The following press release came in Wednesday, but what with all my pre-Turkey Day rushing around, didn't get it posted. A caveat for some folks who comment on this blog: This lawsuit has nothing to do with the possible challenge to the 218 vote. It also has nothing to do with stopping or dereailing any project. The County is rapidly chugging along with that. But it does have everything to do with securing homeowners rights from the apallingly unfair harassament that was set in motion by the RWQCB's looney Mad Hatter Kangaroo Court Tea Party & Auto de Fe Public Hanging via the CDOs visted on the singled out Los Osos 45.
This was sent Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:38 PM from the Citizens for Clean Water --- First Amended Petition
The Citizens for Clean Water (PZLDF)
The 1st amended Petition that was due November 20th was filed yesterday [. . . ] This consolidates the appeal of the additional enforcement orders that were issued in May, and the Notices of Violation that ALL homeowners recieved in June.
The viewpoint below was published in the Sun Bulletin today. It explains the lawsuit and the issues that led to where we are today.
Please, Support the Lawsuit.
NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH A 218 LAWSUIT--- Los Osos citizens’Legal actions to overturn water board enforcement against individual homes is NOT a SEWER LAWSUIT. In fact the petition to vacate the enforcement is NOT ABOUT THE SEWER. It is foremost and purely defensive lawsuit in behalf of individuals and the entire community.
The Los Osos homeowner’s legal appeal stops the regulatory abuses by the water board that has resulted in dangerous and unprecedented violations of individual constitutional & statutory rights.
The seriousness of the retaliatory actions by the water board against voters should concern everyone with property in Los Osos because it violates the water board mandates, and the civil rights of law abiding citizens. (and no one is asking for the right to pollute!)
It is true the water board could vacate the punitive orders at any time, but have thus far refused, making the citizen lawsuit mandatory. There will be another chance to vacate orders promised by the appointed members of the Regional Water Board, December 6-7, 2007, however staff has flatly refused, even with the recent passage of the 218 funding assessment.
In the post recall hearings against the Los Osos district, the record shows executive director Roger Briggs intended to “fine them out of existence” responding to calls from opponents to the newly elected board. The water board stated their justification for going after individuals was “the district is the same entity as the voters.” However, the same records show the water board always had the power to continue the sewer project, but instead justified punishing individuals. The ‘first 50’ were randomly selected by the water board and intended as an example to frighten and intimidate the voters.
The first Cease and Desist Orders were issued to the county in 1983, and apply to the lead agency for the project. Today that is the county. Incidentally, those with individual orders have approved, properly working, and legally permitted onsite septic systems. You guessed it, county approved systems.
Today the original 46 individual stop orders are equivalent to convictions, with a suspended sentence until 2011, or earlier if there is a 218 failure, or project delays. The Water Board can impose fines up to $5000 per day, and criminal liability with referral of individuals to the attorney general for further prosecution as they see fit. The orders do nothing to remedy water quality, and force a few to bear the burden of defending the entire community.
The reports of enforcement abeyance are false. Notices of violation have been sent to all properties in the Prohibition Zone. On May 11 two more orders were issued, and the Water Board stated all homes could be subject to fines retroactive to 1988, without the need to put Cease and Desist Orders in place.
The Superior Court Appeal filed by Sullivan and Associates is based on the unprecedented enforcement that raises constitutional issues of unequal treatment, violation of due process, violation of the 5th and 6th amendments, selective enforcement, environmental justice, and a lack of direct evidence against the individual properties. Stop orders have the long term effect of "taking" private property, restricting the ability to sell, mortgage or rent property.
The very basis of the enforcement has been a moving target, as Resolution 83-13 has been reinterpreted by prosecution staff during the hearings from what was adopted in 1983. This is also true for the arbitrarily drawn “line in the sand” called the Prohibition Zone. The records indicate this zone was never intended to be a scientifically precise discharge remediation area and is challenged in the lawsuit. (The remediation benefits are also apparently the subject of a 218 challenge as well by another group).
Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund (PZLDF) was founded to support Los Osos neighbors under regulatory attack who needed assistance. Some said the regulatory hearings make the IRS seem user friendly. The group has spent nearly two years of work to protect property and individual rights contained in the lawsuit. The Citizens for Clean Water-PZLDF formed as is non-profit organization that supports compliance with the water board regulations, and a sustainable project for Los Osos.
