The current city council has continued prior councils' practice of not providing written summary minutes of council discussion, but only "action minutes" which state the outcomes. Encinitas Undercover will provide a forum for observers to record what occurs at each council meeting.
Please use the comments to record your observations.
Items of interest on tonight's agenda include a plastic bag ban, flood damage at City Hall, the possible illegality of paying far more than the appraised value for Pacific View, and an old, uncollected judgment.
Oh and who could that "old uncollected judgement" be? My how we protect our own.
ReplyDeleteGaspar nodding and smiling idiotically when residents talk about near collisions on their streets. How does her head stay attached, anyway?
DeleteYes, finally the great conspiracy is going to be played out for us all to see in full transparency. A true public spectacle that should of never happened.
ReplyDeleteSome of us have been there from the beginning and did not want this to become the horrible issue it has become.
No one wins here on this issue. So Sad.
Can't wait .... Will the sheriffs be present??? Let's hope so, let's hope they take the bastards right to jail. Lock'em up, throw away the key.
DeleteBy "bastards" you must mean vina, Sabine, & co.
DeletePreview of the La Veta speech:
ReplyDelete-disabled vet
-health issues
-vendetta
-everybody else's fault
-victim
-recycle failed claims from court
-city bad
-speaking for everyone
-finger pointing
-unfair
-intimidation
-victim
-not my fault
-in conclusion, victim
Sounds familiar. Pretty much sums it up.
ReplyDeleteLynn and Russell have had many chances to resolve this , they are not the victim's in this case.You! The citizens Are. They squealed on a neighbor And the neighbor intern squealed on them,it's called Karma.
ReplyDeleteWrong, Lynn had a vegetable garden on her neighbors property. Property that was having a house built, she bitched and the city got involved and her unit was discovered. They have been playing hide and seek since that time.
DeleteNot hiding; that's why you have seen them at so many council meetings, over the years.
DeleteTypical for bullies to blame the victims of their psychopathic personality disorder. When someone complains about being bullied, the bullies point their fingers and cry, you're a victim.
6:02, I suspect you are posting over and over about this. Get over your obsession and focus on restoring your own mental health. No, the Marrs didn't "squeal on a neighbor." It was the other way around. Get over yourself. You don't know what you're talking about, jerk.
Unreal amount of lies being given so the city pays a 2 ND time for a life guard tower.
ReplyDeleteHey council fuck you. We citizens already paid for this fucking tower once already.
Gasbag sucking up to Gikes and a photo with the life guards. Hey council..... This is what they are paid to do....
Such horseshit.
Rip current presentation ... Predicting rip currents is like predicting earthquakes.... Fuck that.
Mayberry by the Sea..
ReplyDeleteBarth refusing to look at speakers, rolling eyes, sliding down in seat and getting awfully squirmy when Vina is attacked.
ReplyDelete"Anything that's non-violent shouldn't be a crime."
ReplyDelete--Alex Fidel
Good news, Enron. Good news, Dan Dalager. Good news, Bob Filner.
Misinterpretation of my quote. Fraud, usury, corporate collusion with government is harm to others. Economic slavery is harm. I believe the bankers should go to jail. Especially the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, and Morgans. They make Enron look like Ghandi.
DeleteEnron look like Gandhi. Good line.
DeleteKranz proud that he did not read the lawsuit. Buffoon.
ReplyDeleteCool. They took my advice via email: re-offer the 2007 settlement. If that fails, sell the secured debt to a third party for collection.
ReplyDeleteThe debt is not secured.
DeleteGaspar YAK YAK YAK. And says nothing
ReplyDeleteGaspar, looks like she has her head in the Plastic bag.
ReplyDeleteDespite all that's happened, hope the city does the right thing and wipes out the Marr's obligation...
ReplyDeleteBack to the Marr case: Muir totally misses the point that the Marrs did not initiate a "new lawsuit." When he refers to this non event, even Sabine has to back down from his opening "I have new information that came to light this morning!!!" He instead mutters that he now doesn't "know what to call it" and that he really didn't have time to prepare.
ReplyDeleteSigh. When DOES he ever have time to prepare? That's been his auto response for years now. Why is he still up there, spending our money to line his pockets? Why does the council keep him on?
