Remember Janelle Egger? You know, the Fortuna resident whose attempts to find out more about her city government’s plans to build a new water tank turned into a Kafkaesque quest and public records lawsuit against the city?
Well, with the help of Access Humboldt’s citizen-production services, she’s made a documentary of the saga: “Boondoggle in thrifty Fortuna?”
From Egger’s news release:
I began in the spring of 2008 to question why the city was planning to build a water tank since we have a virtually unused city reservoir with enough storage for the entire city. After a two year investigation of public records, including a struggle to access city records, I’m still puzzled as to why we are not using the city reservoir. But I’m convinced that the reasons given to build a new tank do not hold water.
Access Humboldt will air the documentary at 3:30 p.m. this Saturday, Sept. 4, and at 8:30 p.m. Sunday, Sept. 5. And there will be more airings in the future.
Egger’s timing is impeccable: She’s running for Fortuna City Council.
This article appears in Sympathy for the Brownfield.
Good! I am glad to read that Janelle is runnning for Fortuna City Council.
The Journal has something nice to say about Access Humboldt?
Will wonders never cease.
I don’t think public access airwaves were intended for candidates to get free airtime. Seems to me that is a violation of their charter. Cheating by making a “documentary” is pretty sleazy. and I don’t mean just this one.
If the documentary was not produced by or for her campaign, then it’s unlikely that it violates the Access charter.
“Cheating by making a “documentary” is pretty sleazy. and I don’t mean just this one”
I agree Rose. At the end of the video it lists the current council members and then lists the date of the election, with the message to vote.
I was ok with the video up until that point, but as she is running for council, that qualifies it as an election piece in my mind.
One other thing – does this person have ANY qualifications with regards to water storage and distribution? Is she an engineer or is she just making asserttions with no factual basis;
I mean, I could make a nice looking video with snazzy graphics and the like about how Boeing is wasting too much money when building a 747 airliner, and that they should actually put the engines in another spot, and I could actually make it look convincing.
But, the plane would never get off of the ground. So, that’s my question. I spent an hour or so tonight and watched the video, but all I see is someone who did a lot of research, but ultimitely cherrypicked the data, and most likely has no professional qualifications to render an opinion as to where a water storage facility should or should not go.
Tammy, perhaps you should go back and read the link above to the lawsuit that Janelle successfullly won regarding public records. She has been working on this issue for some time now. Janelle has been a resident of Fortuna since the 1980’s. Her husband, Neil Palmer, served on the Fortuna CIty Council in the early 1980’s and is a local. They mananged to stop the city from logging Rohner Park for a water tank (see Tank in the Park- NCJ).
If the other candidates wish to make a video about their causes, then more power to them.
Meanwhile, I will send a campaign contribution to Ms. Egger soon.
Carol,
I read the article back when it first came out; apparently Ms. Egger won a judgement due to one document not being released due to homeland security concerns.
However, that has absoulutely nothing to do with the concerns that I noted last night regarding her qualifications to render an opinion about water storage and distriubution; again, I could have all kinds of documents produced by Boeing, but I still would not be qualified to tell them how to build a more efficient airplane.
Furthermore, your last two sentences really make Rose’s point. When you say:
“If the other candidates wish to make a video about their causes, then more power to them.
Meanwhile, I will send a campaign contribution to Ms. Egger soon.”
Access Humboldt is NOT supposed to be a political platform to spread one’s platform. The fact that you are sending a donation to Ms. Egger after you learned of her Access Humboldt video illustrates perfectly why this is wrong.
BTW, I don’t have any problem at all with Ms. Egger personally, nor your supporting her. I have a problem with the free advertising on Access Humboldt, which has been picked up here on the NCJ blog.
whatever
Tammy is pretty freaking ignorant when it comes to free speech on local television.
Anyone can make a program to show on Access Humboldt to distribute ANY viewpoint they like.
Which is probably why this is the only time all year the Journal has spread the word about a program on Access Humboldt — this is the only program bearing any relation to their recent stories.
“Whatever”
Priceless! That’s what you say when you have no logical response to what I posted?
