Pages

Monday, January 03, 2011

Alice in Wonderland, Part Duh

The Razor weighs in on the PZLDF case.  According to the Tribune story, it's not known whether an appeal will be filed.  The Rasor opines that Judge Crandall's ruling could ease the way for more "zones."  I wrote some time ago, after the RWQCB's "stealth" state-wide septic tank update, "We're ALL Los Osos now."  Indeed. And what makes that so fascinating is, according to Judge Crandall, a regulatory assertion (not evidence) now trumps constitutional presumption of innocence and/or even "evidence." Which is fascinating. Some of the ankle-chewers who are addicted to this blogsite, have always mistaken this case with "the sewer."  It never was about sewering; it was always about legal rights, property rights, civil protections from regulatory abuse, and checks and balance in law and regulation.  THAT was what was critical in this case.  And if that goes unchallenged, the statement that we are all Los Osos now will become the standard under law. And that is deadly serious. 

Sunday, 02 January 2011 17:49

Failed Citizens for Clean Water/PZLDF Suit Boosts ‘Prohibition Zones’ Statewide

The consequences of the flimsy suit that sought to repeal CDOs targeting a random group of Los Osos homeowners could ease the way for more "zones" prohibiting septic system discharge. The judge’s ruling calls into question the quality and substance of CCW/PZLDF’s case against the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

» Read Article

http://www.rockofthecoast.com/news/local/877-failed-citizens-for-clean-waterpzldf-suit-boosts-prohibition-zones-statewide



Legal Analysis: PZLDF Suit a Colossal Disaster



On December 28, San Luis Obispo County Judge Charles S. Crandall issued his ruling of the Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund v. Regional Water Quality Control Board -- and it was bad news for the Gail McPherson-led group. The judge found that the Regional Water Quality Control Board provided sufficient evidence to validate the Cease and Desist orders (CDOs) that were delivered to 45 individuals in January 2006. The judge relied heavily on 14,000 pages of documentation provided by the Regional Water Board including Resolution 83-13, which prohibited septic tank discharges within the Los Osos Prohibition Zone. And what did the petitioners -- whose burden was to prove their case with the preponderance of evidence -- provide the court?



If you believe the judge, next to nothing.



Click here to read more!

http://www.rockofthecoast.com/razor/2011/01/02/legal-analysis-pzldf-suit-a-colossal-disaster/

66 comments:

GetRealOsos said...

First off, thank you Ann for posting this. This is fascinating.

I have a few immediate thoughts:

1) Regarding Ms. Sullivan -- every attorney, before accepting any case will run a "conflict of interest" first. Why did Sullivan take this case in the first place?

2) Didn't Marshall Ochylski get a CDO? He didn't worry about fines or anything. He didn't stress out over it and/or feel he had to pay into any legal fund over his CDO.

3) And why did Gail call her group the "Prohibition Zone" Legal Defense Fund, doesn't calling her group that name justify the PZ to begin with?

4) Why didn't Sullivan bring up the general benefit of clean water for everyone in the basin? That would seem to break the PZ right there -- And why none of the existing evidence from Dr. Reuhr, etc. showing the any pollution could possibly be from many other sources?

5) How can Gail say she was in favor of Step when she promotes a Regional Plant that only uses gravity?!

...Just fascinating!

Mike said...

...why did the Schecker led CSD pay the legal fees for the PZLDF...??? Seems like the CSD should also have paid the legal fees of the TaxPayers Watch because they actually won a settlement which returned $2M to the District...!!!!

...did anyone of the PZLDF 18 take a tax deduction for their "donations"...??? Perhaps the IRS could do a little audit of those 18...???

...isn't it curious how Gail McPherson wasn't one of the 18 signatures on the PZLDF lawsuit yet has assumed the leadership role...???

She has always had her personal RWQCB ax to grind ever since she landed on her broom in the outskirts of Los Osos... Wonder how much she paid into the PZLDF legal fees...??? ...or how much she was paid (for expenses to be sure...wink, nudge) by the PZLDF...???

Those are just some of the addtional thoughts and questions currently circulating in Los Osos... Maybe aaron or ronnie can comment since Ann is reluctant to being forthright...

...this is truly a first, I can actually agree with GRO, Ed and Aaron... There is something rotten behind this whole war and it smells like Gail...!!!

Alon Perlman said...

A well written set of 20-20 hindsight essays, out there in the vast wasteland of SewerBlogSpace. Even the raisin’s is top notch. Shame; all that potential is wasted on games.

But here on this blog…
This outcome has been discussed (Even before the “Blackout”, (funny how the rockheads have to be at war with all other media sources))
I told y’all so.
Previously this year (Oops- 2010 and previous to that).
Predicting that the overloading approach would fail. The fatal flaws in the lawsuit was the attack on 83-13, which unfortunately, did make the lawsuit be “All about the Sewer”.
Had the lawsuits been about the interests of the CDO holders, that would had necessitated a focus on the Waterboard’s selection of less than 1% of the properties (individual human beings, not actual septic tanks).
So the “justice” tragedy is; The loss of a precedent to prevent government from using selective enforcement on individuals as a means of communicating a warning (Plan of compliance) to a larger public who are equally violating (polluting).

