Pages

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Lights! Camera! Action! I’m ready for my close up, Mr. DeMille.

Yep, The Los Osos 45, those hapless citizens targeted and threatened and harassed and jerked around for the past 18 months by the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Mad Hatter Tea Party Kangaroo Court & Auto de Fe Public Hanging, have now gone public themselves. Here’s several press releases from PZLDF, with a link to the Insider Exclusive interview, and the Morro Bay Sun Bulletin “Viewpoint.”

In the Insider Exclusive interview is a clip of Matt Thompson, staff of the RWQCB, answering a direct question during one of the hearings by replying that he guessed he didn't think things through. Didn't think things through.

For anyone who sat through the apalling Mad Hatter Kangaroo Court Tea Party, Auto de Fey Hanging, Mad Pumping Scheme, Constantly Morphing Move The Goal Posts , More Tea! More Tea! Move Down! Move Down! CDO & CAO hearings, that phrase needs to be chisled in stone in letters twelve feet high and placed outside the offices of the State Water Board in Sacramento and in front of the RWQCB's offices on Aerovists Place here in SloTown. I guess we didn't think things through.

"Watch The Citizens for Clean Water" TV Show on The Insider Exclusive http://www.insiderexclusive.com/los_osos.htm

What happened in Los Osos is more than fighting over where to put a sewer. This story highlights several unprecedented actions including the FIRST default in the EPA CLEAN WATER ACT delegated State Revolving Fund Program. The default by the State Water Resources Control Boards' compromised money lending practices leads right to the Governors office.
This story goes to the heart of a broken system where regulators that were put in place to protect Americans are captured by the very industry they were meant to police. The SWRCB regulatory oversight and approval process stood by and enabled large consulting firms a free hand to fleece the community.

After voters stopped the highest per capita project in favor of a lower cost system, enforcement meant for industry was slapped against 46 randomly selected individual homeowners. Told they could lose their homes if they didn't hook up to a sewer --that doesn't exist, and required to "vote the right way" for an assessment, they are threatened with retroactive fines up to $5000 per day since 1988- The regional and state water boards have set dangerous precedents for coercion and regulatory takings in Los Osos.

A coastal comunity on the Central Coast half way between San Francisco and Los Angeles, most suspect the enforcement and bloated sewer project costs are designed for gentrification of coastal communities. Voters forced to self assess a minimum of $25,000 each, through liens on their homes will force over 30 percent from the community.

The citizens appeal filed last week in Superior court on November 20th by Citizens for Clean Water and the Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund simply ask the court to vacate the Regional Water Boards punitive and misappropriated enforcement orders. The lawsuit, among other causes, challenges civil rights violations against the community and the 'sweeping under the rug' of the wrong-doing of the SWRCB board and industry consultants.

The California State Water Board money managing debacle, and the Regional Water Board’s enforcement against individuals with legally permitted and fully functioning septic systems, has always threatened a clean process for a sewer project. The California Governors' signing message bullies the families in the community to recover mishandled state and federal funds from Cal-EPA State Revolving Fund loan program. The lack of the up front studies on actual zones of improvement based on science, application of affordability criteria, and cost saving alternatives already developed, is a glaring example of the tainting of the project through continuation of the misplaced State Water Resources Control Board enforcement and retaliatory actions by water board officials against the citizens of Los Osos.

And further:


The appeal is the 1st amended petition filed last week in Superior court on November 20th simply seeks the courts to vacate the punitive and misappropriated enforcement [Note: the lawsuit can be viewed at the http://www.pzldf.org/ website, along with other documents and general information] The lawsuit, among other causes, challenges civil rights violations against the community and the 'sweeping under the rug' of the wrong-doing of the SWRCB board and industry consultants.

The viewpoint [below] in the Sun bulletin's addition of the Tribune explains the appeal of water board actions. The water board directed their staff to vacate the 46 random orders against homeowners, and to level the enforcement field. They have refused, and in fact the staff report to the board appears to saber rattle for placing orders on all 4400 homes, even with the overwhelming passage of the 218 assessment vote for $127 million.

The enforcement has always threatened a clean process for the County project. The governors signing message to bully the community for the State's mistakes, the lack of the up front studies on actual zones of improvement, affordability, and cost saving alternatives already developed, is a glaring example of the tainting of the project through continuation of the misplaced enforcement and retaliatory actions by water board officials against the citizens of Los Osos.

Protect your homes and future.

Citizens For Clean Water-PZLDF
PO Box 6095 Los Osos 93412
805-534-1913





The Sun Bulletin Viewpoint:

NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH A 218 LAWSUIT--- Los Osos citizens’Legal actions to overturn water board enforcement against individual homes is NOT a SEWER LAWSUIT. In fact the petition to vacate the enforcement is NOT ABOUT THE SEWER. It is foremost and purely defensive lawsuit in behalf of individuals and the entire community.

