Paul Boylan said:
"I do want to comment on our suggestion that there is something wrong with Ms. Egger because her cause is not a popular one."
That's not what I am suggesting at all, Mr. Boylan, but it appears, that like many attorneys, you are twisting my remarks so that you can respond with your talking points.
My question was and remains, why is this a front page story, when it appears that there are one or two people opposed to this tank.
She absolutely has the right to do what she is doing. I'm just not sure why this is news.
Thanks for your reply Heidi. I do wonder, like the article, what if anything that Ms. Egger won.
I do admire the strength of her convictions though.
I confess that I am a bit confused. Is there an outcry amongst the citizens of Fortuna to stop this water tank or is just Ms. Egger?
A question that perhaps the Heidi Walters should have asked is, if Ms. Egger won with her first attorney, why did he not represent her a second time?
From what I can glean from the article, he won over twenty thousand dollars because the city withheld a single document due to homeland security demands. Why did she engage a second attorney when once again asking for records.
How then, can she express surprise when, asked for all records pertaining to the water tank, she is inundated with them; it seems prudent, in order to avoid a second fine that the people of Fortuna would pay for, that the city would avoid even the appearance of withholding anything from her.
Again, though, it does not seem that even in receiving the records she asked for, that Ms. Egger has been able to convince make her cause resonate with anyone else in the friendly city.
Perhaps that is why the writer asks if she really won anything at all.
In Print This Week:
Dec 5, 2013
vol XXIV issue 49
The North Coast Journal Weekly
Website powered by Foundation