The RAZOR ONLINE has written an article on the apparent demise of the PZLDF case. But the Razor got some things wrong.
"It’s unclear what the basis of the appeal actually was because the appeal document is not public record."
RAZOR
The appeal document is in the public record, it is just not online. I asked the court in Ventura (where the PZLDF case was heard) as to how to get a copy of that document and the answer was: to come to Ventura and ask to see a copy (no, they will not make a copy for you) or hire a service that does this - which is: they to come to the courthouse with a portable copy machine, request the document and make a copy for you for a price.
"One could speculate that CCW’s attorney Shaunna Sullivan wanted to move the case out of the area in hopes that the appellate judges would be further removed from local politics and biases."
RAZOR
One could, but that isn't how it works:
The vast majority of cases in the California courts begin in one of the 58 superior, or trial, courts — located in each of the state's 58 counties. (Which is the court the case was in before it went to the court of appeals.)
The next level of judicial authority within the state's judicial branch resides with the Courts of Appeal. Most of the cases that come before the Courts of Appeal involve the review of a superior court decision that is being contested by a party to the case. The Legislature has divided the state geographically into six appellate districts, each containing a Court of Appeal.
Source: http://www.courts.ca.gov/2113.htm
"At the tail-end of the opinion, the judge specifically stated that the costs to the respondents (CCRWQCB) shall not be published. "
RAZOR
That isn't what "not publishing" refers to. It refers to the case itself, being published or not published.
"An opinion that is not ordered published shall not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action or proceeding except as provided: when the opinion is relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or when the opinion is relevant to a criminal or disciplinary action or proceeding because it states reasons for a decision affecting the same defendant or respondent in another such action or proceeding. January 1, 1974 Division 3 Rules for Publication of Appellate Opinions Rule 977 Citation of Unpublished Opinions Prohibited; Exceptions (www.nonpublication.com)" (From the California part.)
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/LegalEthics/Nonpublication/Arguments/PublicationRules.htm
You can read more than you would ever want to know about that here:
http://lawweb.usc.edu/why/students/orgs/ilj/assets/docs/14-1%20Wasby.pdf
"There is no question that taxpayers and the district are shouldering the burden of those costs, as shared by the LOCSD."
RAZOR
No, the costs are to be paid by PZLDF or CCW, and the names of those people who are unfortunately on that case are on the superior court document. The District is not involved.
13 comments:
Not to make a habit out of posting here, but I just wanted to say: read the article for what it actually says, not what you think it implies.
It's not worth my time to correct imaginary assertions and dyslexic interpretations.
Aaron - perhaps you will illuminate readers as to WHICH points I make that you disagree with, in other words my "imaginary assertions and dyslexic interpretations."
You're making assumptions about things I never wrote or asserted. You quoted from my article accurately, but your interpretation of those quotes are a little off.
Everyone is entitled to their interpretations. It's nice to see that you want to keep the conversation going, but here are the facts:
1. PZLDF-CCW clearly prevented pertinent information about their lawsuit from being publicized. Any information had to be obtained by making physical copies in Ventura. The organization made no effort to disclose their efforts to Los Osos residents. During the appeal process, requests for information were denied. Pending litigation was listed as the reason.
2. The judgment and costs to respondents were affirmed; neither of those two things were not published. You mistook my word "publish" for "disclose," apparently. You should have read the words at face value. But it's also true that PZLDF-CCW has not disclosed how much money they owe the state. To put things into perspective, Taxpayers Watch and LAFCO made it clear how much money was owed -- and the debt was paid off fairly quickly. I may disagree with their methods, but in that instance, TW did it right.
3. The district previously invested in the PZLDF-CCW case, but they -- the post-recall board -- shoulders the burden of costs given that their support for the case motivated others to contribute to the cause financially. Speaking to supporters since mid-2006, I can tell you with authority that PZLDF-CCW supporters did contribute financially in light of the district's involvement.
We have a new board now and I'm grateful they're not involved.
We mostly agree on what PZLDF-CCW is. We've discussed this internally for years. You've dismantled their line of attack fairly well on your blog. But you jumped to conclusions on my recent article too quickly, and that's your misstep. But we all make mistakes, and now that the sewer is coming, we need to focus on not making the same mistakes over and over again. My article is meant for people to know who and what to look out for.