Interesting take on Gail’s non-Science approach. As for actual testing underneath homes? I’ve been to CDO’s homes and can tell you how many feet to ground water. Some would fail. Good use of Dr. Wickham as an example. Gail did not introduce Dr. Kitt’s testimony at the Waterboard hearings when requested, but this Judge’s decision was going to be about procedure, not science.
A vast Conspiracy to Cement Prohibition zones into case law? Can you get more imaginative?

Word verifiction; "recry"
Yes, recry my beloved Los Osos.
And, cry once more for the CDO's, especially since there is at least one out there who believes "This can be won on appeal, once it gets out of the County"

Churadogs said...

Alon sez:"The fatal flaws in the lawsuit was the attack on 83-13, which unfortunately, did make the lawsuit be “All about the Sewer”."

That's what many of the judges who have handled this case kept thinking even though there were many, many other specific issues of proceedure constantly brought up. As for 83-13, that is the basis for singling out random people for coercive electioneering, but the case was never about the sewer.(Another problem was that there were 3? 4? judges shuffling through this so not one of them really got the whole picture; it was a constantly inherited mess and Crandall, for example, made it clear from the bench that he had no intention of going back to read (previous) Judge La Barbra's notes. ??? Really? Not even to see what the previous judge had to say? Nope, no reviews of anything. Which raises other interesting issues.

and sez:"especially since there is at least one out there who believes "This can be won on appeal, once it gets out of the County"

That, of course, is the real question. The key point for me in this whole case is this: does regulatory statute created by an appointed (not elected) board take prescedent over constitutional and state law guarantees of presuption of innocence? And do laws and even regulatory rules have to have some connection with either science or common sense?

Consider sworn testimony by RWQCB staff that they have no emperical evidence that CDO Recipient Mr. X, for example, is polluting the groundwaters of the state of California. Mr. X lives up above LOVR with more than enough vados zone to clear all his septage discharges. He's polluting nothing. His neighbor, on the other hand, Mr. Y who lives down the hill has less vados zone under his house and is polluting. Mr. X has a CDO, can lose his home and is facing a fine and/or jail time. Mr. Y isn't. Or consider Mr. X again and his other neighbor, Mr. Z. Z lives a few feet away, outside the arbitrarily drawn Prohibition Zone line. X has a CDO, Z doesn't.
In what way is Mr. X guilty of violating pollution laws while Z isn't? Does there have to be some reasonable scientific connection between actually doing something illegal (polluting the waters of the state of California)and getting a CDO and does that connection have to be based on evidence of guilt or be based merely on an assertion by an appointed Board? That's some of what this case has been about.

Local judges don't want to touch this puppy with a ten foot pole. And it IS incredibly complex (having sat through the RWQCB Mad Hatter Tea Party hearings, I'd be willing to bet NOBODY has a clue on who or what was ruled on since "evidence" was shunted in then out then in, often in huge chunks, then incorporated by reference, there's no way a judge could have untangled the mess, let alone watch the videos & etc.)so I don't blame a judge for just wanting to shove the whole thing off his bench.

Churadogs said...

Alon sez:"The fatal flaws in the lawsuit was the attack on 83-13, which unfortunately, did make the lawsuit be “All about the Sewer”."

That's what many of the judges who have handled this case kept thinking even though there were many, many other specific issues of proceedure constantly brought up. As for 83-13, that is the basis for singling out random people for coercive electioneering, but the case was never about the sewer.(Another problem was that there were 3? 4? judges shuffling through this so not one of them really got the whole picture; it was a constantly inherited mess and Crandall, for example, made it clear from the bench that he had no intention of going back to read (previous) Judge La Barbra's notes. ??? Really? Not even to see what the previous judge had to say? Nope, no reviews of anything. Which raises other interesting issues.

and sez:"especially since there is at least one out there who believes "This can be won on appeal, once it gets out of the County"

That, of course, is the real question. The key point for me in this whole case is this: does regulatory statute created by an appointed (not elected) board take prescedent over constitutional and state law guarantees of presuption of innocence? And do laws and even regulatory rules have to have some connection with either science or common sense?

Consider sworn testimony by RWQCB staff that they have no emperical evidence that CDO Recipient Mr. X, for example, is polluting the groundwaters of the state of California. Mr. X lives up above LOVR with more than enough vados zone to clear all his septage discharges. He's polluting nothing. His neighbor, on the other hand, Mr. Y who lives down the hill has less vados zone under his house and is polluting. Mr. X has a CDO, can lose his home and is facing a fine and/or jail time. Mr. Y isn't. Or consider Mr. X again and his other neighbor, Mr. Z. Z lives a few feet away, outside the arbitrarily drawn Prohibition Zone line. X has a CDO, Z doesn't.
In what way is Mr. X guilty of violating pollution laws while Z isn't? Does there have to be some reasonable scientific connection between actually doing something illegal (polluting the waters of the state of California)and getting a CDO and does that connection have to be based on evidence of guilt or be based merely on an assertion by an appointed Board? That's some of what this case has been about.

Local judges don't want to touch this puppy with a ten foot pole. And it IS incredibly complex (having sat through the RWQCB Mad Hatter Tea Party hearings, I'd be willing to bet NOBODY has a clue on who or what was ruled on since "evidence" was shunted in then out then in, often in huge chunks, then incorporated by reference, there's no way a judge could have untangled the mess, let alone watch the videos & etc.)so I don't blame a judge for just wanting to shove the whole thing off his bench.

Mike said...

