Monday, March 17, 2008

Ken Miller

Salmon Forever?
Humboldt Watershed Council?
Mark Lovelace?
Healthy Humboldt?
Ken Miller.

photo source


  1. Did you hear that he made quite a little hateful scene at the last waterboard meeting?

  2. you better hurry and get up something scandalous about Paul or everyone will forget you are here. Looks like they already have.

  3. Ooh 2:52, aren't we just a little too nasty today?

    By the way, I like your use of the word "scandalous." You know that just because something is true and it pisses you off doesn't make it scandalous Ms. Nichols, it just makes it true.

    Enjoy being nasty lady..., I am off to the Mirror to laugh at Bonnie

  4. little missy had a hissy...

  5. Hasn't "waterboarding" been condemned as torture?

  6. Yes, 12:33, I read about Ken Miller's attack on the Palco guy - all the while he has his minions out there pretending they care so deeply ofr the affected workers - asje, and Lovelace, wecare101.

    Actually I hear alot of things about the presentations at that water board meeting, quite a performance by a couple of Kennie's boys.

    And, 2:52, don't worry, Paul is, unfortunately, the gift that keeps on giving. It's not like I have to make anything up, he just keeps on stepping in it. And this blog isn't for entertainment, it is here for one reason and one reason only, so that there will be a permanent record of his disastrous tenure, so that when the time comes, people will be able to evaluate his performance in office, armed with the facts and not the spin, not the lies, and phony letters to the editor, catchy slogans, but with the truth about plagiarism, mismanagement, corruption, greed and more. It's quite a story when someone gets ready to tell it.

    So, if you're looking for entertainment, head on over to the Mirror, or SoHum Parlance...... great writing? Jennifer Savage. or Fred's, always entertaining... Carson Park Ranger Lots more, just check the sidebar or go on over to Hank's Pipes to see what's new...

  7. it even looks a little bit like Ken. LOL.

  8. dog running at large3/17/2008 8:08 PM

    Anon 12:33

    Was that the "I hope you die and rot in hell comment?"

    I heard something about that. Do you have the rest?

  9. "Here’s what I love about Miller and Lovelace. They’re always going on about how much they love us Palco workers, holding seminars and every thing to show how much they care. But when you get them one on one, what did Ken Miller say to a Palco forester last week? ‘I despise you. I despise everyone you work with and everyone you work for. I hope you all burn in hell.’ It wasn’t the first time he said it, but I didn’t see any mention of their true feelings in those press releases of theirs about the bankruptcy. No, in public Miller who pays Lovelace has him speak the message of love and support. Don’t believe it. Don’t believe anything they say. They don’t care about anyone but them selves."

  10. On the Ken Miller post on the Humboldt Mirror - if you haven't read it be warned, it's hilariously funny. Completely irreverent, wicked and funny. They don't seem to like Kenny.

  11. dog running at large3/17/2008 9:33 PM

    Dang Rose.

    So, something that egregious was said...with witnesses?

    I heard a bit of it but, didn't believe such a thing would be communicated outside of the blogs and except as an 'anon'

  12. From what I heard, Ken Miller and Jesse Noel and a bunch of Ken's groups showed up calling themselves Salmon Forever, which it appears he reconstituted for this meeting, with a new addition to the pony show - Pat Higgins. I'm hoping it's all on tape. Preferably video.

  13. Question is - why is Ken Miller so obsessed with Palco - I mean this goes back decades.

    He's an end justifies the means kinda guy obviously, and he will stop at nothing. Right now I think he thinks he is going to gain ownership of Palco - 'cept he doesn't have the money and he didn't make a proposal, so he's trying to cozy up to the creditors, and hoping to sneak in the back way with funding from everyone else, including, possibly another Headwaters type government buyout...

    how he reconciles that aim with the public decrying of the price paid to Hurwitz.... I guess he just wants to stomp his feet until he gets his way for free.

    He's a creature.

  14. Only if it goes to auction and even then, not much hope.

    The NC is already edgy about the 'friends' proposal.

    4/8 - He's out of ammunition.

    At least for the moment.

  15. I've noticed a real amp-up of activity. Did you catch Lovelace and company at last week's Board of Supervisors? He was trying to control the wording of the letter that John and Bonnie were proposing, what's up with that?

    And the worst idea of all, just put Ken Miller's useful idiot ON the Board, so Ken doesn't have to work so hard to manipulate things.

  16. All those questioned you asked last night at Heraldo's were answered and a few asked of you. No comment? Not even a thank you? Didn't your mother teach you any manners?

  17. They were? Well, I'll have to pop on over and see how they stack up.

    Somehow I doubt that you've answered my questions. What were they again?

    Let's see - here's one:
    Mark said - for the first time - that Healthy Humboldt is a “project” of Humboldt Watershed Council which is Ken Miller, which is Salmon Forever, and whatever other name of the week they have decided to float to pretend they are bigger than they are. “Project” is another word for money laundering, and it means that it belongs to Lovelace and Miller, much to the dismay of all those who thought by their participation that they really had a say in what “it” does. Don’t believe me, guys? Just try changing course a bit and see how far you get. It’s a shell game designed to manipulate public opinion and further Miller’s goals.

    I’ll be interested to see that “coming clean” of all the financing, but I wouldn’t be holding my breath if I were you.

  18. Someone else asks:
    Tell me more Says:
    So the Watershed Council is the governing body of the Healthy Humboldt Coalition? Who is on the board of the Watershed Council? Does it have regular meetings? Membership? Do they elect officers? Are they a legal organization? We should be able to get to the root of this, if they are legit. If not , that speaks for itself.

    Can I attend a meeting of either of these groups? Can anyone attend? Or do the people involved want to remain unseen behind the screen power players. Let pull back the curtain, folks. It’s time to see the fool who sits behind it.

    Yeah - I'd like to know the answers to that, too.

  19. To which the lovely "Jane Doe" responded"

    Looks like an invasion of the frightwing obsession brigade. Did they meet somewhere and decide to come enmasse?

