Friday, October 17, 2014

John Chiv's Questions for Ms. Egger

Janelle's screenshot

Janelle Egger tries to serve court summons to Supervisor Rex Bohn during public comment - John Chiv/Words Worth

Why was it necessary to serve the summons during that meeting besides to get attention and on the cameras? It isn't as if you don't know where Rex is or his office is located. Like your previously ill-intentioned lawsuit and perceptions, you just keep on with your agenda. Who is behind this latest ploy? And why?

Those are the questions unasked, not investigated by the local media. People are smart Janelle and they deserve public information that is complete.


A. Why was it necessary to serve the summons during that meeting besides to get attention and on the cameras?

Janelle: ____
(Anonymous answer #1: The papers were served on the Board of Supervisors which does not exist except when in session. Pretty simple to understand if one has the most basic understanding of our government.) INCORRECT, BTW
B. Who is behind this latest ploy?

Janelle: ___

C. And why?

Janelle: ____

I'm not playing the email game with you, Janelle. I get that you have something to say. As John points out, you have chosen to 'respond' - though not ANSWER the questions - on an anonymous blog "which clearly has an agenda and is very obviously comprised of the same Heraldo crowd, the Fair Wage crowd and Occupy Eureka."

And you've chosen to comment profusely - pseudonymously - in the comments threads, which is only obvious because people respond to you by your name following those arguably anonymous responses.

All from someone who professes to care about free speech issues.

We live in a nation where free speech is a God-given right, meaning it cannot be taken away, and you are safe to use your name when stating your opinion.

Yet people hide in the shadows of anonymity, refusing to be upfront and honest in stating their opinions, and you choose to participate in that manner.

Not gonna play.

Comment here - WITH YOUR NAME - and I will put your responses in the post. I will do so even if you wish to use your pseudonym: Fortuna Rain. No problem.

ADDED: IF YOU HAVE TROUBLE POSTING HERE, you can email your answers, and I will paste them in.

Supervisors served court summons for alleged Brown Act violations - Will Houston/Times-Standard

The writ of mandate was filed against the board this month by Fortuna resident Janelle Egger, who said the board's use of committees — with three specifically targeted — violated the Brown Act by ignoring its own rules on committee formation and excluding members of the public from attending standing committee meetings, which she claims should be open to the public.

"The Brown Act has a provision, generally speaking, that meetings are going to be open and publicly noticed and agendized," she said. "It says that applies to the legislative bodies and its commissions and committees and then it gives an exception to that. The way the county seems to be interpreting it is that as long as it has less than quorum of the board members it was not subject to the Brown Act."

...One question still up in the air is whether Egger served the summons correctly.


  1. I do not understand what you are going on about Rose. I really don't. Janelle proudly uses her identity on all her comments - if not name itself - "fortuna rain" always has her easily identifiable photo.

    Maybe she didn't answer your questions but free speech doesn't mean you have to answer all questions all of the time - if you don't believe this, please refer to the "O"-fer conservatives are running on LoCO questions. Non-conservative candidates haven't had the same shyness. Remember? Even Chris K answered one of your "tough" questions that you proceeded to have a good time with (with little to no basis as usual).

    Also Rose, I thought you said you were not religious, or was I mistaken. Is free speech a God-given right? Is that in the constitution somewhere? I missed that. (The DofI is not a governing document if you are headed there)

    One more time...This

    Yet people hide in the shadows of anonymity, refusing to be upfront and honest in stating their opinions, and you choose to participate in that manner

    Is so absurd and untrue in the case of Janelle, that I am frankly irritated if not approaching angry.

    1. Jon, Janelle e-mailed ME, in case you didn't get that out of the post. She claims her posts are blocked. And asked me to intervene. So, I'm helping her out.

      So - you're saying Tuluwat is not an anonymous blog? Is that it? you and Janelle know who it is? Do share.

    2. Liberal Jon is upset! Let us all drop what we are doing! Jon and Janelle, free speech applies to others as well.

      Stop throwing a fit and move on. Janelle you have had your 15 minutes of fame.