Still sounds like "Ann in Wonderland" (could substitute a few other names though)...

It is pretty obvious that the Judge ruled on the wording in the lawsuit and did not try to rule on every thought ever brought up in this sewer war, even though the lawsuit was never more than a shotgun approach... and even that was porly prepared...

No Ann, (you could substitute a few other names though) this is NOT Wonderland, this is just Los Osos... McPherson and Sullivan have been shown to be incapable of addressing YOUR personal adgenda: "does regulatory statute created by an appointed (not elected) board take prescedent over constitutional and state law guarantees of presuption of innocence? And do laws and even regulatory rules have to have some connection with either science or common sense?"

Time to take another look at the real world Ann, this nonsense IS all about the coming sewer, NOT about over-turning how California is governed... This has ALWAYS been about halting/delaying/obstructing ANY SEWER, ANYWHERE (especially in Los Osos)...!!!!

While YOU set about finding a pro bono constitutional lawyer cabable of addressing YOUR personal concerns in front of the US Supreme Court, please be aware that this community will NOT be donating to that crusade... How about YOU just paying back the LOCSD for YOUR portion of the failed PZLDF lawsuit and return to posting other folks poetry....!!!!

Churadogs said...

Anonymous Mike's comments illustrate a problem in common with the Razor's comments on this issue as well: personal bile and animosity confusing and/or deflecting key issues.

Not to mention Mike's deliberate and continual falsification, as in this quote: "This has ALWAYS been about halting/delaying/obstructing ANY SEWER, ANYWHERE (especially in Los Osos)...!!!!"

Ah, wrong again, and still making stuff up, eh, Mikee. I know, you can't help yourself.

Mike said...

...since you don't like looking into the mirror of reality, maybe YOU can post a little "honesty"... Why haven't YOU paid YOUR portion of the PZLDF legal fee....??? Was the Lisa led CSD's "agreement" that the CSD was to have paid 100% of the the legal fee...???? That would sound like another taxpayer rip-off by the CSD5.... What would ronnie say to that....????

Chris said...

Ann: I've been laughing my head off since Mike posted the court ruling on your latest fiasco. After loosing something over 20 lawsuits you and the rest of your anti-sewer comrades remind me of humorous old salt “Quitters never win, winners never quit, but those who never win AND never quit are idiots.”

Maybe the funniest part of your excuses for this latest failure is that as you keep asking others to give you the benefit of the doubt, more and more of the community doubts your benefit.

Mike: Keep at it! Community interest in how much the individual PZLDF members, including Ann and Gail, actually spent on this case is high.

The Razor said...

Ann,

I'll have to correct you on one point.

When you look at the PZLDF ruling, you see that the petitioners -- mainly McPherson, who has championed for a regional treatment plant -- ultimately turned the case into an improvised forum for "political issues," which, in effect, confused and deflected from the key issues (the legality behind the issuance of CDOs).

You say my comments are of "personal bile and animosity," but really, my opinions on McPherson reflect the judge's opinion, which speaks for itself. I yield to the judge on this one. I just feel sorry for the CDO recipients who McPherson has manipulated and coerced into paying for a "throwaway" lawsuit.

Mike said...

Hi Chris... I don't have the actual figures right here, of what the CSD actually paid to Sullivan, but best I can remember (I'm old, so have a case of CRS) was some $10,000 +/- over 3 to 6 months... Based on those figures and an "Agreement" that the CSD was to pay 25% and PZLDF 75%, it would appear that the CSD paid $30,000 to $60,000... that would mean the PZLDF was to pay $40,000 per month or $120,000 to $$240,000... Now anyway you cut it, that lawsuit was supposedly worth $50,000 per month or let's say 3 to 6 months of work... $150,000 to $300,000... Maybe someone with the exact figures from the CSD could verify the monthly amounts and number of payments made to Shauna... I wouldn't want to be thought to have made this up...

However, does anyone think that lawsuit and failed outcome was worth $150,000 to $300,000...???? If I were one of those PZLDF signers on that lawsuit, I would want a copy of the balance sheet... I also think the CSD5 should be held accountable for funding a private citizen's lawsuit...

Perhaps the State of California will want to review that Government Agency (LOCSD CSD5) and why they spent taxpayer money to sue the State of California...???

I do know that the State AG has NOT forgotten the CSD5 but has to hold off until the outcome of the bankruptcy... Lisa, Julie, Chuck, John and Steve... And perhaps some of those who deducted their contributions will wish to ammend their tax returns... hmmm, but then Ann is so sure I'm making this all up, so guess there is nothing to be concerned about...

Mike said...

..BTW... if the PZLDF's portion of the lawsuit was $120,000 to $240,000, then each of the 18 signers were responsible for $6,667 to $13,333 +/-

...all I would like to see is an announcement by the CSD (who surely oversaw that Sullivan didn't just "forgive" the 18 signers and only worked for the funds paid by the CSD5... Pretty simple... Should be easy to show that the 18 actually paid their agreed upon amount...

...and this has never been about the sewer, only the rights of the taxpayers of this community...!!!

Chris said...

Erroron,

You claim the key issue of the Phizzledifff case was the legality behind the issuance of CDOs. However, the plain language of the Judge is very different from your self-defined legal analysis.

From the decision:

“the Court concludes that the actions of the Regional Board
did not violate due process. Further, the CDOs issued by the Regional Board are
supported by substantial evidence, and they are not otherwise deficient.”

