Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Revelations! County DID work with Pro-Bono Bonifaz

All DUHC/Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap's protestations... all this noise - talk about lying by omission.

One of the big myths of the DUHC/Measure T has been outrage that the County had an offer of pro-bono assistance from 'an expert' named John Bonifaz, and refused it.

Well, turns out that is not true.

Testimony following today's 1:30 public comment time slot... County Counsel Wendy Chaitin, talking about the legal process surrounding Measure T: (I didn't catch it all , but this is the gist of what she said...)

When the Measure was challenged, the County was approched by DUHC, who offered the name of an attorney, and expert on Measure t and election law, offering pro-bono, or FREE legal advice (John Bonifaz). He was, however, not able to act as lead counsel, but could be a resource.

The County needed lead counsel, someone who was familiar with the workings of the (SF) District Court, who specialized in election law...

The Attorney the County hired had conversations with Bonifaz. Both acknowledged that it was going to be difficult for the county to prevail (in defending Measure T).

Bonifaz acknowledged that the attorney the Board hired presented a strong argument... Bonifaz reviewed everything, thought it was excellent work...

Judge Illston's decision showed that she had looked carefully at the Measure and fond it wanting on Constitutional grounds was very troubling... regarding PAC/action committees and Unions, gerneal First Amendment issues...

Illston's decision was based on many distinct grounds that it was likely Measure T would not be found to be Constitutional...

There was a 'severability' clause built into the Measure, so that if any portios of the Measure could survive those could stand. the Judge ruled she couldn't find anything in it that would survive....

***

The speakers who responded to Kaitlin/DUHC/Humboldt Coalition for Community Rights (can we just quit pretending that these are separate, and acknowledge that they are one and the same? You should've heard Cobb on the radio pretending he didn't know who people were as they called in - if you really want campaign reform around here you have to put a stop to all these phony 'groups.') - anyway, those who showed up in response to her call for help were interesting, too. And I do mean interesting.

***
Update:
TS coverage today Dozens voice support for Measure T fails to mention County Counsel Chaitin's comments. "There were 35 people expressing disappointment at the settlement of Measure T,” said David Cobb, a member of Democracy Unlimited and vocal proponent of the measure. “In my time here, that's the largest group of people I've seen speak during public comment on any issue that wasn't actually agendized.”

Fails to point out that at least 4 of the speakers work for/ARE 'Democracy Unlimited" (DUHC)/"Humboldt Coalition for Community Rights"/Humboldt County Independent Business Alliance (HumIBA)/Liberty Tree/who knows how many others.

Let's get this straight - DAVID COBB IS Democracy Unlimited. He is not a "member." He is it. He and Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap. He is not just a 'vocal proponent' - he is THE driving force. He and Kaitlin. Humboldt Coalition for Community Rights IS Democracy Unlimited, is Cobb, is Kaitlin.

And... "The Humboldt County Independent Business Alliance (HumIBA) is a project of Democracy Unlimited that serves as a coalition of ______" fill in the blank…) Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain…

Funny how Cobb and Co. are so against corporations while they are trying to create their own alternative corporate reality. He has his own currency... trying to rewrite laws to suit his grand vision of the way things ought to be... A nice little reality where David Cobb is the Mayor, the Police Chief, the Judge, the Senator, the Newspaper Editor, the streetsweeper, the cafe owner... It's a WONDERFUL life, if you all would just pass his damn Measures and pay the bills.

But stop calling them "members" and stop pretending along with them that they have only a passing acquaintance with the related groups.

(If you really want a laugh, listen to Cobb's radio show, where the guests from Liberty Tree pretend not to know Kaitlin and Cobb...

50 comments:

Anonymous said...

Cobb is such a F%#@*%G scum bag!

samoasoftball said...

Rose: That was a very good summary of what happened. I wish that Jill had asked counsel to quickly summarize her findings before the public comments. It would have made public comments more relevant.

I still want campaign finance reform. I am looking for the next idea. Doesn't have to be perfect, just practical and able to defy legal problems.

Where do you come off saying that Katlain lied? You pretty much qualified her claim that pro bono legal counsel was available. The county in fact used that counsel! Saved the county money. At least admit that.

If you are calling out the DUHC, please give us more than myths.

Rose said...

Lies of omission, Richard.

