tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post8030816756967243303..comments2023-10-28T03:14:44.519-07:00Comments on Calhouns Can(n)ons: NewsstandGreghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04099049885765768069noreply@blogger.comBlogger128125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-40077832063446950402012-12-08T11:17:37.663-08:002012-12-08T11:17:37.663-08:00Here it is 2012.
FYI:
TAXPAYERS WATCH FORCED THE C...Here it is 2012.<br />FYI:<br />TAXPAYERS WATCH FORCED THE CSD5 DEFENDANTS TO SETTLE THE TW LAWSUIT, in the amount of $1,450,000, of which $1,150,000 WAS RETURNED TO THE TAXPAYERS OF LOS OSOS.<br /><br />So much for the crap posted by Ann, Ron, and other LONS.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-58054411669053394262008-09-05T13:41:00.000-07:002008-09-05T13:41:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Richard LeGroshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209499066835732066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-13474964988582280322008-09-05T12:20:00.000-07:002008-09-05T12:20:00.000-07:00Thanks Richard. All good information. But it doesn...Thanks Richard. All good information. But it doesn't really answer my questions. Regarding my questions about the TW suit only, let me be more precise:<BR/><BR/>I'd like to Follow the Money but .....<BR/><BR/><I>Would somebody please explain to me how TaxPayers Watch winning their suit against the CSD is going to save AND generate money for Los Osos (read: me)? Who really benefits financially from the TW lawsuit? And in what amount?</I><BR/><BR/>Your post explains the why of the suit. And offers projections about the likely outcome of the suit. But it doesn't explain where the proceeds of the suit are going. I presume <I><B>My Taxpayer Watch attorneys, Kate Neiswender and Phil Seymour</B></I>, will pocket their good share. But where does the rest of settlement go? Back to the CSD? Or to TW? Exactly how does this settlement benefit Los Osos (read: me)? Sorry. Maybe this is obvious. But it isn't obvious to me. I've learned not to trust implied answers. I'd much prefer an explicit answer. <BR/><BR/>And how much are we talking about? Your post notes the cost of the CSD's questionable actions ($6 million in pollution fines alone plus ....?) but it notes only an approximate $2 million dollar pay-off from the suit. (Less the lawyer fees and expenses, I estimate this at closer to $1 million.) No, that's not small change. Certainly not to the individual board members who might be paying it out-of-pocket. But it is an insignificant amount in the big picture. So the suit appears to be mostly punitive in nature. Is that correct?<BR/><BR/>> <I>The 5 then embarked on a jihad against the State of California which resulted in multiple multi-million dollar lawsuits against the CSD by the State agencies and CSD contractors, numerous lesser claims by Los Osos citizens, and fines exceeding $ 6 million for violating State pollution control laws.</I><BR/><BR/>How will any of these be effected by the TW suit?<BR/><BR/>And my questions regarding the next CSD election, the positions of the candidates, and the future of the CSD are still looking for a response. TIA.*PG-13https://www.blogger.com/profile/14900054935763648975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-36881527990019367042008-09-05T11:27:00.000-07:002008-09-05T11:27:00.000-07:00Shark,You haven't backed up a thing.You're still a...Shark,<BR/><BR/>You haven't backed up a thing.<BR/><BR/>You're still a moron. It's not a matter of hate. It's a matter of fact.Osos Changehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05316645018223542172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-65745612153110134262008-09-05T09:52:00.000-07:002008-09-05T09:52:00.000-07:00PG-13,Copied below is the latest news report from ...PG-13,<BR/><BR/>Copied below is the latest news report from TW; which answers many of your questions. Also, if you want to be updated over time, do you wish to be on the TW mailng list?<BR/>**********************************<BR/>FOLLOW THE MONEY <BR/> <BR/> <BR/>Over the past 7 installment of our series TW has explained why Your Taxpayers Watch attorneys, Kate Neiswender and Phil Seymour, expect the Court to hold Julie Tacker, Lisa Schicker, Chuck Cesena, Steve Senet, and John Fouche personally responsible to return approximately $2,000,000.00 of your tax dollars mis-spent during their time in office.<BR/> <BR/>Your Taxpayer Watch attorneys, Kate Neiswender and Phil Seymour have gathered sufficient evidence and are ready to prove in court that the 5 individual Board members directed illegal and unethical expenditures. This evidence shows that Julie Tacker, Lisa Schicker, Chuck Cesena, Steve Senet, and John Fouche failed to fulfill their fiduciary obligations to the community, violated conflict of interest laws, made gifts of public funds to their political allies, and illegally plundered assessment bond revenues as well as restricted State Revolving Fund loan money.