As I'm sure most are aware by now, there are many separate but related issues swirling around the infamous Glen Cove bridge fiasco; wrongful removal of the bridge itself, threats to take away or impede private water front property rights, denial of access to property owned by Glen Cove residents, construction of onerous fences adjacent to Marina del Sol residences, and a few others of varying relative importance to various parties.
As has also been discussed ad nauseam here for the past few years, the focus of the Smith et. al. lawsuit versus League City (the currently active of the various complaints) has been the Seminole road bridge removal due to being the primary issue in common to the Smith plaintiffs and the issue in which the proof of the city's misdeeds has been most readily obtainable from public records.
Many of the other related issues revolve around the old HL&P canal properties that were donated to the city circa 2005. Public Information Requests (PIR's) have revealed the original intent of the city was to accept these 8 sections of property for use in proposed traffic relief projects and construction of public waterways for community enhancement. It has long been shown as a matter of public record that these properties were accepted by the city on behalf of the public in December of 2005, but that at some subsequent time sections 6, 7, and 8 of these 8 canal properties were somehow conveyed into private ownership, which resulted in the various complaints previously mentioned. (For reference, sections 6 & 7 are between Marina del Sol and Cypress Bay and section 8 passes through Glen Cove.)
All of these problems (other than the bridge issues) would have clearly been avoided had the city retained ownership, so the obvious question all along has been how did these publicly accepted properties end up in private ownership. More specifically, was the city responsible for this re-appropriation of what was supposed to be public property? If so, then the city would certainly be culpable in such problems as the Marina del Sol fence and Glen Cove water access issues.
Much effort has been exerted for several years to discover the truth behind this central question. The obvious suspicion was that the city certainly had to have been involved in this redirection of property, but the city has strenuously blocked access to the public records necessary to prove what really happened, including denial or incomplete response to many PIR's and legal questions.
Observant readers may recall publication this past August by the Seabreeze of an article alleging that emails proving the truth of the city's involvement in this property transfer had in fact surfaced in private circulation: http://seabreezenews.com/back%20issues/1108-August_2011/Page_01c.pdf
While it generated some sensation at the time, without the emails themselves becoming public or being released into the hands of persons able to make them public, the actual proof remained elusive. Of course now that it was known that the truth was out there, various interested parties redoubled their efforts drag the proof into the light of day. Since the proof allegedly consisted of emails involving the city attorney, the city has continued to raise legal roadblocks against releasing the evidence (or in the case of one of my PIR's for example, going so far as to simply fail to respond).
The resulting public sensation raised sufficient doubts regarding the propriety of the city's actions that a citizen ethics complaint against the city attorney's actions was ultimately filed, independent of the Smith et. al. or Marina del Sol plaintiffs. This complaint has not been made public and rumors are swirling that city officials have made efforts to block its public release. However, it has apparently been circulating by private channels and having recently received a copy of it, I have now published it here. Word on the street is that the current phase in the ethics process is for an outside attorney to investigate, but that allegedly the attorney chosen has ties to the city attorney who the complaint is against. Can anyone shed light on this rumor? If true, it would certainly erode public confidence in the ethics investigation process.
Also around the time of the Seabreeze article, enough of the truth leaked out to draw a bit of attention to an obscure item from the June 13, 2006 city council agenda, namely item 10A that stated; "Consider and take action on amending provisions of real property donation to the City of League City by Texas Genco. (City Attorney)" [June 12, 2006 council agenda.]
No details of what this might mean where in the publicly accessible records, so new PIR's were filed. (Note that any public documents associated with this agenda item should have already been provided in response to a number of of previous PIR's filed by a number of different citizens that directly or indirectly referenced this issue.)
Then came the great Halloween Surprise of 2011. Another routine PIR for the public documents related to this agenda obscure agenda item was finally answered responsively.
And there, after all this time, hidden in the plain sight of the council agenda supporting documents of this obscure action over five years ago was the smoking gun:
-The city was openly complicit in the conveyance of the public properties of HL&P cooling canal sections 6, 7, & 8 into private ownership rather than the previously accepted public ownership.