Her little missives lately neglected to mention that that famous offer of support HAD INDEED been utilized - AND that the famous pro bono counsel not only had input but AGREED with the decision to settle.

I absolutely LOVED the parade of uber left wing whackaloons who got up and spoke today - MY GOD! Did you know that Democracy cannot exist until we agree to give Cobb his way?

Seems to me Richard, that we have had Democracy here for what a bit more than 200 years.

We have had representatives, but now that isn't enough for these people who want to create their own alternative vision of the world and inflict it on all of us.

I'm sorry you are mixed up in this mess.

Judge Illston ruled in favor of the Constitution, and the Law.

Not one of the 'portions' of the Measure were salvageable.

Now, you tell me, where did Kaitlin, in all her permutations, all her different masks, all her different 'groups,' SAY that Bonifaz was ACTUALLY INVOLVED?

In the newsletter? In the viral emails? the pleas for money?

Rose said...

:) Wait til I finish my summary of the comments. Like the guy who was trying to wrap his head around 'corporate personhood' by saying he couldn't imagine a skyscraper wearing a burnoose, or a hood and walking down main street... That was a good one...

Lots of FEELINGS....

Oh and LOTS of CHANGE, Yes we CAN! woven in there.

Anonymous said...

In hindsight, perhaps it would have saved everybody a lot of trouble if the hotshot pro bono attorney had reviewed the measure before it was submitted to the voters.

Anonymous said...

Reform is only for the other guys,we knows bestest, these same sensitive souls with such great feelings shrug their shoulders at Obamas lies about publicly funded prez elections or 10,20 thousands or more dollars from tribes. it really is piss running down our legs no matter what cobb calls it.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if Marks will ever grow a pair?

Tom Sebourn said...

Excerpt from Thom Hartmanns book:
For twenty years corporate personhood was debated. Across America, politicians were elected repeatedly on platforms that included the regulation of corporations, particularly the railroads. But the legal fight continued - and in 1886 the railroad hit paydirt.

The Supreme Court ruled on an obscure taxation issue in the Santa Clara County vs. The Union Pacific Railroad case, but the Recorder of the court - a man named J. C. Bancroft Davis, himself formerly the president of a small railroad - wrote into his personal commentary of the case (known as a headnote) that the Chief Justice had said that all the Justices agreed that corporations are persons.

And in so doing, he - not the Supreme Court, but its clerical recorder - inserted a statement that would change history and give corporations enormous powers that were not granted by Congress, not granted by the voters, and not even granted by the Supreme Court. Davis’s headnote, which had no legal standing, was taken as precedent by generations of jurists (including the Supreme Court) who followed and apparently read the headnote but not the decision.

What is especially ironic about this is that Davis knew the Court had not ruled on this issue. We found a handwritten note in the J.C. Bancroft Davis collection in the Library of Congress, from Chief Justice Waite to reporter Davis, explicitly saying, “we did not meet the constitutional issues in the case.” (In other words, the Court had decided the case on lesser grounds, which it always prefers to do when possible.)

Yet Davis wrote that the constitutional issue of corporate personhood had been decided, and his headnote was published the year Waite died, most likely after Waite’s death. The railroads were persons, he wrote (in the headnote), implying that they’re entitled to the same rights as persons. And Davis attributed this new legal reality to Chief Justice Waite who had specifically, in writing, disavowed it (although that note wouldn’t become public for over a hundred years - it’s now on my website).

Another great irony of this event is that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect human persons because of their vulnerability in relations with other human persons who may be much more powerful. But corporations are bestowed with potential immortality, can change their identity in a day, or even tear off parts of themselves and instantly turn those parts into entirely new “persons.” Yet regardless of all these superhuman powers, corporations are now considered persons.

These non-living, non-breathing persons are now, according to the pronouncements of their own attorneys and spokespeople who cite the headnotes of the Santa Clara County case, fully entitled to the protections that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote into the Bill of Rights to shield human persons from abuse by such powerful institutions as governments. Even the American Civil Liberties Union, in a recent and misguided effort, argued before the Supreme Court that corporations should have the free speech right to lie (or say anything else they want) that’s granted to humans by the First Amendment
Read more at:
http://www.thomhartmann.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=183

Just thought some of you should know how corporations became persons. Read Thom Hartmann and find out why they should loose their personhood. Without the background, it is hard for many people to understand this.

