Wednesday, December 20, 2006


Jury says Gallegos didn't oppress Ms. Sheets

So was it a fix?

Sorry, I can't cut and paste on this lamoid computer. But you can find a link to the ER article over at Captain Buhne's, where some of the anonymous posters missed the point of his joke precisely because they were too lazy to hit the link.

So Rose, or anybody who was there, what was Ms. Sheets' evidence? Did she actually go to trial simply on the fact that he let her go while she was on disability? The two articles I've read don't really say anything about her case. She must have had something or her case would have been tossed out on a summary judgment motion or directed verdict.

I also very much appreciate Paul's conciliatory statement for her following the trial, though I'm certain his detractors will assume it isn't heartfelt. Takes class, especially in light of the litany of personal attacks she indulged in during the recall campaign.

Can anybody tell me if the verdict was unanimous?

Update: Sorry I can't link you, but Heraldo reports the TS attributing a statement to Ms. Sheets calling Gallegos a liar. Speaking of class.

You are right couselor, that Gags is all class.
The ER quoted her slightly differently, but still with the liar part:

“Mr. Gallegos, depending on who he’s around, has once again lied with impunity,” Sheets said, “and someone believed him.”

I'm not sure I get the "depending on who he's around" bit. But her attempt to smear Gallegos made her look like she is calling the jurors a bunch of suckers.
If Paul lied, how could the jurors tell?
Well, jurors are pretty good about ferreting it out if the plaintiff attorney couldn't. But again, I'm assuming Ms. Sheets had some evidence that she was fired for reasons other than stated. If that was the case, the jury considered it and found it wanting.
An established authority figure heavily supported by a powerful political army known to come down like a ton of bricks on those who criticize Paul might be a little too much for a jury member to go up against in Humboldt County. Easier to believe Paul than Ms. Sheets.
Steve, you have to be kidding. Been drinking to much of Rose's wine.
Eric, I don't think it takes a ton of class to be condescending and suggest that plaintiff suffers from mental problems. That's how I read his statement, but probably his fans had a different take.
I believe it had to do with the fact that Gallegos said he fired her because he "lost" the grant. In fact, he did not lose the grant. He is still receiving the grant. It's a tough thing to understand. More on this later. Happy Holidays, guys, and Merry Christmas.
Okay, so Steve claims, without citing evidence, that the jury was intimidated. Anon 8:07 reads an insult into "I hope she finds peace and happiness."

It's hard to know how to respond.

Meanwhile Rose, whether he lost "the grant," did he lose funds? Juries don't quibble on fine points like that, and if her attorney took her into trial on a case based on that, it was lost before it began.
I read in an earlier T-S article about this case that we, the taxpayers gave Gloria $100,000 in a disability settlement. What, did she strain her back being a lawyer? Carrying all those heavy briefs for the DA? Somehow I get the (unsubstantiated) feeling of carpet-bagging. And I've always felt like she was someone we were better off without representing us. Mean-spirited and vindictive.
Hey 6:46, come to court some time
and take a look at the afternoon buckets. Back in the Albin days,
the lawyers had to carry them, there were few carts. Albin did get a cart, because she does have
a back injury, exacerbated, in all likelihood, by pre-cart buckets. Hence the workers comp award.
But there weren't a lot of tears when she went, unlike a lot of the post-PVG, ongoing departures.
A hundred grand for a soft tissue back injury? She's fortunate that her claim was made before the Schwartzenegger revision of comp law. Now everything is apportioned.
Eric, my understanding (and I think there is evidence to support it) is that Gloria sued because of a back injury, not because she lacked peace or happiness. In fact, I've seen no evidence to suggest an absence of either. I do find the statement condescending and insulting, because it implies she sued because she was unhappy. I think she sued because she was injured. Like I said, I imagine Gallegos supporters read it differently.
In fact, I've seen no evidence to suggest an absence of either.

I have. During the recall campaign she revealed herself as a very angry person.
As memory serves, Gloria had studied law while working in the DA's office and then come on board as a DDA. It was a real "work hard achieve & your dream" story, and it all happened under DA Farmer. I only saw her in court a few times, but in those times I did not feel she shone as a prosecutor and I wonder if she had been sheltered under Terry, and had that shelter was pulled away when Paul arrived. I admire anyone who passes the Bar after studying on the job, or while working the job, and that's to her credit, but if she got $100,000, then sued and lost possibly she does not have a good grip on the legal situation. Did she represent herself?
Paul's remark was smug, condescending and entirely lacking in class. Anyone who knows anything about the Gallegos gaggle has good reason to be occasionally angry, the same way many of us are occasionally (okay--maybe frequently) angry about the Bush administration. How would you feel if George Jr. fired you from your job and then wished you peace and happiness on his way to the beach? Stretch, Eric. It's good for the mind.
George Jr.?
Anon 8:02
George Jr., aka, Dubya, aka, SonnyBoy, usually gives you a Freedom Medal first and then fires you while commenting that you've "done a hell of a job". Sometimes he reverses the order, just to keep from being too predictable. Sooo much nicer that way.
Oh, well, if I'd been hired by George simply because we were frat buddies in the first place, I'd have been grateful for the time I got to collect tax-funded checks in what we thought was going to be a cush job.
In that same vain, defense attorneys/Gallegos buddies Schartz, Dollison and Klein should be grateful for collecting tax-funded checks for their cush jobs with the county.
Eric, what say you about the Rio Dell guy getting probation for shooting several rounds into a house occupied by a family?

As a lawyer what are your thoughts?

As a father what are your thoughts?
Don't know anything about it. I've been out of town. Send me a link to the article and I'll check it out.

I guess I'd have to know what the evidence was. How strong it was. Whether there were problems with the evidence.

It certainly sounds like a lenient sentence from your brief description, but I have to assume there's more to it.
Why do you have to assume that?
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Free Website Counter
Free Web Site Counter

Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
To see more details, click here.
Click for