<BR/> <BR/>Lacking a real defense for their actions Tacker, Schicker, Cesena, Senet, and Fouche and their political cronies have barraged the community with a campaign to malign the efforts of TW and avoid accountability for illegal acts. This effort to blame all the CSD's financial trouble on TW and shame TW into withdrawing from pursuit of truth and the return of mis-spent tax money came to a head in the CSD5 attempt to file a Cross-Complaint in court. While Lisa Schicker admits in court documents that illegal expenditures were made, attorneys for the 5 still attempted to persuade the Judge that everything Tacker, Schicker, Cesena, Senet, and Fouche did was OK because TW is relentless in attempts to hold the 5 accountable.<BR/> <BR/>Even though attorneys for the CSD5 made their accusations with a great deal of emotion and underlying anger, the Judge didn't buy it. On August 11, Judge LaBarbera found in Your favor and denied the CSD5 request to file a cross-complaint.<BR/> <BR/>However, desperate people do desperate things and the CSD5 will try to avoid accountability one last time in October when their Motion for Summary Judgment is to be heard. A Summary Judgment is a strategic legal maneuver where the CSD5 will attempt to convince Judge La Barbera that Your TW attorneys do not have a chance of winning. But, Your Taxpayer Watch attorneys, Kate Neiswender and Phil Seymour are firm that the law IS on our side.<BR/> <BR/>The evidence is clear that the CSD5 took control of the CSD by a razor-thin majority vote in a recall election, and promptly suspended (and ultimately fired) every competent official and legal counsel who might have given them unwelcome advice. The 5 then embarked on a jihad against the State of California which resulted in multiple multi-million dollar lawsuits against the CSD by the State agencies and CSD contractors, numerous lesser claims by Los Osos citizens, and fines exceeding $ 6 million for violating State pollution control laws. In the process, Tacker, Schicker, Cesena, Senet, and Fouche violated legally binding commitments to complete the Tri-W wastewater project already begun by the CSD, and in which the CSD had already invested millions of dollars of bond assessment funds approved by CSD voters, and funds loaned by the State. Not surprisingly, Tacker, Schicker, Cesena, Senet, and Fouche drove the CSD into bankruptcy within less than a year after taking majority control. <BR/> <BR/>But our case is not about the sheer waste alone. In order to finance their efforts, the CSD5 plundered bond revenues and State loan funds which could not legally be accessed for their purposes. Tacker, Schicker, Cesena, Senet, and Fouche also used restricted State loan funds to pay off - and then hire - outside counsel, with whom at least two of these Directors had been secretly collaborating, under guise of "settling" cases which those same attorneys had brought against the CSD and lost. While the CSD5 claim to represent the "will of the people," TW is certain that even the narrow majority of voters who elected defendants did not intend them to bankrupt the CSD, make behind-closed-doors deals to pay off their political cronies' legal bills, or illegally spend restricted fire tax revenues, assessment bond revenues and funds from an already cancelled State loan. <BR/> <BR/>Since the argument presented in the CSD5 request for Summary Judgment is almost identical to that in the cross complaint, TW anticipates an identical outcome. Your TW Attorney Phil Seymour will represent TW.Richard LeGroshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209499066835732066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-90881778161920975972008-09-05T08:05:00.000-07:002008-09-05T08:05:00.000-07:00Lot's of heat. So there must something at stak...Lot's of heat. So there must something at stake. But I'm not sure what it is. I'm feeling very left out and a bit confused. Could some of you word-mongers please help me? Is there a website listing the candidates and their positions? And what is really at stake in this election? What degrees of freedom and decision making remain for the CSD going forward? Seems to me previous captains of the ship have already run the ship aground. So what difference does it make who the captains are now? Does the CSD still have a decision making role anymore regarding the sewer? Or is this election more about who sits on a board directing its response to the many lawsuits? And/Or tries to dissolve the board? <BR/><BR/>Also, I hate being such a doofus. But would somebody please explain to me how TaxPayers Watch winning their suit against the CSD is going to save AND generate money for Los Osos (read: me)? Who really benefits financially from the TW lawsuit? And in what amount? <BR/><BR/>Shark says > <I>As for the question of the TW lawsuit ... I would say that it is the post-recall board who has chosen to use LOCSD funds to defend themselves. Should TW win the lawsuit, I suspect that the LOCSD board reasonably request repayment for those legal bills. If the post-recall board members somehow defeat TW on this lawsuit (....) then your point will be valid ... because the LOCSD rate payers will have to pay more ... but probably less than $30 per household. On the other hand, if TW wins, the LOCSD will have a windfall of more than 10 times as much per household.