After Sabine did that, the audience laughed. It really was a priceless moment. I wish they would fire his ass. He has cost this city way more than the Marr case. Jerry Sodomka mentioned how much the city let Erga off the hook for a lot more money than the Marrs. Bob Bonde was his usual self, offering solutions to problems.
DeleteThat's as fair a point as any about Sabine, why isn't this guy prepared?
DeleteI think that it was awesome that so many speakers spoke up for the Marr's and really nailed Sabine. At one point I saw a blond older woman glaring a Sabine and him glaring back. It was as like the saying he who bloke first loses. I am not sure who blinked, but I did see the blond woman shake her head, look disgusted and then looked at the Council. Anyone know who she was?
ReplyDelete8:41-The blond lady you are referring to is Lori Green AKA Dr. Lori. She has asked the Council two times to do a request for proposal for another city attorney. The second time she got a motion from Shaffer but no one made a second so nothing happened. It is hard to know for sure if he dislikes her more than she dislikes him. The last time she spoke and asked for an RFP, he went ballistic and fired off some pretty nasty remarks toward her. I am pretty sure he is the one who has posted some of the nasty things on this post about her, as he never calls her anything but Ms. Green.
Delete2:15 Just because the so called Dr. asks for something doesn't mean she can get everything she wants. I see why Sabine dislikes her. She is a "little off the wall".
DeletePlease Lynn, take the 2007 deal.
ReplyDeleteForget the speakers. You are in a very weak position, but we don't want you to lose your house or for the city business to be distracted any longer.
This is a gift. Take it. The city has let you slide for a decade, and that cannot continue.
Don't repeat the mistake of 2007. Don't think you are in a position to dictate the terms.
I think you are bonkers, but you care a lot about this city, and that buys you some slack.
But enough is enough. If you reject this last compromise, You have exhausted all good will. Either take the deal, or embrace foreclosure and bankruptcy.
Take the offer.
Take the offer.
Take the offer.
Please.
Take the offer.
8:43 there was documented testimony tonight that staff of the city propsoed a solution of giving the Marrs some type of retro amnesty that would have solved the problem
Deletewhy was the not the starting point of any talks Kranz and Gaspar?
Speakers rightly pointed out the Jay Lemback, Vina, Shaffer and Kranz all gave Carltas a pass on money it owed the city- where is teh outrage Kranz/Gaspar?
There is only cone Mayoral candidate with the balls to stand up for residents and her name is Shiela Cameron
Gaspar adn Kranz are lap dogs for big money developers- kick their sorry manipuatlive asses to the curb
Who cares what the Marrs do.
DeleteShe is a total nightmare for Encinitas and consistently wastes the taxpayers money.
they sooner she moves from Encinitas the better.
If the let them slide, just fire all code enforcement and refund all other fines. Don't favor the taxpayer wasters.
Those few that spoke in favor of the Mars are total fruitcakes and need to take ownership of their bad decisions in life.
We are watching and will vote accordingly.
Shut up. She said she'd sit down with the subcommittee and work something out. You'll have to find another ax to grind, 8:43. Move along, now.
Deletefruitcakes? More like Earthquakes and I heard they really rumbled city hall tonight! Good work!
DeleteLynn has a lot of followers who appreciate her work on city issues. You don't have to listen or read her comments.
DeleteWhat will it take to get Sabine fired? Almost every speaker made him look like a baffoon. One speaker said that the reason that the city had to hire an Orange County firm was because couldn't take the heat. I think I heard her say he should be fired. And yet, he is still here.
ReplyDelete8:47 Ms. Green said she would be the one to fire Sabine. She has a wild imagination, but give her a call and see exactly how she plans to carry out her plan.
DeleteBecause the speakers were a small clique of old crazy people.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to represent the whole community, recruit one speaker without a cane, who doesn't regularly scream at council on any and every issue.
8:51 Be careful what you say about old people and canes. You may be there yourself some day.
Deletehopefully I will not be such a tick on society and will take ownership for my decisions.
Deletethere was a lot of dementia rambling on in that meeting. Sad but true.
Why weren't you there, showing everyone how brilliant and bitter you are, then, jerk.
Delete8:51- The old man with the cane was one of the original founding fathers of this City. If you don't like it, move. You make me sick.
ReplyDelete8:59-
DeleteYou make me sick. If he is so special why didn't he ever run for City Council? Many old people have half baked ideas that the younger generation are now paying for.
And you, 9:56, have done exactly what for this city?? Running for council your only measurement of sincerity and hard work? Truly sucks to be you, so nasty nasty.
