Friday, September 26, 2014

Eureka prayer lawsuit settled, city to pay $16K in attorney's fees

City to cease endorsing mayor's breakfast
After nearly two years of hearings, a lawsuit over prayer breakfasts sponsored by Eureka city officials was settled Thursday, but plans are in motion to appeal a previous ruling made on invocations at city council meetings.
Clarification about the prayer lawsuit that was not clear from the Times-Standard article - John Chiv/Words Worth
Mike Newman: We did not settle on the invocation issue, we are free to continue our policy. What was settled was the matter about the Mayor involving City Personnel in a Prayer breakfast several years ago.

Marian Brady: As is true with any unfounded claim or lawsuit against the City, the City has to make decisions about the costs to defend and the risk the claim poses. In this case, it was decided to pay Ms. Beaton a portion of her attorneys’ fees (no monetary damages were paid to her) and permit her to go forward with her appeal, without further cost to the City, to end the matter.
Is Peter Martin hurting for actual clients because he sure has a lot of free time to collect attorney fees on behalf of "causes" - John Chiv/Words Worth


  1. The lady that runs "Bless The Beast" doesn't want prayer. Maybe she should change the name of her organization. "Bless"??? Really??

    1. You can Bless the Beasts, just don't Bless the People!

      Good observation!

  2. I got news for Councilwoman Brady, Appeals cost money too. So by settling and allowing an appeal (on what is quite frankly decided Supreme Court authority) to move forward they have insured that the City will be in fact spending more money. They have given this woman $16K in fees to allow her to appeal. Let's ask, Lance Madsen if Cyndy Day Wilson is qualified to handle this appeal: Lance: "No she is not." Ok, then the City will have to retain an appellate specialist (Can you say $650 an hour?) That will cost $30K to 40K more. Wait a minute, Peter Martin will suggest a settlement, here it is, "I will drop my bogus appeal, if you agree to stop having invocations at your Council meetings." Soon to be issued press release, we had to agree to this to save $40K. Or maybe they will use that Prop Q money to pay for this appeal. Who needs police? It's not like there is any crime going on? "Humboldt, your some special kind of stupid aren't you?"

  3. It's all about making you bow. You will assimilate. You can't say 'God Bless You.'

  4. The left is slanted when it comes to rights.

  5. You can stand strong and pround or kneel as you wish. Just not on the government dime. Rose and 6:48 PM are you intentionally missing the point or not.

    Here is the point. Government and religion are both great and necessary on their own. Government and religion, when mixed, diminish both. I believe this is true in both of my parent's home country - The United States and Turkey. In both cases conservatives are fighting for more religion in government and its the liberals who are standing their ground. Not against religion mind you - but against religion in state actions.

    "The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances."

    1. These prayer invocations are constitutional per the recent Greece v. Galloway decision.

  6. Exactly. Per 5 activist judges satisfying the demands of the values voters (previously know as the Moral Majority).

    If Republicans don't change their tune soon on addressing national security problems like climate change and wealth disparity, precedents like G v G will be over turned and thus "Constitutional" per 5 of more Judges nominated by Democratic Presidents.

    This is liberal jon, still struggling to post using blogger.

    1. You posted just fine above liberal jon so your blogger issues must be selective.

      What is it about God or Republicans or god values that threatens you so much?

      Why don't you talk about the failure of Obama care that most working class Americans can't afford?

      Why don't you talk about a President who has shown zero leadership while American lives get slaughtered?

      He cannot even salute men and women that protect his sorry ass properly.

      Under Obama freedom of speech for press has been the worst.

      You demonize any one who disagrees with you.

      Activist judges is convenient when you disagree but if it was Roe v Wade,
      it is right.

      The U.S. Supreme Court ruled it constitutional. When you become a Supreme Court justice, we will debate law, constitution and rights.

      You have double standards Jon. Respect and rights work both ways.

      Liberalism will run its course and then we will see the damage that radical liberals have done to good progress in rights for women and others disenfranchised.

    2. Wow, what an odd perspective. And this from someone who spends most his days in a courtroom. Not representing a client, behind the bench or even any other role associated with the court. Get a job already!

    3. "You demonize anyone who disagrees with you".
      That's hilarious. Clearly a grad-u-ate of the Red Queen School of Journalisitifcation, with an advanced degree in "Who, me?" and Pot/Kettle studies.

    4. 432 and 445. you don't support me and you dont get to tell me what to do with my time.

      I could care less what anonymous losers like you think. You have no guts. You attack behind a screen. Why dont you get a life instead of trolling me on this or any other blog?

      Truth is inconvenient for trolls like you and you have no facts so you resort to personal attacks. Humboldt is in bad shape because of losers like you who do nothing, are selfish and can only tear down others.

      The comment was to Liberal Jon who responded. Not to some cowardly troll who for all we know lives off welfare or someone else.

      Your life must suck if you need to focus on attacking someone on a blog you have no clue about. Go ahead, come back with another childish retort.

      After all you seem to have time to sit around commenting, ever contributed to the community besides spouting hate.

    5. Good gracious, you've got quite the chip on your shoulder mr. tubby

  7. John, thank you for the questions. I think they all are good questions from across the political (and religious) divide and I wish this format and time allowed for an answer to each. If you really are interested in each answer - ie if they are not rhetorical- ask them again either here or on your blog (or another place) and I'd be happy to answer - just focus on one at a time.

    "Why don't you talk about the failure of Obama care that most working class Americans can't afford?"

    I'm happy too. The ACA, the name non-partisans should use for ObamaCare, is having the same results one would expect from a sort of Frankenstein monster health care plan built by the right, championed by the left as the country's dialogue and politics moved right-ward, and then completely disowned by the right.

    It's much, much better as a whole from where we were and is already beginning to bring down costs and outright fraud in the health care sector.

    Here is Ezra Klein who thankfully jumped ship from the Washington Post once Amazon bought it

    Here is a quote:

    "This is the problem in the debate about Obamacare. The two sides live in different informational universes.....That top headline (from a list of tweets from the conservative YG Network), "More bad news for Obamacare exchange customers," quotes a New York Times report that "in many places premiums are going up by double-digit percentages within many of the most popular plans." It omits the next two sentences: "But other plans, hoping to attract customers, are increasing their prices substantially less. In some markets, plans are even cutting prices." (The point of the piece is that to get the best price you need to shop around.)

    In short - "ObamaCare" - is not a panacea - but on the whole it's working. It would work a bunch better if the right had worked to fix what they themselves created as an alternative to something even more left - wing. Something, in the end, which is where we will end up - like all the other top industrialized countries - MediCare for all - or universal health care.

  8. Jon, you're welcome to have the discussion here. There's no stay-on-topic nazi mentality, free discussion is ok. And Ezra Klein? Please.


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