I would really like to know why you think Ms. Egger’s record search is relevant in any way shape or form to any expertise on her part regarding where a water storage tank should go; expertise that apparantly trumps engineers that are hydrology experts.
Thanks for making my day, Carol. Now go on out and enjoy this beautiful sunday, as I am preparing to do.
“Anyone can make a program to show on Access Humboldt to distribute ANY viewpoint they like.”
Sorry, 11:06, they are not supposed to be making and showing campaign pieces, which they then get to air for free.
From Access Humboldt’s own website:
Home
Present
Access Humboldt provides cablecast time free of charge to community members and to local organizations. Programming is accepted on a fair and nondiscriminatory basis, and will be aired without editorial control.
Know This! You can request airtime for a program you made, or a program made by someone else, with their granted permission. Our programming ranges from homemade amateur to highly professional. The content and format of the programming is highly diverse and reflects the wide ranging views of Humboldt County residents. We will play programs in any language.
If you need some guidance, please visit our “Produce Your Own Content” page.
Not a member? Fill out a membership application.
Support our mission – Local Voices through Community Media
Access Humboldt is the biggest scam in local media since the Reporter. It’s a thinly veiled platform for activists and protesters and politicos and in general people that no one would normally listen to. It’s billed as one thing but is really another. Boycott and ban it. Never hit their website or watch their channel. It’s just better that way.
To NONO, as an employee of Access Humboldt I am very curious as to why you perceive AH as a scam. Further, outreach & promotion fall onto my responsibility list. I need to know if we’re misleading anyone with our message(s) to the community. Please elaborate.
Oh there you go Tracy playing the Fact card.
Just like an America hating liberal.
This is a comment section not one of your Obamerican re-education camps – Facts have no place here!
Go back to Canadia you Marxist factmonger!
Hello all,
I believe (well, actually, I am pretty sure) that Access Humboldt was formed with money that was paid by Cox/Suddenlink when the last contract was up with the cities that had franchise agreements.
One of the things done by the group hired by the cities was that a questionaire was prepared and sent out to subscribers, and Access Humboldt was one of the results, as subsribers indicated this was one of the things they’d like to see.
BTW, Access Humboldt has no political bent; its board is well represented across the political spectrum, heck, I believe Uberbogeyman Rob Arkley once sat on the board.
Oh, and Hi Tracy! (and John, I think, if its who I think it is.)
“Nice looking video with snazzy graphics,” gee thanks.
These are my qualifications: I can read, I can ask questions and I know that 4-2=2 and
1 – 1 1/2 = -1/2.
We have 4 million gallons of water storage available, we need 2 million gallons, so that means we still have 2 million more to grow with, in the north anyway.
We have 1million gallons in the south part of the city, we need 1 1/2, so we are a bit short.
Tammy, your “cherry picking” comment is a baseless accusation. Please tell everyone what I left out. I found one, and only one reason to build that tank, and I included it.
In our democracy citizens are called upon to make decisions. To do that we need information. Otherwise we have Council members saying things like, “Well, I don’t really understand…, but if he says so…”
Just to be clear, I started the video about 6 months before I gave much thought to running for City Council.
The timing is in poor taste. The video comes out right before election time, and it seems very self-serving. I watched the video from beginning to end and found her conclusions to be faulty and illogical. She is too much of a lone wolf who would tend to work against council unity and deadlock every decision.
Hi Janelle,
Thanks for coming here and answering my question and proving my point.
“These are my qualifications: I can read, I can ask questions and I know that 4-2=2 and 1 – 1 1/2 = -1/2.”
I too can add and subract, though more often than not I need a calculator, or I just ask my third grader.
Still, your qualifications do not give you the necessary skill set to determine Fortuna’s water storage and distribution needs, just as mine don’t qualify me to better engineer a jet airliner.
My cherry picking comment is not baseless; in fact you cherry picked in your response:
” Otherwise we have Council members saying things like, “Well, I don’t really understand…, but if he says so…”
The council members are relying on the professional engineers and hydrologists that the city hired to do the studies;
your ladder reaches high into the tree branhes to pick that cherry.