    She's always so sweet and informative.

  20. Ahhh, maybe this is what you mean by an answer:
    thorn Says:
    March 16, 2008 at 7:10 pm
    according to you, rose, “project” is another word for money laundering?

    maybe in your warped little world, rose, but in the rest of the world, including non-profits in humboldt county, a “project” is simply a subset of an organization formed to focus on accomplishing a particular objective. in this case, it seems that ‘healthy humboldt’ is a project of the humboldt watershed council, a non-profit group subjected to all the same rules regarding volunteer boards, financial reporting and all the rest as other non-profits. Individuals can make donations to the parent organization (hwc) and if they like, they can ask that it be spent toward a specific project, like healthy humboldt.

    that’s generally called philanthropy, and seen as admirable, not something shadowy and nefarious. and to try to spin this simple arrangement into “money laundering” is just plain silly.

    The funny thing is - I could have sworn that "Healthy Humboldt" was born of the NEC, as a response to the "HELP" Group, but the people who were originally involved were totally different from those who are now on, except for mark, so when did it become a "project" of "Humboldt Watershed Council." No answers yet.

  21. Then we have Larry Evans characterizing questions as "swift-boating" Uh-huh.

    Larry Evans Says:
    March 16, 2008 at 7:43 pm

    you forgot those who work to distract from the lack of substance in their innuendo by the tactic of dodging responsibility for their undocumented claims by accusing someone else of the squirrely tactic they themselves have just employed.

    This is brazen swift boating at its most sleezy.

    After their endless drone about the “deep, dark mystery” of candidate Lovelace’s income, they seem impervious to the answer as supplied in plain print in the paper. I agree with “Yes but” at 6:56 pm, that independent investigation would be revealing. Of course, with nothing out of line to reveal, the local swift boaters will be back where this starts and ends– a Faux News style of insinuation by previously-answered question.

    Sorry to all the character assassins seeking to insinuate something questionable about Mark and the HWC, but your tactics are recognized for the tactics of American traitor Karl Rove. You fool nobody.

    Challenge to all the anonymous whisper-campaigners– what single shred of evidence do any of you all have that there is anything in the least questionable about the operation of any of the groups or organizations you keep trying to demonize? Does anyone seriously believe that every conceivable mis-step a non-profit advocacy organization like HWC could make has not been sought by their foes at Maxxam whose resources for this type of opposition research are substantial. Simple logic yields the answer to that question.

    By the way Rose, you have sited Salmon Forever as a group with a suspect purpose. Does that mean that you are against the perpetuation of salmon here in their native waters? In that case, seems to me that your side is winning in your quest to drive the noble fishes to extinction. That is a fact you should all be deeply ashamed of. How can you look your kids and grandkids in the eye. Tsk-tsk.

  22. THEN, someone else asks: Anonymous Says:
    March 16, 2008 at 7:51 pm
    Sorry Larry, dispite your protestations to the contrary the questions remain unanswered. Who funds/controls HWC, at what level, and what is there source of funds. The information is not on their site and even after repeted requests Mark/Ken have refused to answer. Hence the voters concerns remain and will remain and grow.

  23. And someone else adds: Who knows? Says:
    March 16, 2008 at 8:11 pm
    From Larry Evans “Challenge to all the anonymous whisper-campaigners– what single shred of evidence do any of you all have that there is anything in the least questionable about the operation of any of the groups or organizations you keep trying to demonize”

    Well, Larry.. Can you answer the questions about who is the leadership, legal representatives and etc. at the HWC? Hiding behind the “we save the salmon” shield does not answer these questions. If there is nothing to hide, how come no one answers these questions in a truthful way? Who funds HWC and HHC? Can you tell us Larry? If you knew, would you tell us Larry? Who can tell us?

  24. To which, the lovely "Jane" chimes back in - Jane Doe Says:
    March 16, 2008 at 8:12 pm
    There isn’t any dirt there, 7:59. That is why the Arkley minions are attacking in such an underhanded way. They are trying to raise suspicions when they know there is no substance. Character assasination by innuendo is classic dirty politics. They aren’t accusing, just asking insinuating questions of people who don’t have the answers rather than asking the candidate himself.

  25. Ahhh, maybe THIS is an answer - Jane Doe Says:
    March 16, 2008 at 8:40 pm
    Maybe their donors don’t want their names released. Don’t donors to nonprofits have the right of privacy? Isn’t giving quietly and without acclaim the truest form of philanthropy? Maybe they don’t care. Ask the Lovelace campaign or ask him directly. Repeatedly asking the same questions over and over of people who don’t have the answers is pointless and serves only one purpose, smearing the candidate with your loaded questions.

  26. ONe of my favorite parts - Hank weighs in, and "Jane" goes on a "balls to the wall" attack - Hank Sims Says:
    March 16, 2008 at 9:40 pm
    he quotes her: That is why the Arkley minions are attacking in such an underhanded way. They are trying to raise suspicions when they know there is no substance. Character assasination by innuendo is classic dirty politics.

    Then responds: No need to cover yourself with spittle, Jane.

    It’s not unreasonable to inquire about a public official’s personal finances. Certainly Mark Lovelace would be the last person to suggest that it is.

  27. To which she spits: You are such a rude asshole Hank. I didn’t say it was unreasonable to inquire about his finances. His income source has been reported in the T-S and now they want to know the source of the income for his employer. They are claiming the exact opposite of what you stated, that he refuses to give them the information.

  28. And he responds LOL LOL: Hank Sims Says:
    March 16, 2008 at 9:52 pm
    You are such a rude asshole Hank.

    Coming from you, that can’t be anything but a compliment. When you gonna hand over the crown?

    And it’s not unreasonable, either, to wonder what the Humboldt Watershed Council is — whether or not it is, in fact, financed by one person or one small group of people.

    Remember the Eureka Coalition for Jobs? That was a nonprofit too. That was A-OK with you? You didn’t need to know any more?

  29. Someone else weighs in: response to 9:45 Says:
    March 16, 2008 at 10:09 pm
    “His income source has been reported in the T-S and now they want to know the source of the income for his employer.”

