Friday, April 02, 2010

Mea Culpa. O.K. Just Kidding

Calhoun’s Can(n)on for April 2, 2010

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
Upton Sinclair

In 1517, Martin Luther presented his Ninety Five Theses to the local indulgences seller and thereby transformed Europe and the world. He was a priest and theology professor who felt the Catholic Church had gone astray, had grown corrupt and needed changing. Instead of change, he was excommunicated and declared an outlaw. Like so many profound historical changes, this one started when one man came to a personal crossroads and made a choice.

Once again, the Catholic Church is in the news as final investigative reports out of Ireland finally exposed the Emerald Isle’s long-hidden secrets: years of abuse of children under official church control, whippings, torture, rape, all under color of God’s Will, all tolerated and kept quiet in order to protect Holy Mother The Church at all costs. No Ninety Five Theses for Ireland or Ireland’s children.

In Germany, more abuse cases, more excuses, more exposure, but now the paper trail of child abuse, child rape, cover-up and official silence leads directly to the door of a cardinal who would one day become pope: Ratzinger.

And so it goes. Not indulgences for sale, but children, although indulgences for the abusing priests did arrive with stunning regularity – not arrest and trial and conviction for their crimes, but perhaps “therapy,” or being moved to another parish to prey again. And of course, quiet payoffs to the few families who hired lawyers. The rest was cover-up and silence.

According to a recent New York Times story, “The Vatican’s inaction [in the most recent cases] is not unusual. Only 20 percent of the 3,000 accused priests whose cases went to the church’s doctrinal office between 2001 and 2010 were given full church trials, and only some of those were defrocked, according to a recent interview in an Italian newspaper with Msgr. Charles J. Scicluna, the chief internal prosecutor at the office. An additional 10 percent were defrocked immediately. Ten percent left voluntarily. But a majority – 60 percent – faced other “administrative and disciplinary provisions,” Monsignor Scicluna said, like being prohibited from celebrating Mass.”

In addition, notes the Times,” Even as the pope himself in a recent letter to Irish Catholics has emphasized the need to cooperate with civil justice in abuse cases, the correspondence seems to indicate that the Vatican’s insistence on secrecy has often impeded such cooperation. At the same time, the official’s reluctance to defrock a sex abuser shows that on a doctrinal level, the Vatican has tended to view the matter in terms of sin and repentance more than crime and punishment.”

Sin and repentance, secrecy, and above all, The Passive Voice operating in an institutional culture of concealment and complicity: Mistakes were made. Errors in judgment were made. We don’t know how it happened. Magic, perhaps, in the dead of night when nobody was around. But a little repentance here and there and then it’s time to move on to a future in which, of course, little will be done and few will be held accountable.

What remains a huge puzzle to me is this: Where is Martin Luther now? Surely institutionally protected, systematic child rape and abuse would rate at least one thesis from an outraged theologian? Or, following the example of Luther’s namesake, Martin Luther King, Jr., where’s a world-wide Catholic boycott of their own churches akin to the civil rights boycotts of the 60’s? No more masses, no more coins in the donation basket, until the pope steps down, along with all others implicated in these years-long massive cover ups? Followed by a complete house-cleaning and thorough review and revamping of church policy and doctrines that have hidden and supported or even fostered pedophiles? Or even a mass exodus of new “reformation” Catholics who have finally decided that a church that repeatedly chose its own power and wealth over justice for its children no longer deserves their allegiance?

But so far, it seems business as usual; polite, discrete silence and a turning away. Which seems odd to me since if I were asked which I would choose –a child or a religious institution –my answer would be simple and immediate.


Sandra said...

All this with the pope comes as no surprise to me. Have you ever looked at his face? I have always seen evil there; he looks like a Nazi.
Let's face it, you have to have a completely sucker mentality to be a Catholic. Sorry to my Papist friends! Both my kids went to catholic high school - great education and good people. Too hung up on infallibility. Just not possible for lowly humans.