Rose said...

Go ahead and ban the corporations, Tom, Richard, et al - just MAKE SURE you also BAN THE UNIONS, THE PACS, THE ORGS, 527s, ALL THE PHONY BALONEY 'GRASSROOTS' GROUPS BY ANY NAME/LABEL THEY COME UP WITH.

Make it truly fair - DO NOT distort the issue and use it to create an unlevel playing field, allowing the Orgs free rein to attack the corporations without any ability to fight back.

In short, do not pretend that The so-called "Alliance for Ethical Business" didn't raise/contribute every bit as much as Palco did in the Recall effort - the difference being that Palco was regulated, and we know what they spent - we do not to this day have any idea how much Salzman raised or spent, where it came from, who it came from.

Make it fair, ban absolutely every entity that isn't a single human being. Have at it.

Make it fair.

Anonymous said...

Seaborn: guess you believe everything that your read. Citing Hartmann to me is the same as citing wikipedia.

Try reading not only the santa clara case, but the cases that cited it as precedent. If you can't deal with the proposition that corporations are entities that are equal in rights to people, then go hang with the stupid Democracy Limited folks like Kaitlin SB and Cobb the lunatic. Your position on this has been rejected for about 200 years and it is time for you to move on.

lmao!

And by the way, here is a nice fuck you to you for your somewhat closeminded and elitist view on what is hard or easy for the rest of us to understand.

Anonymous said...

Love the bullshit rose! You're one of my only sources now that the ER opinion page only runs 2x a week! Oh and your big box bullshit on Heraldo's site was excellent as well! Keep up the good work-

Rose said...

YOu mean this one?
Rose Says:
November 19, 2008 at 7:56 am
Ozzy said I fail to see how the competition, although it may be GOOD, is fair…

Ozzy, ever notice that Burger King and McDonald’s always site their new restaurants right across the street from each other? Auto dealers on auto row? Banks in a financial district?

There’s a reason for that. They BOTH benefit.

This crazy idea that people won’t shop at both a Home Depot and a Pierson’s is just a notion used to try to persuade you that the end is near. It’s kinda like the Eureka Reporter and the TS, people read both. People were better informed because two papers existed. It’s not rocket science here.

Why is it that a small group of people wants to make decisions for all the rest of us? Why are people here so afraid of everything? And so easily manipulated into that fear?

Anonymous said...

6:22,the ER page was great,so is Rose and as far as bullshit goes we like yours the best. ROTFLMAO! I think Marks did grow a pair but he seems to be wearing a mansear to hold them up.LOL!

Anonymous said...

Well, lets see- Not sure if BK and MCD are trying to knock each other out, but the ER & T-S sure were. I think that was the reason the ER was first published. And you betcha Home Depot will have it's eyes on all of the locally owned stores. They wouldn't more to the market unless they believed that they could capture atleast 60 percent of the market. That doesn't leave much for the rest to remain open. Hopefully enough to avoid any more local store closings.

Anonymous said...

sorry, they wouldn't MOVE into the market

Anonymous said...

==================================
Anonymous said...
In hindsight, perhaps it would have saved everybody a lot of trouble if the hotshot pro bono attorney had reviewed the measure before it was submitted to the voters.

11/19/2008 10:29 AM
=======================

But an attorney did write about it before it was even on the ballot. Greg Allen came out against it on constitunal grounds, just like it ended up failing under. (Gosh)

Greg was 'hated' out of the green partty for his posstion, (not drinking the coolaid). Since Cobb came to 'power' greens have lost over 20% of their membership.

Now Greg is again speaking out again (remember he tried to warn his fellow greens about this 'mess' T would bring) Cobb and supporters are herrasing him any place they can. Greg just won't drink the cool-aid!

Anonymous said...

You are on the right track with this one, Rose.

-Sick of Cobb

Rose said...

Greg Allen did indeed try to warn people. tried to explain why this thing was fatally flawed from its inception.

He was attacked and denigrated for his efforts.

But he has been proven right.

Rose said...

Eureka Reporter: Arcata Green party opposed to measure on contributions 1/23/2006 Arcata’s Green Party chapter is opposed to the recently submitted measure by Humboldt Coalition for Community Rights because of what it said were the initiative’s draft mistakes.

