conflict he
faces because of his duty to represent the two agencies --
Forestry and Fish and Game -- that have been taking issue with the
case.
"We like to help local prosecutors, but we must take direction
from our client agencies," said Tom Dresslar, spokesman for
Lockyer. "It's not a very comfortable situation for anyone in this
office."
Gallegos said he will not drop the lawsuit, even if it costs him
his job.
He characterized the unfolding events as politics interfering with
justice in a region that needs to shake its habit of subservience
to timber interests.
"This is a test for this community," Gallegos said. "Some people
think they should be exempt from the law because of how much money
they have or how much they contribute to the community. I do not."
Times researcher Maloy Moore contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2003 Los Angeles Times
Reprinted for Fair Use Only.
------------------------------------------------------------------
TAKING ON TIMBER
A Recall Drive is the Latest Development in The Case of the
Humboldt County D.A. Suing Pacific Lumber
By Dennis Pfaff
Daily Journal Staff Writer, April 24, 2003
SAN FRANCISCO - Paul Gallegos knew he was taking a political risk
by going after Humboldt County timber giant Pacific Lumber Co.
just weeks after taking office as the county's top prosecutor.
"I would have had to have been blind, deaf and dumb not to know
that it would be the end of any political career I might have,"
said Gallegos, against whom a recall attempt was poised to be
launched today.
The veteran defense lawyer-turned-Humboldt County district
attorney may be causing political discomfort outside his
jurisdiction, as well. Both state Attorney General Bill Lockyer
and the Gov. Gray Davis could find themselves drawn into the suit
Gallegos filed in February against Pacific Lumber.
He's seeking as much as a quarter-billion dollars in civil
penalties from the timber giant for allegedly hiding information
in connection with the 1999 Headwaters agreement.
Under that deal, Pacific Lumber agreed to cede thousands of acres
of old-growth forests to government control in exchange for
regulatory certainty in operating on its remaining acreage.
Gallegos' civil fraud case is among a trio of parallel courtroom
dramas. Just completed last month was a trial of a lawsuit brought
by environmentalists alleging state officials didn't do their jobs
properly in scrutinizing the plans that govern Pacific Lumber's
logging practices under the Headwaters deal.
Coming up May 12 in Eureka is the retrial of a federal
police-brutality complaint against sheriff's deputies who
pepper-sprayed activists protesting the company's practices.
Coincidentally, the next day in the same city, a key hearing in
the Gallegos lawsuit is scheduled in Humboldt County Superior
Court.
The community, according to various accounts, is roiling.
"When it comes to timber and environmental activists, Eureka is
the center of a war zone," attorneys for the pepper-sprayed
protesters said recently, in arguing against holding the trial
there.
While some county residents see Gallegos as a troublemaker, others
point to Pacific Lumber, which since its takeover by a Texas
conglomerate in the mid-1980s has been at the center of
near-constant controversy.
"These guys have distorted almost every aspect of life up here -
the political, the environmental, the social and the judicial,"
said Eureka attorney William Bertain, who has represented property
owners and pensioners in cases against Pacific Lumber.
Gallegos' lawsuit, brought under Business and Professions Code
Section 17200, says Pacific Lumber secured state approvals to log
under the Headwaters deal by submitting an environmental report
containing false information regarding the potential hazards, such
as erosion from its hillside operations.
Logging on unstable slopes "resulted in major landslides causing
destruction to ancient redwoods, serious harm to Humboldt Bay and
serious harm to streams, bridges, roads, homes and property rights
of the people of Humboldt County," the complaint alleges.
Although Pacific Lumber eventually came forward with corrected
information, according to the lawsuit, that data was delivered
only to a local representative of the California Department of
Forestry, and not until just before the Headwaters deal was
finalized. Gallegos said that prevented the information from being
included in the decision-making process.
Pacific Lumber officials have denied any wrongdoing, saying
Gallegos' lawsuit rests heavily on the findings of a government
researcher whose work lacks "scientific credibility."
Gallegos has requested a court order to stop the company from
logging in some areas, including those potentially unstable
hillsides. He also seeks $2,500 for each tree harvested illegally.
By some estimates, that could reap $250 million in penalties,
although any actual recovery likely would be far lower.
Gallegos' own demeanor in pursuing the litigation suggests a
combination of defiance and optimism, notwithstanding the recall
effort funded by a retired timber executive, a serious slap-down
by the county's board of supervisors and a legal counter-attack by
Pacific Lumber that threatens Gallegos and the county itself with
sanctions.
"If I put that ahead of doing my duty then I couldn't do this
job," Gallegos said. He is fond of saying that the prosecutor's
position is "a job to do, not a job to have."
State Could Co-defend Case
His job, assuming Gallegos keeps it, could get even tougher if
agents of Lockyer and Davis choose - or are forced - to become
involved on the company's behalf.
That could happen as a result of a 1996 agreement that paved the
way for the eventual Headwaters deal. Pacific Lumber and the state
and federal governments pledged to "preserve diligently" the
Headwaters agreement against any "third party challenge."