DeleteBob Bonde is a hero in our city. The people like Vina and Sabine should be grateful for him above all others since it is because of him that they have jobs with the CITY of Encinitas and not a smaller city.
ReplyDelete9:17-Thank you. That was a much better response than mine, although I still think 8:51 is a jerk.
ReplyDeleteYou old coots need to take your geritol and get some sleep.
DeleteThe worst speaker of the night for the Marr case was that shrink Ms. Greene. The poor woman can barely speak and whatever she said was not audible. She needs to stay in her cage, because in public she looks like a fruit cake.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, get a new pair of glasses. Those black ones are atrocious looking.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete11:22 Well, thanks for nothing coming to a meeting when you are sick. Hope you didn't pass your germs around. Best thing to do when you are sick is stay home.
Delete11:22 There is no way YOU can get Sabine fired. Don't bother wasting your time or money. You also have skeletons in your closet.
Delete11:22 post by Ms. Greene. She has a bad habit of posting comments and then deleting them. Good thing or she may find herself sitting on the other side of a judge some day. WIMP!
DeleteSabine is on his way out. Just a matter of time and it won't be long.
DeleteAgree. Bob Bonde is a hero.
ReplyDeleteYeah to Lisa Shaffer for wanting some guidelines for proclamations. Gaspar tried to hog the show on the little league thing and not include the rest of the council except her sidekick blubber Muir.
ReplyDeleteWhy haven't we heard any more about the half-year evaluation of the city manager and city attorney?
ReplyDeleteFYI,
ReplyDelete8:51 here.
I know Bob personnally, have met with him multiple times, and appreciate his contributions to the city, even if I sometimes disagree with his causes or tactics.
I regret and appologize for the insensitive remark. Bob has been helpful to me in matters with the city, and I was wrong.
My poorly made point was that the group of speakers was not a representative sample of our whole community. I stand by that point, but the way I expressed it was wrong.
Sorry Bob, and any others offended.
I agreed with your 8:51 comment.
DeleteThe other old coots need to take their geritol and get to sleep. they are losing reality.
I made the remark, and I don't defend it; neither should you.
DeleteNow is the moment for people to eat crow, comprise, sacrifice, eschew "total victory," and find a way for these neighbors to keep their home.
Tonight's speakers were not a representative sample. The eratic and potentially violent behavior of Russ Marr (as described by Bon Bonde's whitisim tonight) is not funny, and deters opposing views from being presented at council meetings.
This is a serious matter.
It deserves an equally serious debate, so that a compromise can be achieved.
Russ Marr is not violent. Name a single violent incident. Keep your cowardly opinions and libel to yourself, 10:44. The people who were present are representative of people willing to show their faces, who care about the whole community. You are an anonymous troll, 10:44. No one is deterring you from presenting your opposing views. You hide in your psychopathic ego driven cowardice. Bullies are always cowards. You are pathetic.
Delete8:43 on the contrary to your attempt at misdirection, the direction was to use the 07 city offer as a starting point and that was all. How could we both see the same thing and come up with a different conclusion. I was there. Were you? You can check the record.
ReplyDeleteI could be mistaken but that 07 offer demanded that they plead guilty to something with which they were not and good for them to not bending over for that bad offer by the city. Come on council, do the just thing.
It is now going to a subcommittee of Kranz and Gaspar for oversight. Where was the oversight that let this molehill grow to the mountain it is now? There should not be any result other than complete dismissal of all charges and legalization of the accessory unit for all the unneeded legal costs and stress that did not have to happen in the first place.
The accessory unit was never illegal. That should have ended there. But noooo they, someone, I wonder who, duh, just had to pursue this to where we are at the present. Fire glenn. Wake up. We are awake and paying attention. It is well past our councils time to do the same.
Dude,
DeleteIt's not your house.
The Marrs have exhausted all goodwill, and have no legal leverage.
I'm shocked the city is renewing the 2007 offer. Your advice is irresponsible. Please consider that your personal insecurities and rage at authority are less important than these folks keeping their house.
Oh, get over your "shock." What are you, a baby?
DeleteThat's exactly right, the 2007 "offer" asked the Marrs to plead guilty. Hopefully the subcommittee can see clear to striking that extortionist requirement.
Delete9:47, it's not your house.