In support of item 10A were the following three attachments:
As was long suspected, but until now unproven by public records, not just the removal of the bridge, but everything else related to this affair that has befallen the residents Glen Cove and Marina del Sol became possible because of actions deliberately taken by the city government.
Actions that were neither legal nor completely truthful. Remember that as of December 2005, these were public properties. The city can not dispose of public property for private benefit in obscure manners such as happened, if it can even do so at all. At a minimum, there should have been a public process of abandonment of property, which obviously never occurred. And as can be seen in attachment 1 above, the city attorney did not even truthfully describe this transaction to city council at the time of their re-decision. It was stated that these properties were to be conveyed to an adjacent property owner (which is necessary for abandonment), yet canal section 8 that runs through Glen Cove was not in fact adjacent to any property owned by the acquiring party and the true adjacent property owners were never given any notice of these actions.
The truth really was out there all along.
62 comments:
There must be a higher up when a city does unethical things like this. Who does a Maverick City have to answer too? Would it be our Galveston County District Attorney, Jack Roady? or our TX Attorney General, Greg Abbott? Does anyone know who the city is responsible to?
We appreciate this information being recapped like this. I know this has taken much time and effort.
We bought our home so we could have our 3 foot fence with a gate, we took out our canoe, bird watched and got a wonderful breeze off the water. Now MB Harbour put up a 9 foot fence so we couldn't see the water. We can get the fence down if we pay appx
$70K. wow..and just think, this land was given to our city.
The land was an easement owned by our power and light co when we bought our house.
Wow... I'm happy to hear of this breakthrough. :)
Yawn, I guess its been too quite so rainbow Jeff has to stir the rumors with no solid proof again. I thought your buddy Arnold was on your side? Oh I guess he figured out that you didn't have a case so you didn't like that answer.
Excellent job of explaining and laying out this recap of the story, Jeff. I received copies of the emails discussed here, in August. Some of them name persons involved in this travesty of justice by first or last name only, so they may not be considered "proof" of anything; collectively they make it clear enough what happened.
One has to wonder how and why a city can retain lawyers, lawyers who replace lawyers and lawyers who investigate the lawyers-who, again and again. At what point do you begin to wonder if you're going to get burned again? Are the town dads really that incompetent, or did they emerge from smoky backroom deals with pockets fatter than when they went in?
Understandably, the city cannot in the public's interest reveal facts that may be subject to pending litigations. But there reaches a point when so much of the facts are laid to bare that it's time for the city to bite the bullet and settle with the folks in Glen Cove. The rest of us have to ask, what if it was our bridge?
Joe, just follow the links I provided, the documentation is there. You do know how to click on a hot link, don't you?
Jeff
Congratulations! This is very encouraging news - and proof - for the residents of Glen Cove.
Joe, why do you care so much about being the voice of opposition? What do you have to gain or lose?
One of the questions I had today is about the value of Canal Tracts 6, 7, and 8.
The three properties had an appraised (not to be confused with tax assessed) market value of about $19,600 per acre, or about $300,000 for the three tracts.
After being donated to the city in December 2005 then NRG sold the properties to MB Harbour in late 2006 for about $300,000.
Attorney Dick Gregg represented MBH in the transaction. The same Gregg that became City Attorney in March 2007.
Joe,
thanks for your email question.
The controlling documents is identified in the top left hand corner as City Council Meeting Agenda Item Data Sheet.
Under Background – Paragraph 3 -
“Texas Genco has agreed to sell these canal sections to MB Harbour, Ltd. which requires an amendment to the donation agreement between City and Texas Genco."
In a back door manner the amended provision of the donation was to “give back” or revise the acceptance of three canal tracts, thereby allowing them to be sold to MBH.
There was NO discusssion, then immediate motion to approve by Councilman Cones and an immeidate vote to approve at 5 to 0.
Paul,
Here is a link to the audio recording of the full discussion of agenda item 10A at the June 13, 2006 city council meeting. All 20 seconds of it.
