A very nice citizen who recently had a long discussion with Sally as she sat in front of the local Post Office, said he wasn't sure the recall was such a good idea and had decided to stay neutral. He later ran into Doug Morten and asked him why he and Barlow had filed suit against a citizen who is just speaking her mind. Morten’s response was that they “had to do something to stop her.” That answer and other answers he received from Morten prompted him to change his mind about the recall.
They “had to do something to stop her.”
You know, I'm not worried about how people will vote if this recall makes it to the ballot. People will make the decision that serves them best, whether or not it's the one I advocate. I'm more concerned about making sure Doug and Phil don't get away with bullying Sally and others by filing this senseless law suit.
I think it's time for a recall blitz and I'm going to find 19 other people to join me in gathering just 20 signatures each, over a three-day period later this month. 20 people X 20 signatures as proof that another 400 people believe that St. Helens voters have the right to reconsider the election of these two councilors and are willing to make sure they get the chance to do just that.
It's a good time to make a stand here. Let's show Doug and Phil that whatever they do it will not be enough to stop Sally Gump and the rest of us from challenging their arrogant, self-declared authority.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Strategic lawsuit against public participation
According to New York Supreme Court Judge J. Nicholas Colabella, "Short of a gun to the head, a greater threat to First Amendment expression can scarcely be imagined."
Judge Colabella was referring to a SLAPP suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) such as that filed by our two recall councilors against Chief Petitioner Sally Gump.
Strategic lawsuit against public participation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("SLAPP") is a lawsuit or a threat of lawsuit that is intended to intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. Winning the lawsuit is not necessarily the intent of the person filing the SLAPP. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism may also intimidate others from participating in the debate.
Oregon's Anti-SLAPP law
http://lebanonsfortruthandreconciliation.blogspot.com/2007/11/oregons-anti-slapp-law.html
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Not only are we protected by the United States Constitution, we are protected by the free speech clause of the Oregon Constitution. So what, you say. The free speech clause of the Oregon Constitution is considered the broadest of all free speech clauses in the country.
Moreover, since 2002, Oregon has had an anti-SLAPP law. SLAPPs are Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, lawsuits that are designed to keep people from speaking about public issues simply because they can't afford the costs of defending such suits. Gardner v. Martino (a defamation suit concerning a customer who complained about service from a local business on a consumer radio show) was dismissed under the anti-SLAPP law. That suit was brought in the United States District Court in Oregon and dismissed in December 2005.
Not only does an anti-SLAPP law motion stop all action in the case until the motion is resolved (so much for all the pesky, expensive discovery), it also allows successful defendants to recover reasonable attorney fees and court costs. In the Gardner case, the defendants received an award of $41,612.10, of which $40,000 was attorney fees.
Judge Colabella was referring to a SLAPP suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) such as that filed by our two recall councilors against Chief Petitioner Sally Gump.
Strategic lawsuit against public participation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("SLAPP") is a lawsuit or a threat of lawsuit that is intended to intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. Winning the lawsuit is not necessarily the intent of the person filing the SLAPP. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism may also intimidate others from participating in the debate.
Oregon's Anti-SLAPP law
http://lebanonsfortruthandreconciliation.blogspot.com/2007/11/oregons-anti-slapp-law.html
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Not only are we protected by the United States Constitution, we are protected by the free speech clause of the Oregon Constitution. So what, you say. The free speech clause of the Oregon Constitution is considered the broadest of all free speech clauses in the country.
Moreover, since 2002, Oregon has had an anti-SLAPP law. SLAPPs are Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, lawsuits that are designed to keep people from speaking about public issues simply because they can't afford the costs of defending such suits. Gardner v. Martino (a defamation suit concerning a customer who complained about service from a local business on a consumer radio show) was dismissed under the anti-SLAPP law. That suit was brought in the United States District Court in Oregon and dismissed in December 2005.