DeleteYou have exhausted all goodwill; you have no credibility.
The Marrs do have legal leverage for selective, discriminatory enforcement. The City opened the case back up when it renewed the judgment. Court hearing is set for January 9 to vacate the judgment. The City is not the party bringing the case. Sabine brought it in the name of the People, after a warrant and a raid.
By the way, anyone who realizes a thing about karma is that you don't pull someone's karma down on him. Judge not least you be judged.
8:43 PM
ReplyDeleteDidn't you hear there is new law that the burden of proof now falls on the city not the property owner. Did Sabine advise the council that Lynn and Russell could sue the city?
Let the Marrs sue. I say sell the full lien and collect the money due the taxpayers.
Delete10:03: they're not suing, or haven't you figured that out by now? That was what Sabine was stumbling over at the end of the meeting: that the Marrs were not suing. That's why he went into his "I don't know what to call it, I didn't have time to prepare" backpedal.
DeleteThe lien is not sellable. The City should not have received an order of costs and fees. The judgment, one way or another, will be found to be void.
DeleteGlenn Sabine has no more useful value to our city. Buh bye Sabine.
ReplyDelete9:23- That shrink as you refer to Dr. Lorri has done more good for this city that I suspect you have. My guess is you are either Sabine, Stocks, or some other asshole. Take a hike. If you couldn't hear here, perhaps you had already made up your mind about her a long time ago. There are some real assholes on this blog. And who cares if you like her glasses? Have you ever spoken before the Council? What have you done to help anyone, anytime. You are exactly the kind of person that I wish would crawl a hole and stay there.
ReplyDeleteWow. That was worth reading. NOT.
DeleteGo to bed grandma. You are losing reality, and might not come back.
You are a hater, 10:05. You are an agist, sexist jerk. Lorri Greene is a compassionate lady; she truly cares about our city.
Delete9:50- I have not always agreed with Dr. Lorri, but 9:23's comment was so lame that I have to agree with you. What the hell does her glasses have to do with what she said? And, in case you didn't hear her, let me dumb it down for you. She said Sabine was an asshole in so many words. That was good enough form no matter what I think of the Marr's. Be careful who you trash, because someday you may be in a position to need help from the people she hangs with.
ReplyDeleteThose trash remarks are what you make when you have nothing of substance or value to say. Back in yer hole.
DeleteAnd I do mean 9:50: in yer hole!
Deletewell like the good doctor or not she made public two pieces of information
Delete1. What the hell is Sabine doing paying Rutan and Tucker 15,000 dollars for this little case? It is cronyism- remember Sabien brought in Lew Edwards for the tax hike- see how it works?
2. Dr. Lorri is right- what the hell Sabine can't handle the heat-
Sabine exposed what an incompetent he is- he did not even know what was in the letter
9:50 The shrink needs a shrink of her own. The glasses were totally useless because she couldn't see and couldn't read a word she had written. Poor verbal skills for such an "educated" person.
DeleteNow. go have another drink. You sound like you need to chill.
Wow that was a worthwhile comment. thanks for adding value to the discussion, Loser.
ReplyDeleteWell folks, here we are. Wedbesday, August 20, 2014.
ReplyDeleteTwo days ago--hell--two hours ago, the small cadre supporting the Marrs were questioning the "illegal gift" issue, and begging for the 2007 settlement offer to be renewed.
The city has refused to enforce the final legal judgement for 10 years. The city has taken no action to collect on the debt for 10 years.
The city has generously offered to renew the 2007 mediated settlement offer. And now, we hear, from the same folks demanding resurrection of the 2007 deal, a clarion call for TOTAL VICTORY!
It's not your house. It's not your life. Lynn, these are not your friends. Don't become a pawn of others who have not put their financial assets at risk.
Your decision, Marrs. Be selfish, do what's right for you.
Be careful, 10:17 - your friends I suspect live in glass houses. Illegal glass houses.
Delete10:17 I smelled the stench of a brown act violation tonight-
DeleteIt was wrong for Gaspar to ask Lynn to take or not take the 07 terms as a starting point- either the council wants to forma sub committee or it doesn not, it also placed the Marr's in a bad spot- again, and held them over the barrel
Just think- if Phony Tony and run and hide Gaspar had been this firm with Tim Baird we could have save $6M
Gaspar and Kranz are losers- and cowards, and bullies!