Jeff
MB Harbour, Ltd. owns property adjacent to canal Sections 6, 7 and 8 and has expressed its desire to acquire them in
order to develop a waterway as an amenity for a residential development. Texas Genco has agreed to sell these canal
sections to MB Harbour, Ltd. which requires an amendment to the donation agreement between the City and Texas
Genco. The canal sections in question are not essential to the City’s proposed FM 270 bypass.
Marc,
This city action was wrong on so many levels.
First, I must ask you to please identify what property MBH owned adjacent to Canal Tract 8 (Aka Glen Cove)
Maybe then I will take the time to explain to you why I think this action was wrong and contrary to state laws and local ordinances.
And then there is the 270 bypass, a diversion at best. Of course it wasn't essential to that. The two are miles apart.
Ok, folks, this is the second time I've asked, where are the offending emails? I see the quotes from the emails in the ethics complaint. I see references to emails as enclosures in the complaint. But the complaint PDF file is not hyperlinked. I see references in the seabreeze news article. But no emails. I realize I'm not a judge that can order them to be handed over to me, but show them to me, please!!!!
Chuck, we have tried and are continuing to try everything we can to get the city to release these emails. Please feel free to pressure them yourself.
However, the big news here is that we have now discovered public information that proves what it is alleged that these emails say. Namely that the city actively and knowingly participated in the diversion of the canal properties from the originally accepted public ownership into private ownership. The council agenda record proves this.
Marc, I just have to ask; do you ever get tired of being wrong?
Try reading a little more carefully. As I stated in my post, the Cypress Bay property owned by MB Harbor does in fact border the HL&P canal sections 6 & 7. (It does remain an interesting question why none of the other adjacent property owners were informed of the city's intent to dispose of these properties.)
What you apparently failed to notice though is that none of the properties adjacent to canal section 8 border MB Harbor, nor is it contiguous with any of the other HL&P properties (or city owned properties for that matter). It is a separate piece of property. This is a perfectly obvious and irrefutable fact - just look at the map provided in the city's own council agenda records (see attachment three in my post).
Why did the city staff provide a data sheet to city council on this agenda item which stated in part "MB Harbour, Ltd. owns property adjacent to canal Sections 6, 7 and 8 [...]" (see attachment 1) when the map attached to this very same document (see attachment 3) shows with incontestable clarity that no property adjacent to canal section 8 was under such ownership?!
Why did the city council spend all of exactly 20 seconds in discussion on this item (see the audio clip linked above) before approval when merely reading the very brief attached documents would have revealed at least this just one of many debilitating flaws in this action?!
The details matter!
Just think of all the trouble that could have been avoided had city officials been responsible to their duty instead of acting in ill considered haste and without regard for the public interest.
Jeff
More detail and discussion about the ethics complaint in the GDN today (for those who haven't noticed):
City attorney accused of ethics violation
Tonight’s LC Council Meeting
Did I hear this correctly? Did Attorney Polanco’s law firm pick the applicants for Attorney Review of Ethics Complaint Against Attorney Polanco???
What did Mick Phalen do? Did he stop access by Mayor and Council to the Attorney’s work.
Did four or five of council sit quietly and let this happen?
Hmmm...
I failed to mention that JoAnn Sharp Dawson was the only one to vote against this action.
Dan Becker ask a couple of questions, most of which were not audible. Then he joined the crowd and voted to approve.
Andy Mann was absent.
I have had several calls suggesting there was a concensus prior to the vote.
What do you think??
Paul don't you EVER get tired of being wrong? And Chuck is right again where is the proof, where? you keep talking about these emails but where are they? And Paul, Jeff didn't you support Arny when he ran for Council? isn't Joanna Sharp Arny's buddy? and now you dislike the Council again? What happen to your girl? I thought Toni was going to get your bridge? Judge Criss said it best by tossing it in the garbage. The voters have spoke, now go away.
Thanks for the encouragement. Hearing from you is alway very motivating.
I am NOT going away.