The Los Osos homeowner’s legal appeal stops the regulatory abuses by the water board that has resulted in dangerous and unprecedented violations of individual constitutional & statutory rights.

The seriousness of the retaliatory actions by the water board against voters should concern everyone with property in Los Osos because it violates the water board mandates, and the civil rights of law abiding citizens. (and no one is asking for the right to pollute!)

It is true the water board could vacate the punitive orders at any time, but have thus far refused, making the citizen lawsuit mandatory. There will be another chance to vacate orders promised by the appointed members of the Regional Water Board, December 6-7, 2007, however staff has flatly refused, even with the recent passage of the 218 funding assessment.

In the post recall hearings against the Los Osos district, the record shows executive director Roger Briggs intended to “fine them out of existence” responding to calls from opponents to the newly elected board. The water board stated their justification for going after individuals was “the district is the same entity as the voters.” However, the same records show the water board always had the power to continue the sewer project, but instead justified punishing individuals. The ‘first 50’ were randomly selected by the water board and intended as an example to frighten and intimidate the voters.

The first Cease and Desist Orders were issued to the county in 1983, and apply to the lead agency for the project. Today that is the county. Incidentally, those with individual orders have approved, properly working, and legally permitted onsite septic systems. You guessed it, county approved systems.

Today the original 46 individual stop orders are equivalent to convictions, with a suspended sentence until 2011, or earlier if there is a 218 failure, or project delays. The Water Board can impose fines up to $5000 per day, and criminal liability with referral of individuals to the attorney general for further prosecution as they see fit. The orders do nothing to remedy water quality, and force a few to bear the burden of defending the entire community.

The reports of enforcement abeyance are false. Notices of violation have been sent to all properties in the Prohibition Zone. On May 11 two more orders were issued, and the Water Board stated all homes could be subject to fines retroactive to 1988, without the need to put Cease and Desist Orders in place.

The Superior Court Appeal filed by Sullivan and Associates is based on the unprecedented enforcement that raises constitutional issues of unequal treatment, violation of due process, violation of the 5th and 6th amendments, selective enforcement, environmental justice, and a lack of direct evidence against the individual properties. Stop orders have the long term effect of "taking" private property, restricting the ability to sell, mortgage or rent property.

The very basis of the enforcement has been a moving target, as Resolution 83-13 has been reinterpreted by prosecution staff during the hearings from what was adopted in 1983. This is also true for the arbitrarily drawn “line in the sand” called the Prohibition Zone. The records indicate this zone was never intended to be a scientifically precise discharge remediation area and is challenged in the lawsuit. (The remediation benefits are also apparently the subject of a 218 challenge as well by another group).

Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund (PZLDF) was founded to support Los Osos neighbors under regulatory attack who needed assistance. Some said the regulatory hearings make the IRS seem user friendly. The group has spent nearly two years of work to protect property and individual rights contained in the lawsuit. The Citizens for Clean Water-PZLDF formed as is non-profit organization that supports compliance with the water board regulations, and a sustainable project for Los Osos.

If you are a citizen of California you need to stop the regulatory abuses and help with the lawsuit. Please send a donation in any amount to PZLDF 6095 Los Osos Ca. 93412 or online at http://www.pzldf.org/.
Or Sullivan & Associates-A Law Corporation 2238 Bayview Heights Drive, Suite C Los Osos, CA 93402 (805) 528-3366.

47 comments:

Mike said...

...I'll try to be a little clearer this time....

...Just what happens "IF" this suit to protect all the citizens of greater Los Osos/California fails...???

Sewertoons said...

"After voters stopped the highest per capita project in favor of a lower cost system"

Uh - they had a plan - really they did!

Sewertoons said...

Whoops - there it is:

"The lack of the up front studies on actual zones of improvement based on science…."
AND
"The records indicate this zone was never intended to be a scientifically precise discharge remediation area and is challenged in the lawsuit."
AND
"…a lack of direct evidence against the individual properties."

Break the PZ - and what happens to the 218! Illegal of course! Nice to see Gail and Pam working together.

Sewertoons said...

"A coastal comunity on the Central Coast half way between San Francisco and Los Angeles, MOST suspect the enforcement and bloated sewer project costs are designed for gentrification of coastal communities. Voters forced to self assess a minimum of $25,000 each, through liens on their homes will force OVER 30 PERCENT from the community." (Caps are mine.)

Despite certain grammar issues, I think I can parse out a meaning here. The question is - where is the proof of this?

Sounds like Gail and Pam - together again.

Sewertoons said...

"Voters forced to self assess a minimum of $25,000 each."

Little word misstep there - it was MAXIMUM, not minimum.

Shark Inlet said...

No offense Ann, but you got the Thomson's quote wrong and your error implies something quite different than his intent.

He didn't say "I guess we didn't think things through" (which would imply the entire CDO process wasn't thought out. What he did say was "Yeah, I guess I hadn't thought it out" when asked about his statement that the CDO meant that a homeowner would have to move out in Jan 2010 if there wasn't a sewer in place by then.