    Well that is the point. I’d like to know about the employer. Who are they (is his?). This “employer” has no other “employees” that we know of, and has no other business dealings other than supporting this particular person, who is now running for county supervisor

  30. Here's another question...Anonymous Says:
    March 17, 2008 at 7:43 pm
    and how do i become a member of the HWC? I’d like to run for the board of directors, how do i do that?
    As yet unanswered...

  31. Ahhh, this must be what you mean by questions for me - At any rate, this pathetically weak attempt at Swift-boating against Mr. Lovelace will bear no fruit for the “I want-it-all-now-&-screw-the-kids-future” crowd because it is all too painfully and increasingly obvious that the depletion/ destruction model of the human economy is devouring itself at an increasing rate. Can you say “Bear-Sterns”?

    By the way Rose– two questions?:

    1– Would you say that Maxxam and their mis-management of PL has been good for the community? That would be the obvious implication of your damning of hwc and others for opposing said Maxxam managment.

    2– Would you say that the total collapse of the local & statewide salmon fishery is an indicator of good stewardship of the fishery and it’s required habitat or not?

    Disclaimer– if you are all upset that I have reacted angrily to anyones comments I want to assure you that I am not angry– I am mocking and dismissive. That is different.
    So is my anon above none other than Larry Evans?

  32. Let's see, so far, Jane has posted "Humboldt Watershed Council's" mission statement as an answer - Hank, to his credit, pulled up the tax filings of HWC, and is sure to interview Lovelace...

    I have lots more questions: It isn’t who gave money to “Humboldt Watershed Council” that matters as much as that electing Mark is tantamount to giving Ken Miller the third vote on the Board that he so desperately NEEDS and wants.

    To imagine for a single moment that Mark is going to tell Ken to stuff it, that mark is going to take a position contrary to Ken on say, property rights, that he is going to defend the PEOPLE’s rights when they cross with the activist position - that’s where the problem lies. He has acted as Ken Miller’s useful idiot, he has gone out as the good soldier and acted as the voice of reason as he quietly pursued Ken Miller’s agenda, never more obviously than in the recent TPZ debacle, to believe that he will be able to vote on any timber issues without bias defies belief.

    That is the problem. Has he separated himself from Miller? No. has he condemned Miller in any way? No.

    If Ken Miller really wants the seat he should run himself. He should come out of the shadows. Then we can see if people really want his brand of activist politics, his willingness to use public positions for his own ends. Maybe he can run under several different names so he has a better shot at getting a lot of votes.

    In the past I have given Mark Lovelace the benefit of the doubt, and even allowed that he was a voice of reason, but when the TPZ issue hit, and I knew that he knew the truth about, say, the taxation issue, he chose to deliberately misrepresent the facts, and spin it in an attempt to influence opinion. I no longer give him the benefit of the doubt.

  33. All of that and yet you still didn't answer Larry Evans' questions. I have one more for you. Why should Lovelace distance himself from Dr. Miller? Your paranoiac conspiracy theories have no credibility outside of your little blog world here.

  34. 1:50 - just answer the god damn question regarding funding or shut up - thank you very much.
    You guys are so scared that your attacks on Rose are getting really funny.

    In fact, everything you do is getting pretty funny.

  35. People who had real problems with hunger,poverty,no individual rights tried to change their fate by using socialist and communist models. They had great ideals and truth on their side. They struggeled mightily and over threw their oppresors. These bold attempts have failed to bring the peace and freedom and prosperity they desperately wanted. They failed because many angry and ill willed amoung the socialist ranks never gave up their anger,their true brutality their need for constant turmoil,their own self indulgent greed and the power it gave them. Those peoples of the past had real issues and real hero's who failed them. That same ego driven ,I know what's best for you, social sickness is alive and well and has decended on our fair community. Just listen to the rethoric of Jane Doe, heraldo,larry Evans. greg King and slickest of all Lovelace and you will see clearly that the same ice pick of old may come crashing down on your head if you dare to challenge your comrad after he is in power.

  36. I can't believe how fortunate it is that Lovelace decided to run and for the first time we have a real opportunity to see what he and Kenny have been up to.

    Time to open those windows, boys and let's have a look at that file box.

    Let's talk about Bob Martel's suit, his history with Ken Miller, the history of "Humboldt Watershed Council" the textbook example of an obsessive personality, let's talk about why it behooves Miller to pay Lovelace to man "Healthy Humboldt" and go to all those planning meetings... let's hear why he jumped up and down in fury over the TPZ oppositions and how he sent in the team armed with talking points in a desperate bid to spin the events to his benefit... let's hear who paid for the trips to Houston... let's look at that involvement with the Community Forest with new eyes in light of the now revealed concept that Mark'll get to turn Palco into a community forest endeavor... let's ask about the planning sessions that went into all this - ask Mark about the Transition Mission - one of its tenets is to be straight with the people...

    Don't forget Ken Miller's drafting of the PL suit, and continued letters to the editor trying to maintain public support for his failed effort, let's finally see these guys for what they are in the full light of day.

    The reality is, running Mark was a stupid decision, Ken. Really really stupid. I love it.

  37. You can't answer Larry's questions, Rose. You have to be one of the most dishonest people I have encountered and I have met some real sleazebags.

    Your questions about funding have been answered already, individual donations and foundation grants. I personally don't know where their money comes from. I am not a member of HWC and have never been to a meeting. Hank has promised to find out every little detail so you will have to wait for him.

    Whether or not the people of the third district trust Mark will be shown on election day. I think they trust him a lot more than any PALCO shill or Arkley owned candidate. But time will tell.

  38. You just can't answer Larry's questions, Rose. They are simple and would only require a yes or no answer. You have to be one of the most dishonest people I have encountered and I have met some real sleazebags.

    Your questions about funding have been answered already, individual donations and foundation grants. Your questions from last night regarding why HWC is so focused on PALCO were also answered, but I see you didn't copy paste those here. I personally don't know who their their individual donors are and don't care. I am not a member of HWC or any of their other organizations and have never been to a meeting. Hank Sims has promised to find out every little detail so you will have to wait for him.

