◼ County agrees to pay out $44k; no sign of financial support from Democracy Unlimited
...The integrity of Sopoci-Belknap and her DUHC “non-profit” is itself at question, however, in light of their promises that Measure T would survive challenges to its constitutionality, not to mention promises by DUHC to cover the entire cost. DUHC held a series of fundraising forums in Eureka and Arcata over the last few months to help “defend” Measure T, and also had a “Donate Now!” advertisement on their votelocalcontrol.org website next to their statement concerning the Measure T defeat. No funding, nor the “free legal help” pledged during the Measure T campaign, was ever forthcoming from Democracy Unlimited, their HCCR front group, or any other Measure T supporters, leaving county taxpayers with the bill during an economic crisis....
"however, in light of their promises that Measure T would survive challenges to its constitutionality, not to mention promises by DUHC to cover the entire cost."
ReplyDeleteIt was never challenged.Even Eric,who opposed T,opined about his bit of frustration about that.
Mark - what planet have you been on. Measure T was challenged by 2 local corportions one being O and M Industries. The challenge was a good one and Ilston found the measure unconstitutional. Are you mixing this up with the fact that it has taken 2 years for the challenge to be made?
ReplyDeleteNo,no chance was ever given to defend it.Ilston was wrong on all accounts.And the wording used could declare that Arcata's ordinance is unconstitutional as well.
ReplyDeleteEveryone portrays rightwingers as trying to meddle with other people's lives - why doesn't anyone ever remark on the incredible propensity of the LEFT to try to dictate the behavior of others... time and time and time again that's what we are talking about there.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to leave well enough alone? you do your thing, i do mine...?
Why do you try to exert control over everyone else's behavior?
that's what we are talking about HERE.
ReplyDeleteLet's alos REMEMBER that Cobb/Kaitlin's FREE lawyer DID INDEED participate in this decision - in fact he AGREED it was a good idea to settle.
ReplyDeleteSo much for that - still yet to be reported in the TS, the Journal - it was briefly touched on in Daniel Mintz's piece in the McKinleyville Press (and presumably in the Eye and Independent as well.)
Cobb managed to get his story told - how all these people showed up on his side and no one from the other, but fails to note that his crowd shoed up for the public comment period that includes anything and everything that is NOT ON THE AGENDA. It was NOT a scheduled item, thus no one knew to attend EXCEPT the Cobbites who were drummed up ahead of time.
It's kinda like the senators who orate to an empty house at 3:am on C-Span, then show the constituents back home that they spoke on the Senate Floor.
SMOKE and MIRRORS - the man behind the curtain, the great and powerful OZ/COBB.
Smoke and mirrors.
And pleas for money.
"Why do you try to exert control over everyone else's behavior?"
ReplyDeleteRose, it's because that's what leftism is all about. Collectivists want to (nay insist on) dictate(ing) where you shop, how you sort your garbage, what you can and cannot do with your own property, that you must wear a harness when driving your car, a helmet when biking and all the other behavior you engage in which in a free society is no one's business as long as you injure no one else.
Don't forget smoking, TV and Coca Cola - remember Clinton's State of the Union addresses - all about the V-chip and how to stop smoking....
ReplyDeleteTalk about fiddling while Rome burns.
Mr. Konkler - you either are completely inept or have comprehension problems. PLF filed against the County regarding the unconstitutionality of Measure T and seeking a protective order. Now protective orders are pretty darn hard to get unless you show 1) some pretty big irreparable harm and 2) that you are highly likely to prevail. The county opposed this challenge and lost and the court granted the protective order on the basis that T on its face looked to clearly violate both free speech and equal protection. The county’s lawyer’s said it was hopeless to continue to defend the challenge to the Measure and that the county ought to settle and cut its monetary losses as soon as possible as it will be responsible for all of PLF’s legal fees too when it loses and that there was no hope for the county to prevail. The numbskull that Belknap and Cobb said would “defend” T agreed with the county's legal counsel and also said given how crappy T was the county ought to settle as the measure was a sure loser. So, the county settled. Then a judgment was entered against the county and the county now owes over a hundred thousand dollars. That sir is a challenge. The challenge wasn’t fully litigated because the county’s legal advisor said it was hopeless. And I have to point out that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE INTERVENED in the matter, not Democracy Unlimited and not Eric Kirk. And they could have intervened and if allowed to intervene they themsleves could have continued to litigated it but would have ended up owning their own legal fees and PLF's. Guess they didn't believe in it that much.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Ilston is a reknown liberal who made a career opposing bad corporations. Konkler, when you develop her extensive legal credentials then MAYBE you can say that she was wrong. Until then, pipe down little man, you sound stupid and lame. And I really mean that. You weighing in and saying the Ilston got it wrong is about as laughable as Belknap saying her horribly written and unconstitutional Measure was clearly constitutional. You guys are both bogus and bullshit.
And Rose, it is not surprising that the TS missed the fact that the county actually spoke up during the open mike section about how the so called “free lawyer” said the matter should be settled because it was such a loser. Thaddeus Greeenson I believe wrote the TS article but he never was anywhere in the board chambers during all of this - and I know what he looks like. He flat out was not there. The only way he could have written about it was if he got his information second hand - and he simply wasn’t there. My bet is that he got what little he wrote about from one of the democracy limited cronies. 5 bucks it came from Belknap or Cobb. Thats the only thing that would make sense.
Remember this cobbism is alive and well and pretending to be ever so sweet in our HBMWD. Sweet words and a pretty image. Will there be more empty promises?
ReplyDeleteYup, the DUHC cult now holds two seats on the Water Board, directly: Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap re-elected this year against a broke candidate, and Tera Prucha newly elected this year against a divided field where she only scored 34% of the vote.
ReplyDeleteWatch your water bills triple over the next four years, I guarantee it.
By the way, wasn't it wierd how the Times-Standard never even reported on the water district results? After making endorsements of the above whackos, you'd think they'd bother to crow about it.
Judge Ilston is wrong?! So sez Mresquan. Of course why did I not see that.
ReplyDeleteHey dudes and dudetts,don"t worry be happy. that big time lawyer is cook'n up more pancakes as we speak.Yum,yum,like the little girl once said,"why if they don't has bread just let um eat pancakes" or sumpon-like-dat!
ReplyDelete3:15 makes a fascinating point: DUHC could have come up with their lawyer to "intervene" on Measure T, but decided to keep the money they raised instead?
ReplyDeleteThis is a total scandal!
Impossible! You mean Charles Douglas actually made sense?
ReplyDeleteEven Douglas knows that Cobb equals scum.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of Charles calling Kaitlin out on flubbing the financial issues:
ReplyDeleteWater District Scrambles Over Pulp Mill Default
This is outrageous!! DUHC will make our water bills triple just to forward their anti-business agenda??
ReplyDeleteThere will be little old ladies lined up around the block to bounce these bastards right out of office if they make things so unaffordable for our seniors on fixed incomes.