I bet this ethics complaint about Polanco is not going away.
The truth continues coming out and more will follow.
Read the Complaint and other attachments to Jeffs post.
Paul why do you avoid the questions? Show me the emails?
chirp...chirp...Paul...oh Paul
Joe,
Maybe you should file some PIRs and see if you can get the emails faster than Paul. :)
You all are too funny! All I did was throw some blood in the water and sure enough, a feeding frenzy. I reprinted what is in attachment 2 of your post. Sheesh, get a life! Jeff, do you ever get tired of being to quick with the criticism!
Do try to pay attention Joe.
While it would still be nice if the city would finally release the emails, the big news here is that the newly released records of the June 2006 council meeting prove the same thing that is alleged to be in the emails - that the city engaged in actions to have the public properties in question transfered to private ownership. The question of the emails is largely moot now.
Jeff
No Marc, what you did was once again mangle the truth even when the facts were sitting right in front of you, just as you have for several years now in this affair.
Had people paid attention to the facts and acted responsibly from the beginning, none of this would ever have happened. The problem is not going to go away until the city corrects its misdeeds of the past.
Jeff
Excellent suggestion Richard. In fact, everyone who is interested in this topic should just go ahead and file their own PIR's for any and every thing related to the city's involvement with the HL&P canal properties and the Seminole Road bridge.
It's easy to do, just go to the city web site PIR page here. Best bet is probably to file under 'general inquiry'. It would probably be good to follow up with an email to the city Administrative Assistant, Natasha Hinton too.
No Jeff, what I did was cut and paste from attachment 1. (my Mistake, I said attachment 2 earlier) But as usual, you reframe everything to falsely suit your own reality. I challenge anyone to look at my post, then review the attachment, then you will see what
prevaricator Jeff Hagen is!
Some folks are blind and refuse to acknowledge that there was any wrong doing. Other folks are angry and want their share of blood. Both are wrong.
The city should take the proper steps to rebuild the bridge with TxDOT and reconnect a neighborhood.
If this isn't possible (e.g. TxDOT or Scotto say no way), then it's time to forgive those who have sinned and move on.
OK Marc, I fail to see the point of your two posts.
Do you have an opinion to share about the article in the GDN or the ethics complaint against the City Attorney alleging that Arnold Polanco he is not working in the best interest of League City and is instead function as an agent of Nick Scotto and MB Harbour.
What about the council action originated by Polanco to revise the gift and “give back” three canal tracts that had previous been donated to and accepted by the city?
Joe
Although windy,
yesterday was a beautiful day on Clear Lake.
I will get back to you later.
Paul, do you think AP acted on his own (on behalf of Scotto) or was merely providing the legal steps to implement someone else's scheme? Your previous post made it sound like AP was the instigater (on the city side)rather than the henchman.
BHL, Paul and Jeff have pointed at everyone at one time or another. Careful you could be next.
My guess he served as a facilitator.
He did the legal work (?) and was the contact person with folks at Texas-Genco. Councilman Cones handled the council and worked as Scotto’s liaison to the city. Council seemed unaware of the actions of their votes. Councilman Barber admitted this in his request for a Glen Cove investigation in 2007.
My previous post quotes the wording of the complaint. The term “originated by Polanco” is my phrasing of June 13, 2006 Agenda Item Data Sheet read ”Origination: City Attorney, Arnold Polanco”
The Developer’s Agreement was written by Attorneys Gregg (for Scotto) and City Attorney Polanco. The 2006 emails presented in ethics complaint fill in the blanks between the Donation of the Canals (12/05) and Developers Agreement (2/06) and finally the June 13, 2006 vote to revise the acceptance of the canal donation to allow NRG to sell three tracts to MB Harbour.
The public agenda of Item 10A only stated “amending provisions of real property donation to the City of League City by Texas Genco.” No mention of giving away $300,000 of city land and no notice to the public and to adjacent property owners.
It’s easy to see why SOMEONE would want to withhold this information from the public and elected officials for over five years.