</I><BR/><BR/>So the benefit to Los Osos (read: me) of the TW suit is repayment TO the CSD of the funds used to represent the CSD against TW? That's all? An appropriate penalty perhaps but this is a windfall? How did you come up with these numbers? And this will be paid out-of-pocket by the individuals composing the post-recall board? If malfeasance is proven (is that the ultimate purpose of this suit?) are damages resulting from the malfeasance determined? How are they determined? And can they be recovered? I recall hearing there is insurance to cover CSD failures but is this in play here?<BR/><BR/>Thanks for any help.*PG-13https://www.blogger.com/profile/14900054935763648975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-81746180349355085172008-09-04T20:13:00.000-07:002008-09-04T20:13:00.000-07:00Osos Change,I find it necessary to call people out...Osos Change,<BR/><BR/>I find it necessary to call people out on their statements which are based in questionable facts or logic. You yourself, in your most recent comment, say that Maria has participated in character assassination with rumors and falsehood. Ma'am, unless you have evidence of your charge, you are the one doing the character assassination. <BR/><BR/>(Note: you shouldn't be reluctant to tell the truth both here and in more public forums ... although I wonder what forum is more public than one open to all ... to refuse to offer us information that you say you will provide to others elsewhere is truly insulting ... at least let us know where and when you will provide those "facts".)<BR/><BR/>As to your claim that I've not presented evidence and logic that back up my assertions ... I would ask you again, when? I don't believe I've made statements that aren't backed up in some form. <BR/><BR/>Again, if what you say is true, you can provide ... um ... "documented evidence" (your quote, by the way).<BR/><BR/>Until you do so or at least point out places where I've done what you suggest ... please realize that the typical reader will recognize that you've not even bothering to back up your claims ... certainly a poor way of convincing those in the middle of the road on this issue.<BR/><BR/><BR/>To me you seem more like a Shakespeare quote ("a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing") than a real person with an opinion worth listening to. However, I remain hopeful that you will engage in conversation and convince us that you are more than a chock-full-o-hate angry person who views any who oppose CCLO's agenda as evil. Such small-minded-thinking is the true reason Los Osos is in such poor shape today ... people who are unwilling to have a reasoned discussion.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-65642479249110927822008-09-04T17:52:00.000-07:002008-09-04T17:52:00.000-07:00Osos Change... Do you still maintain dossiers on a...Osos Change... Do you still maintain dossiers on all the Board members and half the community...???<BR/><BR/>None of the pre-recall Board Members are in disgrace, in fact quite the contrary...!!!! If you want to throw mud, then discuss lovely Julie... <BR/><BR/>You really have no clue as to what it takes to stand up and run for a CSD Director's seat... I admire any that have the courage to run and have to put up with the character attacks that they have all endured... <BR/><BR/>As for criminal conduct by the past Board Members, just put your evidence on the table... sue them if you have the guts... You have already been tossed out of the DA's office for being such an offensive ass... <BR/><BR/>My Vote will go to Maria to put an honest person on the Board along with Joe...!!!! and yes, I especially contribute monthly to TW because of morons like YOU...!!!!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06093426896476666691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-22205842502933026092008-09-04T17:49:00.000-07:002008-09-04T17:49:00.000-07:00CCLO was a defacto pro-recall campaign committee m...CCLO was a defacto pro-recall campaign committee masquerading as a "community group". They called themselves a non-profit to avoid campaign finance reporting laws.<BR/><BR/>The only events they ever sponsored were to raise money for their efforts to derail the Tri-W project and promote pro-recall candidates. All they did was produce literature and signs in favor of the recall and against Tri-W.<BR/><BR/>The group formed recently to promote water conservation, does just that - promote water conservation. They don't campaign for or against candidates or ballot measures. Their fundraising pays for producing water conservation "how-to" literature and devices.