It seems rather clear to me that this quote (er ... misquote), when taken out of context like you did, makes things sound very different than one guy essentially saying "well, I spoke too quickly when I answered your one question".


Might I also remind you that the 2010 date was set by the RWQCB after the LOCSD assured them that they would have a project online by then. Remember the ACL hearing? Lisa was asked directly about this date and whether it was realistic. Speaking for the LOCSD (who at another point in time had admitted that they didn't have a plan), she assured the RWQCB that they would be done by 2010. Considering she had just said "we have no idea what we're gonna do" she shouldn't have been so quick to say "but we'll be done by 2010, no problem, set that date in stone."


The whole webisode struck me as something that Gail and PZLDF would have paid for. It was the same sort of stuff that Dave Congalton used to put on the air before he saw thru Gail's weasel-words ... you know, Gail's point of view and only Gail's point of view and no questions asking about the presuppositions of the PZLDF story. I'm not saying that they paid Steve Murphy to do the interview, but it is clear that he didn't bother reading anything on the controversy before the interview. Heck, I'll bet dollars to donuts that PZLDF brought the videotapes of the RWQCB hearings that the show used.

As an example of the sort of lack of thoughtfulness of Murphy during the interviews, he closed his interview with Gail by saying "big business is not going to win this one, not if I can help it." The only suggestion of "big business" playing any role here was from Gail. She claimed AB2701 was a set up and that the County will be giving the project back to the big companies who had had it previously. She also claimed real estate interests want to gentrify Los Osos so they want an overpriced sewer to achieve that goal. Murphy didn't ask for any details about these claim and appeared to buy her story, hook, line and sinker. The saddest thing here is this ... had the CCLO/LOTTF/etc. folks made their objection to TriW way back before it was first selected something could have been done ... or had they not been doing everything possible to delay the project for the last four years, we would have a sewer already and it would probably cost us $150/month or less.

If Murphy, the legal eagle reporter had done some research he would have at least asked Chuck and Julie Biggs about the district's choice to back out of contracts with the SWRCB and contractors and their refusal to pay the state back for the money they had lent as well as contractors for work already performed.


My reaction to all the recent Sturm und Drang of the PZLDF/LOTTF/CCLO/LOTA folks (whether the Sullivan or Morgan lawsuits, etc.) is that they simply want to be in control of the process. They seem very unwilling to let others play a role at all and they want to blame others for everything that has gone wrong in Los Osos.


The Blakeslee staffer's misrepresentation of the break down of the October 2007 negotiations is also troubling. She essentially said the State changed their mind and that a 218 vote had been necessary all along. A more likely explanation to me is that the State wanted some security for their currently unsecured and all-of-a-sudden-likely-to-be-defaulted-on loan.

Hayhurst neglected to tell the viewers that they state did not tell the LOCSD to go take a hike but instead asked the LOCSD to take out a bridge loan to secure the SRF until a 218 would pass. The LOCSD killed this deal, not the SWRCB. Why, I still want to know. Blesky told us at the time that the LOCSD couldn't afford a bridge loan for $6.5M for some four months until a 218 vote could take place. Yet, about this same time the LOCSD board gave out $500k to BWS, awarded a $500k contract to Ripley and paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to Wildan. Such a bridge loan as the SWRCB required would have been cheap by comparison yet was considered impossibly expensive by the LOCSD interim GM. I don't buy it at all.


Ann, overall the webisode raises more questions than it answers. Unfortunately all the questions are about about the competency of the interviewer, his staff and the bias they showed.

Sewertoons said...

shark says:
"The saddest thing here is this ... had the CCLO/LOTTF/etc. folks made their objection to TriW way back before it was first selected something could have been done …"

That is an excellent question. It does bring up other questions too - the main one for me - why not?

Julie was NO SEWER at that time. Chuck today on the "broadcast" mentioned when he became involved, which was not then. Where was Lisa, John, Steve?

Uninvolved, perhaps?

This for me is where the mantra changed from "no sewer" to "move the sewer" which so far has had the same effect as "no sewer."

More to the point - where was Gail? She seems to be the strongest voice in all of this (sorry Julie and Lisa), the person behind the curtain turning the dials, flipping the switches- the altruist who happens NOT to live in the PZ. Oh, that's right - she was battling and losing charges of wrongdoing at her wastewater job down in Riverside!

Richard LeGros said...

Hi Ann,

Did you know that Mr. Murphy's guest (PZDIF) must pay to appear on his program?

Read the following article from the Los Angeles Business Journal?:
*************************



Talk show selling lawyers platform for self-promotion: attorneys fill guest list and mention phone numbers, Web sites
Los Angeles Business Journal, April 23, 2007 by Emily Bryson York

Most lawyers like to talk, especially about themselves, and Steve Murphy has found a way to make money on them.

He's launched "Insider Exclusive," a TV hybrid blending elements of talk shows and infomercials.