Oddly, info on the June 2006 council meeting was released after the filing of the ethics complaint.
To my knowledge Polanco has not denied the validity of the emails contained in the ethics complaint.
so your buddy Barber is an idiot for not reading his agenda? How is that underhanded? Maybe Arno didn't deny them because there isnt' anything to it. We have just seen how you and Rainbow Bright like to exaggerate
BHL, if we lest a wrong go uncorrected merely because the struggle is long and difficult, everyone looses.
Jeff
Marc, now you are just trying to deflect attention from the fact that your were wrong rather than admit to the obvious.
Yes, you correctly quoted one of the attachments to the city agenda - as did I. The difference is that I also correctly pointed out that the city's attachment was in error - as proven by the other data that was in the city's attachment (and numerous other sources).
That's the whole point here - the city based its actions on erroneous data, as I said in my original post and as is plainly and undeniably obvious from the data contained in the city's own attachments to its actions. Which is to say that the city's action was clearly negligent and irresponsible. Your error is that you quoted only the mistake made by the city and ignored the actual data that proves their mistake, and did so even though my original post spelled this out very clearly and linked in all of the relevant documents for easy access.
In other words, you were wrong when you said, "MB Harbour, Ltd. owns property adjacent to canal Sections 6, 7 and 8 [...]". They didn't. The city council was given supporting information for their vote that was wrong in essential facts. The proof of the error was plainly obvious in the rest of the supporting information. They took no time to review the facts and the result was a mistake with far reaching consequences.
Jeff
Oh thanks Jeff, I now see the error of my ways,,,,,,,NOT!
Jeff,
I understand what you are saying but there are times when one has to weigh the cost to those who are innocent (i.e. taxpayers) aginst the cost incurred by those who've been harmed. I don't know where the line gets drawn in this case. I just know that there's a line somewhere.
BHL,
There was more harm done here than you might be aware.
This action to give these three tracts away robbed the city of very valuable potential resource.
A waterway and path existed between Clear Creek and through Glen Cove to Clear Lake. This was not just the canal but adjacent land with widths of up to 200 feet and more. With great difficulty and expense and the treat of eminent domain this waterway was obtained by HLP in the early 1960’s. It could not be replicated today. You might look this up on Google Earth. The eight tracts are about 80 acres.
In addition to the 16 families in the lawsuit there are another 30 or so families that were directly impacted. What has happened to the families along Twin Timbers in Marina Del Sol is another chapter in this long story. Also, over 300 families in Glen Cove were fenced off from the public bridge property and Glen Cove access when MB Harbour attempted to create two private parks within the boundary of the Glen Cove Subdivision.
So as you see, this injustice was not limited to a few families participating in the ongoing lawsuit.
Paul and Jeff:
Some of us are following along, are reading all of the documents, recognize the misinformation that was supplied to Council, know the actual number of people who are affected and do believe this is a fight worth fighting.
And I'm gonna go there. No one with real money is going build an $800K to $1M home along an algae and trash filled drainage canal. The City needs to do the right thing before this property ends up in bankruptcy or foreclosure.
That's okay Marc, as long as everyone else sees the error of your ways.
Jeff
We are one of the familes on Twin Timbers Lane in Marina Del Sol that have been completely taken advantage of all of these years that this has been going on. We are good people and have had to spend money we do not have in legal fees, etc. Why do we keep trying? Because we have never given up that this is all in God's hands and that good eventually prevails over evil.
Even when we still do that we get "set up" for things that we are not guilty of such as a Municipal Court case on of all things "dog poop" behind that 9 foot fence that the developer involved in all of this put up directly behind our house. The Municipal Court Judge sided in favor of the Developer who produced a picture of dog poop with a handwritten date on it??? The Developer stated that my neighbors on each side of me reported to him that I was contaminating the canal and that my dog's stench was unbearable... I have NEVER thrown dog poop in the canal and never imagined I would have to go to court for something as ridiculous as this. This is exactly why so many people who believe that all of this is so unethical and so terrible to do to others keep quite. Because they are afraid of what may happen when this developer decides to try to harrass them. SO MANY PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THIS ARE AFRAID. If they would all come out and speak up for what is right and tell the truth maybe then the city would listen? This is simply about RIGHT and WRONG and the city needs to do what is right to save its reputation and for those who have suffered so much.