      Jon and Janelle need to learn to listen and read before typing. This parroting over and over about alleged persecution is getting old.

    3. Uh? Let's review. Rose takes a cheap shot. I respond. Janelle is no where to be seen here. And I should shut up before typing?

      Based on the first amendment of all things? Does logic have any relevance in this blog?

      Fit-throwing LJ

  2. The papers were served on the Board of Supervisors which does not exist except when in session. Pretty simple to understand if one has the most basic understanding of our government.

    1. You are too dense to post anywhere. You sue the county you serve the clerk of the board. If you sue an individual in their official capacity then you serve the person. This ain't difficult except for those who have blown out what little brain cells they were born with.

  3. And 1:06, you need anonymity to make that statement? What are you afraid of, for crying out loud? Geez.

  4. Lost my comment. I hate blogger

    I'll leave it to the reader to figure out the your inconsistencies Rose.

    But I'll say this again. Look at that sentence. How do you connect TE's anonymity with Janelle's? It makes no sense.

    I look forward to your post on Mike and Chet and Don Smullin's lack of answers too. Boy howdy are you going to lay into them, huh?

    liberal jon

  5. Jon - JANELLE e-mailed me. Said she can't post elsewhere, though she has comments on Chiv's blog. He uses the moderation feature, and that requires TIME. I'm sure you know that he is busy, and attempts to deal with comments after the day is done. So, I am giving her space to comment.

    It has nothing to do with others. try to stay on topic.

    Or MAYBE, her publicity stunt DOES have to do with those others - is that it? Whose ends is it designed to serve?

  6. I've never noticed Janelle Egger to use anonymity. I may have missed an occasion or 10... you seem to know better.

    Her article in the Tuluwat Examiner was under her own name, while one of her comments was under her own name also... the other three were under Fortunarain... with her own picture as her avatar, so I don't think there's any attempt at obfuscation there.

    I've tried to comment several times on Mr. Chiv's blog... I've never been able to pull it off. No doubt Ms. Egger had the same difficulty and made the mistake of asking you for help. Live and learn.

    As for being anonymous... I would be guilty as charged. Still, I try to not to say anything I would not choose to say under my own name (it's all too easy to find that information out). In my case I value my privacy.

    Others... like Ms. Egger (and yourself)... seem not to have that personal issue.

    1. There are two comments by Janelle Egger on John Chiv's blog so claiming she is being blocked is a lie.

      I have not had issue commenting on John Chiv's blog. Even though I disagree with him. Seems like certain people are out to discredit Mr. Chiv and have an agenda.

  7. MOLA, seriously, you ought to try it - your comments are to be valued and respected, but YOU don't trust enough to get behind them, That's sad.

    It seems that everyone 'in the know' knows that Fortuna Rain is Janelle, making it a nic, and not a shield. The average person reading Tuluwat doesn't. So, she's willing to use her name, she's willing to be the upfront person for a bunch of other people? Tuluwat crowd?

    She contacted me because she wanted her answers heard - I'm giving her an open forum to do that.

  8. Worth noting: Since time immemorial, people have staged protests and rallies at the courthouse. Over time, a series of rules came to be - don't block the sidewalk, don't stick signs in the grounds, etc. Don't camp out overnight... - and EVERY OTHER GROUP was able to adhere to the basic decorum.

    But not these guys. Not #Occupy. #Occupy was its own animal, and it's actors didn't want to adhere to the rules, so they made a mess, interfered with traffic, camped out, and trashed the place, then wanted special treatment in the name of free speech.

    But at a certain point the virus ran its course and we were mercifully spared any more of the spectacle.

    Till now. This very obvious publicity stunt is very suspicious, coming as it does this close to an election, and involving who it does. No? And Janelle professes surprise that there are eyebrows raised?

  9. Please Rose stop giving LJ a forum. He has no traffic on his own blog so he spends time with his verbal circle jerk on your blog. He lack knowledge, ability to do critical thinking, he has not been here long enough to know the history of people, events, and area to be relevant.