Stanley Young, a spokesman for the California Resources Agency,
the chief environmental arm of the Davis administration, said the
1996 agreement allows Pacific Lumber to demand legal help from the
state. He said the joint-defense pact could be triggered because
Gallegos' lawsuit is an attack on the environmental documents
"underpinning the [Headwaters] agreement."
Young said the company has not yet asked for help under the
agreement. But some agency officials, including an attorney for
the Department of Fish and Game, have formally expressed
reservations about the Gallegos lawsuit.
The situation is forcing Lockyer, who represents those state
agencies in litigation and who also has crafted a
pro-environmental image, to do a delicate balancing act.
The attorney general has decided against providing any help to
Gallegos, according to a spokesman. At the same time, Lockyer's
office puts the onus for calling the shots squarely on the Davis
administration.
"Our office has made it very clear to the Humboldt County district
attorney that we have a clear, ethical duty to represent our
clients, and that doesn't leave us any wiggle room to join or
assist the DA in the lawsuit against Pacific Lumber," Lockyer
spokesman Tom Dresslar said Wednesday.
He said the state agencies involved believe in the adequacy of the
environmental report at issue in Gallegos' lawsuit.
"Misrepresentations, even if they did occur, wouldn't have
affected the adequacy of the EIR, and the decision wouldn't have
changed," Dresslar said.
The district attorney said he doesn't need Lockyer's help, but
insists Lockyer has no business defending Pacific Lumber.
"I would certainly be surprised if the attorney general's office
finds itself in the position of defending fraudulent conduct ...
[and] interpreting the agreement they signed as requiring them to
defend lying to the government," Gallegos said.
Dresslar insisted the attorney general never would "defend anybody
who lied to the state."
"We're not defending [Pacific Lumber]," Dresslar said. "We're
defending client agencies and the adequacy of the EIR."
Pacific Lumber, in an April 1 demurrer motion, asked a Humboldt
County judge to dismiss Gallegos' lawsuit partly on grounds that
the state and federal governments were "indispensable" to the
case, yet had not been named as defendants.
The company speculated Gallegos left them out because government
agencies cannot be sued under Section 17200.
"There are numerous cases involving challenges to agency
decisions, just like this one, where courts have dismissed the
action because an indispensable party was not or could not be
joined," the company said in its motion.
Pacific Lumber raised several other grounds for throwing the case
out, including a sweeping right to communicate with the
government.
"Plaintiff alleges Pacific Lumber engaged in wrongful conduct by
providing the government misleading information as to the effects
of its timber operations and by promoting its objectives in the
Headwaters agreement," the company's attorneys wrote. "Such
conduct is protected under the First Amendment and the
Noerr-Pennington Doctrine and cannot serve as a basis for
liability" under the Business and Professions Code.
The Noerr-Pennington doctrine, the brief said, gives immunity to
those trying to influence the government.
"Their position is, they are allowed to lie," said Gallegos.
"That's an interesting position to take."
"The privilege goes pretty far," said Pacific Lumber attorney
Edgar Washburn. He asserted, in fact, that it would apply even if
the company lied - which he insisted it did not.
Washburn, of San Francisco's Stoel Rives, said if the relevant
state agencies could be drawn into the case, "the AG would come in
to defend them."
In a letter to Gallegos dated March 20, Washburn pointedly noted
that Lockyer's aides already have defended the Headwaters
agreement in court in response to litigation brought by
environmentalists.
In that case, environmental groups objected to state agencies'
approval of the company's long-term logging plans under the
Headwaters deal. They claim state officials dramatically boosted
the amount of timber the company could cut and illegally gave
Pacific Lumber assurances about what it would have to do to comply
with environmental laws. [Environmental Protection Information
Center v. California Department of Forestry, CV990445.]
That case was tried in March before retired Lake County Superior
Court Judge John Golden, sitting by assignment. Golden, who has
asked for additional briefing on some aspects of the dispute, may
not rule on the logging plans for months.
In the letter, Washburn demanded of Gallegos, "How can you claim
to be representing the people of the state of California making
claims directly contrary to those denied and defended by the
attorney general" and other state agencies.
Jim Branham, a Pacific Lumber spokesman, said the company has kept
both the attorney general's office and state environmental
agencies informed about the fraud case.
He said the company has not asked for any specific action, such as
invoking the defense agreement, but added, "We are concerned that
the county, as an agency of the state, be aware of the state's
commitments."
'We are going to be aggressive'
Washburn had threatened to seek sanctions against the district
attorney and the county if Gallegos proceeded with the suit.
Pacific Lumber made good on that threat, filing a sanctions motion
that is scheduled to be heard along with the demurrer May 13.
Aggressive defense tactics are not unusual for the company. In the
past, it has sought large sanctions from plaintiffs who lost
environmental cases against it, once unsuccessfully attempting to
assess $670,000 against one organization.
Washburn made no apologies for the company's hard-nosed approach
in the current case.
"We made a concerted effort to get [Gallegos] to dismiss the case
before we got into heavy-duty litigation," Washburn said. "We are
going to be aggressive in defending it."