Not only does an anti-SLAPP law motion stop all action in the case until the motion is resolved (so much for all the pesky, expensive discovery), it also allows successful defendants to recover reasonable attorney fees and court costs. In the Gardner case, the defendants received an award of $41,612.10, of which $40,000 was attorney fees.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Special Council Meeting
I just returned from the special council meeting where there was discussion about hiring a new library director. Apparently choice #1 said no and they are talking about going to choice #2 and then considering choices #3 and #4, should #2 say no.
Keith Locke said he didn't want to pay moving costs for the person they hire (#2 is in Virginia). He cited "budget issues" and "budget concerns" as his reasoning. He suggested instead of choices #2 and #3 they should consider offering it to someone in house because it would cost them less (their top in-house candidate is #4 on their list).
Doug made it clear that he wanted the discussion carried over to their next week's work session because he didn't know it would be discussed at today's meeting and wasn't prepared (with his notes, etc.).
Odd. It appears he got notice of the meeting the same as I did in the following message sent by Kathy Payne:
Special Council Meeting Notice
From: Kathy Payne (Kathy@ci.st-helens.or.us)
Sent: Thu 8/21/08 4:00 PM
To: Chad Olsen (chad@ci.st-helens.or.us); Charles Grant (charlesg@ci.st-helens.or.us); charlesrgrant@comcast.net; Doug Morten (dougm@ci.st-helens.or.us); dougmorten@comcast.net; Keith Locke (keithl@ci.st-helens.or.us); keithlocke@comcast.net; Phillip Barlow (phillipb@ci.st-helens.or.us); Randy Peterson (randyp@ci.st-helens.or.us); telkarpete@yahoo.com
The St. Helens City Council will meet in a special meeting on Monday, August 25, 2008, beginning at 10:30 a.m. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the Communications/Tourism contract and the Library Director position.
Notice of Special Council Meeting
The meeting will be held in the City Hall Council Chambers, 265 Strand Street, St. Helens, Oregon. The facility is handicapped accessible. If you need special accommodation, please contact City Hall at (503)397-6272.
At any rate, I believe they decided to offer it to choice two and proceed from there.
When I walked in (about 10 minutes late), they were still on the record and were discussing Keith's concerns about the library director costs. They decided to wait until Charles could get there (he was late, had to be called and arrived saying he had to take his daughter to swimming lessons--does the guy ever make a meeting on time??).
Keith then went on to express his concerns about the recall, saying he thought the council should get involved and that maybe RSVP could mediate. He'd be happy to facilitate that. Paul Pulliam said he thought it was inappropriate for them to be discussing this topic at a Council meeting. Randy said if the councilors, individually, wanted to get involved in trying to resolve it, that was fine, but it was not something the City could or would get involved with.
By the way, I overheard Keith Locke say (last week) that one of the purposes of the meeting was to discuss "the elections" but that he didn't want that included on the agenda.
I think these guys would do better if they just kept their mouths shut. Tight.
Keith Locke said he didn't want to pay moving costs for the person they hire (#2 is in Virginia). He cited "budget issues" and "budget concerns" as his reasoning. He suggested instead of choices #2 and #3 they should consider offering it to someone in house because it would cost them less (their top in-house candidate is #4 on their list).
Doug made it clear that he wanted the discussion carried over to their next week's work session because he didn't know it would be discussed at today's meeting and wasn't prepared (with his notes, etc.).
Odd. It appears he got notice of the meeting the same as I did in the following message sent by Kathy Payne:
Special Council Meeting Notice
From: Kathy Payne (Kathy@ci.st-helens.or.us)
Sent: Thu 8/21/08 4:00 PM
To: Chad Olsen (chad@ci.st-helens.or.us); Charles Grant (charlesg@ci.st-helens.or.us); charlesrgrant@comcast.net; Doug Morten (dougm@ci.st-helens.or.us); dougmorten@comcast.net; Keith Locke (keithl@ci.st-helens.or.us); keithlocke@comcast.net; Phillip Barlow (phillipb@ci.st-helens.or.us); Randy Peterson (randyp@ci.st-helens.or.us); telkarpete@yahoo.com
The St. Helens City Council will meet in a special meeting on Monday, August 25, 2008, beginning at 10:30 a.m. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the Communications/Tourism contract and the Library Director position.