You neglect to say that the council people say that they are deferring to the experts, just as they do in just about every council meeting.
I watch pretty much all of the city council meetings on the tube, Eureka, Arcata, Fortuna, it doesnt matter. They show our democracy in action, and in each and every meeting, the various councils have to make policy decisions, more often than not, based on the recommendations of others who are experts in the field they are making the decision on.
I am an attorney who has devoted most of my professional career to championing the right of free speech, and I am somewhat shocked that anyone could view Janelle’s video as anything other than one of the finest examples of citizen free speech there is. Her candidacy for public office is more than irrelevant, it is simply incredible that anyone would argue that someone gives up their rights of free speech and comment on public issues when they run for public office. I am confident that Janelle’s decision to produce this video – using public media resources that were provided with the hope the public would use them in this exact manner – is unconnected to her decision to run for office. Anyone who has followed this story knows how passionate Janelle is on this issue.
Oh, and just for the record, it is utterly incorrect that Janelle was awarded her fees and costs in her public records action against the City because the City provided her with just one record. Janelle’s public records action caused the City to produce over 40 records wrongfully withheld. I was her attorney in that case. And before any of you attack me the way you’ve just attacked Janelle, go to http://www.callawyer.com/story.cfm?eid=910837&evid=1 and find out a little about my First Amendment/public records work.
Janelle’s work is supported by others in Fortuna, including me; she is not really a lone a wolf at all. I am quite interested in the water tank issue. I have watched and listened to her and what she has to say makes sense. I’m glad she made a video to share her research with the general public. Someone has to ask the hard questions and I appreciate that Janelle has done so.
Janelle’s video clarified the background information on the water tank. Information that as citizens of Fortuna we did get from the City Council meetings. She raises that big WHY question about the size, placement and logic of the Stewart St. tank.
I thank her for her persistence, energy and passion. Thanks, Janelle
Again,
Francene, Annie,
Please list Janelle’s qualifications to come to her conclusions; that’s right,she does not have any. Neither does her attorney, who got a windfall of over 20 thousand dollars of Fortuna taxpayer money because of a schematic that was not submitted due to Homeland Security concerns.
Yes Paul, I read the article, and the article states that the city initially refused to turn over one map, with a schematic of some pipes on it.
Thanks for that, but it still has nothing to do with the lack of expertise on Janelle’s part.
Ah, Tammy, now I see. You believe that only experts have any right to ask for information, review it and come to conclusions.
Janelle doesn’t need expertise. Neither do you. We all have the right – and should have the opportunity – to scrutinize decisions made by government and to agree, disagree or be indifferent.
I’m not saying Janelle is correct or incorrect. I am defending her right to form an opinion and communicate it.
I am so pleased you read “the article.” “The article” was wrong. Period. I was there. I know for a fact it was wrong. Saying Janelle’s action only achieved the release of one document isn’t true.
But even if it was true, what of it? A decision to hold back even one public record is a decision that should not be allowed to stand – especially when the excuse for withholding it is “natiional security,” which is the reason why they tried to keep that schematic secret. That, too, wasn’t true. Releasing the schematic would not in any way jeopardize public safety, and they surely knew it.
By challenging the City’s decision to withhold clearly public records pertaining to a matter of unquestioned public interest, Janelle fought for the public’s right to examine the acts of public officials. It sickens me that she has been attached and ridiculed for not just doing the right thing, but the hard thing. It isn’t her fault that the City was ordered to pay the fees it cost her to enforce the public’s rights: it is the fault of the officials that decided to keep that information secret. That was a bad decision and their anti-democratic, anti-American decision resulted in a loss of public funds. They, and not Janelle, should be criticized for making such a patently unlawful decision.
The good news, however, is that they won’t do it again – and that is the result that those who drafted the California Public Records Act intended when they included a potent enforcement mechanism.
Janelle, come find me any time an appointed or elected official wrongfully denies you access to public information. I will be my honor and great pleasure to make them give it to you.
