Alright, I’ve read through the decision, and I’m going to read it again. The PALCO attack on the case was two pronged – based upon Civil Code §47b and the federal Noer-Pennington Doctrine. I spoke to an attorney friend of mine who says that had the case been filed as a criminal case (the statute passed while Terry Farmer was still D.A.) it could have eluded section 47b which applies only to civil cases, but I’m not certain it would elude the courts’ interpretation of the federal doctrine.

So here’s a question to everyone, including the Gallegos detractors. The Court decision, perhaps based on the Supreme Court decision, has pretty much reduced the “sham exception” to nothing by allowing “lobbying” to define a permit application. My question is – is there anything in the decision which would reserve the state’s power to prosecute me should I deliberately submit fraudulent information in my application for a permit for an extension to my home? How about a driver’s license application? I will remember the doctrine, and this case, for my own clients.

The weird thing about the decision is that they chose to weigh in on the evidence of the process being undermined, even though it was irrelevant to their decision and they aren’t supposed to weigh in on evidence at the demurrer phase – something they admit at the end.

Maybe doctrine has immunized everybody from fraud against the state and the legislatures need to reinforce the “sham exception.” I don’t know.

So to repeat the question which nobody has really addressed since the demurrer was first granted – is there any application for a permit or anything you want from government which isn’t a “genuine attempt to influence government action?”