Notice of Special Council Meeting
The meeting will be held in the City Hall Council Chambers, 265 Strand Street, St. Helens, Oregon. The facility is handicapped accessible. If you need special accommodation, please contact City Hall at (503)397-6272.
At any rate, I believe they decided to offer it to choice two and proceed from there.
When I walked in (about 10 minutes late), they were still on the record and were discussing Keith's concerns about the library director costs. They decided to wait until Charles could get there (he was late, had to be called and arrived saying he had to take his daughter to swimming lessons--does the guy ever make a meeting on time??).
Keith then went on to express his concerns about the recall, saying he thought the council should get involved and that maybe RSVP could mediate. He'd be happy to facilitate that. Paul Pulliam said he thought it was inappropriate for them to be discussing this topic at a Council meeting. Randy said if the councilors, individually, wanted to get involved in trying to resolve it, that was fine, but it was not something the City could or would get involved with.
By the way, I overheard Keith Locke say (last week) that one of the purposes of the meeting was to discuss "the elections" but that he didn't want that included on the agenda.
I think these guys would do better if they just kept their mouths shut. Tight.
Affidavit regarding fiscal concerns of the City
August 24, 2008
I, Kimberley Bauer, hereby declare as follows:
1. I have reviewed the tape recordings of the May 27, 2008, City of St. Helens Budget Review Committee meeting when that Committee reviewed the proposed FY2009 City budget.
2. In listening to those tapes, I heard one or more members of the Committee argue against adoption of the proposed budget as presented, on the grounds that it could cause the City serious financial difficulties.
3. In a City Administrative Staff Meeting on May 28, 2008, City Finance Director Marilyn Peterson stated that the City faces serious financial difficulties, depletion of the City's contingency funds, and the possibility of bankruptcy by June 2010.
I hereby declare that the statements made above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that they are made for use as evidence in court and are subject to the penalty for perjury.
Kimberley Bauer
I, Kimberley Bauer, hereby declare as follows:
1. I have reviewed the tape recordings of the May 27, 2008, City of St. Helens Budget Review Committee meeting when that Committee reviewed the proposed FY2009 City budget.
2. In listening to those tapes, I heard one or more members of the Committee argue against adoption of the proposed budget as presented, on the grounds that it could cause the City serious financial difficulties.
3. In a City Administrative Staff Meeting on May 28, 2008, City Finance Director Marilyn Peterson stated that the City faces serious financial difficulties, depletion of the City's contingency funds, and the possibility of bankruptcy by June 2010.
I hereby declare that the statements made above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that they are made for use as evidence in court and are subject to the penalty for perjury.
Kimberley Bauer
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Malice
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
mal·ice [mal-is]
–noun
1. desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness: the malice and spite of a lifelong enemy.
2. Law. evil intent on the part of a person who commits a wrongful act injurious to others.
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary
mal·ice
n.
1. A desire to harm others or to see others suffer; extreme ill will or spite.
2. Law The intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another.
Online Etymology Dictionary
malice
1297, "desire to hurt another," from O.Fr. malice "ill will, spite," from L. malitia "badness, ill will, spite," from malus "bad" (see mal-). In legal use, "wrongful intent generally" (1547). Malicious (c.1225) is O.Fr. malicius "showing ill will," from L. maliciosus "full of malice," from malitia.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet
malice
noun
1. feeling a need to see others suffer
2. the quality of threatening evil [syn: malevolence]
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary
malice [ˈmӕlis]
noun
the wish to harm other people etc
Example: There was no malice intended in what she said.
mal·ice [mal-is]
–noun
1. desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness: the malice and spite of a lifelong enemy.
2. Law. evil intent on the part of a person who commits a wrongful act injurious to others.
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary
mal·ice
n.