In the meantime, good work for a private citizen who isn’t an expert. Very good work. I hope it sparks others to look at the same information and come to the same or different conclusions. Reasoned debate is good. But please ignore anyone who challenges your credentials to have an opinion.
Tammy,
You cherry picked this:
These are my qualifications: I can read, I can ask questions and I know that 4-2=2 and 1 – 1 1/2 = -1/2.
and ignored this amazing fact that I learned from a chart at the back of an experts report:
We have 4 million gallons of water storage available, we need 2 million gallons, so that means we still have 2 million more to grow with, in the north anyway.
We have 1million gallons in the south part of the city, we need 1 1/2, so we are a bit short.
The City, by which I mean the Council and management staff, seem to be ignoring the fact that we have surplus storage in the part of town where a new tank is proposed and a shortage in another part. It does not take a rocket scientist to see something wrong with this picture.
I have the utmost respect for experts, and the amount of work and dedication required to be an expert. My documentary relies on information provided by experts.
I had access to the information because of one of California’s sunshine laws, the Public Records Act. Enforcement of the law relies on individuals willing and able to file a lawsuit, and good attorneys. I went well above what the law required of me before even considering a lawsuit. The lawsuit prompted the City to do the right thing and release not only the schematic, but other records I had requested.
I believed there were some records held back or over looked, but requested Mr. Boylan to settle the lawsuit because it created a barrier to me communicating with my elected officials. As we all know parties to a lawsuit are often advised by their counsel not to talk.
The City did not agree to Mr. Boylan’s offer of a settlement. The court awarded a greater amount. Again, this is the way the law guaranteeing our right to know is enforced. Perhaps we could agree that denying records should be a crime for which the person making the decision is personally held responsible, but that is not the law.
My motivation in making the video was to share what I had learned.
My motivation for running for office is the ability and desire to serve.
Being among the factoid before jumping in type…I went to the City of Fortuna website to find out exactly what does qualify one to run for office. I could not find the answer anywhere on the site so have asked the council to provide me with that information.
In the meantime, I have never known Janelle do to anything half way, nor solely for her own benefit. I for one will appreciate her desire to persistence in finding out factual and viable solutions to issues involving the future of our cit., especially since the solutions she seeks lead to win-win solutions such as those mentioned in her video. Those of us who enjoy the great outdoors and the beauty of the forest in our own backyard are glad she went to on all of our behalves!! Isn’t that what an elected representative is sworn to do??
Please read this version….typing is not one of my better qualifications
Being among the factoid before jumping in type…I went to the City of Fortuna website to find out exactly what does qualify one to run for office. I could not find the answer anywhere on the site so have asked the council to provide me with that information.
In the meantime, I have never known Janelle do to anything half way, nor solely for her own benefit. I for one will appreciate her persistence in finding out factual and viable solutions to issues involving the future of our city, especially since the solutions she seeks lead to win-win situations such as those mentioned in her video. Those of us who enjoy the great outdoors and the beauty of the forest in our own backyard are glad she went to bat on all of our behalves!! Isn’t that what an elected representative is sworn to do?
Okay the facts are in! According to an e-mail response from the City of Fortuna Senior Administrative Assistant:
The only qualifications needed to run for City Council are:
Must be a registered Voter
Must live within the City Limits
Imagine that, an American community that believes in a government “of the people, by the people and for the people!”
That’s it.
Hi Janelle,
No matter how you slice it, you do not have the qualifications to determine how and where our water should be stored and distributed.
The experts have spoken; they have determined the need of this additional storage in different places.
I trust their judgement.
I do not think Janelle is trying to come across as a deciding party of one. Her love of all things in nature and desire to preserve the few natural resources we have left on this Earth, merely drove her to explore and present other possibilites. With this approach to city issues we will be able to make more informed decision when the time comes.
The experts have spoken. I include what City Staff said and then what other expert information sources say. I invite others to view the documentary themselves and see for themselves.
The determination will be made by the City Council. All I am suggesting is that there is enough evidence to suggest the prior decisions were made on incorrect facts and that we should take a look at the very real possibility of using Vancil reservoir.
Opps! http://FortunaCitizen.comto see for yourself.
