tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post4626134534647897629..comments2023-10-28T03:14:44.519-07:00Comments on Calhouns Can(n)ons: NewsstandGreghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04099049885765768069noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-85355921946381832592008-10-24T17:25:00.000-07:002008-10-24T17:25:00.000-07:00Retest the test wells.Where is that Gravity Tech M...Retest the test wells.<BR/>Where is that Gravity Tech Memo?Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12745418296700849040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-49104585161209798822008-10-23T16:09:00.000-07:002008-10-23T16:09:00.000-07:00GetReal,Aren't you forgetting that Richard's open ...GetReal,<BR/><BR/>Aren't you forgetting that Richard's open letter to the LOCSD board warned of exactly the problem which the board then refused to address which they are now being sued over?<BR/><BR/>While there might very well be some revenge motivation, there most definitely was warning given to the LOCSD board and to the public. It was only after a period of inaction that the public waste lawsuit was filed.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-44978543769285625822008-10-23T15:55:00.000-07:002008-10-23T15:55:00.000-07:00Sewertoon,You say, "Had Richard been at the podium...Sewertoon,<BR/><BR/>You say, "Had Richard been at the podium in front of her - she (Lisa) wouldn't have heard anything at all..."<BR/><BR/>My point here Sewertoons is that Richard or Gordon could have gone to a meeting and spoken before suing. The 'PUBLIC' had the right to know. That would have been an easy thing to do.<BR/><BR/>It sure makes it look more like revenge since neither Richard or Gordon spoke out publicly FIRST.<BR/><BR/>Either they were cowards or it was entirely revenge on their part, it's as simple as that!GetRealOsoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11936638912249439168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-12158315319221592842008-10-23T14:00:00.000-07:002008-10-23T14:00:00.000-07:00Wouldn't it be funny if Richard LeGros was sued fo...Wouldn't it be funny if Richard LeGros was sued for public waste?<BR/><BR/>He owes more to the district than what his lawsuit is asking for in damages.<BR/><BR/>I'm calling a lawyer.Osos Changehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05316645018223542172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-48098866402172748062008-10-23T10:33:00.000-07:002008-10-23T10:33:00.000-07:00Ann,The CSD5 have ADMITTED in their court document...Ann,<BR/><BR/>The CSD5 have ADMITTED in their court documents that IT IS A FACT that $1.4 MILLION of YOUR Tax Dollars were improperly spent by Blesky / Wildan. <BR/><BR/>Admitted ,Ann! No grey area here.<BR/><BR/>Your question should b:<BR/><BR/>'WHY HAS THE CSD BOARD NOT SUED WILDAN TO RECOVER THE $1.4 MILLION ILLEGALLY SPENT?' <BR/><BR/>The CSD5 have a responsibility to protect YOU, the TAXPAYER from financial harm caused by illegal acts of any LOCSD consultant. The fact that the CSD5 acknowledge the theft by Wildan, and did nothing to correct it, makes the CSD5 an accomplice to the illegal act AND directly liable to reimburse the LOCSD for the stolden tax money.<BR/>+++++++<BR/><BR/>Regarding why TW, PLZDF, CCLO,CASE,LOTA, or YOU have not sued Wildan .......<BR/><BR/>NO PRIVATE CITIZEN OR CITIZENS GROUPS HAVE THE LEGAL BASIS OR STANDING TO SUE WILDAN FOR THE DAMAGES WILDAN HAVE CAUSED<BR/>TO THE LOCSD. <BR/><BR/>PERIOD! <BR/><BR/>SUCH A LAWSUIT CAN ONLY BE LITIGATED BY THE LOCSD; AS WILDAN HAS CONTRACTURAL OBLIGATIONS TO PROTECT AND HOLD HARMLESS THE LOCSD FOR ACTIONS THAT HARMED THE LOCSD. <BR/>++++++++<BR/><BR/>As for liability insurance, the spending of YOUR property taxes was not an 'error or ommission'. Wildan / Blesky KNOWINGLY violated the law; later the CSD5 found out about his illegal actions YET MADE THE DECISION TO DO NOTHING! <BR/><BR/>In short, liability insurance does not cover, defend or indemnify illegal acts.