Judge Dale Reinholtsen denies Harbor Commission motion to strike Leo Sears lawsuit

◼ Briefly, Mr. Bertain said, "We won the motion to strike."
- John Chiv/Words Worth

Chiv'd: Judge in Egger vs Board of Supervisors tells Janelle to make her political position known,, seek remedy in legislature and points out legal failures

◼ Visiting Judge Arnold Rosenfield heard arguments by County Counsel and Janelle Egger, who is representing herself, regarding her lawsuit against the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors. - John Chiv/Words Worth

...The Judge was extremely patient with Ms. Egger who was defensive at times, not able to articulate her position and having difficulty legally supporting her arguments.

Janelle argued with the Judge on law and refused to follow certain legal procedures and suggestions when cornered in court and when the Judge was trying to help strengthen her case. If it were not for his questions, Janelle's presentation would have been even more confusing....

Highlights of Judge's remarks to County Counsel and Janelle.... at the link.

EPIC struck again

It's never good.

◼ Year old EPIC lawsuit will prevent local hatchery from spawning fishes - John Chiv/Words Worth

People are upset - developing

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.

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