Tammy, Paul, my article said Egger received documents. Plural. It was not “wrong”:
“At the peak of the engagement, last January, Egger sued the city under the California Public Records Act to compel it to provide documents she’d repeatedly requested. She prevailed, and in March got her documents — including one the city had withheld citing Homeland Security concerns — and last June Humboldt County Superior Court Judge John Feeney ordered the city to pay her attorney, Paul Boylan of Davis, $22,728 for his fees and court costs.”
Yes indeed, Janelle, the experts have indeed spoken, and you have no expertise that could possibly trump theirs.
Once again, what engineering qualifications do you have?
Thanks again for costing us taxpayers almost 23 thousand dollars in your quest.
The article is quite clear to me that the city made good faith efforts to give you records and only had concerns about homeland security.
Tammy, please tell us what are your qualifications?
Homeland Security is a lame excuse. These were public records. Period.
And is your name really “Tammy” or are you a developer?
BTW, I did not decide to support Janelle in her bid for her campaign for Fortuna City Council because of watching the film on Access Humboldt, I support her, because she is a friend.
Carol, perhaps you should have a nice soothing cup of herbal tea as you peruse these comments, it might help with your reading comprehension.
I have NO QUALIFICATIONS, but NEITHER DOES JANELLE!!! That’s my point, Carol, I trust the engineers and hydrologists who have determined how much storage we need and where it should be stored.
And yes, my name is Tammy, and no I am not a developer, though I don’t think being a developer is a bad thing, as you not so cleverly try to infer.
Say, aren’t you THE Carol Conners who is part of the big nasty health insurance industry that is driving us all broke? Obama care cannot come soon enough for me!
Tammy, I realize there was a lot of information in the documentary and you might have missed it, but you need to know that I used numbers from the hydrologist and information from the hydrologist.
Go to the City, ask for the April 2007 Water System Improvements Preliminary Design Report. Table 1 in that document contains the information on where and how much storage we need.
Please, go see for yourself.
Janelle,
Again, I will trust the experts who prepared the reports, not your interpretation of the reports, as you have about as much expertise in this matter as I, which is to say none at all.
Heidi – I stand corrected. The article was correct. It is those who claim the article says that, for all her trouble, janelle only received one document who are wrong.
Tammy – So what your saying is, if a government official makes a “good faith” decision to withhold a clearly public records on the pretense of “national security” then that should justify the withholding?
What are you, a Soviet-era communist? That is the most repellant, repugnant, anti-American argument I’ve ever heard. It would justify government withholding anything and everything without any concern for any consequence for doing so.
And in this case the City was dead wrong – and the knew it. They publicly displayed the very schematic they tried to later withhold from Janelle on the grounds of “national security.” That isn’t a “good faith” mistake. It is a bald pretense for keeping information from the public because those holding the information are trying to prevent scrutiny of their decisions.
And you feel that, under these circumstances, those who did this should suffer no consequences for doing what they did, for forcing a member of the pubic to hire an attorney to get what should have been freely given and easily obtained? You have got to be kidding.
The law wisely places the burden of even good faith mistakes on those in government deciding to withhold information from the public. This burden is in place to discourage the exact kind of behavior that ended up costing the City so much money.
But the blame should be on those who decided to withhold that information, not on the citizen who used the law to get it. Those who decided to keep information secret on such poor pretense are the ones responsible for what it cost to pry the information out of them.
When you blame Janelle for what it cost, you focus on the wrong bad actor. It is inexplicable and beyond belief that you can’t – or won’t – see that.
But as I’ve said, the good news is that the City won’t do that again. Ultimately, it was a small price to pay to ensure the public’s right to access information and scrutinize government decisions – which is what this is ultimately all about.
Again, good job, Janelle. Ignore those who think that people serve their government and question those who question authority. They don’t understand what it means to live in a free society, why it is a free society and how fragile that freedom is.