<BR/><BR/>Comparing them to CCLO is like comparing gazelles and kangaroos.Realistic1https://www.blogger.com/profile/09260966115098379875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-23630745563022114572008-09-04T17:48:00.000-07:002008-09-04T17:48:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Realistic1https://www.blogger.com/profile/09260966115098379875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-68857830740975465962008-09-04T17:46:00.000-07:002008-09-04T17:46:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Realistic1https://www.blogger.com/profile/09260966115098379875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-6832576926910406322008-09-04T16:50:00.000-07:002008-09-04T16:50:00.000-07:00First I want to open the floor to Shark Inlet.I pe...First I want to open the floor to Shark Inlet.<BR/><BR/>I personally don't feel that you bring anything to table except for your repeated requests to show "documented evidence" -- something you've never provided in any discussions you've brought to the table. That really speaks volumes about the lack of communicative decency in Los Osos.<BR/><BR/>I said what I've had to say and I have backing to my words -- and again, I said I did not want to disclose information on Calhoun's Cannon because I find that it's more effective to disclose these faults in a more public venue. I think Los Osos deserves to know the truth.<BR/><BR/>And to lovely Maria:<BR/><BR/>The truth can be painful, Maria. I think you deserve the character assassinations seeing that you've spent a great time of time assassinating other people's character by spreading fictitious rumors and propaganda about people without having the balls to admit that you're behind it all -- and at least on this blog, I will hold you accountable, I will hold your feet over the fire, I will make sure that no stone is unturned.<BR/><BR/>I am deeply, deeply offended that you try to bring partisan politics into a non-partisan election. National politics should not serve as a crutch for your egotistical dribble. The people you represent, the Taxpayers Watch members who you serve, have expressed the same "more of the same" rhetoric since they pushed for gravity collection at Tri-W, the very same solution you've actively advocated in public including Calhoun's Cannon.<BR/><BR/>That's not change, that's more of the same, Maria. You're not change; you're just more of the same. It's painfully pathetic that you hide behind leaders who have a clearer vision of change than you do. It's sickening. You have the nerve to refer to the new board as a "regime," which is a Bush term. You sure are a flake.<BR/><BR/>I don't care if Richard LeGros is your neighbor. I'm just livid that you bask in this ambiguous claim of objectivity when you've been actively mentored by LeGros and Hensley, two disgraced members of the previous board as determined by the Recall vote for suspicious activity and relentlessly shameless, criminal conduct. Both are members of Taxpayers Watch. It's like sleeping in bed with an oil lobbyist who wants you to run so that you can approve legislation in the lobbyist's favor and say that you live next door to the lobbyist. That analogy isn't really that far from the truth in your case.<BR/><BR/>You're not the best candidate. You're unfit to run, unfit for Los Osos and you're nothing more than a filthy liar whose embedded with people of the worst intent for Los Osos. This is an unarguable fact. You may call them your "friends," but candidates have "friends" too, like Jack Abramoff and Kenneth Lay. You're no different.Osos Changehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05316645018223542172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-74757093573132064292008-09-04T16:25:00.000-07:002008-09-04T16:25:00.000-07:00Three things ...First, we're still waiting for Oso...Three things ...<BR/><BR/>First, we're still waiting for Osos Change to reply. Should she not do so, we'll know how much weight we ought to give her words here.<BR/><BR/>Second, Franc ... not all judges are honest or wise. However, the strength of the decision, along with the quality of any potential appeal, when taken with the verdict in question, can be viewed as a way of triangulating the truth. If the verdict goes against the post-recall board ... on all counts related to the mis-use of funds to pay BWS ... all we need to know is whether there is an appeal. No appeal means that we know the truth and that the post-recall board violated the law and wasted public money.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Third ... I think that Lisa being an officer of CCLO could reasonably be considered an attempt to meet community needs (even if wholly misguided) just like someone willing to serve on the TAC should be. The degree to which CCLO is a political organization rather than a public service organization may cause some to view such a role (CCLO officer) as more campaigning than, say, being a member of a water conservation task force or some such activity.