Donna said...

as an atheist and a catholic (yes, it CAN be done!) my response is very layered and difficult to do. so i'll just make a simple comment.
catholics' most intense focus is on forgiveness and reconciliation. (although i'm positive there is much skirting of issues by the hierarchy to protect the church.) but there is a legitimate focus on redemption in catholicism. that is why i remain a catholic and why it explains the "protection" of priests. i am a victim of child abuse myself, but not at the hands of a priest. it was my stepfather. and i would venture to say a whole lot of child abuse is found in families. with mothers protecting their husbands, etc.
in oklahoma people take pride in following st. paul's admonition of "spare the rod, spoil the child" and beat the shit out of their kids. all in the name of god.
just wanted to stick up for catholicism's really great side...that anyone can be forgiven and redemption can occur.
oh, and another thing...i knew ratzinger was a rat when he condemned liberation theology and made priests stop their leftist CHRISTIAN actions. i was very sad and angry when he became pope.

Richard LeGros said...


The Taxpayers watch lawsuit against the CSD5 is over and settled.

Taxpayers Watch has, through the settlement, recovered $1,310,301.52in taxpayer funds that had been misappropriated by the CSD5 (Julie Tacker, Chuck Cesena, Steve Senet, Lisa Schicker and John Fouche).
All of the funds recovered (save $150,000 in TW legal fees spent on behalf of the LOCSD to recover taxpayer funds) have been returned to the LOCSD/taxpayers.

The amount of the settlement is very close to the $1,495,000 that the LOCSD’s own 2005-2006 through 2008-2009 audits exposed as being unaccounted for; and close to the dollar amount that TW was seeking in the lawsuit. The LOCSD now has recovered funds that they will need to balance their books.

The size of the settlement speaks volumes to the strength and quality of the causes of action against the CSD5. Those settling the lawsuit, seeing the overwhelming strength of the TW lawsuit, decided it was better to settle than risk going to trial. TW concures.

As the TW settlement is of huge benefit of all Los Osos taxpayers, and helps the LOCSD in balancing its books while reducing the LOCSD debt in the US bankruptcy Court, you might consider posting the entire settlement with its settlement terms as the settlement directly beneits your readers.

Anyone wishing a copy of the settlement may get a copy at the LOCSD office; or by emailing me at

This great day for Los Osos as justice has been served.

Alon Perlman said...

Thanks Richard, and it is good that the CSD can move on. Not a legal opinion on the veracity of your comment, but for providing re-the availability of the information. Also available: in very short, but not simple-Chanel 20 a mention 4/1/10 CSD meeting after closed session.

++++++++++++++ We now return to regular blogging ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ann, reading your Blog is dangerous.
You sail me A-musing
Upton Sinclair? Didn’t he write that song “Welcome to the Jungle?“
Something about how the Chicago meatpacking companies would mix scrap sawdust with the scrapings from the killing floor and sell them as sausages to the poor immigrant limbless workers before evicting them from the company row?
Effectively selling them back their own hacked off fingers?
Ah, The good ol days of Muckrakers Versus Capitalism.

But those days are longgone, no lessons there.
We are enlightened, mind and body integrated, know our worth
Then is not like now where our best minds have gone into the marketing arts. We have invested capital in re-tooling our minds and mental infra-structure. We are told that our concerns for our health are listened to, and “Fiber amendment” is what we want so we can stay regularly beautiful forever.
Ligninated toe-phou on your soylent green cracker?

But the topic is the trinity “The Church versus the Innocents versus the Book”
We should return to the “Diet of Worms” Later,
We know what to put in our bodies, we are no longer savages “burning the Bull”
What does pasting “Failed Safety Inspection” to a factory door
Have to do with nailing an epistle to the door of a church
Across the world and three hundred years ago, or more?
il papa è l'uomo
The Pope was man who was called Karol Wojtyła
But now;
Der Papst ist ein Mensch
Der Papst ist ein Mensch

Sewertoons said...

These are quite different events M.

Richard LeGros said...


Golly! Are you not happy that $1,310,000 of your taxdollars has been recovered and restored to you and the LOCSD; and all for your benefit too?