If you are a citizen of California you need to stop the regulatory abuses and help with the lawsuit. Please send a donation in any amount to PZLDF 6095 Los Osos Ca. 93412 Or to Sullivan and Associates, A Law Corporation located at 2238 Bayview Heights Drive, Suite C Los Osos, CA 93402
Now, Put Down That Turkey Leg and Grab A Toy
Yep, went into my Los Osos Rob-A-Bank and also into Ralphs and saw the Toys For Tots boxes sitting there. I'm sure they're also around town in other places. So, if you have any unwrapped toys for kids, do drop them off. Lotta kids have a tough lot in life, so the least we can all do is make sure a kid gets at least one nice toy for Christmas.
Also coming up fast, the Morro Bay Lighted Boat Parade on Saturday, the 1st, which, of course, conflicts with the Vocal Arts Christmas performance at the SLO Mission, and, I'm sure lots of other wonderful programs and performances. Ah, too much to do, so little time to do it in.
But, no matter what, be sure to pencil in as a Don't Miss, our own World Famous Los Osos Christmas Parade. Home town fun at its finest.
Posts
17 comments:
Sorry PZLDF - I am not interested in any "support" from you, so don't expect any from me. My entire arsenal of support goes to the County process which, if not derailed, will solve the "problem."
Irony for Sewertoons: If the suit prevails, Sewertoons will benefit and get a free ride, since he/she is (presumably) a homeowner and lives in the PZ.
Ann, the ever optomistic albeit singluar point of view... and what happens should the suit fail...???
Aren't you mirroring the LOCSD with a narrow, short-sighted view and absolutely no plan...???
Isn't your extreme view that unless the rest of the world starts seeing your vision in your way things ought to be, you will again and again seek out yet another seer to lead the masses out of blindness...???
Sorry Ann, there are others with much wider views who are now leading this community... It is amusing to watch you turn your back on your friends as your failed CSD lost the waste water treatment project and now to watch you attempt to elevate your obstructionism beyond a public works project into correcting the State of California... You never gave a damn about the community of Los Osos... only your slanted view of perfection in anarchy...
Eloquently written Mike!
I wonder just how many of the original supporters are still on board with this suit since the 218 has now passed - and I cringe knowing that the CSD's financial obligation to this lawsuit is paid for off the backs of the CSD's water customers only (of which I am one, living in the PZ).
I want to have a say in this suit - which is that I do not wish to participate, no matter what the outcome. (Yes, I am a homeowner.)
What I find interesting is that Gail herself said that if the 218 passes and nothing stops construction, she would no longer pursue this case. Guess there must be a tipping point somewhere - is it when the construction is half way completed - or does the plant have to be fully operational…? Or didn't she mean what she said?
Mike & Sewertoons
The PZLDF case is not intended to stop the sewer, but to protect individual rights and hold government accountable. I sense desperation in your arguments. Could the truth, arrived at through a “real court proceeding, be detrimental to your finances or even your freedom? Or are you on the payroll to protect others?
Mike
You say that you your “entire arsenal of support” will be with the county……. Does this include returning to the backroom deals and payoffs that reeked havoc the previous projects. Hopefully the county is wiser this time around.
The RWQCB used CDOs to force voters to pass an undefined project. If the voters now use the threat of 218 lawsuits to keep the process honest, and safe from the undermining of the likes of you, I am all for it. I hope that the county pays close attention to the issues raised in the 218 protest letters.
jane said:
"The PZLDF case is not intended to stop the sewer, but to protect individual rights and hold government accountable. I sense desperation in your arguments. Could the truth, arrived at through a “real court proceeding, be detrimental to your finances or even your freedom? Or are you on the payroll to protect others"
Guess we do not see eye to eye on PZLDF's case. If you sense desperation in me, it is only from fear that somehow the obstructionists will find a crack in the system and derail the County's efforts to get a WWTF built. There have been unintended consequences from great sounding obstructionist actions that have proven costly to Los Osos in the past.
Slippery slope reading - "(h) Respondents are mandating a community wastewater treatment and collection system which will violate the RWQCB’s own interpretation of Resolution 83-13. The RWQCB and Prosecution Team interpret Resolution 83-13 to prohibit any and all discharges into the basin from individual or community systems, and therefore, the community system mandated by the CDOs and CAOs is no more legal under 83-13 than individual septic tanks;
Page 11, line 14, Petition for Writ of Mandate filed by Shaunna Sullivan 5/25/07
I am on no one's "payroll" nor do I need to be to be against this case.
I do not have the right to continue polluting. My most cost-effective and safe way of protecting my property investment and to stop polluting is in a cooperative effort with residents of Los Osos, the County, The State and the RWQCB to get us a WWTF. It would have cost me less if this had been done earlier. Each delay costs me more. Cooperation is the most expedient pathway to fix the problem. (jane, I sewertoons said the bit about "arsenal.")