<BR/>+++++++++<BR/><BR/>As for why TW did not sue the CSD instead if the CSD5, the answer is obviouos....THE CSD ITSELF IS THE VICTIM OF A CRIME. <BR/><BR/>How can you sue the VICTIM to reimburse the VICTIM the money robbed from the VICTIM by others (Wildan / Blesky)? <BR/><BR/>-RRichard LeGroshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209499066835732066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-46064830837035408362008-10-23T09:44:00.000-07:002008-10-23T09:44:00.000-07:00Ann, the answer is simple:Vengeance and abuse of p...Ann, the answer is simple:<BR/><BR/>Vengeance and abuse of process.Osos Changehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05316645018223542172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-83812050354148920672008-10-23T08:22:00.000-07:002008-10-23T08:22:00.000-07:00richard sez:". TW is LEGALLY PREVENTED from suing ...richard sez:". TW is LEGALLY PREVENTED from suing WILDAN/BLESKY as TW does NOT HAVE LEGAL STANDING OR BASIS to do so. <BR/>It is ONLY the LOCSD that has legal standing to file a malpractice lawsuit against Wildan as the LOCSD had the contract with Wildan to provide the management services of Mr. Blesky to the LOCSD. <BR/>"<BR/><BR/>Why didn't TPW sue the CSD as an entity? Is that question clear enough for ya? Were you prevented from doing that -- legally? Did you figure the only way to get at the CSD was to sue the members individually? This still isn't clear to me.<BR/><BR/>RIchard also sez:"yet the CSD5 failed to act to undo the damage to the LOCSD and the taxpayer. This failure on their part makes them liable for the damages caused by Blesky's incompetence; and shows how incompetent the CSD5 are themselves."<BR/><BR/>You state, the CSD5 failed to act. The only way the CSD5 could act or "fail to act" is AS A BOARD, since no individual board member has any power to unilaterally "act" on anything. So that's why I keep asking, Why didn't TPW sue the CSD BOARD, as a Board. Why the individual, personal suit?Churadogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17701649330085709021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-28702240298501328012008-10-22T23:42:00.000-07:002008-10-22T23:42:00.000-07:00Just a late evening thought for Ann and getrealoso...Just a late evening thought for Ann and getrealosos.... Why hasn't PZLDF sued Willdan....???? <BR/><BR/>Of course that might be seen as the same as the CSD sueing since PZLDF is not paying their 75% of the last lawsuit... Thanks Ann for stiffing the community for your frivilous lawsuit... Thanks Gail for skipping town and not paying your share... and poor Julie can't possibly pay with her new "housing" situation... Thanks a bunch PZLDF, you've sure set the State Water Boards straight... and a final thanks to the LOCSD for being such wonderful financial managers and letting the community know that the PZLDF has not paid their portion of the legal bill...!!!!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06093426896476666691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-65101859511017038662008-10-22T22:27:00.000-07:002008-10-22T22:27:00.000-07:00getreal, your penchant for making things up is get...getreal, your penchant for making things up is getting annoying. Please re-read what I wrote. Ask Gordon or Richard if you want to know why they didn't show up. <BR/><BR/>My opinion - there would have been no point to showing up. The result would have been shouting and anger, and the noise from the back of the room - which neither Lisa nor Chuck has much luck in controlling - would have been deafening. <BR/><BR/>Lisa couldn't even "hear" what was being said from a very polite letter without getting mad and missing the point entirely. Had Richard been at the podium in front of her - she wouldn't have heard anything at all.Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-30618870103733367462008-10-22T22:05:00.000-07:002008-10-22T22:05:00.000-07:00GetReal,Now I remember. I hardly think that letti...GetReal,<BR/><BR/>Now I remember. I hardly think that letting you know the standard approach to conversations is "scolding" others. I apologize if you felt I was scolding you.<BR/><BR/>As to Richard's choices ... you should ask him about those things. I have no idea why he doesn't show up ... but the theory Toons puts out there makes good sense to me.<BR/><BR/>Tell you what ... if Richard gets in the habit of putting his comments up multiple times ... I will remind him.<BR/><BR/>Again, enjoy your evening ...Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-45297682941150637822008-10-22T21:06:00.000-07:002008-10-22T21:06:00.000-07:00Shark,You did object to me posting in more than on...Shark,<BR/><BR/>You did object to me posting in more than one thread. You said it was "frowned upon".<BR/><BR/>I will not go back and look up anything. You apparently have more time on your hands (since you do this often) than I do. (I never understood that when you have a family) ... clearly this is how you get away with your shit. People don't want or care to investigate your and anyone's previous posts from God knows when. <BR/><BR/>And what's the excuse from you for Richard and Gordon not speaking up at any CSD meeting, but rather lawsuits instead. Lynette indicates they are afraid of being attacked. What have you got on that one?GetRealOsoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11936638912249439168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-88261348412216428582008-10-22T21:00:00.000-07:002008-10-22T21:00:00.000-07:00Sewertoons:So you're saying that Richard and/or Go...Sewertoons:<BR/><BR/>So you're saying that Richard and/or Gordon couldn't attend a CSD meeting to voice their objections to Wildan because they were afraid??????