Look at it his way M; as a taxpayer you (and 4,699 other Los Osos property owners) now owe $279 LESS in the bakruptcy. I sure you can use that $279 for other expenses in your life.

M said...

Since Richard has commandeered this thread I ask, who is paying the money, do we already have it in our coffers?
Something strikes me odd. Is it a "settlement" when nearly the exact amount is returned? Did the LOCSD authorize TW for these legal fees? How much have I paid so far towards the bankruptcy?
Sewertoons, after you have lived here for awhile, you will learn to flinch when someone says "it's a great day for Los Osos".
Sincerely, M

Richard LeGros said...

The answers to your questions can be read in the settlement itself. Best go to the source.

The CSD has approved the settlement (as announced in last night’s CSD Board meeting); and has agreed that TW is to be reimbursed for legal expenses.

The money will be delivered to the LOCSD when, per the settlement, the US bankruptcy Court approves the settlement (probably sometimes in May, 2010).

In short, the Settlement is a done deal that drastically reduces LOCSD debt for your and all other property owners benefit. This is a good thing; be happy!

Richard LeGros said...


As a clarification about who is paying the TW legal fees, the fee IS NOT being paid by the LOCSD or Los Osos tax payers.

The TW legal fees are being paid by Burke, Williams and Sorenson (past LOCSD legal counsel), and AACI (the insurance company paying the defense costs of the CSD5)

Regarding the LOCSD bankruptcy: To date, you have not paid anything (yet) towards the bankruptcy (other than about $400,000 in CSD legal/bankruptcy fees). Currently, the CSD and the creditors are in court-ordered arbitration to attempt to come up with a bankruptcy plan; and the LOCSD has been court-ordered to deliver a plan to the Court no later than September 1, 2010.

With the TW settlement in place reducing the LOCSD debt, the LOCSD has to determine how to pay the creditors the remaining $12,500,000in claims.

What will occur with the arbitration is that the LOCSD has acknowledged the debt….but the question is if the LOCSD can get the creditors to reduce said debt even more; and produce a bankruptcy plan that is to the satisfaction of the creditors.

Assuming that the LOCSD can further reduce the debt (let’s say to $10,000,000); and assuming that bonds will be sold to pay that debt; means that the tax payers will see about $125 per year added to their property taxes for the 30 year term of the bond.

Mike said...

Richard... Thank you for posting this wonderful news, but none of us will ever satisfy Ann or the M's... They just have a need to bitch and moan... They didn't get their way and will always be upset that a real sewer is coming to Los Osos inspite of the extremist activists who continue to throw obstructions at any real Plan...!!! Thanks again for your service to this community as a whole...!!!!

We really do thank the past (pre-recall) CSD Directors and the courage of the Taxpayers Watch for standing up to the CSD5 and their mismanagement of the CSD without regard to the entire community and for returning the misappropriated funds....!!!!!!!!

Alon Perlman said...

The string at Ron’s Blog SewerWatch

Although Mr. LeGros has Shown Ann the utmost of respects by posting here first,
He has also made a visit to Ron Crawfords Blog
And dropped off an Easter Egg there, where a discussion is also roiling.

Given that Ann has not yet opined I will boldly state that The Subject matter of this:

May be important to the non sewer obsessed.

Given that we don’t yet know the Wroth of Ratzinger one way or another. And the power unleashed by the click of those red farragamo’s.
(Imagine a musical medley with 1812 mixing with Pachabel’s Canon)
So- Here and above is an alternate location

The string at Ron’s Blog S’Watch again

Oh those are the Sewer Blogs, but where there to be in existence other hypothetical sewer blog, say
I’m sure Mr. LeGros would had dropped a chocolate-Easter Egg there too.
And I’m sure that given a propensity of the tool “the Scraper” to cull tidbits from blog comments rather than engage in actual research.
And as Scrapers always claim to SCOOP.
One would then expect a scraper of previously digested material to post comments “Without a clock time stamp” but noting “Date only”. That way things can appear or disappear without accountability.
Does that answer your question Toons?

But this is pure speculation of course, since that site does not exist.

alabamasue said...