The talk show part is the guest list. Since bowing in January, some of the top names in L.A.'s legal community including class action heavyweight Tom Girardi and top criminal attorney Thomas Mesereau have made appearances. The infomercial part is that the guests pay to be interviewed on the air. Neither host Murphy nor his guests are shy about firm services, Web sites and phone numbers during the half-hour show.

"Traditional advertising doesn't allow you to convey everything you want to," said John Manly of Manly McGuire & Stewart LLP, who plans to appear on the TV show every quarter. "I have a Marine and a former priest and a young woman who just graduated law school at my firm. I think TV is the best medium to convey just who your people are."

Manly is also a frequent guest on Murphy's radio show, the "Law Business Insider". He said he first heard the show a few years ago and thought to himself, "I'd better get on there or my clients may decide they want to hire the guys who are."

Paying-to-play is unheard of in standard TV journalism but common practice on infomercials that typically feature softball interviews designed to put their subjects in the best possible light.

Shark Inlet said...

Richard,

Do you know ... when PZLDF let folks know about this interview, did PZLDF tell folks it was bought and paid for?

I figure that the reason Ann didn't tell us about the ginormous bias is that PZLDF didn't let her know.

The way I figure it, Ann should be hopping mad at Gail ... or if Gail did tell Ann about the source, we should be hopping mad at Ann.

Legalist said...

Legros looses again...
Seems Insider Edition was looking for promoting justice...What a concept.

It has been confirmed that the program was not solicited or paid for by PZLDF.

The lawsuit is to vacate the individual enforcement orders-that is it...no stopping the sewer, or 218.


I don't think Pam would like hearing she is working with Gail...who promotes sewering the community.

Legalist said...

In answer to:
"I'll try to be a little clearer this time...
...Just what happens "IF" this suit to protect all the citizens of greater Los Osos/California fails"
If the lawsuit fails the precedent for fining people from their homes will be set. Certainly that can be used in many ways to assure the “will of the people” is kept in control here and else where.

This is not the power that people intended when they set up the industry regulations, or appointed the boards that administer these quasi-judicial proceedings.

The lawsuit does not concern the sewer, and the importance to Los Osos is not isolated. It is important to all Californian’s rights.

Mike said...

...EXCELLENT ANSWER...!!!!

Since the lawsuit DOES NOT concern the Los Osos sewer project AND is so important to all Californian’s rights, then I do not feel compelled to contribute to a legal fund just so some lawyers can argue law from all sides and finally have a judge make a decision to hand back to the legislature to mull over for another 10 years before changes could be funded and implemented...

You also have pointed out that failure of the lawsuit does nothing more than leave the SWB enforcement regs right where we are today... This is not going to be changed either way through this suit...

If changes to the SWB and RWQCB are so warranted, it would appear that some legistlative body would have already been working WITH the SWB instead of some LO activists who simply don't want to pay for a sewer.... Right now this PZLDF suit is a waste of time and money..... Let's just be 100% clear that the LOCSD is not funding one dime of this suit, this is totally the lawsuit of and by a small number of individuals within the Los Osos area...!!!

Get on board WITH Sam Blakesley or Jerry Brown if you really want to help all of California....

Richard LeGros said...

Legalist,

Hmmmm...you claim that the PZLDF lawsuit is not about the sewer.

Welllll, actually the lawsuit is all about breaking the PZ and the ability of the RWQCB to regulate. Busting the PZ will result in the recent prop 218 vote moot; requiring a new assessment vote. Also, the busting of the PZ will result in atleast a decade of legal challenges; challenges which will postpone the construction of WWTF for a very long time.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Shark Inlet said...

Legalist ...

Just to be clear, are you claiming that PZLDF neither solicited nor paid for being on this web show?

If that is the case (and I am quite ready to believe it as soon as I see some evidence), why do you believe the show was so slanted? It was really clear that neither the producer nor the interviewer had bothered to contact any of those who feel differently from PZLDF. You would think that they would at least attempt to contact the RWQCB, SWRCB, former LOCSD boardmembers, the County or the big corporations who stand to benefit from an "mega-sewer".

The first thing that came to my mind is a bought-n-paid-for "advertisement" ... after all, the person who pays gets the final edit. In conclusion, we can say that Murphy and his krewe are essentially sloppy and that they don't care about getting things right. Hardly "news".

SayethDog said...

Perhaps not perfectly on-topic for this particular thread. But today's Pearls Before Swine seems appropriate for this blog.


(Note: If viewing this link after today you'll need to enter today's date - Wed Nov 28 - to pull up today's cartoon. This link has a larger archive if you can't pull it up with the previous link.)

Mike said...

Legalist: "It has been confirmed that the program was not solicited or paid for by PZLDF."

Please post just who or what group did pay for the infomercial... surely if you can confirm that PZLDF did not pay a fee for the program, then you could share just who did in order that the community might see this was not some biased commercial...