<BR/><BR/>What cowards!!!!<BR/><BR/>They had to sue because they were afraid of hard words from a couple of people?<BR/><BR/>What cowards!!!GetRealOsoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11936638912249439168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-24102372639405184732008-10-22T20:59:00.000-07:002008-10-22T20:59:00.000-07:00GetReal,I don't remember scolding you for copying ...GetReal,<BR/><BR/>I don't remember scolding you for copying the same post in more than one place ... I remember commenting on Howie doing this but not you. If you would care to point out where I scolded <B>you</B> I would appreciate it.<BR/><BR/>I think that people who make false statements ought to apologize. If Ron tells people that Maria was in favor of dissolution and if she was not, he owes her an apology.<BR/><BR/>As for me asking you to apologize, again, I forget where I did that. Perhaps you could point out where I may have done that.<BR/><BR/>Me, on the other hand ... I don't believe I owe anyone an apology. I corrected my mistaken attribution of Lisa's statement to her deposition. I apologized for this as well.<BR/><BR/>If you believe I have another reason to apologize, please explain with specifics. To generally ask a person to apologize for having a different opinion than you do is ... well ... just plain silly.<BR/><BR/>As for your belief that TW could sue Willdan ... you appear painfully unaware of how the legal system work. Yes, anyone can sue anyone for anything ... but unless there is a basis for the suit, it is pointless to pursue ... any judge would bounce such a suit out the door because the only entity with the right to sue Willdan for hosing up Los Osos is the LOCSD.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Enjoy your evening....Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-84543921950628281032008-10-22T19:51:00.000-07:002008-10-22T19:51:00.000-07:00getreal, Richard couldn't even get out of a Bruce ...getreal, Richard couldn't even get out of a Bruce Gibson meeting without anger tossed at him. What makes you think that either Gordon or Richard wouldn't have risked bodily injury from the guys who screamed at even my face after a CSD meeting? You can see Lisa's response in the Viewpoint. Why would this news at a meeting be accepted any differeently than Richard's letter?<BR/><BR/>Maria does NOT work for the County. <BR/><BR/>The only "experts" I've seen from your side are salesmen. What's their agenda - or can't you guess?<BR/><BR/>We'll see what Dr. T. has to say.Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-63867471482201646142008-10-22T18:19:00.000-07:002008-10-22T18:19:00.000-07:00getrealosos... the door is wide open for you to pr...getrealosos... the door is wide open for you to proceed with your suit of Blesky and or Willdan... why don't you contact Shawna and begin...?????Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06093426896476666691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-22524693528699689022008-10-22T18:01:00.000-07:002008-10-22T18:01:00.000-07:00Sewertoons,Yes, I read what Richard wrote, but I s...Sewertoons,<BR/><BR/>Yes, I read what Richard wrote, but I still believe that as a citizens group they could have sued.<BR/><BR/>Why don't you answer why Richard nor Gordon got up at any CSD meeting at public comment to say something right away?<BR/><BR/>Why didn't they do that?<BR/><BR/>P.S. Don't you talk about truth. You don't know truth, you don't want to know the truth. You've refused to listen to experts and follow the County. Maria works for the County. Whatever they want. Paavo is her boss. Both you and she will benefit at the cost of hundreds of people. Agendas Lynette. Agendas.GetRealOsoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11936638912249439168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-73508413136782013202008-10-22T17:17:00.000-07:002008-10-22T17:17:00.000-07:00getreal,Do you not read? How can you say, "TW shou...getreal,<BR/><BR/>Do you not read? How can you say, "TW should and could have sued Wildan and BWS if they knew something was very wrong," when it was patiently explained a few lines above:<BR/>"TW is LEGALLY PREVENTED from suing WILDAN/BLESKY as TW does NOT HAVE LEGAL STANDING OR BASIS to do so."