There is only one mayoral candiate with the balls to stand up for residents and stand up to Sabine and Vina- like it or not her name is Cameron.
10:22 - you called it exactly right. Why put the Marrs back over a barrel?
DeleteIf Sheila Cameron is so wonderful why didn't she speak tonight? Was she too afraid to speak to this issue? And Blakespeare sat in her usual corner, where the cameras could see her. Of course, God forbid she should take a controversial stand on anything. Let's faced it, we have no real leadership at CIty Hall. And from the looks of who is running, there is not much to chose from. So all you naysayers, who sit and criticize the people who go to these meetings and do their best, why don't you run, or attend and speak-for or against? It really is easy to critique others who may or may not having the best speaking skills. But, they do it anyway. Why, because they care enough to suit up and show up, as coach used to say. If nothing else came of this evening it showed that the old folks are the took the time and showed up. The only young person seen was Alex, who is running for council. And even though he sounds a little way over over the top for me, he came. It is apparent, at least to me, that this blog has really become a hatefest to trash people who are trying to make a small difference. You don't have to agree with them, but when comments are made about stupid things such as glasses, I think it is time for another blog. This one is done, thanks to those who cannot be bothered with doing any research of their own, but can certainly criticize someone like Bob Bonde who has worked tirelessly for this city. Or perhaps we would be better off to go back to the county. This experiment is over. If we can't get good people to run, and we can't get rid of Sabine and Vina, maybe we would be better off with the county. All I know right now is I appreciated everyone who went to City Hall tonight. I couldn't make it, and from what commenters are saying about certain personalities, I wish I had.
DeleteAgain, Gaspar never voted to spend $10 million for a $4 million dollar property. That was Shaffer. That's why Barth got 'shamed' at the State of the City Dinner and dropped out the next day when she realized that the family cow she has entrusted to Tony to sell at the Farmer's Market had been traded for 3 Magic Beans, which Tony sadly handed out one each to Lisa, himself and Teresa.
DeleteAnd that is why the only result of the con job by Baird over Tony is 3 little piles of.... no, its not beanstalks.
11:28 Yep, dump the black glasses.
Delete11:28, you "couldn't make it" last night? Well, maybe Cameron couldn't, either. Dumb comment.
Delete11:32
Deleteexplain:
1. Gaspar is elected in 2010 to watch our money. Her first opportunity to do that comes in 2011 on Pacific View. Rather than represent residents she leaves the dais claiming she does not know about it. She is responsible
2. In 2012 Vina cancels a meeting without authorization. THe next week TIm Baird shows up yelling why isn't the city working to buy PV? Where is Gaspar- failure
3. In 2014 Residents beg Gaspar to file an injunction to compel EUSD to abide by the Naylor Act- does Gaspar make a motion to save us tax money- no. Crickets
Gaspar is as resposnsible for the $10M buy as Kranz- it happened under her watch, and she did nothing to stop it. Complicit. Failure. Spendaholic
11:28 I guess you sit at home and never go to meetings. HEre are a few facts you can try on
Delete1. residents passed prop A to stop an abusive council
2. Residents ran stocks out of town to stop his financial crap
3 residents pressured the council pass density restrictions
4. residents got the nichols road report released
5. residents forced the city to do an EIR at the hall park
and the list goes on. I am grateful for the people who go to city hall, you should be as well. They have a track record of success- and they don't want to get paid.
Does a density bonus apply to the Marr propery ?? If so it's worth a lot more and will be a developers dream.
ReplyDeleteNope. You'll have to dream about someone else's property.
Deletesell the full lien and collect the funds. The mars made their choice.
DeleteI'll be voting YES to rezone that land for a density bonus....
DeleteOne small RS-11 lot is not eligible for density bonus. The lien is not saleable. The renewal of judgment will be found to be void. The Marrs made their choice to stand up for their civil liberties and their property rights.
DeleteSounds to me like Gaspar and Kranz were briefed by the city attorney in advance because it went way too smoothly and Gaspar put the Marrs in a tight position (back seven years).
ReplyDeleteAgree, 11:11. City attorney and city manager shouldn't be briefing Council to get around open meeting requirements, especially if the briefing is about an upcoming agenda item.
DeleteAny memos or notes made are disclosable through public info requests, so the briefings are probably usually verbal, not written down.
City attorney should have spent time briefing others on briefing himself. Ill-prepared, as usual.