    Whether or not the people of the third district trust Mark will be shown on election day. I think they trust him a lot more than any PALCO shill or Arkley chosen candidate. But time will tell.

  39. 2:37 - Go smoke some weed and mellow out!

    you said: "Your questions about funding have been answered already, individual donations and foundation grants. I personally don't know where their money comes from. I am not a member of HWC and have never been to a meeting. Hank has promised to find out every little detail so you will have to wait for him."

    I think not 2:37. Those question have NOT been answered and there are a shitload of us waiting for the answers. And Hank should not have to "find out every little detail." Lovelace and Miller should be up front and transparent on this issue.

    I want to know what individuals have been contributing to HWC and HH and all of their foundation grants.

    I want to know if this money is from drugs or from out of the county. All fair questions for them to have to answer. Now you may not be interested - who gives a shit. We are and our numbers are really growing.

    Sincerely - politically blue.

  40. Telling me to violate state and federal laws doesn't sound like a good idea, Blue. You don't have a right to know every donor to any organization regardless how much you scream. What you think about where his money comes from doesn't really matter because even if you live in his district, you and people like you won't be voting for him anyway. That's politics in the real world honey. Now why don't you get on the ball and find out the names of all Plumley's clients, how much they have paid him and where their money comes from. You don't have a double standard, do you?

  41. It must suck rotten eggs to be in your minority group today. The rest of the world has finally realized that Mother Nature, while generous and very flexible, has her limits which we have ignored in the past, but can't any longer. Wake up! It's your and your descendent's future too.

  42. I've gotta chime in to agree that this stuff here can only help Lovelace as his detractors seem to grasping at straws.It'd probably look better and appear more honest if you were asking the same questions about who Plumley gets his money from.
    No argument here that Lovelace may benefit from flaws within the electoral process,but so has Rodoni,the Humboldt Business Council and most certainly the one time Eureka Coalition For Jobs.

  43. 2:57 and 3:11 - you are sounding a bit obsessed.

    Now tell me honey, what state and federal law will be violated if you disclose the source of the money. And be specific -

    Are you Mark or Ken you condescending little piss ants since you claim that by disclosing this you would be the one violating state and federal law.

    As for sucking right now, sucks to be you Mark. We sane eviro's have had it with you and your uneducated, non-working, unbathed buddies. We want a clean environment and clean politicians. Not what you have been offering up. No Mark and Ken...this is going to be a big wake up call to you.

    yours truly,

    Still politically blue.

  44. BTW Mresquan - I intend to ask Brian Plumeley for the sources of his money too!

    But I disagree that this is helping Lovelace Konkler. In fact, I think that he is shit pants scared at this.

  45. Keep up Blue. You told me to smoke pot, a violation of state and federal laws. Your quest to get the names of Plumley's clients and HWC donors will likely be stymied by confidentiality agreements that all businesses and most non-profits have. Your desire to know is trumped by their clients' right to privacy. Campaign contributions are a different issue, but nonprofits are prohibited from donations to political campaigns so that won't help you much either. Tough luck baby.

    If Mark was scared he wouldn't be running.

  46. You know if you do your homework the information is out there and available for the public.
    You're much better going after the flaws in campaign finance closures than Lovelace himself as you risk a blowup.

  47. tough luck back to you.

    Didn't you know that you can smoke your medicine with Ken's card. Check your wallet buddy - its still there unless you ditched for some unknown reason.

    Now again, what specific state and federal law would be violated if you (ahem HWC, KM, ML or HH)disclosed the source of your money? You said it not me. Which ones cause I asked you to put up or shut up on the matter. Or are you now falling back on some unspecified person or group's unspecified and made up confidentiality agreement. How many of those does HWC or HH have? Did the Ken'ster put one together and back date it to try and protect the donations from his pot business? Probably. (ahem - they call that money laundering!) Now hon, put up or shut up...I will be waiting for the state law and federal law that you mentioned above.

  48. You are a bright one Blue. The state and federal laws I was referring to are marijuana laws as a reasonably literate person would have understood in the first place and certainly after I clearly stated it the second time. I do not have nor have I ever had a 215 card and haven't smoked pot since I was a kid.

    Confidentiality agreements are standard fare for every non-profit I know of. Why don't you do a little googling and find out before you embarrass yourself further.

  49. 1– Would you say that Maxxam and their mis-management of PL has been good for the community? That would be the obvious implication of your damning of hwc and others for opposing said Maxxam managment.

    Oh, Maxxamm, schmacksamm, Larry. That's a stupic question. There's been plenty written by your side about them, who cares? I'm bored with your anti-Palco shit, it's been told over and over and over ad nauseum. It would be more relevant to address whether or not your antics and divisiveness has been good for the community - difference being Maxaam has actually given people jobs and provided a product that people need and want, and use, while you have done nothing that I know of except stir dissent and show up for Board meetings to spout off talking points.

    What hasn't been written is the ongoing concerted sneaky behind the scenes efforts by you and yours to destroy a company you have decided is evil, the incredible story of dedicated hate, hate that defies reason.

    I'd like to understand the genesis of it - because it is so irrational once you get beyond the surface simplicity of it - how far back does it go? What does it have to do with the Rose Foundation, and the lobbying in the halls of Congress, the trying to force Hurwitz to hand over land, and the being pissed off that he didn't, that he actually negotiated a deal and got paid - that you and your guys actually got what you wanted, but not the way you wanted it... and set about this incredible ongoing attack... that's the part of the story that is missing...

    The YEARS of concerted lawsuits, the constant poking to find the hole in the dike, when does it end?

    You guys like to use the law as a weapon, but you have absolutely no respect for the law. You use the system as a weapon, but you are subversive. You plot to twist and distort the system to try to extort money and land. You cry about 'rights' yet you seek to take away the simple basic rights of all people in your hatred and dedicated attacks, you don't care who is collateral damage, you don't care that in your wake you leave destruction.