We need to work together, but in order to work together, we need to make fewer assumptions and focus on the facts in front of us.
I do not disagree with you Razor that PZLDF prevented pertinent information about their lawsuit from being publicized. I simply said that THE COURT did not cause the appeal document be hidden from the public as you said, "It’s unclear what the basis of the appeal actually was because the appeal document is not public record." It IS public record, in Ventura.
I do not understand what you mean by, "neither of those two things were not published."
The legal document, page 16 says,
"Conclusion
The judgment is affirmed. Costs to respondents.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED."
"NOT TO BE PUBLISHED" simply means this judgement should not be relied on or cited by a court in any other action, etc. The Ventura court probably does not even know what the costs are. That is for the Regional Water Quality Control Board to determine and present to PZLDF. PZLDF is not a 501 (3) c anymore or public in any way, so they don't have to tell us anything. The Water Board however is a public board and should be able to disclose what their costs are unless there is some legal reason that they can't.
Had you described what you said about the board having PREVIOUSLY invested in the case, I would not have written my response to address the present and future tense verbs you used "are…shouldering" and "will have to pay":
"There is no question that taxpayers and the district are shouldering the burden of those costs, as shared by the LOCSD."
"We don’t know how much the community will have to pay for PZLDF-CCW’s trials and tribulations."
Yes, we do mostly agree on what PZLDF-CCW is. I agree that supporters did contribute financially in light of the district's involvement and have blogged and spoken urging them not to for years.
My blogging these days is also meant to show people who and what to look out for even now. Ron is running a scam on his blog and got one bite on it. Sad.
Candidly, I think you're looking too deeply into my language when we actually agree on the facts. FYI - I did do a public request, but was denied because of pending litigation. I did a PR about a week after you first posted the web site showing the case timeline.
But yes, you're right about the process -- but of all people, I would think that you would be frustrated with the lack of transparency. Ventura is roughly three and a half hours south from Los Osos. It's quite a drive to get something that should be provided by PZLDF-CCW's top brass -- as they've provided documents before on pzldf.org. But look, the site is gone. Surprise, surprise.
The present and future tense is used intentionally for dramatic emphasis. The investments the community and the district has made to fight the water board and this project no longer yields any return. In other words, there was a lot of money going out, but not a lot of money coming in -- and that money could have been spent on paying for the sewer.
I calculate that as a loss for the community and every entity involved, and I believe that loss will be felt for years to come.
It's nice we can agree on some things and not be at each other's throats. Since I wrote my articles about you, you've made improvements in your discourse -- and I'm really glad to see your calm, analytical perspective again. It's refreshing.
Also, Ron is entitled to his opinions, but the fact is that 2005 ended seven years ago. Now it's time to move on. We did and now we need to focus on making the project more affordable while not reinventing the wheel. That should be the community's top priority.
P.S. Focus on Ann more. She can declare that her blog is an "Ochs-Free Zone" (I don't post there anymore) all she wants, but she's led her people to the slaughterhouse without my help. At least Ron's opinions haven't spurred donations to legal causes.
Well, so much for peace and your praise for my "newly improved discourse (thanks to your coaching)," as I see you have blocked me from viewing your site again.
I did temporarily. The ban is lifted because, after talking to you, I believe you won't do any harm. Let's not argue anymore. It's done neither of us a lick of good.
I'm not sure if we, as embodied in our culture, should value finding and making allowances for saving face more, or that we all need to reach out for better mental health and not take statements of fact as a personal criticism.
I absolutely would love to have more transparency in the PZLDF case, but don't really see any vehicle to make that happen. Who wants to talk about failure? I am not even invested in it enough to make that trip to Ventura.
I think the use of present and past tense, while useful for dramatic emphasis, could have been confusing to someone reading who has not followed the sewer issue as we do OR is a LO newby. There is a fairly large population turnover in Los Osos. Those people, prospective buyers or the newly arrived, could have seen a possibility in that language for some other fee beyond that of the sewer that they might be responsible for. That is why I wrote to clarify that there is NOT some other money that they might be responsible for paying.