Delete11:11 PM
ReplyDeleteExactly. Few comments from the council. Gaspar's gift of public funds remark. Another Brown Act violation.
Back seven years ago when she wasn't on the City Council?
ReplyDeleteNot so much, but an A for effort; perhaps you could start a new career in retirement savings, stay tuned for Mrs. Barth's phone number.
11:23. Gaspar asked Lynn if the letter they received from council in 2007 could be used as a starting point. Keep quiet unless you know what you're talking about.
DeleteInterseteing Gaspar understood this case and as a tough negotiator in public- when it came to Pacific View she said she didn't have enough information and then ran and hid like coward.
DeleteThere is only one mayoral candidate with the balls to stand up for residents and stand up against Sabine and Vina- her name is Cameron, she's got a set.
10:18 PM
ReplyDeleteDon't you understand. With the new case law the city's lawsuit can be thrown out. Did Sabine advise the council that Lynn and Russell could sue the city?
11:38 = complete idiot. The city doesn't have a lawsuit, it has a judgment. No new case law, which I beg you to please cite, will lead to "throwing out" that judgment. It's a done deal and can/will only be abandoned by the good will of the city. Whatever half brained legal document the Marrs filed with the court and submitted to the city will be shown to be utter nonsense. The Marrs may get a reprieve here but don't think it's going to come from the court.
ReplyDelete12:58 -- You didn't watch the meeting carefully. Go back and listen to what Mark Whitley. He sold the boat houses to the city. The city filed a similar code violation against him on his property on Nardo. He won his lawsuit and the city will pay legal fees. Mark hired a high priced lawyer from Florida, so the city will owe big money The court ruled that the city must prove whether a unit is not legal non-conforming, not the owner that it is legal non-conforming. The city never did that with the Marrs. The city only got a default judgment for being in non-conformance.
DeleteThe city didn't nail the Marrs last night because Sabine knows that both his case and his position as city attorney are at risk. Sabine was very tentative at the end the agenda item when he said he wasn't sure. He didn't want a closed session meeting or another council meeting on the subject. He wouldn't give any parameters for the subcommittee when Lisa Shaffer asked for them. He was minimizing his exposure. The city will settle with the Marrs. It's too risky not to. Sabine even admitted that the court date for the Marr's appeal of the lien renewal isn't until January 2015. He said they had lots of time. Yes, time to keep Sabine from sinking deeper into the quicksand of his incompetence.
Right on, 11:24. But in the Mark Whitley case, the court found there was no prevailing party, and the City and Whiltey had to bear the cost of their own attorney fees.
DeleteThe Register of Actions for the Whiltey case, through the Superior Court shows The City of Encinitas to be "self represented," through Glenn Sabine. A self-represented attorney is not entitled to his own costs and fees.
The Marrs had 4 or 5 people speak on their behalf. THAT WAS IT!
ReplyDeleteGo to the archive and watch the video again. There were more than 4 or 5 people who spoke for the Marrs.. No one spoke against the them. The trolls were afraid to show their faces.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete????
DeleteYou mean 4 or 5 nitwits. That was one sorry lame group of speakers.
ReplyDeleteClearly the Marrz have a sense of entitlement to do as they please and are more than willing to escalate the most minor grievance into a enormous headache. The city should not negociate further until a full phycological profile has been done on both Marrs by independent experts.
ReplyDeleteIF there is a psychological profile to be done perform it as follows
Delete1. Why does Lisa Shaffer claims to have ethics and then lie on the prop a ballot statemen and in her newsletterst? That is a sociopath
2. If Teresa barth believes in trust and transparency then why did they talk about the Marr case in public but for Pacific View they went behind closed doors- she is a two face
3. If Phony Tony has deep local roots why did he tell the Democrat party he voted for the drinking ordinance when he really didn't
4. IF Sabine has the best interest of the people first why did he waste $15,000 on his buddies at Rutan and Tucker rather than do the work himself?
5. Vina is a known bully, sociopath, teller of tall tales and incompetent
Let me know how the evaluation of the nuts running the asylum at Encinitas City Hall turns out for you.
You are so full of it, 6:32, aka Crap Master.
DeleteYour opinion is just that, an unverified opinion, which is irrelevant to the conversation. The Marrs don't have a sense of entitlement. Your claiming they "clearly" do, is just more pretense, posturing and puffery by you, hypocrite. You are the one with a sense of entitlement with all your inside connections.