    With respect to your question - I keep waiting for you to acknowledge the improvements that have been made in the logging industry - some recognition for the kind of regulatory environment that they now have to attempt to operate under. That day never comes. You are unable to give credit where credit is due because you are blinded with hatred, and blinded by your zealotry.

    Your propaganda is old and tired, and In my book you are a worthless cull. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

    One down.

  50. Great job at explaining why you won't answer Larry's questions, Rose. Just what we expected.

    I shed a little light into this dark little conspiracy laden world and now my work here is done. Good night, sleep tight, don't let the bedbugs bite.

  51. Really lame spin - now you are trying to say that the whole federal and state law thing is about pot. You really suck badly... I mean that is so very pathetic I damn near blew coffee all over the monitor. And I quiote "telling me to violate state and federal laws doesn't sound like a good idea, Blue. You don't have a right to know every donor to any organization regardless how much you scream."

    Pretty damn funny. Just say you don't want this out there, you don't believe in transparency and you have shitloads to hide from average workingclass families. Its much clearer than the crap your slinging now and smells better.

    Still Blue and now laughing like hell.

  52. Why are you answering here rather than where the questions were asked Rose? Don't want anyone but your fellow nuts to read your lame excuses for not answering? As we can see from Blue Boy up there, you don't attract the brightest bulbs here.

    Night night.

  53. One more thing, those were 2 different sentences in response to your different comments Blue. Change your bulb, it has burned out.

  54. Told you he/she was a stoner. Sleeping it off already and its only 4:15. Tough day huh?

    Rosie girl, you know you have struck a chord with them. They are fuming and probably have refreshed this page a couple of hundred times. Love to see them unravel and lose it.

    Night night to you 4:14.

  55. Uhhh, 4:34 - it's not bedtime. Fact, it's still light out. Not even dinnertime.

    Is it dark in your basement? Better open a window, let some o' that light in.

  56. Hey 4:16 - the quote is verbatim. I guess you know what a period is because you were able to see it was two sentences - but they sure look context dependent to me.

    Now hon, go look up the term context dependent. This probably hurts your wittle stoned head.

    ps "fish on"

  57. Everyone doesn't work 9 to 5 folks. Don't you get out?

  58. I sure seems like 2:57, 3:11, 3:46, 4:04, 4:11, 4:14, 4:16 are all the same person - obviously with the theme from deliverance playing as they are blogging (very stoned) from their very dark basement.)

    That would be “dueling banjos” Mark and Ken (Get it dueling plus banjos...god I cracked myself up on that!)

    Now, can we all hold hands and wish that the obsessed blogger at the times above go over to the Mirror so that we can really make shit snort’n fun of she/he (no favorites or assumptions here)?

  59. 4:29 wins the prize. Yes, my shift starts at 11 and the mandatory drug testing would keep me from smoking pot even if I wanted to. Gotta get my requisite 5 hours of sleep.

  60. I just think someone should alert heraldo that his boys are over here falling asleep on the job.

    And, 4:29, LOL, don't ya know everyone blogs 9-5 (except between 12 and 1).

  61. LOL those damned assumptions will bite you in the ass when you aren't looking. Are you a nurse 4:37?

  62. "Confidentiality agreements are standard fare for every non-profit I know of. Why don't you do a little googling and find out before you embarrass yourself further."

    Well, there really are no confidentiallity agreements when it comes to non profits. You see, in order to maintain there tax exempt status, they need, by law, to be transparent.

    Thus, donors of amounts over a certain dollar threshold are listed on the IRS form 990, which are available to the public.

    Also, officers of nonprofits have their wages listed as well.

    No, I didnt "google" this, I am a CPA, and thus somewhat well versed in the requirements are for non profits; Certainly, "confidentiallity agreements" didnt come into play anywhere I saw.

  63. What exactly is that threshold, Mr. CPA? Every non-profit I give to promises me that my name and donations won't be released other than as required by law so that does seem to be fairly standard practice. A non-profit organization employee running for office wouldn't qualify.

  64. Boy, you guys REALLY are upset about this one aren't you.

    This is really VERY funny. Humboldt Watershed Council - when do they have meetings? when do they have fundraisers? Who attends the meetings? How many members? Who gets to vote? What do they vote on? Who is on the Board of Directors? When did "Healthy Humboldt" become a project? How many "projects" do they have? Was the "Alliance for Ethical Business" a "project"? How 'bout "Local Solutions"?

    Certain kinds of non-profits have to adhere to very strict guidelines with respect to their political lobbying in order to protect their tax-exempt status, have they adhered to those rules?

    There are ALOT of questions - and it wouldn't matter a bit EXCEPT for the intense effort of Ken Miller and Humboldt Watershed Council to directly affect and impact the people of Humboldt County, and the politicians in Humboldt County - in the words of Obama's preacher, it your chickens comn-ing-home---to ROOST.

    And I still want to know if Bob Martel ever paid his judgement. Why didn't HWC cover it....

    So many questions.

    And remember, we now KNOW what a project is - it is money laundering for big corporations, I mean GRANTMAKERS, hiding the donors is a big deal to these people.

  65. As if PALCO and the developers haven't been trying to find some dirt on HWC for years. They probably have spies as members. This is laughable.

  66. I don't think it is any of your business which non-profit organizations I donate to. A non-profit employee running for public office doesn't give you the right to violate my privacy. If I give over a certain amount, it must be reported. Other than that, not.

    This is just a game with you because you know that no candidate would ever give you the names of every client and you wouldn't expect them to, especially if you were one of their clients. You just ask questions until you are told none of your business and then you rag on that like it is some deep, dark conspiracy. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself.

  67. We have all seen the types of politicians people like you want in office and we don't want any more of them.

  68. This foot stomping doesn't change the fact that there is a big difference between a legitimate business and these phony baloney "groups" that Ken Miller makes up out of hole cloth. To pretend that they have any real legitimacy is crazy.