Shark Inlet said...

Legalist ...

Mike does raise a good question.

If you know that PZLDF didn't pay ... and you've not told us how you know this or how it can be verified just yet ... that doesn't mean that Gail didn't write a check.

The question of who did pay for the program would seem to be quite important. If you're telling us that no one with any association with Los Osos in any way paid for the program and that it is just because the Los Osos story is really interesting to Murphy ... there still is the problem that his role in the "interview" was simply to let the PZLDF folks put their case forward. He didn't actually do much of anything like research. It would seem his only role is to provide the web hosting, video services and straw man.

Sewertoons said...

I am copying the link from popeye65 on theTrib blog:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5072/is_17_29/ai_n19094753

Legalist, read this article if you don't believe the text above. No one on there is getting a freebee.

Hey, it was a good plug for Mrs. Biggs - maybe SHE paid for it! She was Shaunna's stand-in!

Sewertoons said...

I don't get why Gail wouldn't see how stupid this makes PZLDF look - and that she wouldn't "get" that she would be found out?

Shark Inlet said...

At the tail end of the article popeye cites it says "Occasionally, Murphy invites public figures like L.A. City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo onto the show, or representatives of charitable organizations. Those guests don't pay."

Presumably if one viewed Gail as a public figure or PZLDF as a charitable organization, it would make sense that they would be reasonably featured. However, Gail is not a public figure of the sort Murphy typically invites. PZLDF is also not a charity, but instead a political and legal nonprofit (is it even a registered nonprofit yet?). Nope, PZLDF and Gail don't fit the description of guests which don't have to pay. That he only asks softball questions of paying guests and he didn't ask any questions of PZLDF folks that they wouldn't have pre-scripted is a pretty convincing argument that someone paid for this one.

So ... the question comes up again ... who paid for it? I would hope for Gail's sake that she knew nothing of of the paid infomercial nature of this one.

Howie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Howie said...

Legalist,

How does the PZLDF appeal "jump" from protecting people from being fined from their homes...to breaking up the PZ? It seems like a "buckshot" approach, rather than clearly focused on one item. Which is the primary focus of the suit? Pick one or the judge will pick one for you.

You also seem to be "copyrighting" words here, such as "assure the will of the people" and "kept under control here and elsewhere."

Another word you should try copyrighting is "freedom" -- that is freedom from ALL control, including Gail. Gail stepping down is the ONLY WAY to truly "assure the will of the people" in Los Osos. Can you possibly grasp that?

Perhaps Insider Edition was looking to promote justice, but that is not what was delivered. All it delivered was MORE GAIL. Seriously, Legalist, do you really believe that is what this community needs right now -- MORE GAIL?

A bigger, better question: Did the community EVER need Gail, her baggage, her manipulations, her suit, her legal debt? Or did she need us more than we needed her -- and we just didn't realize it until it was too late?

One reality check Gail failed to do from the very beginning was check her ego at the door. You don't put someone with her ego cravings and character issues at the head of a group that is raising money and looking for empathy or sympathy. It's self-defeating. And it's a quick and easy no.

You might as well give the money to a gypsy in Times Square, because the gypsy has more integrity.

With your lofty ideals and high standards, Legalist, I'm sure you would agree.

Howie

Sewertoons said...

On target, Howie, on target for sure.

Churadogs said...

Richard LeGros sez:"Did you know that Mr. Murphy's guest (PZDLF) must pay to appear on his program?"

The following is an email from Steve Murphy, of Insider Exclusive. "PZLDF did not pay The Insider Exclusive to produce this show. We [Insider Exclusive] represent many law firms who pay us to produce and broadcast TV and Radio shows in the media."

Inlet sez:" The question of who did pay for the program would seem to be quite important. If you're telling us that no one with any association with Los Osos in any way paid for the program and that it is just because the Los Osos story is really interesting to Murphy ... there still is the problem that his role in the "interview" was simply to let the PZLDF folks put their case forward. He didn't actually do much of anything like research. It would seem his only role is to provide the web hosting, video services and straw man."

Let's try this on for size. Mr. Murphy wanted to do a series on contemporary civil rights issues. His producers and/or assitants googled cases presently in the court system that had components of civil rights violation issues and due process violation issues. The PZLDF case came up in the google search. PZLDF was contacted, they had a few days to quickly get some people involved in the case together to go to L.A. to present their case. The show is about, what 28 minutes long. Their case was presented, their issues were raised and discussed. THEIR issues, THEIR case. He then went on to do another segment of another civil rights case/due process case, featuring the people invovled in their case who were invited to the studio to present their case and so on.

Nothing mysterioso or weird. Same process 60 minutes uses -- find a "story," tape it, broadcast it.

Inlet sez:"The way I figure it, Ann should be hopping mad at Gail ... or if Gail did tell Ann about the source, we should be hopping mad at Ann."

