You are currently browsing the daily archive for November 1, 2007.

According to my sources in the northern portion of the Second Division, Carlos Quilez signs are now being removed, driven over, and stomped on in Fortuna. A few signs have disappeared down here too, although a few of Curless’ have as well. At least one Quilez sign was deliberately vandalized. Again, it’s hard to say whether any of it is politically motivated, or just mindless tantrums aimed at whatever. But I haven’t heard about any Curless signs being vandalized in Fortuna.

For what it’s worth, Quilez will probably be taking Sohum by a wide margin. I haven’t seen so many signs up since the Gallegos recall campaign. Curless’ decision not to campaign south of Fortuna may be generating a little bit of a backlash, as well as the fact that Quilez has made numerous appearances. He will be at Persimmon’s in Redway on Friday evening for Arts Alive. He will also be in Sohum on Sunday for fund raising parties. Contact the campaign for times and locations. He will also be at the Monday Club in Fortuna on Saturday from 1 to 4 p.m.

I’d report on Curless events in the interest of fair play, but there’s nothing on his website. If anybody has anything, feel free to post it and I’ll move it to the front page here. Same goes for Steven Morris.

Meanwhile KEET informs me that the podcast for last week’s debate will be up in the next day or two. I will link to it when it’s up.

Addendum: Confirmed – the Redway fund raiser on Sunday will be at my home. Call or e-mail me for the address as I don’t feel comfortable about posting it here. It will be from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. Carlos will probably arrive around 3:00 following an event in Miranda.

Steven Spain covers it in the Eureka Reporter. San Francisco filed an amicus brief with the Appellate Court in opposition to the Trial Court’s premise that even fraud is protected even if a permit application is considered “petitioning.”

The amicus brief, submitted by San Francisco City Attorney Daniel Herrera, focused on the trial judge’s use of Noerr-Pennington doctrine to justify PALCO’s alleged fraud as free speech.

Noerr-Pennington doctrine is a legal expansion of the First Amendment right to petition the government. The amicus brief states that while Noerr-Pennington may apply, what is relevant is the sham exception to the doctrine.

The sham exception, which alleges that fraudulent speech cannot be used while petitioning the government, has been upheld in federal court, according to the brief.

Danny Chou, San Francisco’s chief of appellate litigation, prepared the amicus brief.

“We were concerned with the trial court’s finding,” Chou said. “Because petitioning, like the right to free speech, is not absolute.”

“Specifically concerning fraudulent statements to administrative agencies that affect their decisions,” he said, “our concern is less related to particular facts and more concerned with the general legal concept.”

Like I’ve said in the past. If this ruling holds, I’ll remember it the next time I have a client who intends to file for a building permit. Or a driver’s license. Apparently it doesn’t matter what you put on those applications. You’re protected.

In after the first round. Time for the second round – older kids only.


Does anybody really like Sweet Tarts besides my son? When I was a kid we’d finish up trick-or-treating and trade. The candy-as-currency values would assert themselves, usually items like Snickers and Three Musketeers being valued the highest, with Sweet Tarts valued at almost nothing. For instance, I’d offer my brother all of my Sweet Tarts for any chocolate based bar without coconut. But my son actually favors them over other candies. Am I raising him right?


Okay, in the spirit of the evening, I present to you the creepiest kids’ video I’ve ever seen.


No, the jack-o-lantern isn’t mine. I got the image from this blog.


November 2007