I think that whatever flaws the RWQCB has, and whatever ham-handedness they exhibited in issuing CDO's, THEY are not the problem. The problem is how to clean up our waste water and quit the overdrafting our lower aquifer. A sewer - which has been derailed at every step for the last 30 years is the most necessary first step.
Buzz word warning: "obstructionist"
That word is appearing again and signal jamming and derailing the reader. The PZLDF case is not about "obstructing" anything. It IS about due process and stopping regulatory abuse of process.
Hmmmm, I have to wonder if the kicked out 4Crapkiller has -- as suggested by Inlet -- snuck back onto the site under another name? That word was his/her favorite. "Obstructionist." Perfect example of "signal jamming." And consider this howler "now to watch you attempt to elevate your obstructionism beyond a public works project into correcting the State of California... You never gave a damn about the community of Los Osos... only your slanted view of perfection in anarchy..."
Sorry, but the State of California in the form of the SWB and the RWQC NEEDS fixing.
And if you had bothered to ever read what I've written over the years, you'll see not your favorite signal- jamming "obstruction," but someone hollering as loud as possible, Look Out! Train Wreck Ahead!
Obstructionism, indeed. Caveat to the reader: A 4Crapkiller Signal Jamming Clone is again running amok in the comment section. Hide the silverware!
OK... so in your mind you are NOT an obstructionist, but a dedicated flag-person screaming Stop the Train, the bridge is out... I'm just not sure whether the bridge is really out or whether someone is out there loosening the ties....
...but, just what happens "IF" your (sorry, Gail McP/Tom Morgan's) suit to protect all the citizens of greater Los Osos fails to correct the corrupt SWB/RWQCB...???
Sorry Ann,
I did not suggest to Crap that she should just use another screen name. I also would not encourage her to do so. That the blogger system would not prevent someone from doing so shouldn't be twisted into saying that I am encouraging folks to do the wrong thing.
About your contention that you are "hollering as loud as possible, Look Out! Train Wreck Ahead!" ... um ... why did you not take seriously my similar warnings back in 2005 that the recall and any attempts to move the sewer would cost waaaaaay toooooo much?
It would seem that some arguing for clear and careful thinking on this topic would want to have ... um ... thought through all the various issues a bit before encouraging a plan of action (like a recall) which is at least plausibly harmful.
It troubles me greatly that you've never really addressed this cost issue over the last two years at all.
It is as if you're warning the town that we ought to watch out for bears but you're so caught up in the great bear threat that you're unwilling to even admit that the town might also want to watch out for mountain lions.
Just a quick clarification...
The PZLDF piece reads:
"In the post recall hearings against the Los Osos district, the record shows executive director Roger Briggs intended to “fine them out of existence” responding to calls from opponents to the newly elected board."
That wasn't Briggs that wanted to fine the LOCSD "out of existence." That quote was from Pandora Nash-Karner.
I reported on all of that at this link.
She wrote it to Briggs the night of the recall election, "late."
A New Times photograph at Nash-Karner's "Save the Dream" party that night showed several bottles of wine on the tables.
Want to hear my million dollar idea? Computer manufacturers should outfit their computers with a breathalyzer, and if someone blows above a .05 BAC, their e-mail and blogging functions would cease to operate.
That way, people that are bitter from election results AND tipsy, won't -- due to a spectacular lack of judgement -- send embarrassing e-mails to government officials -- e-mails that can easily be accessed for public consumption through a simple public records request -- late at night... immediately following a bitter election loss.
Got that, all you anti-sewer obstructionists, whomever you are?
('toons? Are you a Star-belly or a Plain-belly? I can't tell the difference these days. It got all mixed up over the years. I don't know who the best Sneech on the beach is anymore.)
Sorry Ron - not up on my Dr. Seuss. I guess that is the reference.
Inlet sez:"I did not suggest to Crap that she should just use another screen name. I also would not encourage her to do so."
I did not suggest that you suggested that idea to her/him. Just that you observed that she could do so, which I found funny --
Mike sez:"OK... so in your mind you are NOT an obstructionist, but a dedicated flag-person screaming Stop the Train, the bridge is out... I'm just not sure whether the bridge is really out or whether someone is out there loosening the ties...."