“This ballot measure was fatally flawed to begin with,” stated Green County Chairman Greg Allen in a prepared news release. “It’s an attempt to use our local tax dollars to fight for a county law which is out of line with state laws governing corporations.

“Some sections have been superseded by state law and are void on their face. I find it disturbing that the voters have not been informed by the proponents of these patent defects in the initiative,” he stated.


The release also said Allen “is shocked by the lack of protections against frivolous lawsuits against mom-and-pop corporations, who fall into the non-local category if even one share of stock or a single employee is beyond the county line.

Rose said...

Then came this - Elected Greens support local control campaign
1/26/2006

On Jan. 19, the Humboldt Coalition for Community Rights (aka DUHC/Kaitlin/Cobb) submitted signatures for a citizens initiative that would forbid non-local corporations from making political contributions in Humboldt County elections.

The very next day the Arcata Greens sent a news release announcing their opposition to the effort.

“Over 1,000 registered Greens signed the HCCR petition, and every elected Green in the county has formally endorsed the initiative,” said Green Party member and Arcata City Councilman Dave Meserve. “It is a shame that three individuals, who made up the entire attendance of the recent Arcata Greens meeting, claim to speak for a thousand registered Greens in our community who support the proposed ordinance.”

“I am proud to stand with organized labor, the Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee, District Attorney Paul Gallegos, and the numerous peace and social justice groups working to allow local control over our elections,” said Green Party member and Arcata City Councilman Paul Pitino. “It is unfortunate that a small, isolated group wants to block Green participation in this coalition.”

Green Party member and Arcata City Councilwoman Harmony Groves said, “It is absolutely a Green value to challenge the ability of outside corporations to influence local elections. Under Key Value No. 5 of the Green Party it states, and I quote: ‘Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens.’ If corporations from outside our county are influencing our elections, we need to take a stand as Greens to preserve local control over our elections.”

“With the local Democratic party in full support of the Ordinance to Protect our Right to Fair Elections and Local Democracy, it is absurd to think that Greens would champion corporate influence rather than local control of our own elections,” said Meserve. “I hope that Greens will attend the General Assembly of the Green Party of Humboldt on Feb. 25 and stand up in support of grass-roots democracy and community-based economics, not the idea that Wal-Mart should have free speech. The position taken by Greg Allen and Charles Douglas against this ordinance, without input from their own party, highlights the lack of accountability and true representation within the local Green party leadership. We have a responsibility to make sure that our party accurately represents the beliefs of its members.”

Other elected Greens who have supported the measure include Jim Lamport of the Southern Humboldt Community Healthcare District and Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap of the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District.

Rose said...

Then came this in the TS: Article Launched: 02/28/2006 4:21 AM PST

County Greens support Measure T
The Times-Standard


GARBERVILLE -- The Green Party off Humboldt County -- not to be confused with the recently contentious Arcata Greens -- has chosen to endorse Measure T.

Measure T would ban contributions from non-local corporations to local races.

The county party's Chairman Greg Allen has repeatedly been on the record opposing the measure, but the party has chosen otherwise.

”It was a very exciting meeting,” said Allen in a press release. “The Green Party is looking forward to working together to achieve our goals.”

The party joins a growing roster of endorsements, a list that includes District Attorney Paul Gallegos, Eureka City Councilman Chris Kerrigan and others.

The support comes after the Arcata Greens at first opposed Measure T, then held a follow-up meeting a short time later to void that earlier decision.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I never did get the whole urgency of Measure T - the tea bags were cute, but it was more divisive tactics

What even is Cobb's purpose in Humboldt County? Divide and conquer? Yawn. Go take it somewhere else, pul-ease!

Rose said...

1:14/4:00 you can stay on topic. In case you didn't know it, Bush's term is over. MoveOn.

Rose said...

Measure T was about one thing, and one thing only, clearing the playing field for the activist orgs. It served the added purpose of giving Gallegos a horse to ride back into office.

For all the high-minded rhetoric it was and is a sham.

Here is Kaitlinn's call to action - the one that brought all 35 people to lobby the Board of Sups...
~ Important Action Alert! ~

JOIN US AT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18th 1:30pm

As you know, the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors refused to defend Measure T in court last week. The County is entering into an “Agreed Judgment” with the Pacific Legal Foundation, the right-wing corporate law firm that sued residents of Humboldt County for having the audacity to defend ourselves against the corrupting influence of corporate money in local elections.