<BR/><BR/>AND<BR/><BR/>"Because TPW doesn't have a contractual relationship with Willdan or Blesky personally, they cannot sue him."<BR/><BR/>If you read more you might see the truth in other areas as well.Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-38227660647512500712008-10-22T17:07:00.000-07:002008-10-22T17:07:00.000-07:00Ann,Funny how SharkInlet scolded me for posting th...Ann,<BR/><BR/>Funny how SharkInlet scolded me for posting the same post on a couple of threads, yet he sure doesn't mind Richard LeGros doing it. He says nothing.<BR/><BR/>He also wants Ron to apologize, me to apologize, etc. yet he won't apologize for being a big hypocrite.<BR/><BR/>As far as TW's suit, I've said before, this is America where anyone can sue anyone. TW should and could have sued Wildan and BWS if they knew something was very wrong. Hey, Richard or Gordon could have spoken at public comment on the issue as soon as they were aware of the problem.<BR/><BR/>Ron is right. Gordon and Richard wanted to do harm to the Lisa and Julie because they lost and couldn't handle it. They've been full of hate ever since.<BR/><BR/>On another note, if this CSD is not about the sewer anymore (like the Dreamers want us to think) and it's all about financial matters, Karen would be the perfect candidate. The Tribune had no intention of endorsing Karen because they are the PR rag for the County. <BR/><BR/>Did the Trib ever do ONE STORY on the CDO's? Didn't the Trib print false costs (for homeowners) on the 218? That about says everything about the Trib.<BR/><BR/>And Maria, she puts up a post to answer why she said the yes 218 vote pretty much insured the County look at options/sites and she took it down, never to been seen again. She says she wants people to talk to her and ask questions, yet she won't answer simple questions I've asked her here on your blog.<BR/><BR/>P.S. I say, "Rein, Rein, go away"_<BR/>He won't, because this is his job -- to promote all Dreamer agendas -- Tri-W/Maria and Marshall etc.<BR/><BR/>At least now that he's been exposed we all know who and what he's all about. He's not too impressive and he's lost all credibility.GetRealOsoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11936638912249439168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-54112627247688958122008-10-22T09:12:00.000-07:002008-10-22T09:12:00.000-07:00Ann,To make it very clear so that you even you wil...Ann,<BR/><BR/>To make it very clear so that you even you will understand.....<BR/><BR/>1. TW is LEGALLY PREVENTED from suing WILDAN/BLESKY as TW does NOT HAVE LEGAL STANDING OR BASIS to do so. <BR/>It is ONLY the LOCSD that has legal standing to file a malpractice lawsuit against Wildan as the LOCSD had the contract with Wildan to provide the management services of Mr. Blesky to the LOCSD. <BR/>Clear enough for Ya?<BR/><BR/>2. The Pre-recall finances were in good shape. The CSD's own financial records prove so. <BR/>Up to the recall, the LOCSD was solvent, on budget, had reserves, money in the bank, and a commitment from the State for a $139M loan to build the WWTF (which upon completion would have generated revenue for the LOCSD). <BR/><BR/>For you to say that the CSD finances were in a 'mess' just shows your ignorance. <BR/><BR/>3. Blesky was not able to 'make sense' of the CSD financial condition because he (as he opined in his deposition)did not have the financial training to do so....not because the CSD finances were in a 'mess'; and despite attempts by CSD staff to educate him on the district's finances; and that his actions were improper.<BR/><BR/>3. As for 'extreme skepticism' by the CSD5 about my Open Letter, the fact that they filed for bankruptcy within 5 weeks of its publication should have erased such doubts. <BR/>Further, as elected officials they showed extremely bad judgment for not even assessing the letter's claims as they were from a knowledgeable source. <BR/>Finally, at some point in time the CSD5 understood that the Open Letter's analysis was correct and that Blesky had severely damaged the LOCSD...yet the CSD5 failed to act to undo the damage to the LOCSD and the taxpayer. This failure on their part makes them liable for the damages caused by Blesky's incompetence; and shows how incompetent the CSD5 are themselves.<BR/><BR/>4. Judge LaBarbera clearly sees that the CSD's 'unclean hands' defense is doo-doo; and he is not buying what they are trying to sell. In fact, he did more than dismissed that defense as 'merely not relevant'.....he was really pissed at Swartz for pressing him on that issue at all; and he made it very clear that he will be very very pissed if the CSD5 attempts to raise it again in future court proceedings. Your spin is, frankly, plain wrong.