  10. 10:52. I thought this thread began with this though. "We live in a nation where free speech is a God-given right"

    It's interesting that upon further inspection more often than not, it is the Right that likes to restrict free speech.

    "he has not been here long enough to know the history of people, events, and area to be relevant"

    How long is this? Can you shorten the length by attending Elk's or Ingomar club meetings? When Westerners first came over did we show the same kind of respect for those who were already here?

    Inquiring minds want to know anon.

    -Jon Yalcinkaya aka lj.

  11. Put down your sword, Jon.

  12. Ok, wait. anon comes in with verbal circle jerk - lacking knowledge, inability to think critically, and hasn't lived here long enough to be relavent - and I'm to put down my metaphoric sword? What is anon using, a 50 cal? Not complaining - just saying that I hope you can distinguish a difference. If not, we are not dealing with the same reality - something of course I'm aware we are not. (see climate change)


  13. Think outside the box, Jon. Quit reacting. Think. Don't jump all the way back into the beginning of time, and don all the trendy outrage as your garment of choice. Geez. Think of your blood pressure, man!

    Lay down the sword. You may find you have friends you wouldn't otherwise expect.

  14. Thinking outside the box is a great phrase, but let's stay within the box if we are speaking about reality. Does that sound fair?

    I'm going to ignore the sword charge and why it bothers me so for something bigger that has to be addressed.

    I'm sure you've noticed, like I and others have too, that the dividing political line is not absolutely matched by newcomers to the area and those that count their family's time here in generations (maxing out at 5?). The overlap politically is not absolute, but the trend is for the old guard to vote conservative and the new guard folks like me from the Bay Area and elsewhere are best defined by the HSU "elite" to put it in a way you might understand. (As an aside, the previous wave of new comers - the back to the landers - have found an uneasy aliance with conservatives).

    In that context this .... "he has not been here long enough to know the history of people, events, and area to be relevant" has a great deal of meaning to me.

    It's basically saying shut up, sit down noob. We've got this.

    Which would be fine if you actually did have this. Turns out, this is simply an excuse to have one's political opponents sit down, shut up and let those who are economically successful remain successful - even if that means disallowing equality of economic opportunity.

    So I do think it is appropriate to ask about these kind of contradictions about "the beginning of time". BTW, that First Amendment we began this thread was written about 65 years prior to the "beginning of time" - ie Humboldt County's genocide.

    It's not outrage, my blood pressure is not high as I write this, it's just the facts. Facts that should not be forgotten or ignored or white-washed over. Facts that should be internalized, accepted as what came before and thus understood. Maybe then we wouldn't be subjected to such tragically ironic sentences.

    This is not about white guilt. This is not about hating America or Humboldt. This is about understanding and accepting what came before (as we have no choice) and move on and create a new and better future. Then we rinsing, washing, and repeating.

    History exists, so when something outrageous is said, especially given our shared history - something we all share as our common history as Americans and Humboldt citizens - well I think it's an appropriate time to go back to Humboldt's original sin.

    Here's a quote from Tuesday's TS in case you missed it. "“some of the leading citizens in the area were corresponding and coordinating planned attacks, with the idea that they would kill as many Indians as they could.”

    And so there is no confusion - here is Google's definition of genocide. "The deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation."

    Seems pretty clear Humboldt had it's own genocide - it's something we need to accept as a community. We cannot forget or deny or grant time the ability to wash away our collective sins for something which we are collectively responsible.

    -Jon Yalcinkaya (lj)

  15. Jon,

    No one told you not to speak. You have a blog and can run your silly mouth all you want. Read your last bit of stupidity. " genocide ", Planned attacks on Indians ",and on and on without saying anything addressing a point. My point is that you know jack shit about anything and just repeat liberal party lines.You post more than anyone else on this blog. Why, because no one reads yours. So make yours more relevant with things like facts. By the way, got a job yet! Maybe Dick should start making comments about your employment instead of Rose's.


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