…the CDOs are
1. supported by substantial evidence, and
2. are not otherwise deficient

Your logic is weak, but perhaps you just didn’t read the entire decision. It would be delightful if you could share further explain the discrepancy between the Judge’s determination that issuing CDO’s is NOT OTHERWISE DEFICIENT and your analysis that the Court did not address the legality of issuing CDO’s? (Retired banker hubby is especially interested that you citing relevant law or code).

Thank you for kicking the New Year off with such gayety.

Mike said...

...opps... slight error, but then I'm only working toward an order of magnitude...

CSD paid: $10,000/mo = 25%
PZLDF to pay: $30,000/mo = 75%

3 to 6 months of total payments =
$120,000 to $240,000

2 to 6 moths PZLDF payments =
$90,000 to $180,000

18 shares of total PZLDF cost =
$5,000 to $10,000

...but we, the community, don't know that any PZLDF payments were ever made...

M said...

Glad you're so entertained Chris. With a soundboard like "retired banker hubby" your household must be the bubbliest place on earth.
Sincerely, M

The Razor said...

"Chris",

Let's take what you cited:

"The Court concludes that the actions of the Regional Board did not violate due process. Further, the CDOs issued by the Regional Board are supported by substantial evidence, and they are not otherwise deficient."

Sounds like Crandall was addressing the petitioners' key issue about the legality of the issuance of CDOs there.

And where did I say the court did not the address the legality of issuing CDOs? Care to cite a quote or a paragraph? If you can't, no problem. Just be sure to read my analysis next time.

Sewertoons said...

Happy New Year Everyone.

I'm going to copy and paste the letter that has kept me away from blogging since December 16. You will have to ask a.o. what happened to his letter and what the response was from the CSD. It was forwarded to me from a CSD Board member who said it looked like a threat and I did take this as a threat. I would be interested in comments from anyone out there on the content of this letter. (This is the same a.o. who published the home addresses of County employees on his website and put my home contact information up on YouTube.)

----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aaron Ochs
Date: Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 9:08 PM
Subject: Censure or Removal of Lynette Tornatzky as Alternate
To: board@losososcsd.org


Members of the board,

I'm going to direct this message mostly to Maria Kelly, who currently serves as chairperson of the Utilities Advisory Committee.

While it's true that there are no bylaws and rules of decorum for LOCSD standing advisory committees, I believe that disciplinary action should be considered regarding the alternate on the Utilities Advisory Committee, Lynette Tornatzky.

Tornatzky appears under multiple aliases on several online sites (sewertoons and Lie_Detector, to name a few), disparaging numerous residents in Los Osos. While Mrs. Tornatzky has every right to express her opinion outside of her volunteer position, I believe that it is absolutely important to address the comments that she's made. Recently, Tornatzky has been mocking Bo Cooper, a long-time resident who is currently being treated for leukemia, and his wife for exercising their right to protest. Her comments are vile, obsessively antagonistic, cruel and deplorable. Some have already been deleted because of their inane nature. Others remain. More of her comments, as Lie_Detector, can be found here:

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2010/12/15/1408595/protest-of-los-osos-sewer-project.html

As a whole, the LOCSD -- who Mr. Gilmore says "represents most of the people" in Los Osos (at Tuesday's BOS) -- has not addressed the hostile rhetoric that has dominated civil discourse and progress. Mrs. Tornatzky's conduct has contributed to the sharp division in Los Osos, and I believe that the voluminous, obsessive and inane nature of her comments are a tasteless distraction from the issues that the Utilities Advisory Committee needs to address. As a political contributor to Kelly's 2008 campaign, Tornatzky's controversial comments -- as it appears to the naked eye -- are left unchecked with tacit approval from Kelly.

Your board has a moral obligation to speak about civility and the necessity to be civil. If you will not take action against Tornatzky, that is the least you can do.

My concern is that her comments could lead to violent retaliation of the people she has identified as "obstructionists." The only way she would get the message is if she received a public censure or her volunteer position as alternate on the Utilities Advisory Committee was terminated.

I believe a swift resolution is in order.

Sincerely,

Aaron Ochs
Razor Online

Mike said...

WOW... Is Aaron Ochs on any LOCSD committee...???

Sounds like a very spoiled child not getting or hearing his personal way and then striking out with his own brand of vile and is indeed acting in a threatening manner... Aaron definately needs a time-out...!!! This is a Bud Stanford tactict which should not be tolerated...

Apparently Aaron has a mental condition which prevents him from working or living on his own, but that doesn't excuse his actions any more than ignoring Al Barrows condition... These are potentially very dangerous individuals...

Churadogs said...

O.K. folks, you're jumping the shark and getting off topic. This is how you spin off into idiocy, so, Fair warning. The little Dump garbage can is awaiting you.

Sewertoons said...

OK Ann, I'll get back on topic: Are you going to appeal the PZLDF case? Your name is on it, so you should be in the loop.

Just know that you will not be supported by funds from the CSD.

M said...

Since when did you become spokesman for, or set policy for the CSD?
Sincerely, M

Mike said...

...sorry M, but do YOU think the LOCSD has any funds left to back another PZLDF failure...???

...bankruptcy hearing is just around the corner...

M said...

Not what I asked.
Sincerely, M

Sewertoons said...