The current issue of the North Coast Journal reports:

“The voters voted for Measure T in large numbers, and we were surprised to see county government cave after a few unfavorable preliminary rulings. The settlement throws away the measure-- and the will of the people-- before it even receives a trial.”

It is worth underscoring that voters passed Measure T using the citizen’s initiative, which is the most direct and unambiguous expression of the will of the people.

It is always disappointing when elected officials do not stand up against corporate power. It is even worse when they ignore the explicit will of the community.

Measure T was an intentional and strategic challenge to the ridiculous idea that a corporation is a “legal person” with constitutional rights. The law specifically stated that:

“Courts have illegitimately defined corporations as persons, allegedly vesting corporations with constitutional protections and rights. Corporate Personhood illegitimately denies the people of Humboldt County the ability to exercise our fundamental political rights.”

Sadly, Measure T now serves as a stark example of the fact that corporations do not merely exercise power—they are able to determine public policy for us. And even more galling, they can go into court and have unelected and unaccountable judges overrule citizen efforts to control corporate power.

These usurpations of the people’s ability to protect our community will continue unless and until we build a movement so powerful that it cannot be ignored.

At Democracy Unlimited are not going to quit. We will not give up. We will continue to educate, to agitate, and to organize until the legal doctrine of “corporate personhood” is abolished.

And you cannot give up either!

We must continue to do our work until the great promise of American democracy is fulfilled.

And we must do that work in the same tradition and with the same spirit as those who worked to abolish slavery. We must do that work in the same tradition and with the same spirit as the Women’s Suffrage movement. And the trade union movement. And the Civil Rights movement.

Because we know that this country desperately needs REAL change. And that kind of systemic change will only be possible when there is a broad and deep social movement that demands it.

We are proud to report that in the most recent local election over half of the candidates for office in Humboldt County pledged to refuse corporate campaign contributions regardless of the outcome of the court case. And many of them further pledged to oppose Corporate Personhood if elected.

Please join us at Tuesday's Board of Supervisor’s meeting to express your disapproval of their refusal to defend your right to Fair Elections. We need a crowd. If you voted for, volunteered for, or were inspired by Measure T - you need to be there!

That’s this Tuesday, November 18th at 1:30pm at the Humboldt County Courthouse, located at 825 5th Street (5th & I Streets) in Eureka.

Your comments need not be long or poetic. To the point is just fine. But giving them in person is important.

Some things you can mention: (This wold be called TALKING POINTS!)

Measure T passed by 55% of the vote. The Measure won in every single District in the County.
Citizens knew that a lawsuit was likely over the Measure and they voted for it anyway. As citizens we expected the County to vigorously defend our rights. The Supervisors let us down.
The Supervisors did not consult the Humboldt Coalition for Community Rights or the public before offering their settlement.
Measure T did not even get a real hearing in court.
The Board of Supervisors said in their settlement statement that they would like to work with the proponents of Measure T to draft a new law to protect local elections from corporate influence - let them know that as one of their constituents, you expect them to be proactive about that pledge and encourage them to contact Democracy Unlimited to begin the work.
We know that a 1:30pm meeting on a weekday is hard for working people. If there is absolutely no way you can make it to the meeting, please send us an email with your brief statement (and full name and address) and we will deliver it for you to the Supervisors on Tuesday: info@DUHC.org.

But please do what you can to be there and make your statement in person.

Yours for democracy,

Kaitlin, David, Shannon, Jon and Megan
The Democracy Unlimited Steering Committee
Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County educates citizens about the illegitimate seizure of our authority to govern ourselves. We design and implement grassroots strategies which exercise democratic power over corporations and governments. We seek to create a truly democratic society by provoking a non-violent popular uprising against corporate rule in Humboldt County that can serve as a model for other communities across the United States.

We invite you to join us as we educate, agitate, organize, and strategize to build a grassroots movement for democracy and against corporate rule!


Don't see the pretense there about being a separate group, do ya?

Tom Sebourn said...