For the past 36 years I have taught children from 0-12 years of age that logical and natural consequences are a direct result of their choices and actions. Blaming Janelle because the judge told the city to pay the $22,728 for not divulging public information makes about as much sense as blaming the police officer for issuing you a ticket when you chose to exceed the limit. The city chose not to turn over the documents being requested and so were the only ones responsible for the fine incurred. I’m glad Janelle hung in there and stuck up for what is our public right!
Nice Strawman Paul; construct a position that I didn’t take and then knock it down.
The article clearly states that the whole kerflufle over the public records act request was over the schematic – one document; the city could have sent you and Janelle a million other items after that, and it doesn’t deflect from that one fact.
But, that is not even my point. Janelle is within her rights to make a nifty video, but she has zero qualifications to render the judgements she ultimately makes as to how much storage of water there should be, where it should be stored, and how it should be delivered.
You don’t either, nor does Jackie, Carol Conners, or I. Where are the experts in the field who are backing Janelle’s contention that this is a boondoggle in thrifity Fortuna? (hint – there are’nt any, and no, you as an attorney don’t qualify).
I am angry over the 23 thousand dollars Jackie. I am angry at the city for wasting my tax dollars, but I am also angry because I simply do not believe that Janelle’s attorney, the above strawman builder, spent 23 thousand dollars worth of time on this case.
Tell me, Paul, had you lost, would you have collected your fee from Janelle, or were you just chasing this ambulance?
But, again, that isn’t my point . Janelle won, Paul collected a chunk of the city’s $$$, but that does NOT make Janelle any kind of an expert in water storage or distribution.
Tammy, you are simply wrong about the “single document being released” aspect of Janelle’s public records action. It was a whole bunch of records. Heidi Walters, the reporter who wrote the article, pointed that out above. The article says Janelle “got her documents” – plural.
Accept that. That’s the truth – not your version of the story. Janelle’s lawsuit didn’t get her access to only the schematic – although withholding the schematic alone, on the idiotic pretense of “national security,” justifies an award of attorney’s fees and costs.
You don’t believe I earned 23K helping Janelle? On what do you base that belief? The trial judge awarded me my fees after an intensive evidentiary proceeding where I was required to prove I earned that money. He saw my bill. You didn’t. The judge knows the work I performed. You don’t. But you “simply don’t believe” I earned that award.
Your anger – if it is justified at all – is best directed against the judge who looked at my bill and determined I earned the award. So you are really challenging the judicial system that looked at the evidence, listened to argument from both sides, and made a determination in my favor. The City could have appealed, but didn’t. So why again do you believe the trial judge made a mistake?
What “straw man” argument are you talking about? You think I need to resort to such tactics to show you are being unreasonable? That’s not what I did. What I did was point out that your position is repugnant and contrary to time tested American values because you attacked someone seeking government transparency and you championed those in government trying to hide information. How is that a straw man?
You equate constitutional advocacy to “chasing ambulances?” That’s like criticizing doctors for treating – and curing – disease. I didn’t cause this problem. Those who decided to try to keep Janelle in the dark caused this problem. I fixed what was broken. I cured the disease of secrecy. But you don’t think it is a disease, You don’t think the City’s attempt at secrecy was bad in any way, do you?
Had the judge denied my motion for fees and costs, I would not have asked Janelle to pay me a cent. She couldn’t even afford my usual retainer. I took the case on contingency. I bet you think there is something wrong with that, that only people with enough money to hire an attorney have the right to seek justice. It would be consistent with your other opinions.
Finally, your “Janelle isn’t an expert” argument is a better example of a straw man argument than anything I’ve written here. It is irrelevant that Janelle isn’t an expert. All she did was look at data, form an opinion and then place that opinion – and the reasons behind it – in front of the public. She might be wrong, but pointing out she isn’t an expert doesn’t show she is wrong. And expert opinions, like the decisions our public officials make, can be challenged – even by non experts like Janelle.
Council: “YAY WE’RE GONNA MAKE A SHINY NEW TANK IN THE PARK!!!!! CHECK OUT MY SWEET AMERICAN FLAG TIE YOU GUYS!”
Citizens of Fortuna: “You want to turn our park into a water storage facility? What the $@!#?!?!”