M,
Do you follow the CSD? I do. What makes you think the Board (with the new members), ALL of them fully aware of District finances, will be at all interested in pursing a lost cause?

Sewertoons said...

PS M,
I was opining, not spokespersoning, not setting policy.

There was never even any public comment on the PZLDF partnering as a closed session item until AFTER that deal was brokered. I don't see that lack of transparency occurring with this Board, do you?

alabamasue said...

Sewertoons- I reread the comments a.o. referred to @ sanluisobispo.com. No one was 'mocking' Bo Cooper. Several people did find fault with Lacey Cooper's odd math, "15% is really 25%." a.o. is one of the nastier posters around here, but continues to berate others with whom he disagrees . I hope you take his threat with a ton of salt. The fact that he constantly goes on the offensive (his email) while urging people to just get along, speaks volumes. And, no, the LOCSD will no longer fund futile lawsuits like Pizzledrip. This was discussed at an open meeting. Done.

Sewertoons said...

Thank you alabamasue, I am using the salt remedy to great success.

Thanks too for the reminder about the LOCSD NOT funding lawsuits like PZLDEFLOP, I had forgotten that discussion!

I still hope that Ann answers about whether or not the "case" is to be continued. Maybe Patrick Sparks will take it pro bono?

Churadogs said...

Toonces: Years ago, at the first or one of the first hearings of this case, Judge La Barbara limited the case to CDO holders only, thereby removing me -- a non-CDO holder, so I've been "out of the loop" as you say, for years. John Seitz of the CSD severed its agreement with Shauna long, long ago.(also out of the loop) I have no idea whether the folks involved in the case will appeal.Personally, I rather hope they do because there's still some serious issues here that have nothing to do with a sewer, unresolved issues that will reappear throughout Calif, now that the RWQCB has or will shortly finish their stealth septic update. I said once and I'll say again: We're all Los Osos now. Most folks have no idea what that statement means, but they'll be finding out. What the RWQCB did here to The Los Osos 45 was wrong and remains wrong.

And, yes, Sue, I would advise you all to invest heavily in the Morton Salt Company.

Alon Perlman said...

Thanks for the update Ann, The retention of listed plaintiffs came up before, seems to be a feature of lawsuits.
As for pale Narcissus; This is part of an ongoing wide pattern of threats and harassment. In addition to the direct and convoluted veiled threats against the "Offender" it is also a threat against the official and institution receiving the "Complaint". Aaron Ochs submitted a similar "Complaint" to LOCAC on me, and went as far as including Supervisor Gibson's Office in this nonsense. The fact that he got the easy stuff wrong, (I was elected not appointed), or that it was perceived as a nuisance complaint right off the bat, does not mean that this technique cannot be used in the future to thwart our democratic institutions. Certainly people who are elected/ serving to uncompensated positions in this county should not be rewarded with this extension of a personal virtual schoolyard vendetta conducted from the safety of his parent’s bedroom.
It follows the formula; although Aaron’s sensibilities are offended, a mark, a patsy, a victim is drawn in, so that “Hero complex” can act on “Their” behalf. Sad to see Bo used this way. Of course he was not consulted . I point out that these actions are supported by Ed.
Funny that as part of Aaron’s Malicious Libels and name calling the word “Sociopath” came up.
Whereas, if I keep using the terms “Narcissistic personality”, “Fitting most of the determinants of a sociopathic personality” “Transference” “Acting out” I’d have to send out an invoice for diagnostic services.
Dr. Perlman

Mr. Ed said...

Alon,

Your personal attacks belie your guilt. You can't blame Aaron for your abuse of women and your chronic lying to cover up your inferiority complex. You can live in denial for the rest of your life, but you did it to yourself. Thank Aaron for exposing you -- with your own words -- so your might grow a soul.

Ditto Lynette.

P.S. Berkeley has no record of your graduation.

Sewertoons said...

Ed, you really disappoint me. I guess I was mistaken that we were still friends.

Mr. Ed said...

The disappointment is mutual. Stop harassing my family and maybe we can be friends again. It's gone on much too long.

Mike said...

Guess "harassment" is in the eye of the beholder...

Of course the beholder can cry about being offended while they and their family have set about vilifing everyone they disagree with... The very sad tale of a town caught between a rock and sewerwatch...

Sorry Ed, but "researching" someone's past, basing personal opinions on out of context and often erroneous or incomplete information, and then sending "personal opinions" presented as factual truth to employers, government agencies and even newscasters, is crossing the line of civil decency... YOU need to clean your own house before continuing your vindictiveness... Look in a mirror at YOUR own family before trying to point a finger...

I happen to agree with your comments about the failed PZLDF, but that does not mean I like you or would ever consider you a friend... but I would not send threatening letters to you, about you or to any committee you might serve...

BTW, I don't happen to always agree with Alon or Ann either, but I respect their right to disagree.... I just wish Ann and the rest of the PZLDF gang would come clean and show this community that they have actually paid their honest fair according to the agreement...

The Razor said...

Here we go.

There are many hypocrites in this discussion.

Just last year, Tornatzky personally wrote to ECOFluid and tried to get Mark Low's job terminated simply because she disagreed with him. She personally ventured beyond the blogs to jeopardize Low's employment and Low's relationship with his employer.

I was inspired by this, so I conducted a social experiment.