12:19- I have no inside connections only my observations that this case could have been settled long ago. But if you walk around all day with a persecution complex and a " I'll show them who the boss is" sense.... Clearly you/they need pyscological help. Regardless, they/ you have no sense of humility only a sense of entitlement. Fuck you!!!
DeleteYou clearly have psychological issues, 7:59. Get help.
DeleteLynn and Russ should hire Marco to represent them. Marco strikes fear into the heart of Sabine.
ReplyDelete10:14 AM
ReplyDeleteAfraid of something coming back to bite you?
No kidding re: 10:14. Someone's just a leeetle too interested in the Marrs taking the 07 "deal." And taking it immediately.
DeleteEveryone in town should be publicly and privately encouraging the Marrs to take the deal so they can keep their house, so that the home is brought back into compliance with code voluntarily, and so the distraction ends.
DeleteIf you encourage them to continue fighting, maybe they can come live in your garage after the foreclosure.
If they live in my garage will I need a zoning change??
Delete10:57 AM
ReplyDeleteAfraid of something coming back to bite you?
And you have your "facts" wrong.
Until yesterday morning I knew nothing of the La Veta Case. After clicking the link contained in the City Council 8/20/14 agenda, out poured 469 pages of documents covering a span of over 14 years. Admittedly I did not read cover to cover Item #10A but I consumed the entire first section that lays out the legal case and then read more quickly through the last 300 pages so that my perspective was not completely bent to the favor of the City of Encinitas (“City”). The drama that unfolded made me want to drive by and see the property first hand but even more alluring was to see the cast of characters first hand, and so I attended my first City Council (“Council”) meeting on August 20, 2014, at 6 pm. In the discussion that follows I present some history gleaned from that long set of documents along with my observations and judgments. I believe that both parties are to blame for the past and current mess and I sympathize with the Council members as they consider how best to consider Ms. Bruan’s and Mr. Marr’s pleadings while the Council performs its fiduciary duties to the rest of its citizens.
ReplyDeleteIn 2004 a court sided with the City issuing a $95,000 judgment against Ms. Braun and Mr. Marr. Subsequent filings and legal maneuvers continued thereafter. A settlement offer was drawn up and presented to Braun/Marr in 2007 which would have cleared the slate and removed any penalties (except that which could be considered a penalty against Encinitas taxpayers who would be left paying the legal bills represented by the $95K—but more on that later).
The parade of people marching up to the podium last night to speak in defense of Braun/Marr was admirable but somewhat misguided. Many presenters rehashed the facts, which, by this point of time, had been well litigated with a conclusion reached. Albeit the truth seems to have been muddied by the passing of time; including the hazy nature of what were legally permitted garages/residences back in the 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s! While my first impression was to dismiss Braun/Marr’s claims, I have come to believe that the “residence” or “apartment” or “conversion” was legitimate and the City overreached its bounds.
One glaring question as of today is why this matter suddenly reared its ugly head to get dumped on the laps of current Council members. My best guess is the fact that the $95,000 judgment needed to be renewed or else it would expire at tenth anniversary of its being filed—and, oh by the way, let’s tack on 10% interest when refiled so the property will have a lien of $188K! In the back of my mind I wonder whether Braun/Marr would have even had the civility to come before the Council to discuss the case had this refiling not occurred. Heck, in 2002 they resisted City attempts time and time again to just review the property in question and yet today, here they stand, admitting that such structure exists as a residence of some sort.
I don’t think the City should get off scot-free, however. While the pages and pages and pages of legal documents, correspondences, etc., support the City’s position, what does not rise to the surface in all of that paperwork are the personalities of government representatives from 1998 to at least the 2007 time frame. I have no doubt that Braun/Marr were unreasonable, belligerent, and hard to talk to. On the other hand, I suspect certain City actions were biased to the point of treating Braun/Marr unfairly.
ReplyDeleteAs an experience business executive I have spent 30 years in corporate America and know too well how easy it is to relegate duties to legal representatives and let a situation take its course. After perusing the legal documents of the La Veta case, it comes as no surprise to me that such actions cost the city almost a hundred thousand dollars to date. Runaway legal bills can occur with the blink of the eye. However, there was one thing I didn’t quite connect until I looked at the name plate of the current city attorney during the meeting. I saw the name, Glenn Sabine and then thought to myself, “Hey that’s the same guy that represented the City way back when this case first started. But wait a minute, isn’t he also part of the firm, Sabine and Morrison, that racked up the $84,000 bill to the City in this case?” YIKES!