State fish and game officials wrote a letter March 10 to Assistant
Humboldt County District Attorney Tim Stoen, who is spearheading
the litigation, expressing concern about the case. The letter
cited "errors in fact" in the county's complaint and denied that
the information provided by Pacific Lumber resulted in permission
for the company to cut trees in unstable areas.
Stoen said he felt ambushed by the letter, which was dated the day
before the county supervisors met to consider hiring prominent
Burlingame litigator Joseph Cotchett to assist Gallegos in the
case.
Young said the state Resources Agency was merely being responsive.
"The D.A. asked [state officials] to put their concerns in
writing. They did. That's it," he said.
According to local press reports, county supervisors cited the
letter in voting not to hire Cotchett.
On the day the proposal for outside counsel was heard, timber
workers ringed the county building with log trucks, and supporters
and opponents of Gallegos jammed the meeting.
Cotchett, of Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy, had offered to
take the case on contingency, asking for 14.5 percent of any money
collected from the company plus minimal expenses.
Stoen estimated the arrangement would cost the county no more than
$9,000, an amount he called a "pittance" for the involvement of
such a high-powered firm.
But the supervisors voted 4-1 against the deal. The majority
included the wife of the former district attorney Gallegos
defeated and a man who leases land from Pacific Lumber.
"There was no way we were going to let that happen, given the
questionable circumstances surrounding the lawsuit," Supervisor
Roger Rodoni, who opposed the request, told reporters after the
hearing. Although Rodoni rents land from Pacific Lumber, he said
the state Fair Political Practices Commission had given him the
green light to vote on the matter, according to press accounts of
the hearing.
Stoen said that the rejection of "a free attorney" left the county
with its own, limited resources to pursue the case. Cotchett, for
example, would have traveled to Houston to depose Charles Hurwitz,
who heads Pacific Lumber's parent company - a trip the county
cannot afford.
Stoen insists the setback won't stop the county's litigation, but
he acknowledged it will hurt.
"It prevents us from expanding the pool of truth," he said.
Cotchett, meanwhile, is still spoiling to get in the case. He said
environmental groups have contacted him about filing a companion
lawsuit on their behalf. That would get him into the proceedings -
and enable him to consult with Gallegos - even if he's not
retained by the county.
"The legal issue is whether those groups have standing to come in
and file an action on behalf of the people," Cotchett said.
Recall campaign
Gallegos took office in January after upsetting 20-year veteran
District Attorney Terry Farmer, who lost despite Lockyer's
endorsement. Now, Gallegos' major problem may be whether he can
retain his job for the four-year term.
Retired timber executive Robin Arkley Sr. has openly solicited
support for a recall campaign, salting the effort with $5,000 of
his own money. His beef with Gallegos is the lawsuit.
"It would simply put the largest private employer in our area out
of business," Arkley said of the 17200 lawsuit. Pacific Lumber, he
said, is innocent of any wrongdoing.
Organizers said they planned to deliver a 200-word official notice
to Gallegos this morning, formally launching the recall. Gallegos
will have a week to prepare an argument in his own defense. County
officials then will prepare a petition for a recall election, and
organizers can begin collecting signatures.
Arkley, who said he is working with an unnamed partner to recall
Gallegos, suggested money is no object.
"I keep pungling up money, me and another guy, all the time," said
Arkley, a self-described "good old boy."
Directing the recall is Rick Brazeau, the Arcata political
consultant who helped run Farmer's unsuccessful campaign, Arkley
said. Providing legal advice to the effort is Eureka attorney Tom
Herman, a former Pacific Lumber vice president.
Branham said Pacific Lumber is not currently involved in the
recall effort. "I don't want to speculate on what may happen in
the future," he said.
Stoen has little doubt the company wants Gallegos out of office.
"Pacific Lumber knows the only way they are going to get me off
the case is to get rid of my boss," he said.
Stoen has also had a spotlight focused on his past.
For example, local news stories routinely mention Stoen's work
decades ago as a legal adviser to Jim Jones. Stoen broke with the
cult leader prior to the horrific Jonestown mass suicide, which
claimed the life of Stoen's young son, whom Stoen had tried to
free from Jones' clutches.
Stoen said that while he has never concealed the association, he
wishes critics would point out that "I was the one [Jones] blamed
for his downfall."
In later life, Stoen's politics have shifted, as well. Far from
the young man who was drawn to Jones' utopian socialist ideals,
Stoen ran unsuccessfully last year as a Republican for the state
Assembly (he carried Humboldt County).
For his part, Gallegos rejects accusations that his litigation is
endangering the county's economy.
"If they are found out to have violated the law and people lose
their jobs because of it, it's Pacific Lumber that didn't care
about their employees, not me," Gallegos said. "No one would ever
say I should let all sorts of poor people get away with fraud."
Copyright © 2003 Daily Journal
Reprinted for Fair Use Only.
http://www.ratical.org/corporations/PaulGallegos.html (hypertext)
http://www.ratical.org/corporations/PaulGallegos.txt (text only)
http://www.ratical.org/corporations/PaulGallegos.pdf (print-ready)