Council: “WE STILL WANNA BUILD A SHINY NEW WATER TANK!!! WHERE SHALL WE PUT IT? (just don’t put it in our park…)”
Engineer 1: “Here’s an option that doesn’t involve the expense of a new tank.”
Council: “LALALALALALA, GROUP-THINK, GROUP-THINK. DON’T CARE. WANT SHINY NEW WATER TANK. SHINY!!!!!!!”
Engineer 2: “Ugh, fine. Here is a possible design for the redundant tank
you wanted. (Hope no one is paying any attention to this …)”
Council: “YAY ENGINEERING PLANS! WE’RE GONNA GET A SHINY NEW TANK!!!!!”
Janelle Egger: “This doesn’t make any sense. Can I have a look at the documents pertaining to this?”
Council: “NO! TERRORISTS!!!!!!!!!!!”
Janelle Egger: “You have got to be kidding me.”
Council: “WHATCHA GONNA DO? SUE US TO ENFORCE UR RIGHTS? WE DARE YOU! BWAHAHAHAHA”
Janelle Egger: [Successful lawsuit to retrieve public records]
Council: “DAUMN! CALIFORNIA STATE LAW IS SERIOUS BUSINESS AFTER ALL…”
Janelle Egger: “Yep, this definitely doesn’t make any sense. I’ll even
make a documentary so everyone can understand.”
Council: “WE STILL WANNA MAKE A BIG SHINY NEW WATER TANK… YAY!!!!!!! CHECK OUT MY SWEET AMERICAN FLAG TIE YOU GUYS!”
Janelle Egger: “Well I guess I have no choice but to run for City
Council now. Drat.”
[To be continued]
Janelle Egger: “Yep, this definitely doesn’t make any sense. I’ll even make a documentary so everyone can understand.”
Anonymous Blogger: “YOU CAN’T SAY THAT! YOU AREN’T AN EXPERT!”
Janelle Egger: “I never said I am an expert. But now that the City has provided the data I requested, anyone can look at it and see for themselves that the City’s conclusions don’t make sense. We don’t need a new water tank.”
Anonymous Blogger: I SAID YOU’RE NOT AN EXPERT!
Janelle Egger: “And I admit that. Nevertheless, the City’s “experts” made some mistakes. Take a look at the data and see for yourself. You don’t need to be an expert to see that the data doesn’t support a new water tank.”
Anonymous Blogger: ” BUT THE CITY’S EXPERTS ARE EXPERTS!”
Janelle Egger: “Yes, they are experts who were paid by the City to support the City’s decision to build a new water tank. And they did. But an independent review of the same data they used shows we don’t need a new water tank.
Anonymous Blogger: “THEY CAN’T BE WRONG! THEY ARE EXPERTS!
Janelle Egger: “Even experts can make mistakes, and these did. See for yourself. Review the data for yourself.
Anonymous Blogger: BUT I’M NOT AN EXPERT!
Janelle Egger: Look, you don’t have to be an expert to see that we don’t need a new water tank. See for yourself. Think for yourself. Don’t take their word for it.
Anonymous Blogger: I don’t know how to do that.
Janelle Egger: Let me show you how.
[To be continued]
Even badminton experts make mistakes: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2670/3692524327_f23a27159e_z.jpg
Gee, isn’t Janelle your mother, Jesse?
Nice Cheerleading.
Paul – here is another strawman of yours:
“Anonymous Blogger: “YOU CAN’T SAY THAT! YOU AREN’T AN EXPERT!” “
(followed by your insinuation that can’t think for myself).
I never said that, I have consistently asked what her expertise is in coming to a conclusion disagrees what the experts in the field have come to.
Janelle Egger has absolutely NO EXPERTISE in this field. Nor do I. Nor does Paul.
But, to refute your contention, that I, an anonymous blogger, can’t think for myself, I stick with my contention that there is no way you “earned” a 23 thousand dollar fee.
It is a resonable assumption that your billing rates are anywhere from 100 to 300 dollars per hour; at the low end, you would have spent 230 hours on this case, while at 300/hour, it would have been 77 hours or two full forty hour work weeks on this case.
