|
What is my IP
You are connecting to this site from: 38.107.191.115
|
Home
|
Submitted by Tux
|
|
Saturday, 06 March 2010 |
|
  ROUND TWO WON BY CHRISTIANSON IS IT ONLY A TEMPORARY REPRIEVE? STAY TUNED FOR FURTHER TRIALS The people of Stanislaus County got a financial reprieve with the Lydia Lopez verdict concerning sexual harassment charges against the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department. We simply can’t afford to lose any more money on anything locally. We are broke, one of the worst places in the United States. More trials are in the works. We have dodged this one, but could not be so fortunate in the future. In my opinion, we still have a big problem, and that problem starts with the “TEN TON GORILLA” that currently is the Sheriff of Stanislaus County. He is still costing us huge sums of public money, more every day to defend his questionable practices. Whatever Stanislaus County paid to the outside legal firm that handled this case was well spent. They did a marvelous job in court, and saved the tax payers a large sum of money. Sometimes it takes a lot of money to save a lot of money. I am sure it is costing us a lot of money for their services. In Stanislaus County, it seems like lawyers can make a good living feeding off of our transgressions. Remember all of this when you go to vote in the future. All this legal expense could be money that is being spent in other areas of our budget that are in need. I will not be voting for Christianson. Tux
|
|
|
Submitted by Administrator
|
|
Thursday, 04 March 2010 |
|
 .E The Sabatino Report www.voiceofmodesto.org
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
The Morning Mayor Show is on VoiceofModesto.org from 9 to 11 daily. The rebroadcast is from 7 to 9:00 AM on106.1 FM March 4, 2010 To: Leslie Albrecht, Modesto Bee reporter. Dear Leslie, In the interest of good journalism I assume that you and your editors would not tolerate City Attorney Wood’s untrue statements you used in your story of March 3, ( Ex-mayor: City is after me, and (Sabatino: Claims an attempted arrest.) Attached is a document you will not have to obtain through a Public Records Act and the following supports my claim that the City of Modesto spent at least $50,000 to defend themselves by the use of SLAPP counter-claim to chill my right to free speech. Thank you, Carmen Sabatino, Candidate for Board of Supervisor District 4 THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BEE AND THE MORNING MAYOR March 3, 2010 The Bee asks, “Why are you bringing this up now?”…Sabatino silences Council… Attorney Wood speaks “We do not have to discuss the public’s business in Closed Session, or behind closed doors, and only give the newspaper what they want to know and report to the people.”…Carmen Sabatino SLAPPs — Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation — are civil complaints or counterclaims (against either an individual or an organization) in which the alleged injury was the result of petitioning or free speech activities protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. SLAPPs are often brought by corporations, real estate developers, or government officials and entities against individuals who oppose them on public issues. Typically, SLAPPs are based on ordinary civil tort claims such as defamation, conspiracy, and interference with prospective economic advantage. SLAPPs are Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. SLAPPs are lawsuits filed against people or organizations because they have exercised their right to petition the government or speak out on public issues. SLAPPs frequently contain claims for libel, slander, defamation, malicious prosecution, and/or abuse of process. Sabatino asks court to stop spending taxpayer money on elections. Sabatino sued the city in October 2007, asking the City not to use taxpayer money to mail out voter information materials to encourage the passage of a November 2007 Measure M ballot that set the stage for Council pay increases and approving a new Charter for the City of Modesto. The Bee reports that it was about district elections, but that was Measure N. City files SLAPP COUNTER CLAIM Civic minded citizens who file public interest lawsuits can be hit with a SLAPP counter-claim. That is, the defendant claims damages arising out of the same circumstances that led you to file your public interest lawsuit. Does Wood speak the truth? At Tuesday's City Council meeting, Sabatino said the city tried to have him arrested during the lawsuit. Alcala Wood strenuously denied that charge. "No arrests were attempted as part of this civil litigation," she said. The fact: From motion submitted to court on January 13, 2010 by Joseph M. Quinn of MEYER, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON, Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF MODESTO Page 4 “Sabatino appear in Court on Monday, January 18, to be remanded into custody…” The city has spent roughly $10,000 to $14,000 attempting to collect the unpaid bill, Alcala Wood said. The fact: The City asked the court for $30,000 in legal fees after proposing a settlement of $15,000. Using a SLAPP defense, the judge awarded legal fees of $22,887. The business minded council then spent $12,474.28 on what they knew was an uncollectable judgment, as determined by a judge from San Joaquin County. "Any costs we incur to go after him are recoverable," Alcala Wood said. The fact: The City demanded and received an entire accounting of Sabatino’s financial status. Wood knows better, and as an attorney she should be held accountable. I expect the council and the city attorney to provide the billing with their law firm under the Public Records Act To unsubscribe just send an email to
mailto:
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
With Unsubscribe in the Subject! 