Inlet, here's the way I figure it: The only "hopping" going on is people hopping to wrong conclusions based on false information given out by Mr. LeGros.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

Are you telling us that you know as a fact that no one paid for this issue to appear on the air, that Murphy did this show simply because he wanted to tell an interesting story? I notice that you only tell us that PZLDF didn't pay him and that Murphy says that his show is typically paid by the firms who want to promote their lawyers and clients.

While it is wrong to jump to conclusions, you've done exactly that ... you've concluded that the show was just Murphy trying to present a civil rights issue and that it wasn't paid for.

That he typically gets paid to ask people exactly the questions they most want asked of them,
that PZLDF couldn't have asked for a show that would better allow them to present their viewpoint,
that there was no apparent effort made to get the other side of the story in this conflict,
that he didn't even ask obvious questions that an unbiased person would ask (like "how do you know that it is 'big business' that is pulling the strings?") makes the conclusion that someone paid for the show the most reasonable one.

When in doubt, go with the obvious answer rather than something that is hard to believe. You're more likely to be right and less likely to be seen as an extremist nutcase.

Ann, get back to us on this one with what you find out. Unless Murphy will categorically deny being paid by anyone to do this show, we've got to stick with the obvious answer ... someone did.

Shark Inlet said...

On a matter of technical interest ...

I know that when Ann writes "His producers and/or assitants googled cases presently in the court system that had components of civil rights violation issues and due process violation issues. The PZLDF case came up in the google search" she is spinning a tail and isn't actually claiming this is what the producers did.

However, I wonder how one would google such current court cases and I wonder how likely the PZLDF issue would come out in the top 100 for such process violation suits in California.

And if this issue came up, how likely is it that the information available online would convince that PZLDF is in the right? (Or, rephrased, where the hell is my due process here ... why should Gail have the right to raise my bills by her advocacy for a recall based on lies "$100/month" and by her continual poking the bear with a stick?)

Does anyone know? Can anyone check?

After all, they did put the show on and if they weren't paid for it ... there must be some reason for thier choice ... and the "we went looking for a civil rights issue" explanation just doesn't make that much sense. How about the Jena 6? Wouldn't that be a better civil rights case? How did they end up with the "we want the Ripley plan even though it won't work and even though it will cost more for our neighbors" group as the poster child for civil rights?

Conspiracy Boy said...

SharkInlet:

You are just "too much." Your bias shows who you are (over and over again.)

You say, "there was no apparent effort made to get the other side of the story in this conflict..."

What "other" side??? This was a piece done on civil rights.

Have any of your Tri-W friends had their civil rights violated?????

I think not, YOUR friends are making money off of all this (ie Jack Green, Garfinkle, etc.)

I think the show's producer can decide what cases to cover -- rather than you.

Give us all a break, will ya???

David said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sewertoons said...

How about they DID pay for it, Ann feels snowed by Gail in finding out the truth on her own via the information presented here, Ann gives it a nice spin to make herself feel better for not checking information given her?

(Ann will bury her head in the sand or accept lies as fact, rather than get to the bottom of this - best predictor of future action is past actions.)

Ann herself got this story from someone - she didn't Google to get it.

Just as an example - Googling "civil rights violation issues" brings up 720,000 results. How did PZLDF float up through that search without further refinement and hours of checking?

Maybe picking his civil rights issue plugs and clumping them together "on air" is just marketing or organizing on Murphy's part?

How about this? Murphy TROLLED and FOUND Gail and offered her a spot for only $x,xxx? That could be just as likely.

Let us not also forget that Shaunna Sullivan is being paid by our CSD to fight this - to paraphrase shark - poke the water board with a stick.

Prefix528 said...

How about this idea. (Step aside Conspiracy Boy)

The Murphy show caters to self-promoting lawyers so what if the sponsor of the infomercial was Shaunna Sullivan? Since the CSD is paying Sullivan it may well be that all of Los Osos underwrote the “Insider Exclusive” performance.

Simple explanations do work best.

Here on Ann’s blog we have the PZLDF infomercial coupled with a request for funds. The whole design is right here.

Ann is clear on who didn’t pay. Since she has insider knowledge on this why doesn’t she just tell us who it was that did pay. Gail would know too.

Sewertoons said...

Sorry cb, there is another side to this - those of us who don't believe this even is a civil rights issue, but just one of regulators regulating. Maybe they are imperfect in their methods, but what process is ever "perfect?"

No - this is a blatant attempt to make something different out of what it actually is. Cleaning up the dirty water coming out of Los Osos' septics is the regulators side. Making sure there is NO SEWER for years to come by this attempt to break up the PZ is the PZLDF side. In that fallout - a crashed 218, the possibility of the "project" coming back to the CSD, years of litigation - stands Gail, now having fantasies of control over the process (getting her type of sewer) and perhaps a job for herself at the end of it.

If I were Gail, I'd be pretty darn sure that ALL of the people who signed settlements actually WANT to vacate, not just the people on the PZLDF case. Rob, others of you who who never were part of this case, but signed settlements - what say you?