So, no I don’t think you worked anywhere near that amount, and I think you are as bad as those attorneys who go around exploiting the ADA compliance violations – hey, check the archives here, there’s a wonderful article on that.
Linkee: http://www.northcoastjournal.com/news/2008/05/08/jason-singleton-strikes-again/
I hope you sleep well at night, you slimeball.
Here’s your strawman, Paul, which you try and refute, complete with questions asking me whether or not I am a communist, lol.
“”Tammy – So what your saying is, if a government official makes a “good faith” decision to withhold a clearly public records on the pretense of “national security” then that should justify the withholding?”
I never, once tried and justified the city’s reasons for withholding the information, I merely pointed out what their reasons were, per the article.
That, my friend is the very definition of a strawman, where you took a position which I did not take, and knock it down.
I have never, never NEVER questioned Janelle’s right to do what she did, but I will continue to call into question the veracity of her claims, even as you try and change the fiction of her conclusion to fact.
Why yes she is Tammy, and I’m glad you enjoyed! ^___^
You seem to have quite a passionate hatred for lawyers. Can’t say I’m always a fan either. That’s how the law works though… “passionately discussing” the workings of our judicial system here is a bit silly.
RAH RAH SIS KOOM BAH!
“Slimeball?” Please, let’s keep this civil. Did I call you a neo fascist nut-job moron? No, I did not. I could have, but didn’t, and that’s the point: if a slimeball ambulance chasing attorney like me can avoid insulting you – a coward who hides behind anonymity on the internet – then surely you are capable of providing me with the same courtesy. Or is civil discourse also something you are against – like government accountability and transparency?
I am glad you are no longer insisting that Janelle’s public records action netted her only one document. That is progress, and it shows you are, indeed, capable of learning.
Let’s work on your insistence that I didn’t earn the award the judge ordered the City to pay me. Like the “single record” argument, you seem stuck on this one. Let me repeat: a judge who wears a black robe and who has the job of deciding if attorneys like me deserve statutory attorneys fee awards in cases like this looked at all of the evidence you have never seen and listened to all of the argument you haven’t heard and decided in my favor.
Tell me again why you think the judge was wrong. Wait – you never told me why you think the judge was wrong. You just keep insisting I couldn’t have earned that award, not knowing any of the facts and ignorant of the controlling law.
Finally, you say “I never, once, tried to justify the city’s reason for withholding information.” Well, that isn’t true, is it? Look what you wrote above:
“The article is quite clear to me that the city made good faith efforts to give you records and only had concerns about homeland security.”
Then you wrote:
“Please list Janelle’s qualifications to come to her conclusions; that’s right,she does not have any. Neither does her attorney, who got a windfall of over 20 thousand dollars of Fortuna taxpayer money because of a schematic that was not submitted due to Homeland Security concerns.”
Context is everything, and in the context of this discussion, it really, really looks like you were accepting the City’s “Homeland Security concerns” as legitimate, reasonable and voiced in “good faith.” You were not merely quoting the news article (which you apparently haven’t read). You were presenting the “Homeland Security” excuse in a favorable light. You have been a cheerleader for the very people who broke the law and tried to deny the public access to public information on the ridiculous pretense of “Homeland Security concerns.” Please stop denying it. It makes “Tammy” look bad.
Please come out from behind the fake name you are hiding behind. The fact you can’t show your true face and stand behind your words discredits your views even further.
Tammy – My wife just read this and warned me that I should be careful because you might be psychotic. So I say here for the record that you are right, that Janelle isn’t an expert and therefore shouldn’t be listened to, that the news article we’ve been discussing said Janelle received only one document as the result of her public records action, that it was absolutely fine for the City to withhold records from the public on the grounds of Homeland Security concerns to avoid scrutiny and criticism of its decision to build a new water tank, that either I conned the judge who awarding me fees was either stupid or corrupt, and that I can’t sleep at night.
And with that, I withdraw from this discussion. Good luck, Janelle. Watch your back.
16318 best casino bonuses 8==8
CSCDdax casino bonuses :v