Richard (and Mike)- I do think it's a pretty good day for Los Osos. An even better day would be if the CSD5 were all wearing State Blue uniforms (not county orange), but that is never going to happen. Oh well, at least some money may be coming back to LO, only to be tied up in bankruptcy proceedings. Better than nothing.

Churadogs said...

Richard sez:"The Taxpayers watch lawsuit against the CSD5 is over and settled."

The Razor posted some on this but I found the anonymous comment at that site puzzling: Has the Bankruptcy court signed off on this? Did the CSD 4 that were personally sued also sign off on this? If not, then there is no settlement, yet. And, as the an onymous commentor notes, the insurance company is paying for this, so how did the TPW lawsuit benefit the community? The Razor story (or was that Richard's story?) seems to imply that with the settlement big pots of money would now rain down on the CSD's coffers? At this point, it seems like this story is . . . premature? But one thing the story did say is that (when ratified and accepted) TPW has agreed to STOP SUING various CSD folks and the CSD & etc? Is that true? If so, then at least one good thing came from this vindictive group. So now maybe (please God) they'll go away?

Richard also sez:"Look at it his way M; as a taxpayer you (and 4,699 other Los Osos property owners) now owe $279 LESS in the bakruptcy. I sure you can use that $279 for other expenses in your life."

$300? Wait, I thought you came on this blog repeatedly to crow about how the CSD 4 would ALL BE GOING TO JAIL! How they were all criminals, and how TPW would save the community millions & etc. $300? That's it? And I'm betting you think that what you personally put the CSD 4, as individuals, through, and what this lawsuit and the bad blood it stirred up for the community was worth it to you as payback?

well, thre's where you and I profoundly part ways: That lawsuit suing elected officials personally for an official decision (nobody claimed they took the money and went to Vegas) was just plain wrong. Had the shoe been on the other foot and some vindictive group sued you and Stan and Gordon personally for, say, recklessly starting construction before the recall, I would have opposed that lawsuit and would be happy to cough up $300 to see it stopped. Unless you are looking at clear fraud and personal enrichment issues, suing elected officials personally is a dangerous path to go down -- it is a sword that cuts both ways, and only someone blinded with anger and eager for personal payback would support such a lawsuit.(Ditto for trying to use LOCAC to disolve the district. Bad, bad idea, again setting an awful prescedent.) So, again, that's yet another issue where you and I totally part ways.

Toonces sez:"It's interesting how [the Razor] posted Richard's announcement on his blog and then immediately took it down."

I clicked on the Razor link and the story was there this morning? so don't know what you refer to. In any event, the Razon can do what it likes with its own site.

Now, back to the original posting:

Donna sez: "catholics' most intense focus is on forgiveness and reconciliation."

I think in this case, like so many others, there can be no peace without justice, there can be no forgiveness without justice. First penance (punishment) then forgiveness. In this case, there was forgiveness (for the priests) and (often forced -- take it or leave it) reconciliation for the victims, but no justice.

That, it seems to me, is the real sticking point. So, where's a new Martin Luther with a hammer and a nail and a church door?

Ron said...

Ann wrote:

"Ditto for trying to use LOCAC to disolve the district. Bad, bad idea..."

And a very expensive one!

That's the hilarious part. LOCAC was so disgusted with that "bad, bad idea" that they actually sued TPW to recoup the administrative costs of the dissolution attempt... to the tune of some $40,000, then TPW fell behind on their payments, and had to beg LAFCO for an extension.


Yeah, I first exposed that great story at this link:

... and this link:

Actually, now that I think about it, there's a second hilarious part of that "bad, bad idea."

BEFORE the recall election, TPW-types were popping out newsletters saying that if the recall was successful, the LOCSD would be dissolved and, "We'd lose local control."

Then, the recall was successful, and the first thing those same TPW-types tried to do was dissolve the CSD.

Ahhh... Taxpayers Watch, the original "Scorched Earthers."

(Sorry, Ann, about feeding RLG's off-topic-ness, but I couldn't resist the $40,000/LAFCO/TPW reset. It makes me laugh everytime I think about it.)

