Paul G.’s sat on the Cheri Moore case too long, it’s as simple as that. I’ve already commented. Heraldo, another Gallegos supporter, has commented. Rose, not a Gallegos supporter, has commented. The Times-Standard has commented. And Hank S. has commented.

Hank managed to get a response to inquiry.

We sought answers in an e-mail to Gallegos last week. We didn’t hear back until after deadline. Here’s his response, in toto: “All I can tell you is that we are evaluating the evidence that we have and will render an opinion on it as soon as we are able to.”

We can speculate. Perhaps he’s found something, but having faced a recall over a quick decision early in his first term, he may be a bit gun shy. Or maybe he hasn’t found anything and doesn’t know how to break it to some of his base (didn’t stop him with the David Chain matter, but maybe he’s concerned about the cumulative impact). Or maybe there are some loose ends he’s been unable to tie together. In any case, he owes an explanation as there are some disturbing unanswered questions.


Speaking of Hank S., I got to hear some of his KHUM show tonight – between frying turkey burgers and the screams of plastic light-saber wielding kids. When I turned the radio on at about the bottom half of the hour, I could hear a discussion between somebody on the Arcata City Council and a representative of HELP discussing development issues, but I was too late into the conversation and too distracted to make sense of it. Then John Driscoll came on to talk about the PALCO bankruptcy case.

Tomorrow morning the Times-Standard is making available the court proceeding to the public at their HQ. The proceeding is another mini-trial, this time about whether some of the creditors can foreclose against PL land. I guess there has to be a determination that it’s all “one asset,” and once that’s determined apparently PL land can only be foreclosed upon if the value of the asset exceeds the total debt. I don’t know much about bankruptcy law, but why do I doubt that the same rule applies to the common homeowner when the debt exceeds the value of his or her assets? Something’s missing obviously, but I’ll leave it to the attorneys and judge to figure it out.

Still no decision on venue.