Some of the Sewer Addicted ankle-chewers who log onto this site and chew, have made it clear to me that they may have missed some important info in the PZLDF case.
1. PZLDF was originally founded by CDO recipients, among others, who were parties to the lawsuit. The lawsuit was and is and remains an effort on the part of some of the randomly singled out homeowners to protect their civil rights, property rights and constitutional rights from an illegal taking/abuse of process. It has nothing to do with sewer tanks or sewers. It has to do with fines and jail time hanging over these 45 heads (while ignoring all the other homes in the PZ.)
2. If memory serves, and please correct me if I've got this out of order, but the CSD had several CDOs of their own. (Firehouse, Vista de Oro, Bay Ridge Estates) For the ACL heaing, the CSD originally hired Steve Onstott to look out for the district's CDO's on the first Mad Hatter "Trial." During the second Mad Hatter Trial (which resulted when they had to stop and start all over again) Mr. Seitz (CSD attorney) successfully argued that the CSD had no assets the RWQCB could tap into (legally) and slyly noted that the CSD actually IS the People and the People ARE the CSD, hint-hint. After the ACL hearing, the RWQCB took Mr. Seitz "hint" and then issued their randomly targeted 45 CDO's (Thanks, Seitz). The RWQCB suggested that the LOCSD join the 45 as an “interested party” when they issued the CDO’s to the randomly targeted Los Osos 45 since the 45 were going to be relying on testimony and material already submitted in the ACL hearing, thereby mingling cases and incorporating by reference & etc. I beleive Shaunna and Seitz were the attorneys of record during the second co-mingled Mad Hatter Tea Party “Trial,” so the 45 and the CSD did have a common interest. At some point after the second Mad Hatter “Trial,” and after the CSD voted to continue to defend the CDOs in a "real court," (theirs and the 45, which were interwtined), Mr. Seitz severed the CSD’s role as an “interested party” in the lawsuit, while Shauna Sullivan continued on her own to represent the remaining Los Osos 45 who were involved in the suit.
3. The current lawsuit, in which Shaunna is still the attorney of record, is an appeal of the RWQCB actions and decisions. The appeal is confined to arguing only what the prosecution team asserted in the case. This included the RWQCB documents such as resolution 83-13, which is how that issue came into the case. So, while this case has nothing to do with sewers, the reason for all of this goes back to the original 83-13 and the various “findings” and all the other weirdness that 83-13 resolution contained. (For utterly bizarre weirdness, you can’t beat this: Slapping a moratorium on a town claiming that you have evidence that high nitrates in the groundwater are caused by septic tanks. THEN immediately allowing the building of 1,100 MORE homes with septic tanks that will, as you claim, pollute the groundwater with nitrates. You do not “fix” a nitrate problem by ADDING MORE nitrate producers. Then later claim that only 45 people are now suddenly “guilty of” polluting the groundwater when it was your regulatory body that allowed those additional homes &; etc.)
4. The insanity of so much of what the RWQCB asserts has, so far as I can see, gone unanswered by a “real” court of law, including Judge Crandall. And it’s possible that, as I noted in my previous post, looney, left-hand-doesn’t-know-what-right-hand is doing regulatory statutes may trump constitutional guarantees of due process and basic common sense.
For example, one funny (unless you’re one of the 45) outcome in the CDO: The moment The Los Osos 45 hook up to the county sewer, they are in immediate violation of their CDO. The CDO forbids any “discharge” of wastewater/pollution/etc. into the PZ. The County sewer will be “discharging” waste into the PZ. Catch 22: hook up to the sewer, violate the terms of your CDO. Also, the CDO forbids “discharge” of anything, even clean water, so this ban violates the community’s need to recharge the water basin as mandated by laws and regulations adopted since 83-13. More Catch 22.
And, while the RWQCB blandly claims that criminal prosecution and fines are not “likely consequences,” they never explain why are they in the CDO order? Plus, more Catch 22, if these CDO’s are not challenged now, they will not be challengeable if and when criminal actions/ penalties are sought. It’s the old game of: You have to wait until actual harm comes to you and when it does, it’s too late to file your suit since the window has closed. Ha-ha.
Which is another question a “real” court needs to answer. Is it a violation of basic civil rights and constitutional guarantees to create regulations that trap citizens in legal Catch 22’s with NO way to defend themselves or their homes?
While the Razor/Rock posted their personal take on Judge Crandall’s ruling, (while veering off on some irrelevant personal ankle chewing) many of their comments lead me to believe they are unfamiliar with the case as a whole. And, of course, neither R/R are attorneys, so I fully understand someone non-lawyerish not understanding the case as a whole since it’s incredibly complex, been through two judges, whole parts have been tossed out (with no appeal possible until the final ruling), so sorting through what’s left and what really needs to be appealed, is a real tangle.
Plus, since the case is wrongly but constantly reported in the press as being portrayed as sewerish and septic tankish, it’s easy to forget the narrow, non-sewerish issues that actually are being brought to a “real” court. And so it’s simple to veer off into irrelevant issues.
I have no idea if The Los Osos 45 who are party to this suit will file an appeal. As an original non-CDO part of this case, Judge La Barbara removed me from the case long, long ago. (Only actual CDO holders were allowed to proceed.) So, that decision is certainly not mine to make. But, personally, I rather hope they do since the unresolved issues raised in this case are going to show up again throughout the state in the future. And, if they decide not to proceed, I’ll understand that also.
I have said before and I’ll say again: What the RWQCB did to these 45 people was wrong. The reason for doing it (electioneering, coercion) was wrong. The abusive, Mad Hatter, Catch 22 nature of the regulations was (and is) both looney and wrong. And, if it stands, then everyone in the state of California will be Los Osos 45ers. And that will still be wrong.
Oh, and fair warning to some of the more out of control ankle-chewers who comment on this blog. Mother Calhoun and her little trash can icon are watching you.