Excuse me Rose but 50 people were at that meeting in support of Measure T, only 35 spoke about it. Compare that to the 2 that supported the rights of corporations to be people. Oh yeah, I understand that one of the two was a lawyer representing the anti Measure T people. But I understand that this is not a democracy but a republic. If we were a true democracy, Proposition 8 would become law.
I don't know where people come off thinking that if something doesn't breath, shit, eat and bleed that it is a person. If corporations are people, they should die no matter how well they are doing, after the life span of the average person. Heck, make it 80 years, I don't care, just make them go away as people do when they finally die.
They can start up a new corporation at that time and maybe I will even trade my time to labor for them in exchange for money.
I am not anti corporation, I just think like you Rose, that there should be an equal playing field. If corporations are persons, can they get married? Can they have kids? Do they pay the same taxes that a person making the same yearly income would pay? I think not.

Rose said...

50, huh? The paper says 35 spoke.

How many of them worked for DUHC?

Anonymous said...

Tom,don't burst a vein dude. This is about a con man (Cobb) and a bullshit power play(T) nothing else. I 'll happily work on a real reform measure but please don't ever defend both these shams.You are smarter than that.

Rose said...

Hey, Tom, I'm curious - do you think the County should have kept on defending it? Given that you NOW know DUHC's own expert agreed that it was a good idea to settle, and drop it?

Do you think they should have pursued it all the way to the Supreme Court?

And if so - what essential services should they cut in order to afford it?

Anonymous said...

Fifty people showed up because Cobb asked them to.

There was no one else there to speak in favor of T because it was not on the agenda.

Besides, people who oppose T have jobs.

Anonymous said...

Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain.

Tom Sebourn said...

Rose, I have to agree that our county can't afford law and order.
That said, a larger county like S.F. or L.A. should pick this up an run with it. I would have been at the sups meeting in support of Measure T but I also had to work. That cancels out one of you that didn't go either.

Tom Sebourn said...

I think this whole argument about how a small county can be pushed around by corporate lawyers is valid. Maybe Eliot Spitzer could take this on. He seems to have a lot of time on his hands after failing to regulate Wall Street.
The hooker thing didn't help. He was a great prosecuter though.

Rose said...

Tom, do you HONESTLY believe someone like Elliot Spitzer would try to push an UNCONSTITUTIONAL piece of shit like this to the Supreme Court?

MOST lawyers, and especially prosecutors, have more RESPECT for the Constitution and the Rule of LAW than that.

It's all so absurd - how can I get that through to you?This is like Cobb's currency. All made up. Tinfoil hat stuff.

Anonymous said...

Greg Allen and Chris Crawford also proposed that same $500 contribution cap THREE YEARS AGO that Dave Meserve and the other DUHCs are trying to take credit for now, as if it "was our idea all along."

Just disgusting. I can't wait for Mark Konkler to pop in and make more lame excuses.

Anonymous said...

Nobody was paying Greg Allen to be there, Tom, why don't you call the man and talk to him instead of making these bullshit assumptions?

He's a VOLUNTEER, just like the rest of the VOLUNTEERS at the local ACLU chapter, who happen to do good work in the community -- like opposition to Prop. 8 which I'm sure Tom would side with them on in their current lawsuit. I guess it's ok to invoke judicial review on a ballot initiative as long as its one you disagree with, right?

I'd say this is a perfect example of where the BIG MONEY really is on this issue. Nobody in the ACLU chapter in Eureka is paid to do anything, everyone is doing it for free. Contrast this with DUHC, where David Cobb and Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap and their assorted roommates at the DUHC flop house all LIVE OFF OF THEIR "ACTIVISM" the same sort of activism the rest of us do for free.

And if Measure T was such a big "campaign reform" move Tom, then can you explain why did it's proponents SPENT TEN TIMES MORE than the supposedly big business-interested opponents of Measure T, who could only scrape up $5k?

Tom Sebourn said...

So you are saying that Greg Allen was one of the speakers in favor of doing away with Measure T. I respect Greg Alan, I have had drinks with Greg Allen, he thinks that most of us are a bunch of idiots. He may be right. He does support prop. 215, another flawed ballot measure. He also despises David Cobb. Imagine that, two lawyers that don't agree with each other.
Who was the other person in favor of doing away with Measure T?

Rose said...

From my notes, the other person who spoke 'in favor' actually said she was a proponent but that she did not believe in throwing good money after bad, so she agreed with the decision.

Again, Tom, the call went out to the orks to show up and "bash without bashing' the Sups for "caving in."

You're a smart guy, Tom. Why do you fall for this crap?

A hundred grand plus, wasted already. And nobody's sorry.