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-81620562371744632182008-09-04T15:09:00.000-07:002008-09-04T15:09:00.000-07:00Shark,"while you might view volunteering to help m...Shark,<BR/><BR/>"while you might view volunteering to help meet community needs campaigning, not all of us would agree), "<BR/><BR/>...excuse me? Isn't that what Lisa a Julie were doing and which TW is calling "being an OFFICER in the CCLO or whatever the group was called?franc4https://www.blogger.com/profile/02852956020533558529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-83104368524407116892008-09-04T15:05:00.000-07:002008-09-04T15:05:00.000-07:00toons said....a while back (must have missed it)"S...toons said....a while back (must have missed it)<BR/>"So franc, if the judge rules in TW's favor against the directors, there is something faulty with the judge? Any judge with that decision would have "an agenda?"<BR/><BR/>11:50 AM, August 29, 2008<BR/><BR/>Are you that naive to think ALL judges make GOOD or correct decisions with out considering re-election?franc4https://www.blogger.com/profile/02852956020533558529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-57571409663421794772008-09-04T07:47:00.000-07:002008-09-04T07:47:00.000-07:00Dear "Osos Remain the Same",Lynette has become a g...Dear "Osos Remain the Same",<BR/>Lynette has become a great friend since I met her in the beginning of the campaign in 2006. She is taking classes at Cuesta to learn how to do web design and you bet I'm going to ask her for help. <BR/><BR/>The character assassination method of winning elections in LO is getting to be absurd. I know what I say won't change your mind about how you will promote the candidate to maintain the "board majority" but how about letting them win on their own merits and establish their ability to do the job. <BR/><BR/>For now, you just sound like the negative undermining tone coming out of the current convention. <BR/>Hammer on the other guy so your flaws won't be so obvious. Honest scrutiny on the issues is what this community deserves - period. <BR/><BR/>By the way - Richard and I became neighbors in March of 2005. If there is something insidious about buying a house in LO and having it be next to someone who may be for a sewer then we are in some serious trouble. I've stated before and I'll say it again, I don't dump my friends for having differing opinions, thoughts or views and the whole "sins of our fathers" type of rhetoric doesn't hold much for me at this point in time either. <BR/><BR/>I've heard past board members and Solution's groupers comment on where they erred - something I have never heard from the current regime.<BR/><BR/>Keep digging. If your candidate needs me to look "scary" to make them look "o.k."- we all suffer. <BR/>I think Marshall is the best candidate out there to take a serious look at how we can get beyond this. I think I'm the best candidate out there that doesn't hold a grudge or preconceived notions of "woulda, coulda shoulda". For me, it's not personal.<BR/><BR/>Thanks Shark, you are obviously a very reasonable person. It is much appreciated.Maria M. Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08762951573531711213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-73507149842711600132008-09-03T18:53:00.000-07:002008-09-03T18:53:00.000-07:00Um ... Osos Change.Even if Maria has been campaign...Um ... Osos Change.<BR/><BR/>Even if Maria has been campaigning for two years (while you might view volunteering to help meet community needs campaigning, not all of us would agree), why should it matter. Is her willingness to serve on the TAC somehow making her a less qualified candidate than Alon, David or Karen? I don't get your logic.<BR/><BR/>As for whether my opinion matters ... you clearly don't care about my opinion ... but if you blow me off it will show that you are not that interested in an open and reasoned discussion of these various issues. Folks who are put off by such an attitude may not view your preferred candidates as reasonable choices.<BR/><BR/>You suggest that I've claimed to have "documented evidence" that I've never provided. (I don't remember this, by the way ... would you be so kind as to let me know the approximate timeframe and topic?) The funny thing here is that you are saying that my opinion doesn't matter because I've not provided evidence to back up my claim ... when just yesterday you did exactly that yourself.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I would also want to point out that you've not yet really addressed any of the issues others have raised in reply to your comments. It seems as if you are more interested in making outlandish charges than in having a good discussion.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-6994268614790629522008-09-03T17:50:00.000-07:002008-09-03T17:50:00.000-07:00You and I both know Maria has been campaigning sin...You and I both know Maria has been campaigning since she lost.