    The "president" of "Humboldt Watershed Council" it sounds so grand. I think I'll be the queen of "Save the Bullfrogs." No difference. Oh, well, "queen" would be too obvious, I'd have to be the "Executive Director" or some corporate sounding name.... 'cause much as you guys hate corporations, you like to try to pretend you are one... AND you rely on them for your donations while you work to destroy them.

    Trouble is, the pendulum is swinging against you, eyes are being opened all over this country.

  69. The government is who decides which organizations are legitimate and what is phony baloney, not you.

    Eyes are being opened and they are all turning GREEN and BLUE. You don't read much, do you?

  70. You really are dense. All non-profits have to have officers and a governing board. ITS THE LAW. You could start a Save the Cockroach non-profit and if people wanted to save cockroaches they could donate. Do you have a problem with that? What brand of authoritarian are you?

  71. "We have all seen the types of politicians people like you want in office and we don't want any more of them."

    Right. We want honest politicians not bought and paid for politicians. We don't need politicians who file suits for Miller,dismiss felonies of sons of big donors, or politicians who take manythousands from tribes and payback with favors. We want real people. Not hacks. Right on. Too bad for Lovelace.

  72. The government is who decides which organizations are legitimate and what is phony baloney, not you.

    Really? The government isn't capable of making that determination. The government merely sets some standards which must be adhered to on paper in order to appear legitimate. Anyone can do that.

    Deciding who is for real is a LOT TOUGHER. But crystal clear in this case.

  73. Honest politicians like Rodoni, Cunningham, Delay, and Bush who will do whatever their masters tell them to do and steal as much as they can at the same time. You don't have a very good record. This country is moving to the left and there is nothing you can do about it. The far right had their chance and screwed up big time. Now get out of the way.

  74. In YOUR humble opinion. LOL Good thing you don't get to decide for everyone else Rose.

  75. Hah! I KNEW you'd bring BUSH into the discussion sooner or later - a new version of Godwin's Law.



  76. You should start a Save the Rightwing Nut nonprofit Rose. You could be the President and first rescue.

  77. Bush is a good example of the type of politician you favor Rose. Godwin's doesn't apply when it is appropriate.

  78. Here you go

  79. Rose is speechless. Will wonders never cease.

  80. What time does your shift start? 7:30 am? Hope you slept well. :)

  81. Huh? I don't have a "shift."

  82. Oh, you think I am the nurse who was posting yesterday. Sorry, no. I am the OTHER one who was posting last night. I know you probably think all posters are the same people because you get so few visitors here. I don't understand it because you have done such nice things. All those lovely photos you have on the walls, really livens the place up. :)

  83. Looking back over the posts, I see the (maybe) nurse wanted 5 hours of sleep before its shift started so I would guess it works the 11 to 7 shift. But it could be a mill worker. Do they still run night shifts? It could also be a cop, but I don't know when their shift changes are. It could work at Taco Bell or Dennys. What other jobs do we have that work around the clock? Gas stations?

  84. Rose - turn on the "obsess-o-meter." The trolls are out and camping on this site. Guess you REALLY struck a chord with this one.

    Keep at it gal, they are shit pants scared of disclosing the money trail.

  85. "What exactly is that threshold, Mr. CPA? Every non-profit I give to promises me that my name and donations won't be released other than as required by law so that does seem to be fairly standard practice."

    Actually, It's MS.CPA. As far as the threshold, off of the top of my head, I believe it's 5k (and as I am a bit busy right now with tax season, I'm not going to bother to look it up.

    You answer your own question without realizing it though (not the threshold, but whether or not disclosure is required) when you say :

    "my name and donations won't be released other than as required by law"

    Well, they ARE required by law if you donate over the threshold amount. They are reported on a schedule of IRS form 990, which a document that is available to the public. Likewise, if an employee is an officer of the non profit, that officer's name, title and salary are required to be disclosed.

    Have a great day!

  86. Exactly Kim. Donations under the threshold are no one's business even if an employee or client of said organization decides to run for office. Anything over the legal theshold is public record. So why all the distress over this issue?

  87. Rose - your cyperstalker (8:49 a.m.) is back!

    Is that you Larry? Good morning. You seem to be really going over the falls on this one. Have a nice day sitting on this one.

    ps - we are all laughing our arses off at you Larry. Your acting as goofy and out there as your buddy Greg King did as portrayed in the book "the last stand." Now he was really out there at least as was described by that book which incidentally was put out by the Sierra Club.


  88. To answer your question, (larry or Ken or whomever you are) - "So why all the distress over this issue?"

    Uh - its because you are dirty and we want it exposed. If you weren't dirty, you would have no problem with the disclosure and you wouldn't be freaking out here.

    And - if I don't immediately respond to your continued obsession here, its because I have a real job, earning real money and won't have time to check back until lunch.

  89. Isn't this a forum for discussion? Are people who have a different opinion trolls?

    Maybe you can explain something for me that I have trouble understanding.

    Why are people who are so rabid over private property rights so blase about our dearest private property, our privacy? Do you really believe that my little donations to organizations are any of your business just because an employee of that organization decides to run for public office? Don't you think that could have a detrimental effect on freedom of speech? A devastating effect on non-profit organization funding? Which other rights are you willing to throw away in your zeal to get your guy elected? Just asking. Can we discuss this reasonably?

  90. By the way, I am none of the people you have accused me of being. You wouldn't know who I was if I gave you my name. I am just a little person who works hard to make a living and gives as much as I can afford to give to causes I believe in and expect the promised privacy from the organizations I donated to. If an organization I donate to publicized my name and donations (other than as REQUIRED BY LAW)to get an employee elected, they would never get another dime from me. Do you have a problem with that?

  91. That's right - dodge the questions again 9:04.

    The organization is HWC - funded by Ken Miller with probably laundered drug money. Yes, Ken the pot doctor. Where else does he make that money?

    You are not the United Way, Larry or Ken. What kind of non-profit are you if you are one?

    No, you don't answer the question 9:04 because you are complicit in the cover up. And you do not have a "right" to keep this from the public.