I filed complaints against two people -- and only two people -- who hold public positions while viciously berating others who they disagree with, including me. I decided to file these complaints because I believe that their egregious misconduct and false statements have invigorated their supporters to the point of violent persecution ranging from threats to acts of violent retaliation against the people they disagree with.

In the complaints I filed, I relied heavily on their own statements. Mrs. Tornatzky did make offensive remarks about Bo Cooper et al. She never denied that she made those statements. The Tribune did delete them after I "flagged" them for removal (as implied in my comment to Gilmore, "Some have already been deleted because of their inane nature. Others remain.").

As a private citizen serving as a public volunteer, I showed Gilmore that Mrs. Tornatzky has willingly participated in an environment of malice that exemplifies conduct unbecoming of a public official or volunteer. There is absolutely no excuse for a community volunteer to anonymously incite hatred toward other community members, period. It shows bad faith and a reckless disregard for social cohesion.

I'd like to thank you, Lynette, for posting my e-mail. You proved my case. Instead of focusing on your duties assigned to you by the Utilities Advisory Committee, you chose to go after me personally without ever once assessing your own words and actions (e.g. "...the voluminous, obsessive and inane nature of her comments are a tasteless distraction from the issues that the Utilities Advisory Committee needs to address.").

You've sealed your political fate in Los Osos.

The Razor said...

Next is Alon Perlman.

Has anyone noticed that every time I post somewhere -- whether it's been on SanLuisObispo.com or Calhoun's Cannon(s) -- he's always had some weird, creepy personal assessment of me that sounds completely absurd? As it turns out, it is. Now imagine, for a second, that he's been doing this for exactly two years now. Two years! Now that's absurd.

To make a long story short, Mr. Perlman took great exception to the deletion of his comments from my old blog, Ochs Nation, after he sharply criticized retired judge Martha Goldin for "speaking out of turn" at a BOS meeting. He then proceeded to describe her in a grotesque, pornographic way that showed he had serious disdain for women. Out of respect for Mrs. Goldin, I removed his comment. Mr. Perlman made these comments while serving on LOCAC -- calling himself a "self-appointed centrist" -- and I found that revelation to be disturbing. In any event, he proceeded to inundate my personal voicemail with irate, threatening messages, following an e-mail from him that showed he wanted to "up the ante" on threats. I saved that e-mail. It's on my site. And a few months later, I filed a former complaint after I personally called him and e-mailed him to stop the harrassment. He refused.

Like Mrs. Tornatzky, I only showed his words, and his words alone showed Los Osos who Alon Perlman really is. Since then, he lost his LOCAC seat and has continued the harassment without provocation. To understand the lengths of his harassment, imagine the following. Imagine someone waged a random political attack against you and claimed -- without any shred of proof at all -- that you personally mocked a murdered girl under a pseudonym. Imagine that someone did that as a means of inciting community outrage against you. Imagine someone who has called you a "nasty little boy" over and over again on a daily basis. Imagine someone who has lied about your personal life with depraved hyperbole to a point that any reasonable person would see that as criminal insanity. Mr. Perlman has done all of those things. He makes Jack Nicholson in The Shining seem like a really nice guy who just so happens to carry an axe and shout, "Here's Johnny!" at a given opportunity.

Like Mrs. Tornatzky, Alon projects. He wrote this morning at 7:47 AM, "This is part of an ongoing wide pattern of threats and harassment."

Right back at you, buddy.

Your political fate has also been sealed in Los Osos.

The Razor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Razor said...

Notice how both of the people I just mentioned have never once admitted wrongdoing. They haven't even acknowledged that they did or said anything that has gone against the grain of moral decency.

Isn't that strange?

That's really strange.

Lynette and Alon: Good luck trying to dig yourselves out of this mess. You only did it to yourselves.

Mike said...

Time for another trip to the pharmacy for aaron's parents... I almost feel sorry for the parents of the little boy with a hyper imagination and over-active vocabulary... they will never see him live an independent life in society because of his mental challenges...

..but the topic is really the failure of the PZLDF... and why haven't the 18 signers (notice that Gail McPherson NEVER signed) of the failed lawsit ever paid the agreed upon 75% of the legal costs.... It is interesting that Ann Calhoun, a signer of the lawsuit, is NOT a CDO holder...

Does that reinforce the thoughts that she is only acting as a cheerleader for the few CDO holders who wanted to fight rather than work with the RWQCB...??? Don't those few have any conscience...??? Don't they see that NOT PAYING is theft of taxpayers funds...???

Churadogs said...

Mike, I know you make stuff up, but you need to read mylast posting regarding the CDO's issued to the CSD. Apparently you're unaware of those?

Mike said...

Sorry Ann, but it appears to be that YOU think that the CSD as an "interested party" was somehow party to the PZLDF lawsuit... Now YOU are making things up...!!! There is NO CSD signature on the lawsuit... however YOU mistakenly believe that gives YOU license to not pay your share as agree to in the CSD agreement to pay a 25% share... Just WHO was supposed to pay the 75%...????

Mike said...

...perhaps Ann is confusing RWQCB Fines levied against the CSD with CDO's to "individuals"... but Ann marches to the beat of her very own "legal" sense and not necessarily to the actual laws...

The Monarchy of Lisa is dead, Los Osos is no longer in control of the County... time to work on being able to pay your monthly sewer and water bills...

Alon Perlman said...