<BR/><BR/>Ann, you're riding a rotting dead horse of a CSD board....so the smell must really be getting to Ya. Time for you to dismount, bury that horse and take a bath.<BR/><BR/>-RRichard LeGroshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209499066835732066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-61445446774687327632008-10-22T09:06:00.000-07:002008-10-22T09:06:00.000-07:00Ann,Because TPW doesn't have a contractual relatio...Ann,<BR/><BR/>Because TPW doesn't have a contractual relationship with Willdan or Blesky personally, they cannot sue him.<BR/><BR/>Please remember also that "the buck stops here" with the board. If, for whatever reason, the board had a renegade employee (which I doubt ... I think that Dan provided exactly the services they wanted ... or else they would have fired him right after finding out about his financial mismanagement), they are the ones responsible for the problem ... and fixing it.<BR/><BR/>Even if the board didn't trust Richard at all ... the question remains ... did they have any obligation to read his letter and investigate his charges against Dan. I think so. Because they have an obligation to govern the district according to the laws of the land, they should have been more careful in their oversight of him in the first place. When a question of financial mismanagement comes up, a board should be even more careful. Certainly the appropriate response isn't to write a public response saying "you're lying so I don't have to listen".Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-28980171631787376142008-10-22T07:55:00.000-07:002008-10-22T07:55:00.000-07:00I'm still stuck with wondering why TPW didn't sue ...I'm still stuck with wondering why TPW didn't sue Blesky? It also is clear that apparently the pre-recall CSD finances were in a mess, so the question arises, was Blesky able to make sense of it? As for anyone believing Richard's letter, is it possible the post recall board had good reason to view Richard with extreme skepticism? Is that a distinct possibility? As for La Barbera not "getting it" regarding the unclean hands, Oh, he got it all right, he just noted that it wasn't relevant. So we're still back on square one. Why didn't TPW sue Dan Bleskey and/or WilDan? Maybe the trial will make that clear?Churadogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17701649330085709021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-37592470197838045132008-10-21T10:24:00.000-07:002008-10-21T10:24:00.000-07:00Hi AnnRegarding your post of October 10 @ 7:10 AM ...Hi Ann<BR/><BR/>Regarding your post of October 10 @ 7:10 AM post: PART 3<BR/><BR/>YOU WROTE:<BR/>“Also, La Barbera did note that it doesn't matter how unclean the previous CSD's hands were,(his words) it doesn't matter what the pre-recall board did to set up the destruction of the post recall CSD (La Barbara clearly gets it, at least), none of that matters at this point (summary judgement). That can be argued at trial and hope it clarifies the mitigating circumstances. I also found it funny that TPW's attorney stated that he objected to the judge granting a summary dismissal at this point "because this case goes far, far beyond facts." <BR/><BR/>RESPONSE:<BR/>Judge LaBarbera was referring to the GENERAL LEGAL DOCTRINE of “UNCLEAN HANDS”; which was the basis of the CSD5’s attorneys (Mr. Swartz) argument in the CSD5’s opposition papers to the TW Motion to Quash. In the opposition papers Swartz was arguing the ‘Blame Hensley Defense’ that prior boards had “UNCLEAN HANDS” that forced the CSD5’s illegal actions.<BR/><BR/>Judge LaBarbera didn’t agree with Swartz’s “UNCLEAN HANDS” argument and denied the “UNCLEAN HANDS” argument as being relevant to the TW lawsuit or court proceedings. Further, Judge LaBarbera will not allow any use of the “Blame Hensley Defense” or the “UNCLEAN HANDS” arguments by the CSD5 in future court papers or court proceedings (i.e. the trial). So Ann, you are very mistaken when you wrote “That can be argued at trial and hope it clarifies the mitigating circumstances” is simply incorrect. Those issues are officially moot to the court. ‘Mitigating circumstances’ do not exist that will legally forgive the CSD5’s violating the law.<BR/><BR/>Additionally, Judge LaBarbera never said or indicated that the ‘pre-recall board’ had “UNCLEAN HANDS”; hence your comment that “La Barbara clearly gets it, at least” is a gross reporting error on your part. If you are going to report on the court proceedings, at least attempt to understand what the Judge was saying; and understand the definition of the doctrine of “UNCLEAN HANDS”.