1. A desire to harm others or to see others suffer; extreme ill will or spite.
2. Law The intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another.
Online Etymology Dictionary
malice
1297, "desire to hurt another," from O.Fr. malice "ill will, spite," from L. malitia "badness, ill will, spite," from malus "bad" (see mal-). In legal use, "wrongful intent generally" (1547). Malicious (c.1225) is O.Fr. malicius "showing ill will," from L. maliciosus "full of malice," from malitia.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet
malice
noun
1. feeling a need to see others suffer
2. the quality of threatening evil [syn: malevolence]
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary
malice [ˈmӕlis]
noun
the wish to harm other people etc
Example: There was no malice intended in what she said.
Friday, August 22, 2008
"How to Get Rich by Recall" by two city councilors
I hear one of the recall councilors is out and about talking about he expects to be a rich man. I suppose this is via his lawsuit against Sally (for which she has yet to be served).
The suit asks for "non-economic damages of $50,000, and for an additional sum of $10,000 for each republication of the false statements" meaning $50,000 for his pain and suffering I assume (poor fellow) and an additional $10,000 for each copy of the recall statement published.
Let's see, I personally made about 100 copies of the petition and I think the City Recorder made about 60 (as part of the packet the City provided). I also made another 100 or so copies of just the statements, not the petitions, so, wow! He IS going to be a rich man. Kind of like old man Potter in "It's a Wonderful Life," rich in every way except the one that really counts.
And, let's not leave out the other councilor. I can't imagine (or let's say I can but won't share the gory details here) just exactly how excited he must be, sitting around counting his soon-to-be-hatched little chickens.
It's no wonder they filed these suits. Wonder if Sally has that kind of money? Think they'll fight over who gets what she does have? Or, will Huffman file next against the City because they brazenly and "with actual malice" made 60 copies of the petitions?
I'm glad, frankly, that they are this busy planning their wealth. At least they won't be so focused on spending the City's money for the few weeks it takes them to get their Sally-loot spent!
Maybe after they've won all their money and settled down, they can write a book, make that books, about how to get rich quick, and then sell the movie rights to Hollywood. Wonder who will play the councilors? Any suggestions?
The suit asks for "non-economic damages of $50,000, and for an additional sum of $10,000 for each republication of the false statements" meaning $50,000 for his pain and suffering I assume (poor fellow) and an additional $10,000 for each copy of the recall statement published.
Let's see, I personally made about 100 copies of the petition and I think the City Recorder made about 60 (as part of the packet the City provided). I also made another 100 or so copies of just the statements, not the petitions, so, wow! He IS going to be a rich man. Kind of like old man Potter in "It's a Wonderful Life," rich in every way except the one that really counts.
And, let's not leave out the other councilor. I can't imagine (or let's say I can but won't share the gory details here) just exactly how excited he must be, sitting around counting his soon-to-be-hatched little chickens.
It's no wonder they filed these suits. Wonder if Sally has that kind of money? Think they'll fight over who gets what she does have? Or, will Huffman file next against the City because they brazenly and "with actual malice" made 60 copies of the petitions?
I'm glad, frankly, that they are this busy planning their wealth. At least they won't be so focused on spending the City's money for the few weeks it takes them to get their Sally-loot spent!
Maybe after they've won all their money and settled down, they can write a book, make that books, about how to get rich quick, and then sell the movie rights to Hollywood. Wonder who will play the councilors? Any suggestions?
Thursday, August 21, 2008
I need a 12-step program to keep me out of Bill Eagle's nasty website!
(St. Helens Update barb from Smooth Operator 8/19/08)
In response to Jay Henry's letter of 8.7, which really cracked me up, let me respond by saying that maybe Jay should take a little of his own advise, and research. Last time i checked the city charter says you only have to LIVE in St. Helens city limits for a year prior to holding office. So Hey Jay... You're wrong.. sorry to burst your bubble. Have you been listening to Paul Pulliam again, i hear he wants to run for one of the two positions up for recall. Course, Since it appears that he thinks he is a legend in his own mind, he probably wants to hold them both. at the same time... IN my opinion of course.