What has a corporation done that has hurt you, Tom?

And did they win in either the WalMart battle or the Recall? No.

Too bad they didn't in the latter case, at least.

We'd still have a CAST/SART program, Tom.

Tom Sebourn said...

.A corporation is taking our rights to save seeds (Monsanto), Corporations are taking peoples rights to collect rain water, corporations are patenting life forms. Is any of this good?
Corporations are electrocuting our troops in Iraq and feeding them spoiled food. Blackwater corporation brought machine guns and silencers into Iraq, against the law to do. They smuggled them into dog food bags. Corporations are engaged in international slavery all over the middle east. Do you need more?

Tom Sebourn said...

O.K. here's one more example of corporations gone bad.
Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales were
indicted in connection with privately run federal detention centers
in Willacy. In particular, it alleges that Cheney's personal
investment in the Vanguard Group, which invests in private prison
companies, gives him culpability in alleged prisoner abuse.

Anonymous said...

The ACLU doesn't agree with prisoner abuse, Tom, in fact they've sued the federal government repeatedly over this very issue. Yet one more red herring from Tom, as if all opponents of Measure T are automatically in favor of every corporate abuse imaginable.

Have you ever taken PHIL 100 at HSU Tom? It's the course in LOGIC. You could use some.

Anonymous said...

And David Cobb is not a lawyer in this state and NEVER HAS BEEN a lawyer in California. Just more misinformation from DUHC central command.

Tom Sebourn said...

And Joe isn't a plumber. So what.
I knew that Cobb wasn't allowed to practice law in California. That doesn't mean he isn't a lawyer.

Rose said...

A corporation is taking our rights to save seeds (Monsanto), Corporations are taking peoples rights to collect rain water, corporations are patenting life forms.

And orgs and NannyStaters are taking away your right to walk on the beach, walk your dog, ride a horse, drive without your seatbelt, talk on your cellphone while driving - even, it soon appears they will take away your right to choose what you want to listen to on the radio.

In an odd way, Tom, despite the polar divide, it looks like there's some similarity in what we are concerned about. Differences on specifics, I guess veer especially off when it comes to Bush/Halliburton/Blackwater/BDS.

You worry about the patriot Act, where the Government can listen in on suspected terrorists overseas calls - yet you say nothing when we tell you about the people spying on beachgoers with highpowered binoculars, because 'you' (and I mean the collective you) think it is politically correct to spy on possible "beach terrorists." When we point out that the people doing the spying have no licenses, no certifications, and no legal authority to be doing what they are doing, that is ok with you.

You worry about the Patriot Act, yet there is no outrage about the Ohio Agency director using her State position to investigate Joe the Plumber on behalf of the Obama Campaign...

In example after example, there's the biggest and strangest disconnect.

Even the ACLU doesn't seem concerned about the invasion of Joe the Plumber's privacy... and they should be concerned... would be concerned if...

But - I'll tell you what - no one should be allowed to stop people from saving seeds, and the heritage Seed guys are making sure that that diversity is guarded - as it should be.

We need LESS government intervention, not more.

Lots more to say, but trying to keep a comment short, more later... I'll tell you my wounded bird story.

Anonymous said...

Actually, the American Bar Association identifies someone to be a lawyer as "somebody with a license to practice law" and since Cobb's been disbarred in Texas, and never been licensed to practice law in California or any other state, he's NOT A LAWYER. HE'S AN EX-LAWYER.

Anonymous said...

THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ IN THE DUNGEON BEHIND THE CURTAIN WITH THE LEAD PIPE CINCH.

Anonymous said...

Tom,put down that corn cobb pipe. JOE is a plumber. You don't need a piece of paper to know shit flows down hill. You also don't need one to to know that cobb and every thing he stands for belongs in the sewer. Tom,you are a smart guy but i think you have become twitterpated by cobbs bullshit. That lowers your stock.

Anonymous said...

Mark Konkler's DUHC checks must have stopped coming through.

Anonymous said...

I have to agree with 11:31 AM. There are many many activists in the community who VOLUNTEER their time. Meanwhile, Cobb and Co. capitalize on others volunteering efforts by stealing ideas and charging fees for "facilitiating" meetings. There are many in the community that would "facilitate" meetings as a public service. I find DUHC, ect. very divisive. They have lost my respect and never had my trust.