Ron said...

Whooopseee... it was LAFCO that had their time wasted on that extremely embarrassing dissolution attempt. Not LOCAC.

Richard LeGros said...


Your sour grape-flavored post above just illustrates that you and yours cannot accept a generous gift of $1,310,301.52 gracefully. Just accept the reality of the settlement, Ann.

Be relieved that CSD5's reputations and fragile egos were spared the embarrassment and potential financial devastation of a court trial by jury. TW mercifully let the CSD5 ‘off the hook’ as the settlement recovered most of the $1,495,000 in damages TW was seeking in the lawsuit to begin with. It is, and always has been, the intent of TW to recover LOCSD/taxpayers funds misappropriated by the CSD5 that drove the TW lawsuit resolutely forward to a successful resolution.

The very size of the settlement makes it clear that those paying the settlement (AACI and BW&S) understood the compelling, impossible-to-defend-against legal basis of the TW lawsuit; and they settled to avoid the spending any more money needlessly on a losing (actually nonexistent) legal defense defending the clearly illegal actions of the CSD5.

To make the point, since 2006 the CSD5 have made several settlement offers, with the settlement amounts INCREASING SIGNIFICANTLY over time.

In 2006 the CSD5 tried to settle the case by offering TW $25,000; to be paid exclusively with LOCSD/tax payer/your money.TW immediately rejected the offer as money would have been drained out of the LOCSD/taxpayer/you.

In 2007 the CSD5 tried to settle the case by offering TW $225,000; to be paid exclusively with LOCSD/tax payer /your money. TW immediately rejected the offer as money would have been drained out of the LOCSD/taxpayer/you.

In July, 2009 the CSD5 (along with the now-involved AACI and BW&S) offered the current settlement amount of $1,310,301.52; to be paid by exclusively with AACI and BW&S money. The offer was accepted as money would now be RETURNED to the LOCSD/taxpayer/you.

The many months since the $1,310,301.52 settlement offer was made have been spent haggling over the fine print of the settlement. During the settlement discussions from July to October, 2009, the CSD5 and their attorney behaved so illogically, boorishly and childishly that our very own LOCSD legal counsel and CSD Board, AACI, BW&S, the State, and TW joined together to completely isolate the CSD5 from participating in the settlement negotiations. It was agreed that the CSD5 and their legal counsel were only concerned with making illogical, face-saving, and politically-charged demands in the settlement conditions that were contrary to reaching any settlement. Their behavior was solely to protect their own self interests and egos with no regard to the interests of, or benefit to, the LOCSD/tax payer/you that the settlement offered.

So history has shown that the settlement offers have increased from a mere $25,000 to the substantial final settlement of $1,310,301.52. Only lawsuits with merit are worthy of such sizable settlements. If there had been no merit to the TW lawsuit, it would have been dismissed years ago. Obviously that is not the case here. Be happy with the results as they directly benefit you and all of us.

Sewertoons said...

Richard, thank you for so clearly outlining the settlement so that people can understand. The District needs all the help it can get, and this lessening of debt to the District is in turn helpful to all of us who live here.

It is too bad that Julie does not "get" what a benefit to her personally this settlement was. I wonder if the settlement was the unknown cause for Chuck to be absent from last Thursday's CSD meeting?

Richard LeGros said...


At the last LOCSD board meeting it was obvious by the look on Julie's,Steve's and members of the general public's faces that they did not have a clue about the TW settlement,conditions, or recovery of the $1,310,301.52. They were caught entirely by suprise; leaving them all speechless. The silence to the announcement was deafening.

As for Chuck, he did not have any idea of what was coming down either; hence his absence from the meeting was for other reasons.

Have a great weekend!

The Razor said...

Before people jump to conclusions or read what LeGros is writing, check out the settlement first.

Now, before this comment gets deleted, I want to say two things.

One, thank you, Ann, for your 7:21 AM post and two, Richard, I believe the negotiations are confidential. That's not public information -- and without any declassified, original source documentation, it shouldn't be.

Mike said...