It remains that the opportunity to prove misconduct by the waterboard passed when the focus of the lawsuit went to the right of a regulatory agency to regulate or to a right of an enforcement agency to enforce.
Selectiveness or the use of a mechanism of random selection is not part of the ordinary conduct of business (Regulation), nor was the CDO a tool designed for the persecution of households. These paraphrased two are the correct assertions made by Gail. Remove Shauna from the equation and someone else could had done it. Remove Gail or have someone competent interact with her positively and you have something else entirely. The lawsuit proceeded to its inevitable conclusion as did all previous comparable strategies including the Gail directed 1000+ paper cuts complaint against Paavo. Instead of playing the Aces, a flimsy house of miscellaneous cards (Including "Uno", "Go fish") was cobbled together and spit glued to ridiculous heights. It was and is also a failure of the CSD directors to lead their “revolution”.


I recant my words...
Not an ordinarily nasty little boy; A rabid attack poodle-pest interrupting the compulsive chasing of its own victim-tale, with an unnatural attraction to frothing on the human legs doing the walking in this town. It’s still trying to draw it’s human targets into debating it’s lies, as if they owe it their precious time, or an answer.


"All play and no work makes Noraa Jokes a dull boy.""All play and no work makes Noraa Jokes a dull boy." "All play and no work makes Noraa Jokes a dull boy." Blah Blah Bla Bla Blah.

The Razor said...

Last night: "Imagine someone who has called you a 'nasty little boy' over and over again on a daily basis."

And this morning...

Alon Perlman: "Not an ordinarily nasty little boy."

Please, don't post anymore... for your sake. You're only validating my points.

Mike said...

quack - quack- quack

Go ask mommy for some more prozac before your daddy unplugs your computer... YOU don't seem to realize what a nasty little boy YOU really are... much like Al Barrow when his meds no longer control his mental condition....

Now back to the real topic, WHY won't ANN pay her share of the PZLDF lawsuit...???? The CSD was not a signer on that private lawsuit pretending to represent the community... WHY won't Gail pay for all of that failed lawsuit...???? WHY in the world did the CSD ever get drawn into the PZLDF lawsuit...???? Why Lisa, was it just YOUR personal agenda...????

Sewertoons said...

Mike, good morning! I believe it was friends helping friends to public money as certain friends didn't have enough to finance this on their own.

The Razor said...

Sorry, not changing the topic.

Last night: "Imagine someone who has called you a 'nasty little boy' over and over again on a daily basis."

And this morning...

Alon Perlman: "Not an ordinarily nasty little boy."

Mike: "YOU don't seem to realize what a nasty little boy YOU really are."

Keep going!

Mike said...

Hi 'toons... It is just outrageous that those few have stolen out hard-earned tax dollars for their own personal agendas...

Ann doesn't have the courage to admit HER role in this, even though she was a signer.... now she seems to be trying to weasel out by trying to hide behind the CSD and any other smoke screen she can thrown in the way to deflect attention from her own participation...

Ann's very use of this blog is clear admission of her desire to prolong this failed attempt at, what delaying the sewer, or somehow thinking she and that PZLDF lawsuit would somehow overturn the State Water Board...???? I know, she'll try to make it sound as if I'm making this all up, but she is grossly mistaken... This community is fed up with the prolonged sewer war...

It's time for Ann to quit even mentioning or giving space to any "discussion" of sewers, the RWQCB, Tri-W or any of the emotional side issues... no more cheerleading.... no more encouraging the parade of less than civil obstructionists... time to stick to posting poetry and doggy walks... and maybe pay her portion of the failed PZLDF lawsuit...!!!

Mr. Ed said...

Mike,

I think Aaron did a great job on his PZLDF fizzledip -- and anyone can read it and make up their own mind sans Ann.

Let's review Aaron's scorecard briefly:

--The "mental case" put a pebble in his slingshot and exposed a recalled CSD director as a..."mental case" with his own twisted words.

--The "little boy" put a pebble in his slingshot and brought down the Ol' Ponytailed Perv with his own twisted words.

--The "young man" put a pebble in his slingshot and brought down the Ol' Taxpayers Witch with her own twisted words.

--The "irrelvant young man" put a pebble in his slingshot and brought down the "Mother" of all Blogstresses -- with her own twisted bias.

What is it about you old hypocrites that you never learned that a child of 10 has the power to knock down walls of lies you have spend your whole lives building up????

You just can't admit you been out-thought, out-witted and just plain outted by a bigger, better, smarter man than you'll ever be. Can you dig it???

Mike said...

Ed... I do respect your personal family problem that you are dealing with... I do wish you the best of luck in that difficult road... It is admirable that you defend your family (I certainly would also), but understand we in the community don't have to like or accept rocks thrown by someone who is not a property owner, tax payer or experienced in reality and may never be one... I truly am sorry for your burden...

The Razor said...

Thanks, Ed.

The old hypocrites are up to their old tricks: making baseless assertions while dismissing things for being assertions.

If that's all you got, "Mike," there's nothing more I need to say, really. You're just having a "senior moment."

Mr. Ed said...

Mike,

Sorry, Mike, no family problems here. Try another mantra.

By the way, there is no "we in the community," just you, Lynette and Ponyboy -- outcasts. That's all.

I'll put the new house in LO in Aaron's name. He'll be your CSD director when you're too old to remember to change your Depends. P.U.!