Everyone needs to quit having these petty fights on the blog and just get out there, tell the truth and do what is right!
The canal donation is at the very heart of this matter. How could this property be donated to the city and formally accepted and later it became under private ownership?
You have great courage to tell this so bizarre story. This is not an isolated incident of a bully using city connections to impose his will.
Hats off to you CKT
Thanks for sharing your story about the great Twin Timbers Dog Poop Caper, Mrs. Tillman. Do you suppose the city's nonsensically aggressive prosecutor in that theater of the absurd being the son and law partner of the same Dick Gregg who worked for both the city and the MB Harbor on the whole Cypress Bay thing had anything to do with his unjustifiable persecution of you?
I can easily understand folks thinking that poop sure smells like a conspiracy of intimidation.
Jeff
It is an unfortunate fact that politics and money dictated the policies of our city during “the Good conservative” days of Jerry Shults. There are many of us who have fought for many decades in this town for what is right. I applaud those who speak out for what is true and correct and am disappointed (but not surprised) of those who put financial gain and political friendships above what is best for our city.
The GDN has an article today incorrectly implying that Mr. Davis's ethics complaint will be dismissed on grounds of the one year statue of limitations in the ethics law. The problem with this theory is that the specific events that Mr. Davis complains about are alleged to have occurred within the year prior to his filing.
Jeff
Here's my take; Now that Mr. Davis has raised the allegation that Polanco is working to amend an agreement (as an agent of Scotto) rather than rescind the agreement, it is up to council and the acting City Manager to address whether or not there has been an act of insubordination.
I find it difficult to believe that not a single member of this diverse council would place this topic on agenda for discussion if, there was any question of insubordination.
On the other hand, I'm no lawyer, but I'd sure have somebody's rear in court fast if they said something like that about me and it couldn't be proven. It's one thing to state facts as to why one believes an individual is not acting in the best interests of his employer and it's another to outright declare that someone is operating on behalf of another party in conflict of interest. I hope Mr Davis consulted with his own attorney first before making those accusations.
BHL
From what I can tell the city paid a third party law firm to look into Glen Cove issues.
Here are the Fulbright & Jaworski billing records
The city spent $38,000 and council seems unaware the firm had been hired and what was being done. If you can connect the dots it makes for very interesting reading.
I wonder if anyone on council has taken the time to read and study the billing records and ask why -why-why?
There you will find answers to some of your questions.
More questions will arise after you read the billing records.
Paul, instead of innuendos why don't you just tell us? All you do ever is throw stuff against the wall and see if it sticks, and your stuff isn't passing the smell test again. Once again I thought your buddy Toni was going to be your savior? What happen to her anyway? ha
This may sound kind of duh, but if agreements were previously made and contractually binding, then a decision is made to rescind the agreements, don't contracts have to be modified?
And contracts are typically modified by... Amendments?
I can't and won't speak to previous shenanigans of years past. The only ethic compliant within limitations seems to be ing a stretch based on the fact that Jahns was involved in a number of discussions, and some of the wording on the invoice said "settlement" (which is what happens as part of contract amendments or revisions).
There is nothing in the invoice which indicates insubordination. Sorry I can't buy into that one based on the evidence at hand. Has anybody made the effort to speak F2F with anyone on council regarding insubordination concerns?
typo... The only ethic compliant within limitations seems to be making a stretch...
Well said BHL, and to further add to your points, a contract maybe legally modified by mutual agreement by the parties to the contract, not unilaterally. Unilaterally modifying a contract often results in breach of contract. When a party to a contract breeches the contract, this can often result in a suit for breach of contract or a suit seeking specific performance. Specific performance grants the plaintiff what he actually bargained for in the contract rather than damages (pecuniary compensation for loss or injury incurred through the unlawful conduct of another) for not receiving it; thus specific performance is an equitable rather than legal remedy. By compelling the parties to perform exactly what they had agreed to perform, more complete and perfect justice is achieved than by awarding damages for a breach of contract..