Sewertoons said...

Hey - why wasn't Shaunna Sullivan interviewed? It is after all HER CASE! Maybe it would have been unseemly of her to have been there if she was paying for it?

And WHY was Mrs. Biggs there????? She is the District's General Counsel - NOT the attorney of record on the case. There is something smarmy about that. (I seem to remember BWS didn't even want this case - and they were too expensive to boot.)

Who paid for Mrs. Biggs time? Was that a freebee?

Mike said...

...how about BWS...???

They stand to lose a lot once an E&O claim is filed.... and aren't the defenders of the CSD as well as creditors in the bankruptcy....

.....hmmmm, maybe they are behind all this...

....aw hell, it's all Pandora's fault anyway....

Shark Inlet said...

Conspiracy Boy ...

You suggest there is not another side. Presumably the producer could have contacted the RWQCB, SWRCB, County and past LOCSD boardmembers who were all accused of shady practices and of conspiring to limit the rights of the PZLDFers.

It would actually be rather informative for the general viewer to see how these individuals and groups would answer the PZLDF charges.

No, this wasn't an unbiased civil rights piece. This was an apparent opportunity for PZLDF to smear other where those others weren't being offered an opportunity to respond.

Shark Inlet said...

Well, I e-mailed the producer and asked point blank whether anyone paid for the show. The reply: "No one from your community or from the universe paid to produce this show."

That's good news ... what is bad news is that this guy either wanted to present a biased and one sided version of the story or he didn't intend to present a biased take on the situation but simply didn't bother to see if any of those criticized by PZLDF had anything to say in response.

Presumably that would be a good first start if he wants to follow up on this issue.

Sewertoons said...

I truly hope this person was telling the truth about not being paid. People have been known to lie in "Hollywood" and how would we ever know?

I'd still like to know who paid Mrs. Biggs - she doesn't work for free, unless she thinks this is GOOD publicity.

Now lets see if he wants to present a follow-up to this piece - anyone sending him another viewpoint? If someone does and he does not follow-up, I'd like his answer as to why not.

Maybe we should ask some questions - like why didn't Shaunna Sullivan, attorney of record, appear? It would have been FREE publicity.

Sewertoons said...

Did Murphy have a run-in with the Water Board?

Shark Inlet said...

Murphy is not a "Hollywood" guy ... his phone number is in the 818 area code :)

I just hope he calls a few of the many people I suggested he call for a deeper understanding of this very complex situation. I even suggested he contact Ron, Lisa and Dan Blesky in addition to others who I would be far more likely to agree with. During the interview it looked like he knew little other than what someone from PZLDF might have previously told him. I hope he doesn't feel like he just walked into a sh*tst*rm without being warned first.

We'll see if he replies to my question about how he stumbled into this issue. I suspect that if he had been introduced to the topic by a PZLDF person, the issue might have been presented in a way that would make someone feel outraged at all those who have conspired against the 12...

Sewertoons said...

He-he! You are right of course shark, but then most of the porn "films" are made in the 818 area code - I actually worked in a complex that had a webcast going out from another adjacent office in Chatsworth. The girls would come out to smoke and they were - were - well, very dramatic, shall we say. Not that I am implying ANYTHING with this comment - I just now remembered it, actually, for some reason…

Conspiracy Boy said...

SharkInlet:

You just don't WANT TO GET IT.

The homeowners that have CDO's have had their civil rights violated.

They did nothing wrong and are being punished for buying a home in Los Osos with a permitted septic tank by the COUNTY.

The RWQCB did not comply with their enforcement policy of Fair Firm and Consistent -- which is civil rights anyway!!!!

The RWQCB may be in trouble on this civil rights issue -- big trouble!

For the RWQCB to go after law abiding citizens (rather than going after the County for permitting the tanks) is insane whether they were only doing the CDO's to get the 218 passed or not. They just may be busted now with the publicity the Murphy show is getting.

Again, there is NO "other side" of the story since this is only a civil rights issue at this point. Plain and simple. Dreamers excluded because they haven't had any civil rights issues to deal with. Quite the opposite, Pandora and Jerry Gregory asked that our civil rights be violated -- and the RWQCB was more than happy to do just that!!!

So, I'll have to ask you again, I want to know why you promote illegal activity!!!

Hmmmmmm.

Conspiracy Boy said...

Sewertoons:

Were you actually in porn?? I knew it!!! HA HA -- does Lou know about it?

Sewertoons said...

cb, I think you misread what I wrote. Read slowly next time.

You also forget some of the verbiage in the lawsuit. It clearly intends that the PZ be dismantled. Goodbye 218, goodbye County (I hope not, but I would fear that), goodbye new sewer. Hello fines, hello legal fees up the kazoo, and a possible hello to State intervention. Talk about unintended consequences - or are they?