    If you want to discuss it reasonably, then answer the question of the "money." That would end the discussion. The more you fight the more you look like you have something really ugly to hide.

  92. So why all the distress over this issue?

    Exactly what we're asking here - so, ARE there small donors to "Humboldt Watershed Council?" When do they hold fundraisers? Do they send out Salzman style viral emails soliciting donations? I've never come across any.

    How is it funded - I think that's why you're jumping up and down so upset over this - what if there are no small donors at all?

    And how does Measure T affect big grant (corporation originating) donations from out of the County?

    The questions also comes back to how is Mark going to handle issues that relate to his employment - which we can now say is the General Plan since he has stated that Healthy Humboldt is a "project" of his employer... is he going to reintroduce the concept of getting Cotchett to file Paul's Supreme Court Palco case appeal? And would he recuse himself in such votes?

  93. How about the Forster-Gill Ridgewood Village development in Cutten - that Mark has been an advocate for - it's a weird contradiction that he is so PRO that one and so ANTI everything else.... just curious... if the Board has to take a position on this, what will he do there? Recuse himself?

    He's been speaking on "behalf of Healthy Humboldt" on this issue...

    Ken Miller is protesting n/another subdivision in Mck that is in his back yard - just way too funny.

  94. You miss the point entirely. I don't know Miller or Lovelace. My dog in this fight is primarily privacy, although I do have a stake (as does everyone) in the health of the environment. As I have previously stated, I don't belong to HWC and have never attended a meeting.

    Hank Sims posted a site recently that showed the HWC legally required form and I don't recall seeing any large individual donations listed and don't remember which year it was for.

    As to the Forster Gill subdivision, the only reason you don't understand enviro support of it is that you can't get beyond your notion that we are all anti-growth. Forster Gill is a perfect example of development that allows smart growth. The areas surrounding it are already developed. They will leave large green spaces to allow wildlife (and people) the natural settings they require. Services are already nearby on all sides.

  95. Quite a change in tone, there, 9:47.

    See, the thing is - with regards to Ken Miller's groups, you make the assumption that because they filed their forms in one case, that is all there is too it - I don't agree with that.

    Take ol' Bob Martel's statements cheerfully made to the papers that he had invested a ton of money in the early lawsuit, then the screams crying foul when he was ordered to pay for it, saying he had only made $5,000 a year for the last what,decade? Then how did he pay for the lawsuit, all that money he claimed to have spent? And has he ever paid on the judgement?

    Where does any of that show up in the books?

    There is alot more here than meets the eye, and a few legitimate papers does not the full picture make. Too many unanswered questions.

    Even IF Humboldt Watershed Council is completely legit - what about the rest of the stable? Salmon Forever? Anybody seen any book on the "Alliance for Ethical Business?"

  96. In your post of 9:14 you again you ignore the fact that HWC can't contribute to political campaigns. Whether they have out of town donors is irrelevant. HWC donors aren't contributing to Lovelace's campaign, although if they do so directly it is a matter of public record. Measure T has no relevance in donations to non-profits.

  97. If they are registered non-profits, all of that is public information Rose. Why not check them out rather than ask questions of someone who has stated they don't know anything about them? Or are you just on a soap box preaching to the crowd here?

  98. Don't forget the Taxpayers for Headwaters. Predates Salmon Forever, I think.

  99. Salmon Forever is a registered non-profit and their records are available at Guide Star as posted at Humboldt Herald. Alliance for Ethical Business is not a registered non-profit so of course, their records, like HELP and Humboldt CPR are not public records.

  100. Taxpayers for Headwaters isn't a registered non-profit either.

  101. At any rate, the question of why you guys are so worried about answering these questions is even more intriguing now that Hank has answered the basic question with a bit of digging and a call to Lovelace - so why all this dancing up and down? Why didn't you just answer the question in the first place?

  102. Hank posted the site for Guide Star which is available for anyone to check out non-profits. You could have gotten the same information with a web search if you wanted it. As I have stated previously, this is a privacy issue for me. You are entitled to public information, not everything you want to know about anyone.

  103. Do you really expect answers from people who have said I DON'T KNOW? That seems extremely unreasonable.

  104. It does seem somewhat pathological to get the answers to your questions and then demand to know why people who didn't know either didn't tell you before they knew. Very odd.

  105. I don't buy that you don't know miller, lovelace, hwc et al, 9:47. And I really am not buying that this is simply a privacy issue to you. Aren't you proud of saying (for instance) that you gave 50 bucks to the sierra club or freinds for life or whatever. Most people are. Why not you? Your response doesn't "smell" right.

    but, what concerns me is the manipulation of money between and within these groups to get around legitimate reporting requirements. It troubles me if it were "red" or if it is "blue", "green" or anything else.

    9:47, Miller has a history of making false statements (see his pot position) and Lovelace the same - unfortunately they talk out of both sides of their mouths so I just am not going to let this one lie.

    Maybe you may wish to reconsider if you are donating to folks like this that the information may get out and then consider why you don't want anyone to know.

  106. If my employer were a conservative who was opposed to environmental causes, a published list with my name as a donor could cause problems for me at work. The same is true of other organizations. What if I donated to Planned Parenthood with a strictly Catholic, no birth control boss? Does everyone really need to know who I donate to? What if my spouse didn't like the organizations that I donate to? Isn't that a way to stifle free speech? Why do you close your blinds at night? What are you doing in there that you don't want everyone to see?

  107. You guys are welcome for the links to Guide Star. I uncovered that awhile ago and passed the link around. You really think Heraldo found it?

  108. Now if you really wanted to dig up dirt on someone, Intelius is a good starting point.

  109. No, Hank posted it at Humboldt Herald.

    If you had it all along, why didn't you answer these people's questions or post it?

  110. Do you really think that the likes of PALCO and Arkley haven't already been gathering information on the groups and people who oppose them? They probably hired private investigators to dig for dirt. I mean, REALLY (rolls eyes)

  111. I doubt PALCO is doing much of anything besides going through bankruptcy proceedings...

    I mean, REALLY

  112. Which begs the question, 11:56...

    Who will replace them as your chief bogeyman?