<BR/><BR/>DEFINITION OF UNCLEAN HANDS<BR/>unclean hands n. a legal doctrine which is a defense to a complaint, which states that a party who is asking for a judgment cannot have the help of the court if he/she has done anything unethical in relation to the subject of the lawsuit. Thus, if a defendant can show the plaintiff had "unclean hands," the plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed or the plaintiff will be denied judgment. Unclean hands is a common "affirmative defense" pleaded by defendants, which must be proved by the defendant. Example: Hank Hardnose sues Grace Goodenough for breach of contract for failure to pay the full amount for construction of an addition to her house which she admits. The court denies any relief to Hardnose when Goodenough proves that Hardnose had shown her faked estimates from subcontractors to justify his original bid to Goodenough. (See: affirmative defense)<BR/><BR/>-RRichard LeGroshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209499066835732066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-61346137740949660012008-10-21T09:47:00.000-07:002008-10-21T09:47:00.000-07:00Hi AnnRegarding your post of October 10 @ 7:10 AM ...Hi Ann<BR/><BR/>Regarding your post of October 10 @ 7:10 AM post: PART 2<BR/><BR/>YOU WROTE:<BR/>“As for being unprepared for trial, if I'm not mistaken, part of why they couldn't go forward is that TPW's attorney has not given them the info they've repeatedly requested. Judge LaBarbara made it clear TPW's Attorney couldn't just dump a big pile of papers in their lap and say, THERE! So they were ordered to meet and confer and whatever documents TPW is refusing to turn over, must be individually "splained" (defended) to the judge. That'll take time. I also found it interesting that apparently written documents, including Richard's letter and the audit reports and other documents pointed one way regarding the LIAFF account, while so far (apparently) only testimony made by Bruce Buel points another way,(despite months available to TPW to make public records requests to turn up any documents supporting Buel's testimony) so it'll be interesting to see at trial which testimony carries more weight or which evidence has more credibility. I'm also going to be intrested, at trial, to see where "due care" "due dilligence" "prudence," etc. falls.”<BR/><BR/>RESPONSE:<BR/>TW HAS provided the relevant documents that the CSD5 have requested. The fact that the CSD5 are not ready for trial is that they have been dragging their feet to get ready for trial. They have not yet performed any depositions; and have been filing nonsensical court documents such as the attempted and denied Cross Complaint and objection papers to the TW Motion to Quash (which was upheld in favor of TW).<BR/><BR/>As for the contents of the LAIF account, the declarations of Bruce Buel and two declarations of Pat McClenahan, along with the 2005-2006 audit of Mr. Crosby, supports the TW contention that the LAIF in June of 2006 held only 2002 bond assessment proceeds….not the fire and water reserves which I mistakenly assigned to the LAIF in the Open Letter. To spend bond assessment proceeds that were collected to build the WWTF on fire fees is an illegal use of said funds. <BR/><BR/>-RRichard LeGroshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209499066835732066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-58709924523208973152008-10-20T14:06:00.000-07:002008-10-20T14:06:00.000-07:00The absurdity of Lisa telling Richard he should sh...The absurdity of Lisa telling Richard he should show up at meetings is laughable. When Bruce Gibson first started holding office hours in LO - a year and a half ago maybe? -- Richard DID come to a meeting and was practically spit on by Lisa supporters. No telling what would have happened had he gone to one of those meetings.<BR/><BR/>It's so funny how Lisa has changed, too - now she wants you to come up to her privately and talk to her about controversial issues, rather than address the topic at Public Comment.Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-28492565584716914392008-10-20T13:59:00.000-07:002008-10-20T13:59:00.000-07:00Well, to me it is clear why the Board chose not to...Well, to me it is clear why the Board chose not to go after Bleskey - and why Lisa lied. The Board was fully aware as to what he was doing, maybe they directed him, privately, to do this -- so to accuse him would be to accusing themselves - They are only pulling out the "Blame Bleskey" defense because:<BR/><BR/>1. They have nothing else to pull out of their hat.<BR/>2. Bleskey has rejoined the Navy or something and is out of the country and unaware of what is going on.Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.com