How about we worry about our trampled "rights" to pollute being discussed AFTER the new sewer is in. Or do you not want a sewer sometime in the next 10 years? Frankly, I am sick of all of us peeing in our aquifers. You really don't get the possibility of State water, do you?

FBLeG said...

Wow! I think I have just actually witnessed a bonafide "sewertoons - shark inlet circle jerk." Quite impressive boys & girls! Applause! Applause!

By the way does anyone know the fact that in 2006 an Inyo county judge imposed fines of $5000/day on the CITY of LOS ANGELES for the damage their DWP did to the Lower Owens River? (see 12/7/06 LA Times article)

Doesn't that make the RWQCB with their threats of $5000/day for INDIVIDUALS in the PZ look like a bunch of moronic and childish bullies? I think so. Their image would benefit greatly from a even the smallest public display of professionalism.

Shark Inlet said...

CB,

Perhaps the explanation of the difference in our positions would be more clear via an analogy.

Suppose that you are driving thru rural eastern Oregon on US97 and are driving 69 in a 65 zone (just North of Shaniko). You feel that you weren't driving an unsafe speed so somewhat resent the ticket for that reason. The thing that really gets your gall, however, is that you were ticketed for driving 77 (probably because that truck in the Southbound lane was doing 77 and the radar gun pegged him instead of you but the cop wrote you up in error). Suppose the ticket is excessive ... about $200 ... but also suppose you live in Los Osos and that to fight the ticket you'll have to take three days off of work and spend $500 in gas and hotel bills because the Court is way up there and the hearing ins on a Wednesday. Oh yeah ... you'll likely lose anyways and you'll be out $700.

What should you do?

There is not a wrong answer or a right answer. There are just two pretty crappy answers.

One choice would be to fight the ticket as a mater of principal and justice.

The other choice would be to just pay the ticket, even though some aspects of the process weren't just.

If it were me, I would pay the ticket.

So what if every aspect of the PZ definition isn't perfect ... so what if you can't prove that each and every single household is an individual contributor to the nitrate problem ... we need a sewer. By-n-large we'll all be better off if we had one. Heck, people I know in Cabrillo are pissed off because those of us in the PZ have stalled and delayed so long that even though they wanted to pay to join into a sewer system, now it is not a good choice for them.

The problem here is both the cop and the insistence on fighting the cop. One gave us an unjustly high ticket and the other more than doubled that cost.

If we hadn't been fighting a sewer, any sewer, with such energy for so many years the RWQCB would not have had to bring out the big guns. You can continue to fight them as a matter of civil rights but please please please remember that if any action taken to fight the RWQCB ends up delaying the sewer in any way, the delay will cost us all a lot and I don't think that the folks fighting for "civil rights" are remembering this at all.

Part of the problem here is that I suspect that the folks who are supporting legal action (whether a 218 lawsuit or PZLDF and those who have supported CCLO in the past) are also those who naively think that there are cheaper options out there. But, if we incur an additional $30M in costs (design costs, inflation, etc.) to save $20M by eliminating park and mitigation features, the "cheaper" plan that saves $20M actually costs us money.

In summary, there are a lot of complex and intertwined issues here.

Sewertoons said...

What if the "plan" ISN"T a cheaper solution - but STILL is NO SEWER at all?

You can CLAIM "cheaper" but so far the result has been - just that - no sewer. There always seems to be JUST ONE MORE reason to stall and stop the process.

Conspiracy Boy said...

SharkInlet:

I would always fight a ticket if I was in the right.

The County delayed putting in a sewer -- they couldn't get it together and Pandora should have known that a (any) CSD couldn't pull it off. No way.

So people didn't fight and/or delay the sewer, they fought the process of getting to the point they did. There should have been a 218 -- you always disagree but that's the only way to truly guarantee a dedicated source of revenue for the state.

Pandora knew the RWQCB wasn't going to approve ponds and that there wasn't enough land anyway. That was a delay. A big delay caused by her.

Now if there is a challange to the 218 it will be because the County again, could have done the 218 legally and properly but didn't want to. Hmmmmm....

Gail's lawsuit shouldn't delay anything either. The RWQCB is causing the delay. They shouldn't have broken Federal Law to scare the people into voting yes.

No, the delay and cost of any delay is because of their actions, the County, the RWQCB, and Pandora Group -- not anyone else.

Shark Inlet said...

The problem, CB, is that in our analogy, you were not in the right. Even if the judge finds that the cop exaggerated the speed on the ticket, you were still going over the legal speed limit.

To blame the delay imposed by the recall board on Pandora, the County and the RWQCB is pure b*llsh*t and you know it. To even attempt to do that shows that you are not interested in a solution or willing to take responsibility for actions that you supported (the recall and the stopping of TriW).

You act as if it is wrong for the Solutions Group to have sold us one plan that a reasonable person should have known wouldn't pass muster ... where is your outrage at the exact same thing (with stronger evidence) done in 2005 during the recall?