If someone hollers, Stop the train, the bridge is out, it is YOU who needs to make sure it really IS out and/or if someone is loosening the ties, find out why and put in motion the LEGAL steps necessry to prevent tie-loosening. The Process failed years ago. Ron has documented that beyond question, the Process continues to fail, certainly for 45 of your friends, neighbors and fellow citizens. (and YOU, too, don't forget.) I continue to holler -- Process Failure! and you continue to claim that pointing out a process Failure is "obstructionist." Wrong. It's the complete opposite. Fix the Process and things get UN-obstructed.
Inlet also sez:" It is as if you're warning the town that we ought to watch out for bears but you're so caught up in the great bear threat that you're unwilling to even admit that the town might also want to watch out for mountain lions."
If you had followed Ron's carefully documented "history," you'd know that the bear BROUGHT a whole bunch of mountain lions with him and deliberately loosed it on the community. This train wreck was NEVER necessary.The bear wasn't necessary and the various montain lions were certainly never necessary.
If you get a chance to view the Insider clip at the website posted above, listen to Blakeslee's aide, who was, so to speak, present at the creation. Boy, does the State Water Board have a whole lot of 'splainin' to do.
Ann,
I watched the webisode you posted a link to in your main blog.
Hayhurst (Blakeslee's aide) says only that when Blakeslee went to the waterboard (which one?) right after being elected (Fall 2004 ... why did he visit, at that time there were no issues between Los Osos and either waterboard) they were resistant (what does that mean? resistant to what? what did Sam ask for?).
The best I can figure is that right after the recall and the LOCSD board stopping the project, Sam went to both waterboards and asked how he could help work things out with the LOCSD. Unfortunately both boards, having just been slapped in the face by the LOCSD actions were reluctant to offer an olive branch. Presumably Hayhurst could have also told us that Sam approached the LOCSD and that they were also resistant. She did not.
Ann, I think that some folks have a whole lot of 'splainin' to do, but those folks are named Biggs, McClendon, Blesky, Tacker and Schicker. Why did they not return the SWRCB money if they believed it was given illegally? Why did they not return the money when they announced they had no intention of following thru on TriW, the only puprose allowed for that money? If they weren't going to return the money, why didn't they pay contractors for work already performed?
Was the decision to stop TriW, stiff the state and contractors based in science, facts, fiscal responsibility and listening to what other say. Did the board take action before all the facts were in? A wise board member would not take such a decisive action before all the facts are available.
If all along the new board intended for there to be no sewer, they could not have done a better job than the one they did.
Hi All,
Regarding Mr. Murphy and his show (which featured PZDIF), I just love the fact that My Murphy makes his guests pay-to-complain (see article below).
Regards, Richard leGros
********************
TITLE: Talk show selling lawyers platform for self-promotion: attorneys fill guest list and mention phone numbers, Web sites
Los Angeles Business Journal, April 23, 2007 by Emily Bryson York
Most lawyers like to talk, especially about themselves, and Steve Murphy has found a way to make money on them.
He's launched "Insider Exclusive," a TV hybrid blending elements of talk shows and infomercials.
The talk show part is the guest list. Since bowing in January, some of the top names in L.A.'s legal community including class action heavyweight Tom Girardi and top criminal attorney Thomas Mesereau have made appearances. The infomercial part is that the guests pay to be interviewed on the air. Neither host Murphy nor his guests are shy about firm services, Web sites and phone numbers during the half-hour show.
"Traditional advertising doesn't allow you to convey everything you want to," said John Manly of Manly McGuire & Stewart LLP, who plans to appear on the TV show every quarter. "I have a Marine and a former priest and a young woman who just graduated law school at my firm. I think TV is the best medium to convey just who your people are."
Manly is also a frequent guest on Murphy's radio show, the "Law Business Insider". He said he first heard the show a few years ago and thought to himself, "I'd better get on there or my clients may decide they want to hire the guys who are."
Paying-to-play is unheard of in standard TV journalism but common practice on infomercials that typically feature softball interviews designed to put their subjects in the best possible light.
Richard,
Are you telling us that Murphy would not have had this issue on his "show" unless PZLDF or Biggs or someone had paid him?
Wow! How embarrassing for both Murphy (that he is so willing to promote his guests claims without question) and PZLDF that they needed to pay someone to pretend to be a journalist to get their story out in the way they wanted.
I wonder how Ron Crawford would view such actions. He nearly decapitated Pandora in print for what would seem to be far less.
We have all seen how Gail likes to control her image and the media. I doubt she'll be on Congalton (for free, it was!) after that last show. She needs to pay for it now.
I doubt Ron will comment on this pointing out of the pay-to-play "journalism." Its in-shallow investigation and onesidedness is too much like his own.
This "show" is unfortunately the new "War of the Worlds," and a far scarier version than the last one.
Post a Comment