I would offer a suggestion, that before you hitch your wagon to that tired horse, YOU do some research!. But then again, you probably already know the dirt, that has been swept under the rug for that past few years, as i hear it may have been you holding the Broom. Nice!.
Hey, while your at it, i dont think we have enough billboards up next to the highway, could you get to work on that? We need more low class urban blight to attract more business our way. Make sure you get the okey dokey from randy and the boys at the boathouse first.. you sure wouldn't like to be on the wrong side of that gravy train now would you?
Smooth Operator
I need to be banned from reading this rag because it does bad things to my blood pressure. But I can't help myself! These are the people who give St. Helens a bad name, not Sally Gump, not Jay Henry, and not Paul Pulliam. And, heaven help me, I always want to take a red pen to these things..........it's the English major in me. I can't decide what grieves me more--the spew or the grammar and spelling errors!
Still, my response is screaming to get out, so:
Dear Smooth: When WAS the last time you "checked" the charter anyway? Let me help you out. Copied directly from the city's charter (which you can find at www.ci.st-helens.or.us):
CHAPTER III
Form of Government
Section 12. Qualification of Officers.
No person shall be eligible for an elective office of the city unless at the time of his election he is a qualified elector within the meaning of the state constitution, is the owner of real property within the corporate limits of the city, and has resided in the city during the 12 months immediately preceding the election. The council shall be final judge of the qualifications and election of its own members.
Ok. I feel better now. Breathe. Breathe. By the way, can anyone tell me where the boathouse is? I want to see if Jay gets the poor tired horse to the gravy train before he finds the billboards and whoever is holding that nice broom. Huh? What did I miss here? Is this one of those St. Helens inside jokes?
In response to Jay Henry's letter of 8.7, which really cracked me up, let me respond by saying that maybe Jay should take a little of his own advise, and research. Last time i checked the city charter says you only have to LIVE in St. Helens city limits for a year prior to holding office. So Hey Jay... You're wrong.. sorry to burst your bubble. Have you been listening to Paul Pulliam again, i hear he wants to run for one of the two positions up for recall. Course, Since it appears that he thinks he is a legend in his own mind, he probably wants to hold them both. at the same time... IN my opinion of course.
I would offer a suggestion, that before you hitch your wagon to that tired horse, YOU do some research!. But then again, you probably already know the dirt, that has been swept under the rug for that past few years, as i hear it may have been you holding the Broom. Nice!.
Hey, while your at it, i dont think we have enough billboards up next to the highway, could you get to work on that? We need more low class urban blight to attract more business our way. Make sure you get the okey dokey from randy and the boys at the boathouse first.. you sure wouldn't like to be on the wrong side of that gravy train now would you?
Smooth Operator
I need to be banned from reading this rag because it does bad things to my blood pressure. But I can't help myself! These are the people who give St. Helens a bad name, not Sally Gump, not Jay Henry, and not Paul Pulliam. And, heaven help me, I always want to take a red pen to these things..........it's the English major in me. I can't decide what grieves me more--the spew or the grammar and spelling errors!
Still, my response is screaming to get out, so:
Dear Smooth: When WAS the last time you "checked" the charter anyway? Let me help you out. Copied directly from the city's charter (which you can find at www.ci.st-helens.or.us):
CHAPTER III
Form of Government
Section 12. Qualification of Officers.
No person shall be eligible for an elective office of the city unless at the time of his election he is a qualified elector within the meaning of the state constitution, is the owner of real property within the corporate limits of the city, and has resided in the city during the 12 months immediately preceding the election. The council shall be final judge of the qualifications and election of its own members.
Ok. I feel better now. Breathe. Breathe. By the way, can anyone tell me where the boathouse is? I want to see if Jay gets the poor tired horse to the gravy train before he finds the billboards and whoever is holding that nice broom. Huh? What did I miss here? Is this one of those St. Helens inside jokes?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