<BR/><BR/>And Sharky baby, I don't care whether you think it's "meaningless trivia" or not. Your opinion hasn't really mattered since you never once provided any of your own "documented evidence." I don't want to resort to name-calling, but since the evidence that you are one is overwhelming and undisputed, you're a moron -- and that's a killer.Osos Changehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05316645018223542172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-9814160181336247502008-09-02T23:15:00.000-07:002008-09-02T23:15:00.000-07:00Oooh! That Maria has a friend running her website...Oooh! <BR/><BR/>That Maria has a friend running her website is certainly damning information. That she set it up month and a half ago (when was the filing deadline) is killer.<BR/><BR/>If you really have documented evidence, why waste your time and ours with such meaningless trivia?Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-27774745623268819802008-09-02T22:37:00.000-07:002008-09-02T22:37:00.000-07:00Before I head to bed for the night, I did some res...Before I head to bed for the night, I did some research on a whim and came across something interesting about Maria Kelly.<BR/><BR/>Maria Kelly has a web site, maria4csd.com. The domain was registered on July 12, 2008 so Maria had the intent to run for quite a while now, but not only that, Maria doesn't pay for the domain or the hosting. Lynette Tornatzky, her former running mate and Taxpayers Watch member, does.<BR/><BR/><B><A HREF="http://whois.domaintools.com/maria4csd.com" REL="nofollow">A simple WHOIS lookup can be made here.</A></B><BR/><BR/>One could say, as a counterargument, "Lynette designed the site so it would make sense that she also registered the domain and did the hosting," but while that may be true, it symbolically shows that there is some Taxpayers Watch backing. I'm sure that other TW members knew about the web site. <BR/><BR/>Just thought I'd share that.Osos Changehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05316645018223542172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-89640463545970333322008-09-02T19:42:00.000-07:002008-09-02T19:42:00.000-07:00*pg-13 said:"You've suggested that if there was an...*pg-13 said:<BR/><BR/>"You've suggested that if there was anything here the CSD would have chased it."<BR/><BR/>I said that the New Board spent lots of money on two lawyers sitting upstairs sifting through records to FIND SOMETHING on the Old Board.<BR/><BR/>I meant and didn't say it well, that BWS and the NEW Board are in this so thickly together, one cannot accuse the other without revealing their own guilt.Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-62012650202758211522008-09-02T19:09:00.000-07:002008-09-02T19:09:00.000-07:00..so it's perfectly ok with you that elected o.....so it's perfectly ok with you that elected officials pay off their personal lawyers with tax dollars..??? Is it also perfectly ok to then hire those same lawyers for the District without competitive bids and no cap on the amount to be paid to those lawyers..??? Is it possible for kickbacks to be paid under the table for such an arrangement...??? Are conflicts of interest perfectly ok...??? <BR/><BR/>Have you ever heard of disbarment...??? I can assure you that BW&S is very aware of that term and the ramifications... There are reasons that BW&S is not defending the CSD-5... Lawyers can and do give poor advice, lawyers to get disbarred and law firms do get sued and do lose... BW&S is not off the hook here or with the State AG...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06093426896476666691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-78937700260362320412008-09-02T18:40:00.000-07:002008-09-02T18:40:00.000-07:00Sewertoons > Wasn't it the town of Glendora tha...Sewertoons > <I>Wasn't it the town of Glendora that won big against BWS and their bad advice?</I><BR/><BR/>Not sure exactly what you're referring to here. Not sure exactly what you consider winning big. I vaguely recall something about past BWS indiscretions so I did a quick i-net search and found this. Is this what you are referring to? (And isn't the internet wonderful ;-)<BR/><BR/>From the <A HREF="http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:8Y3NFKyHAU0J:www.ci.glendora.ca.us/city_council/minutes/2002/Jul092002.pdf+Glendora+BWS+lawsuit+setlement&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a" REL="nofollow">minutes of the City of Glendora City Council meeting of July 9, 2002</A>: (ed: some formating and Highlighting mine)<BR/><BR/><I> > 4A COUNCIL AND CITY STAFF - <BR/>(2) Mayor Pro Tem Conway asked City Attorney D. Wayne Leech to address the settlement of the City of Glendora vs. Burke, Williams & Sorensen lawsuit. Mr. Leech said the City filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against Burke, Williams & Sorensen (BWS). This arose from primarily three different claims. <BR/><BR/>(2-A) The first claim was the underlying lawsuit brought against the City by the Gagnes. In that action, the City incurred approximately $800,000 in attorney fees and costs and the City paid out $800,000 to the Gagnes to settle the case. So, the City was out-of-pocket approximately $1.6 million. <BR/><BR/>(2-B) The second claim in the case related to the Vintage Homes litigation. The claim was that BWS gave bad advice to the City, to encourage the City to file a lawsuit in that action for declaratory relief. The damage in that matter was approximately $90,000 in legal fees incurred to BWS by the City. <BR/><BR/>(2-C) The third claim in that lawsuit related to an allegation that during the course of the legal malpractice action, and before the settlement of the Gagne lawsuit, that BWS’s attorney, Mr. Craig, representing them in the legal malpractice action, had some communications with the Gagne’s attorneys, which perhaps jeopardized the City’s position and maybe increased the Gagne’s leverage in settling the case. The damages in that case were minimal, although there was a claim for punitive damages.