Since Aaron is smarter than you, Lynette and the Perv combined, I trust you'll vote for him????

Alon Perlman said...

Rwerrrr, aRewrrr, roowf.
Pthoy...
These ankles are all stale and soggy...

Ann, may your detractors never see the dimentionality and the beauty of your Color Pallete.

Sewertoons said...

Mr. Ed says:

"Stop harassing my family and maybe we can be friends again."

Made me think about whose actions/statements I have been challenging: TOE, GRO, Lisa, Gail, Linde, Julie, Piper.

Related by blood or marriage or --?

Churadogs said...

Churadogs wrote:"At some point after the second Mad Hatter "Trial," and after the CSD voted to continue to defend the CDO's ina "real court," (Theirs and the 45, which were interwtined,), Mr. Seitz severed the CSD's role as an "interested" part in the lawsuit . . ."

Mike sez:"There is NO CSD signature on the lawsuit..

Might go back to check the CSD's original agreement with Shaunna and the CSD meeting notes. If memory serves, joining the lawsuit was decided by and voted on by the CSD and the papers would have to be signed by Seitz & etc. What the CSD agreed to with Shaunna was not the business or responsibility or the votes or the decision of the folks representated by Shaunna. That was the CSD's vote.

Alon sez:"Selectiveness or the use of a mechanism of random selection is not part of the ordinary conduct of business (Regulation), nor was the CDO a tool designed for the persecution of households."

Yep. Electioneering is also illegal, too, though proving it is difficult. And ALL of it was just plain wrong.

Mikee sez:"I know, she'll try to make it sound as if I'm making this all up,"

Ah, Mikee, you ARE making this up. You've done that from day one.

Mike said...

Ann...WHY haven't YOU been forthright and explained that WHY YOU HAVEN"T paid YOUR part of the PZLDF lawsuit cost...????

YOU keep deflecting, but the question remains about WHY YOU and the other 17 DID NOT PAY..!!!

Was that CSD "AGREEMENT" just a LIE to make it sound legitimate...???

Was it all a fraud to cover the fact that the CSD5 were diverting public tax dollars into the PZLDF and to pay Gail for her "leadership"...????

Sewertoons said...

The decision to join the case was made with no input until after the fact by the public. A Brown Act violation if there ever was one. I seem to recall that the after the fact "staff" report was written by Gail.

Mr. Ed said...

Made me think about whose actions/statements I have been challenging: TOE, GRO, Lisa, Gail, Linde, Julie, Piper.

LOL!!!!

You flatter yourself when you use the word "think." You are not capable. You offer no coherent challenge to anybody. You are weak and feeble and greedy, and care only about your money.

Sleeping with Gibson has not made you any younger or smarter. Nothing could.

Look, stop kidding yourself. We all know that Taxpayers Waste is made up of disgraced, bitter-bile recalled board members, CSD rejects and a Perlman in a perv tree -- a losers club if there ever was one. Your LeGros-fed arrogance has taken you down the same corrupt path to community disdain, which you can enjoy for the remainder of your days in LO.

Your only challenge is admitting what a failure you are as a human being -- and finding a new hobby that better serves the community... like picking up the trash on Tri-W every day until the end of time.

Only then may you find some measure of redemption for your sad and rotten behavior and the stain you've left on the community.

Mike said...

...sounds like YOU need a timeout and a trip to the pharmacy...

Laughing at you, not with you... HaHaHaHaHa...

Would sure love to see your performance at the BOS... but you don't go, do you..??? Just a whinner... HaHaHaHaHa....

Mr. Ed said...

That's the best you can do, Mikey? How lame. You'd rather soil your shorts than make any sense. Ditto Lynette and Alon. Three empty shells crying for mama who won't be coming to change your diapers anymore. Waa-waa-waah! Ooooops! Sorry, Mommy, I did it again!!!!

Sewertoons said...

Ineffectual attempt at a deflection Mr.Ed, so no sale. No surprise to see who your family is, but nice to have my suspicions confirmed when you spilled the beans.

Mike is right, get some help.

Mr. Ed said...

Sewerdoped,

I have no idea what you're talking about and neither do you. Whatever it is you're mumbling, coming from the spokesturkey for the Taxpayers Waste hate gang I take it as a compliment and wear as badge of honor.

I make no apologies for my family nor for our work to expose the likes of you and the corruption of the community you represent. We are well aware of where you and your violent hubby are coming from -- County $$$$$$ -- and so do a lot of people. Deal with it.

I've got all the help I'll ever need, thanks. Too bad you can't say the same. Were you abused as a child?

P.S. Mike was obviously never right about anything in his whole miserable life, which is why you two work so well together in hate. You'll have to live with that as your "contribution" to Los Osos. Now that you've fouled your own nest in LO with your elitism and greed, good luck in the future... if you have one!

Mike said...

Get ready to PAY... or MOVE...!!!!!

The sewer is coming inspite of the best efforts of PZLDF, the rock, the sewerwatch and this blog...!!!!

Sewertoons said...

And why wouldn't I have a future…?

Sewertoons said...

You are right Mike - this sewer is coming, like it or not!

Mr. Ed said...

You're right, Mikey! Every now and then even a blind squirrel finds an acorn!!!!

The Razor said...

Lynette says, "And why wouldn't I have a future?"

You can't have much of a fruitful future when you criminally harass people. It's not a very healthy, sustainable future.