PZLDF Correction!

I spoke to someone knowledgeable on the PZLDF case yesterday. This person recommended a closer reading of the judgement against PZLDF. There is a difference I learned, between paying "court costs" and "attorney's costs." Around five thousand compared to hundreds of thousands. So those PZLDF signers, however many of them that are still left, for all those fruitless years of struggle and ultimate defeat, will not be paying much at all to the Water Board, just the court costs. Well, cheers for that small victory anyway, right? Right?

Of course, their own attorney's fees, that might be a different matter, but one shrouded in secrecy to us non-PZLDFers of course. Much like the dollar amount of the mysterious bill that the CSD owed PZLDF's attorney, the CSD having signed to be a party in the case with PZLDF in its early stages, lo, these many years ago. 

Joining the case was determined by some board agreement hatched in some secret Brown-Act violation meeting, with the idea to pay 25% of the total bill to represent the CSD's interests. This pointless idea was never agendized for a public meeting or listed even for closed session, due no doubt to fears of public outcry. The CSD had to pay the attorney's costs from before the contract was even signed! But hey, when your friends need a cash cow to pay bills, you tie a rope on her and bring her into the barn. The CSD was bankrupt but, hey, friends are friends.

The board's decision lacked any sort of public comment until after the fact, and the tone by that time was not pretty, the beef being, besides being snookered into joining the case, is that the CSD—well, let's say the public anyway (not the board members)—NEVER KNEW the TOTAL AMOUNT of the bill, so the dollar amount on the CSD's percentage was just a nice round number that could never be verified. Perhaps the CSD paid the TOTAL bill. We in the community will never know. The CSD exited the case quietly.

Perhaps to exit this story ourselves we can imagine that PZLDF was treated pro bono these past five years, giving a nice warm, fuzzy glow to their losing their bogus and silly case so spectacularly?