I do feel sorry for the people who put even one penny into this non-starter case. I don't have any idea how many people were involved with the initial start-up. I don't know how much money was spent so far by them - other than tangentially what the CSD itself paid in 2007 - or how much those people with their names on this case will have to pay in the future. They were sadly misled and they could have better spent their money on paying the sewer costs (or their moving costs if they do not want to pay their sewer costs).
If I have made any improvements in my writing, it is not for heeding your criticism of me. Sorry to even encounter that bubble with my necessary need to pop it. Talking down to people doesn't often get the result for which one hoped and it is a lesson many of us need to internalize.
I don't think what Ron writes has any influence beyond the one taker he got on his frivolous plan. He can write what he wants, but unless one is really a sewer geek and knows how silly his proposal actually is, they might be misled if no one rebuts him. It is one thing to go before the CSD and ask for a refund, but to really mount a case in small claims court not only takes time and money but a certain emotional investment that will return nothing and possibly induce pain.
I see no need to focus on Ann more or at all actually. (Really, are you telling me what to do?) She is free to write on her blog what she likes. I ragged on her enough over the years for supporting PZLDF, I have no need to say anything more to her about that. She has moved on.
As for the "Ochs free zone." that is rather silly on her part as you no longer have to have any real identity on her blog or even fill in a captcha code to post. No one, including Ann, knows if it is an Ochs fee zone or not.
While I appreciate that you have now lifted the ban on me viewing your site, I also realize that you realize that I can circumvent that ban, so keeping the ban in place does nothing other than a public chastisement of me. I really do not see how the truth I spoke, when I did blog on your site, was harmful to you. I am all for not arguing, but sometimes truth has been made out to be an argument. You are welcome to comment over here as you like, but I, while reading on your blog from time to time, will not write any posts on yours and cause you any more upset.
By now, you should realize -- I hope you realize -- that I'm only making suggestions and nothing more. No "coaching," no telling you what to do or what not to do. You're more than twice my age, so theoretically you should be more secure with yourself.
The fact of the matter is this: Los Osos is still a mess. Though the sewer is a reality (whether or not you love it or hate it), the culture of divisiveness is alive and well. PZLDF-CCW is a remnant of that culture, and the way we've talked to each other over the years is indicative of it. We were pulled into it, consumed by it and we allowed ourselves to let the divisiveness manifest within ourselves. We -- the collective "we" -- need to get our act together.
Lynette, I never had an issue with your positions. It was your temperament. I understand your frustration with me -- and you're clearly still frustrated. But you have to realize that, at one point, you veered off the script. But now that the sewer is here and the threat of obstruction is stifled by the circumstances, I see you've calmed down a bit. And whatever happened before, I forgive you.
You're not "causing me any more upset." If I'm as upset as you think I am, you wouldn't see me commenting here and I wouldn't have unbanned you. I'm here because I want to engage in open dialogue. A good friend of mine passed away recently (I'm sure you know who he is), and his life was dedicated to keeping the dialogue open. I want to carry on his legacy and keep his spirit alive.
Aaron, if you attended meetings in LO or those with Los Osos' agenda items, or even other meetings with public comment periods, you would recognize that the divisiveness in Los Osos has dwindled significantly and is only kept alive by a very few community members who appear at public meetings regularly with a barrage of complaints against the County's project. They have been tuned out, are unable to rally support and are left talking to themselves. PZLDF has fallen off the map. Probably just two or three people read about them here, despite my interest in them.
I took your blocking of me from viewing your site for months as "upset" on your part. I'm glad that you are no longer—whatever it was that you were.
You can't measure divisiveness by who speaks at public comment periods.
Anyway, just to close this loop: I stand by the article. No "incorrect assertions" were made. It's just a disagreement on semantics.
Take care!
You measure divisiveness by walking about in the community and speaking with many people.
I see you and I agree on this, that the virtually 99% of comments made by the regular speakers (which are negative against the County) do not represent the amount of divisiveness in the community.
You are of course entitled to your opinions on your article. Let the audience decide.
Post a Comment