Ah yes, the nay-sayers are already coming out of their shock that TW won that very significant lawsuit with the $1.3M settlement...

The nay-sayers only flapped their gums while the TaxPayers Watch actually went out and fought for the community against the fiscal mismanagement of the CSD5...!!!

Now I know the PZLDF gang filed their frivolus lawsuits (and paid for by the Schicker led CSD), but ONLY TW prevailed in actually winning a lawsuit for the good of the community...!!! Can anyone tell us what happened to the PZLDF lawsuit...??? How much did that fiasco cost the the Los Osos taxpayers...???

You should all know that the CSD and the Los Osos taxpayers DID NOT pay a dime for the TW lawsuit...!!!! This was indeed, a statement against those who used their elected positions to mismanage taxpayers monies....

Make no mistake, this settlement was a major victory for all the taxpayers of this community...!!!!!

Mike said...

C'mon Aaron... apparently you have now been read the settlement...

...but please tell us how much the PZLDF saved or cost the taxpayers of Los Osos...???

...and just how much as The Rock saved our community...??? ...or aren't you just another nay-sayer beating your gums accomplishing nothing...

Alon Perlman said...

This was writtenat 8:30 and I thouht I posted it at 8:50 AM
So i willpost it ow and see what you guys have been Jawing at
Looks like I'm going to have to save one of mikes posts soon. Mike You will get your Post blown off by Ann if you use that little boys name She's done it you know
♦ Holy Cee nothing ♦ Holy hear nothing ♦ Holy say nothing ♦ Holy do nothing ♦

Information Theory 101:
The Copies of settlement agreement Available at CSD meeting 4/1 April foolis at 7:PM
And may had been previously been available in packet for 5:PM as closed session item
or in office dependant on release rules for closed session items.
First LeGros release of announcement documented 10:29 AM, April 02, 2010

Without leaving your house, and using no more than two former CSD Directors as sources
Write an article and post it on your blog. You may use additional information from posters in the two real sewer blogs.
Your score will be determined by number of hits and mentions. Additionally positive mentions will enhance your score and negative mentions will not reduce it. It will not be determined by display of Legal Acumen. Once posted and submitted by deadline you may improve your score with revisions.

Assignment is due by 5:30 PM 4/2
Pencils down


Got real weeds to pull

Weed now pulled-new WV;

Mike said...

Thanks Alon... the little boy keeps testing Ann's lack resolve...or was she just funn'n... either way, the community won a major victory AND inspite of the gum flapping, Rock throwing and few remaining "MTS" activists, a real flush and forget sewer is on it's way to Los Osos...

Sewertoons said...

I'm sad about the $200,000 that the CSD once held in the reserves for drainage issues. That hasn't been mentioned much if at all in the missing reserves conversations. It was (and still is) collected yearly on our taxes. After September 2005, those reserves disappeared.

Now we need every penny that we can get to come back to the District, many reserves need to be replenished. If we have funds to run the District, the money collected for reserves can actually be used for reserves.

I don't see Aaron or M or anyone else opposed to TW as having any ability to recognize the benefits of this settlement to the District. Guess it is still too new, or maybe they just don't care about the District's ability to keep its doors open and its services coming.

Mike said... the remark by "Sandra" some form of joke...???

"All this with the pope comes as no surprise to me. Have you ever looked at his face? I have always seen evil there; he looks like a Nazi."

Holy Crap...!!! This sounds like some person still fighting for the recall...same logic... Did Gail write that, or Piper, or Lisa...??? What a moron to make that statement... "...I have always seen evil there; he looks like a Nazi."

Have a happy Easter with that wonderful thought... from a very sick person...

Alon Perlman said...

What a mess.
Its lawyer now? I'ts father is a lawyer?
People can't Spell"LOCSD"?
The Insurence company pays. How hard is that to undersand?
BWS is protected from further action By the CSD
Jon Seitz Is speaking right now on TV! Chanel 20 !
Actually my TV is off but if normal programming is followed he is. Ok I'll turn it on....
No..That's Frank A
{Update 6:25now its ME}
Anyway Watch it notice Steves statement and how its answered by Jon
Think People! think with your god given brains!