<BR/><BR/>Mr. Leech said in any litigation there are usually attempts to settle the case. There are various factors that both sides will look at in determining what is and is not a good settlement. <B>One of the considerations that both sides have to weigh is what would happen if the case went to trial in front of a jury. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a slam-dunk win in any case. Part of the consideration in a case like this is, can we win and if we can win, how much do we get?</B> In determining the second part of that question, you can look at the $1.6 million that the City is out-of-pocket on the Gagne case, plus the approximate $90,000 out-of-pocket on the Vintage Homes case and see that we’re almost up to $1.7 million, <B>and maybe some small potential for a punitive damage award against BWS on the third claim, the communication by Mr. Craig. In California, punitive damages are not awarded for negligence. Primary claim in this case was negligence; that BWS was negligent in their representation of the City.</B> As far as compensatory damages, the maximum amount that the City could have received had it gone to trial was a little bit less than $1.7 million. When the City first proceeded with the action, it retained a qualified law firm to pursue the case and the lead attorney was Alan Weil. They were representing the City on an hourly retainer, and the City paid approximately $407,000 to Alan Weil’s firm before the City brought on Bruce Broillette on a contingency retainer in September 2001. Mr. Leech said he believed that bringing on the contingency counsel was a good move by Council. The retainer agreement provided that, by February 2002, the percentage that that firm would take for its fee would be 40% whether the case was settled or went to judgment. In addition, that firm would advance various court costs and that the amount advanced for costs would come off the settlement. In reaching the $935,000 settlement Mr. Bruce Broillette, who is one of the foremost plaintive attorneys in the nation, agreed to reduce their percentage to 30% instead of 40%. This resulted in a savings in attorney fees of approximately $93,000. Had this case gone to trial, Mr. Broillette’s firm would not have agreed to reduce their retainer. The City incurred approximately $122,000 advanced by Broillette’s firm for costs. Had this case gone to trial, it is estimated that the City would have incurred approximately another $100,000 in costs. If this case had gone to trial and the City had received a verdict of $1.6 million, after the City paid the increased attorney fees and increased costs, the City would have netted approximately $737,000. That is assuming that everything went well for the City. With the settlement of $935,000 and the reduction by Bruce Broillette’s firm on attorney fees, the City is netting $532,000. If the case had gone to trial, the case could have received a defense verdict in which the City gets nothing, or the City could have received something less than $1.6 million, at best the City could net approximately $200,000 more than it is netting with the $935,000 settlement.<BR/><BR/><B>Mr. Leech said Council made a fair and reasonable assessment of the risks and awards and he concurred that this was a fair and reasonable settlement. Considering the fact that BWS, after hardnosed negotiations and after a very lengthy litigation in which over 50 depositions were taken, said they were willing to put $935,000 on the table to buy their peace and not a penny more.</B></I><BR/><BR/>So, uh, what are the take aways here? Other than that lawyers always win. Even when they lose. <BR/><BR/>(1) If this is a good example of recovering costs by making BWS pay for bad advice its not a good example.<BR/><BR/>(2) Ya gotta pay more to get a little back. <BR/><BR/>(3) Punitive damages are not awarded for lawyer negligence.<BR/><BR/>So, how much would it cost us to bring BWS front-and-center? And what might we get in return? Sewertoons, Shark & Richard, do you really think the CSD should chase this? Why? You've suggested that if there was anything here the CSD would have chased it. Sorry, maybe this is why the post-recall CSD didn't move on this. Bummer about bad legal advice, eh?*PG-13https://www.blogger.com/profile/14900054935763648975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-30426941478791268882008-09-02T14:13:00.000-07:002008-09-02T14:13:00.000-07:00Wasn't it the town of Glendora that won big agains...Wasn't it the town of Glendora that won big against BWS and their bad advice?Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-23580310912899264892008-09-02T14:04:00.000-07:002008-09-02T14:04:00.000-07:00All good questions. For which I have no good answe...All good questions. For which I have no good answers. But let me try .....<BR/><BR/>Sewertoons said > <I>Is it a big conspiracy - or does it just look that way in hindsight? </I><BR/><BR/>Follow the Money. Look for fingerprints. I'm still not totally convinced about the Kennedy assassination. And I think UFO's are still an open issue ;-)<BR/><BR/>Toons > <I>Seems simply like those not wanting to pay for the darn thing when it was affordable has resulted in making it a whole lot more difficult for us who are still alive and still live here. Maybe they have played Los Osos right into the hands of the corporations to which you allude? </I><BR/><BR/>Perhaps. There probably has been some of that. Los Osos is weird like that. But my sense tells me not enough of that to create quite the mess we've created. If there was some of that in the beginning I think we've long sense passed the point where that position can be rationalized. As if it ever could; zealots are zealots and they will die on the walls. The question is who is investing in process roadblocks? IF, after Following the Money there is no financial benefit to anybody or any group other than those not wanting to pay for a sewer I'll concede the point. But that's going to be tough proof because there is ALWAYS financial benefit for somebody in every transaction. Those who are investing in de-railing the process are most suspect. Nobody invests cash without expectation of return. <BR/><BR/>Toons > <I>Are you saying that the misuse of public funds should be let go, but that it is still OK to keep lawsuits going against ...... </I><BR/><BR/>No, but I don't have a good answer for where to draw the line. Real malfeasance should be prosecuted. But malfeasance born of strategic planning and insubordination of previous office holders? I'm less sure about that. This is the context. Where do you draw the line? And what is the cost of proof? As previously noted the post-recall CSD did some dumb, bad, and probably illegal things. But was it all of their doing? Are they the only liable parties?<BR/><BR/>One criteria that might be useful in drawing some of these lines is: If we win what do we win? We're broker than broke. If we don't win anything when we win (i.e., huge gobs of money or a free sewer) why are we spending money trying to win? Assuming a legitimate case (?!), if a potential win can seriously reset the table and/or significantly diminish debt and/or jump us miles down the road to a sewer then it might be a worthwhile gamble. Anything else? Forget about it. I think the whole PZ/CDO/PZLDF thing is a travesty of justice but un-winnable. I bleed for the CDO recipients. And the water board should be given 20 years hard labor. I regret we may have to wait for karma on that one. But karma is not fooled. They are going to reap what they have sowed. Well deserved I think. I just don't see there is anything to win there. Again, I don't have a good answer for you. Isn't life a bitch? <BR/><BR/>Shark Inlet said > <I>... because the LOCSD rate payers will have to pay more ... but probably less than $30 per household. On the other hand, if TW wins, the LOCSD will have a windfall of more than 10 times as much per household.</I><BR/><BR/>You lost me there. How will a TW win generate a windfall for the LOCSD? Also, please note, the way you describe it makes it sound a worthy sum. Let's see, $300 times ~5k households equals 1.5 million dollars. Is that what you're talking about? That's a pittance not even worth the bad blood. <BR/><BR/>Sewertoons > <I>Why aren't those outrageous costs of BWS been discussed by you, pg -and ONLY the TW lawsuit cost been singled out? </I><BR/><BR/>Because the TW lawsuit is the thread we're discussing? And it raises lots of questionable issues - more issues than it resolves? And it smells? <BR/><BR/>Sewertoons > <I>BWS and Willdan should be gone after. Now that is a strategy that might get some BIG money back into Los Osos. Why do you suppose the new Board has not done this?</I><BR/><BR/>As previously noted, that would be very difficult to prove in court. We're talking winnable gambles not fantasies. And, to be honest, I'm not even sure a big win would even scratch the itch. As usual the lawyers (on both sides) would make out like bandits but would a win begin to fill the hole we've dug? I mean what's 5 or 10 or 15 million dollars among friends? Call me when it gets to 100 million. If their liability will get us a sewer take up a collection and sue the h*** out 'em! <BR/><BR/>I realize these aren't good answers. There are no good answers. Didn't I previously say there are no right or even clear answers here? And certainly no easy ones. Nor cheap ones. I don't presume to have answers. I'm just a blogger ;-)*PG-13https://www.blogger.com/profile/14900054935763648975noreply@blogger.com