|
|
Last Updated ( Thursday, 04 March 2010 )
|
|
|
Submitted by Administrator
|
|
Wednesday, 03 March 2010 |
|
 MID IS BOMBING US WITH HIGH RATES . Allen, today’s BEE told us a story about MID. I hope the story is incorrect, but I fear it is far too accurate. Let me address only one issue mentioned on the back page, which is so totally out of line with reality that it requires fixing. I have already addressed the MID BoD regarding the assumptions for growth of demand furnished to me due to a PRA request. Those growth assumptions (that is, demand for electricity) range from 1.6% to 2.1% per year for 10 years. Those assumptions are actually higher than the city of Modesto’s fraudulent assumptions for demand for water. As I explained at a recent MID BoD meeting, the Modesto water system has experienced a dramatic reduction in demand since 2002. And it makes a great deal of sense, since the cost of Modesto water has almost tripled since then. As MID increases it cost of electricity, and Modesto increases its cost of water, people will reduce their usage. In fact, that is one of the reasons bureaucrats use to raise rates; people will conserve. Today’s BEE story tells us that MID manager Greg Salyer says that MID expects demand for electricity will increase by 50 to 75 megawatts by 2012. I think you should sit Mr Salyer down and ask him to justify that expectation. If you will not, I will. I would ask him to tell us what the mean daily demand for MID energy has been for the last 5 years. I would also ask how many customers have been served during that time span. Every public entity in the Valley has experienced reduction in demand for its services. Modesto city schools have lost 4000 students in the last 2 years. Fifteen percent of Modesto homes are empty. The loss of businesses is almost catastrophic. Whole office buildings are empty, malls are empty, parking lots are empty, the Gallo Center plays to 40% houses, unemployment is at least 17.5%, gasoline usage is down, car dealers and makers disappear every day and manufacturing is virtually a historical concept. Please, do not tell us that the demand in the MID service area is going to increase by over 4% to 7.5% per year for the next two years. We need realistic expectations to justify spending the ratepayer’s money. The Taxpayers Association appreciates the open line of communication you and the BoD allows. We want to participate in an efficient, healthy and responsive MID. Sincerely, Dave and the Association
|
|
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 03 March 2010 )
|
|
|
Submitted by Administrator
|
|
Wednesday, 03 March 2010 |
|
The Sabatino Report www.voiceofmodesto.org
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
The Morning Mayor Show is on VoiceofModesto.org from 9 to 11 daily. The rebroadcast is from 7 to 9:00 AM on106.1 FM March 2, 2010 At 10 this morning an interview with Steven Yourke, Prescott attorney From this mornings Board of Supervisors Agenda This Board has received the following claims: Rachel Prescott, Analeyna Prescott, Chalyn Prescott, Raynelle Prescott, Mariah Prescott, Talaya Prescott and Yvana Prescott; Joan Carole Guerrera; Steve Hatzigeorgiou; Debra Harper, Vanessa Rubio, Elonda Warner, Sprint PCS et al, Robert Rowe, Carol Bushway; and, Julian Lopez. (Recommendation: Acknowledge receipt of claims and refer to the Chief Executive Office - Risk Management Division.) CLAIM FOR DAMAGES Names of Claimants: Applicants / Claimants are Mr. Prescott’s widow, Rachel Prescott, and his six minor children: Analeyna Prescott, DOB: June 8, 1994; Chalyn Prescott, DOB: July 20, 1996; Raynelle Prescott, DOB: September 3, 1997; Mariah Prescott, DOB August 14, 1998; Talaya Prescott DOB: March 26, 2003; and Yvana Prescott, DOB June 4, 2005. Date and Place of Incident: April 13, 2009, Stanislaus County Jail, Modesto, California. Facts of Incident on Which Claim is Based: Craig Prescott died while in custody at the Stanislaus County Jail on April 13, 2010. He died in the jail’s safety cell following a forcible extraction from a jail cell. Mr. Prescott was apparently suffering from a psychotic “break” and was behaving in a bizarre manner. Sheriff’s deputies decided to move him to the jail safety cell. In extracting him from his jail cell and in placing him in the safety cell, deputies used unreasonable and excessive force against Mr. Prescott including the use of Tasers and clubs (ASPs). Such force was a proximate cause of Mr. Prescott’s death. In addition, Sheriff’s personnel knew that Mr. Prescott was suffering from severe psychotic symptoms throughout his period of incarceration and failed to provide him with adequate medical and psychiatric care, thereby proximately causing his death. Claimant’s Address: c/o Law Offices of John L. Burris 7677 Oakpoart Blvd., Suite 1120 Oakland, California 94621 3. Claimant’s Telephone Number: c/o Law Offices of John L. Burris, Esq. (510) 839-5200 4. Address to Which All Notices Are to be Sent: LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS Airport Corporate Center 7677 Oakport Blvd., Suite 1120 Oakland, California 94621 PLEASE NOTE: CLAIMANT IS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND ALL CONTACT SHOULD BE MADE WITH HIS ATTORNEY ONLY. 5. Description of Claim: Possible causes of action include: violation of civil rights (42 U.S.C. section 1983); violation of civil rights (Cal. Civil Code section 52.1, 51.7, wrongful death, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress. 6. Description of Injury or Damage: Claimants have lost a loving husband and father and have suffered emotional distress and grief as a result. They have also lost the financial support Mr. Prescott would have provided them over the course of his life. 7. Name of Public Employee Believed to Have Caused Injury or Damage: Sheriff Christiansen was in charge of the jail and is ultimately responsible for training and supervising his deputies; Claimants do not know the names of the deputies who were involved in using excessive force against Mr. Prescott at this time. This information is presumably available to the County of Stanislaus. 8. Amount of Claim: In excess of $25,000.00. Jurisdiction is designated as “unlimited”. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California and the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Stanislaus would have jurisdiction over an action filed in this matter. Date: February 2, 2010 ______________________________ John L. Burris, Esq. Attorney for Claimant
|
|
|
Submitted by Tux
|
|
Sunday, 21 February 2010 |
ADAM CHRISTIANSON HAD A VERY BAD DAY IN COURT LAST WEEK. WE ARE GOINGTO PAY LYDIA LOPEZ A HIGH PRICE FORHIS BAD LEADERSHIP OF THE SHERIFFSDEPARTMENT. LET'S GET RID OF THE GORILLAON OUR BACK.
|
|
Last Updated ( Sunday, 21 February 2010 )
|
|
| | << Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
| | Results 1 - 15 of 562 |
|
|
Add Comment (0)
Read More