What's it so greatful about?
So mike's comment will not be redacted?
Mike said...
C'mon ■■■■■... apparently you have now been read the settlement...

...but please tell us how much the PZLDF saved or cost the taxpayers of Los Osos...???

...and just how much as The Rock saved our community...??? ...or aren't you just another nay-sayer beating your gums accomplishing nothing...

4:53 PM, April 03, 2010
Hardly worth saving but yes hes a little boy with a little boy for a father It's a blog for Gwarsh sake. the only one who knows anything over there is Julie T.

Wait till the trib reports on it, and jump on their mistakes. At least they use factcheckers before they make their mistakes
Speaking of which. Mike just responded re ***** Post anyway

Alon Perlman said...

Uh mike, These are real people.
the blog post was not about the sewer.
He does look mean, but looks are not the window to the soul.
St Francis of Asisi; A man is judged by the deeds and actions h takes (not by the indulgences sold by fawning and political expediency and never by Jabbba Jabba Jabba ) Or was that Mr. T.
Have fun Yeall, theres stilla sunset out there Click TV off
Shut down computer.

Churadogs said...

O.K. Children. Enough. some of you people are such babies.

There's still a puzzlement here: TPW sued four people, as individuals, personally (NOT as a Board taking Board action, which is what they did). Richard says there was a settlement. An anonymous commentor at the Razor asked, Did the four INDIVIDUALS (who were being sued as individuals)sign off on the settlement before it was announced at the CSD meeting? Was their (individual)signature(s) on this case's settlement even required?

Richard LeGros said...


To end your 'puzzlement', and answer the questions you listed queried by an ANON, please continue reading.

#1. You asked (for an ANON):
'Was their (individual) signature(s) on this case's settlement even required?'

The answer is NO; their signatures were not required at all.

Only the signatures of TW, the SWQCB, the LOCSD, AACI and BW&S were required to finalize the settlement.
These parties 'settled around’ the individual defendants and their attorney (see my 11:33, April 3 post above as to why).

#2. You asked (for an ANON):
'Did the four INDIVIDUALS (who were being sued as individuals)sign off on the settlement before it was announced at the CSD meeting?'

The answer is NO, the individual defendants did not sign the settlement prior to the LOCSD announcement; nor were their signatures required for the LOCSD to act as it did. Why? As their signatures were not required for finalizing the settlement (as explained in #1 above) there were no reasons either for their signatures before the LOCSD announcement.

Lastly, the TW lawsuit named FIVE (not four) individual defendants;
Lisa Schicker,
Julie Tacker
John Fouche
Steve Senet
Chuck Cesena.

Mike said...

Now that this settlement in lieu of a court trial has concluded, could this finding of misappropriation of tax paid funds, have opened the door for further legal action by the State against the CSD5...???

Richard LeGros said...


As the TW lawsuit was a Civil Court case, in the settlement the State reserved the right to criminally prosecute the defendants (the CSD5).
Time will tell if the State will do so.

Alon Perlman said...

Thanks again Richard for the postings and for separating the wheat from the Chaff
(Chaff as in Biblical harvest+Electronic CounterMeasures meanings) I will point out that the Source material is available and has been a while, and that Channel 20 if watched with unbiased eye reveals all one needs to Know (or at least;
Determine who is dabbling in dilettante ditherings and dubious derivative duplications and dealing out
that what they don’t know nothing about).

Fledgling Legal Eagles
or Over-Coddled rHeumy Spoiled co-coo cracked eggs?

I was there, then watched it once. It is a shame that your and Julie’s exchanges at the CrockoftheBoast did not provide more.
So I can’t re-watch this but my memory banks can.
On T.V. people. He’s The CSD appointed Council; Read his lips- “Dismissed WITH Prejudice”?
Continues with a statement by Steve-S, Then a response.

Channel 20,  April 1,2010
 6:00 PM and other times



Alon Perlman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alon Perlman said...

Reminder 
Time is running out 
Channel 20, April 1,2010 
 6:00 PM and other times
10 minutes from now (())