Law of Contracts is very specific. An unlawful contract is not valid - Period and end of story.
The city's own title report shows the city leased to MB Harbour for 99 years (legally and effectively a sale) property it did not own.
This property in question was land included in City's Interlocal Agreement with MB Harbour (aka 99 year lease).
F & B records show Polanco was attempting to amend the Interlocal Agreement that was rescinded by council. I doubt council was aware of this action.
This agreement was approved by City Attorney Dick Gregg Jr. at his first council meeting. A few days before his client was MB Harbour.
Marc, as always I find your participation interesting.
Do you remember your participation at the P & Z Meeting when it was announced that City Attorney Dick Gregg could not represent the city because he "recused himself"? Those words were spoken by Attorney Barbara Roberts – now District Judge Roberts.
In question was MB Harbour trying to include Glen Cove property in the Cypress Bay Plat? That did not happen.
You know this story well as you were a P & Z Member and paid to have a videographer document the proceedings. Much has not been told.
Truth or Consequences
Your Reply?
BHL,
It's not up to the person filing an ethics complaint to be able to judge his own complaint. Unless Mr. Davis incorrectly stated the facts he cited, he has every right to make a complaint based on those facts without fear of retribution regardless of the ultimate determination by the ethics review board regarding whether or not said facts constitute an actionable offense. Given that all of the facts cited in Mr. Davis's complaint are sourced from public documents, either his facts are correct or if any are in error it is the responsibility of other parties. If the ethics board makes a determination of opinion that the facts cited do not in fact constitute an offense, that does not mean filing a complaint regarding those facts was itself an offense. Otherwise it would be logically impossible to make a complaint unless guilt had been predetermined, in which case there can be no presumption of innocence, and so on thus resulting in a breakdown of logic.
The determination of an opinion on the meaning of the facts is just that - an opinion. Granted, the ethics board's opinion will be what determines their course of action, not Mr. Davis's, but that does not mean he has no right to have and express his own opinion. Unless you have information contradicting the facts asserted in the complaint and proof that any such error is the fault of the complainant, I think you are barking up the wrong tree.
Jeff
It's one thing to point out specific "dots" and say "something doesn't seem right", "someone is going against his direction". It's another thing to directly accuse of someone of "acting in the interest of another"; i.e. "working" for the other side in conflict of interest).
False accusation is a sin. Pure and simple. One man's sin can never justify another's. "IF" there is a problem, it's not an ethics issue with Polanco. The problem would be with the current council and acting city manager. Polanco is a minion. "IF" he is a minion for the other side, then council has enough info to execute on the spot. The fact that they haven't says something in itself. That my friend is the right tree to be barking up.
BHL, as long as the underlying facts are correct, it still comes down to a difference of opinion on interpretation of the meaning of those facts, not a matter of false accusation. It can only be a matter of false accusation if false facts are knowingly asserted.
And as long as we are at it, I read in Mr. Davis's complaint that most of the documents he cited he referenced from my web site. I can attest that the documents posted on my site are accurate and correct copies of documents obtained from public sources. Should any errors in fact exist, they are the responsibility of the creators of those documents.
Jeff
See, Jeff? You've really gone and done it now. You've been outed as a reprobate. No, a recalcitrant. No, wait. What was it he called you, a prevaricator?
I haven't heard that word since me and a buddy got dragged under a circus tent down some dirt backroad and forced to listen to a quack with whiskey on his breath and thumping a bible. We were just kids out scouting in the woods and doing no wrong, but we were traumatized that dark night.
And now I have to picture it all over again: Marc raising a crooked wrinkled finger to the sky to summon lightning so you can see that trembling finger now pointing straight at you as he speaks the sorcerer's word... prevaricator.
Yep, you're busted now.
Raging lunatics
Post a Comment