  113. The conflict between PALCO and environmentalists didn't start recently, as you keep reminding us. Damage to the environment is the bogeyman. It is behavior that can be modified, not a person or an organization.

  114. Actually, both Anon.R.mous and I have posted on the Guidestar stuff in the past. He was first and it was a long time ago.

    That still doesn't answer the questions. I'm about to put up a post that includes Hank's discussion of this - and a few more questions.

  115. If you listened to the Loons who spoke at the mendecino redwood project yesterday, you'd see that it is the Gap/Fisher Family who are the new bogeymen...

  116. Can the crazies just go back to ranting on Heraldo?

    Now to answer you 11:47 when you posted this:

    "If my employer were a conservative who was opposed to environmental causes, a published list with my name as a donor could cause problems for me at work. The same is true of other organizations. What if I donated to Planned Parenthood with a strictly Catholic, no birth control boss? Does everyone really need to know who I donate to? What if my spouse didn't like the organizations that I donate to? Isn't that a way to stifle free speech? "

    This has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Frankly, your not saying anything by remaining under the radar. And if your spouse didn't like what you were doing, then grow a spine and take it up with her or him. If your worried that your boss would fire you, sue him or her. You do know that you can't be fired for things like religion, sex etc. in this state.

    No, I am not buying your argument.

    And my blinds ain't closed at night.

    I am not afraid of putting my name on anything that I truly believe in. If you are, then maybe you should re-evaluate what you are doing.

  117. If you saw someone getting ready to dump a truck load of debris into a river, wouldn't you try to stop them? Irresponsible logging practices are dumping tons of debris into the rivers where you can't see it happening. But we have seen the results. Waiting until after the dumping and then fining the dumper doesn't really repair the damage already done.

  118. Your inability to understand the importance of our rights isn't something I can help you with, 12:41. Privacy is the one all others are founded on.

  119. "but, what concerns me is the manipulation of money between and within these groups to get around legitimate reporting requirements. It troubles me if it were "red" or if it is "blue", "green" or anything else."

    Well Rob Arkley durung any given election period starts quite a few groups which also benefit from this.Same goes for the Humboldt Business Council.
    I'll repeat,the problem lies within fallacies in disclosure requirements which have benefited
    right wing candidates and led causes just as much as what comes from the left.
    Everything that's been bantered back and forth here is available to the public as Hank correctly pointed out.
    I think those wishing Lovelace doesn't get elected might want to consider debating issues affecting the district rather than going after Lovelace for something that will only validate him in the end.

  120. Uhh, note to stalker-boy - there's a new post up that may set your mind at ease, or that you may want to continue your rant on - you're probably going to want to open a new window instead of toggling back and forth between the two. See you there. Hope they are giving you your legally required potty/cigarette breaks. And I hope they brought in a lunch for ya, or had someone else cover.

  121. So now a person who tries to have a reasonable discussion about the issues is a stalker-boy. Nice.

    You not being able to come up with valid points to my arguments does not make me a stalker-boy, although most of your regular readers don't have the intellect to see beyond what they are told.


  122. Oh, I think it has been a pretty reasonable discussion, except for my being rude to Larry Evans.

    I don't see that many questions have been answered, but the discussion is good.

    I think if we could really sit down and talk you'd find that most everyone agrees on issues of privacy, except with respect to people who want to set policy and dictate how others will live their lives, and would agree, as Hank points out in his piece, that these are fair questions for someone who seeks to become Supervisor, especially someone who has himself filed beefs with the FPPC on this very topic.

  123. This is too funny. Maybe I work the night shift in a gas station. LOL What I do for a living is my business. What I do with my money is my business so long as it isn't illegal. Candidates lose some right to privacy by law when they choose to run for office. That doesn't affect my right to privacy if they happened to work for an organization that I donate to (within the legal limits without disclosure). I doubt you were so concerned about where the money came from with HELP, HumCPR or Eureka Coalition for Jobs. Hypocrisy is ugly regardless which side is guilty.

    I don't see a Larry Evans here. Is that the guy who was trying to have a discussion here but was called troll and stalker-boy? Not very conducive to rational discussion, but its your blog. How do you know who the anonymous posters are anyway?

  124. 3:06 - you are hopeless.

  125. You are certainly hopeless as a communicator 3:18. I see a lot of interesting points here on the pro privacy, pro environment side but only insults and absurdities on the anti-environmentalist side. Oh well, if it makes you feel less impotent it's all good. It seems to be helping you vent some of that anger as well. Repressed anger is a killer.

  126. Hey, y'er shift ended 33 minutes ago... are you on overtime? Goin' for time and a half? God, I'm sorry you had to spend your day this way.

  127. What are you talking about? My shift ended at 7 a.m. I just got here a little while ago. I spent my day grocery shopping and cleaning house. You seem to have some mental problems going on. Have you seen anyone about them? As much as I hate to go off and leave you alone here in such a disoriented state, I do have to get some sleep soon to be ready to go to work tonight. Are you going to be okay?

  128. 12:44 et al, you are such an ignoramous.

    So you said: "Your inability to understand the importance of our rights isn't something I can help you with, 12:41. Privacy is the one all others are founded on."

    Uh - the constitution is an agreement between the government and its citiznes and not between citizens. While I believe in privacy, perhaps you could tell me which amendment it falls under and how that is applied to this situation since this has nothing to do with the government compelling diddley squat.

    what a crack up!

  129. 543:32 - 9 hours 3 minutes 32 seconds...
    didn't make it to time and a half, tch tch.
    sleep well

  130. You are one dumb fuck

    11 p.m. to 7 a.m is 8 hours

    Math certainly is not your strong point, nor is logic.

  131. 7:22 pm - and critical thinking and reasoned discourse is not your strong point.

  132. 7:22 has listened to many times to Larry Evans ranting at freeway ovrpasses. 7:22 that is not the way rational people really behave. Put down that crack pipe.


Comments are open, but moderated, for the time-being. Good luck.