Some of the speakers last night were less than complimentary in speaking about/to Mr. Sabine but given the fact that he is an attorney I have no doubt his thick skin could take the jabs. What I cannot seem to reconcile are city leaders letting the legal leash get so long that this petty little case became so expensive or that Mr. Sabine did not consider his own potential conflict of interest in generating such revenue for his firm.
Because of a prior commitment I left the presentation before it concluded but diligently watched the parts I missed early this morning on my computer. On my way out of the meeting last night I talked to Bob Bundy, one of the earlier presenters. I quickly summarized my observations to him and curiously asked why Braun/Marr did not settle back in 2007 which would have made the big dollar liability go away. He somewhat agreed with my assessment but explained that the agreement required Braun/Marr to admit guilt. It seems ironic that seven years later that settlement agreement has come back to the forefront!
Last night the Council proposed a subcommittee be established to sit down and re-address the 2007 settlement. The mayor then asked the Marrs to respond as to whether they would meet and negotiate or if their stance merely remains to demand the City release the amount owed. The Mayor clearly stated that if the latter position still remains then such a meeting would not provide any progress. Ms. Braun got up to again address the Council and while agreeing to such a meeting, she completely skirted answering the important element of the Mayor’s concern about coming to negotiate, not just demand.
This case stopped being about personalities a long time ago. Now it is a legal labyrinth and Braun/Marr should retain legal counsel, LISTEN to the advice of said counsel, and sign whatever agreement the City can offer—if fair. I think the City should amend the lien to remove the interest charge as well as consider a lessor monetary penalty that is more equitable. I am not quite convinced with Braun/Marr’s position of being destitute. Let’s not forget that the property in question was purchased in 1991 and last time I looked property values in the City have done pretty darn good. (As an aside, it should be pointed out that if property tax rolls continue to list the entire structure as a garage then all these years the value of the living quarters have not been correctly assessed and Braun/Marr may not have been paying their fair share of taxes.)
Fundamental point:
DeleteHave the Marrs ever been objectively shown to have an illegal accessory unit? Isn't their argument that they don't, so this long, sorry case should never have begun?
If Sabine is on a fat retainer as City attorney, how is it that he rings up legal fees for himself when he actually has to do legal work for the City?
The property is assessed according to purchase price. The purchase price included the studio/habitable use area attached to, but separate from the garage.
DeleteThere is no precedent, locally, or anywhere in the state, where a city attorney has sued in the name of the people, where the city attorney has demanded to be paid his attorney fees. State law does not allow that, according to Code of Civil Procedure.
Sabine has gone way out of bounds. The underlying judgment and the renewed judgment are void. The Marrs don't owe anything, but have offered to settle, so that further litigation can be avoided. The warrant/raid was also in the name of the people. The whole case was predicated upon a zoning violation, when one accessory dwelling unit is allowed by right in Encinitas, according to municipal code, and California Government Code.
The 2007 "settlement agreement," required for the Marrs to admit guilt by ripping out the pre-existing wall that always had/has divided the habitable use are from the garage area. The warrant was for garage area only.
The Marrs were not belligerent or hostile. Those are all hearsay conclusions, unsupported by actual evidence. Opinion is not fact. The fact is, the Marrs are not harassing or defiant, as falsely claimed by Sabine's law firm. After the renewal of a void judgment, the City opens itself up to charges of malicious prosecution and selective enforcement.
The 2007 agreement required the Marrs to rip out their bathroom in their studio and the wall that separates it from the garage. There was no "negotiation," and the 2007 settlement was not signed by the City, but was presented as a "final offer." The Marrs were trying to settle, modifying the agreement, using what was then called the "illegal unit policy." The Marrs had objected that the studio was never illegal, and that one accessory dwelling unit is allowed "by right" in single family residential zones, according to EMC, but Council, always "briefed" by Sabine, wouldn't listen to the Marrs and repeatedly rejected their modifications of the settlement agreement.
DeleteWhen people refuse to be civil and sit down to discuss and yes, argue too, this is what happens. I’m not sure how much the Council can do in this matter to un-ring the bell. Braun/Marr should admit to and apologize for their role in where they are today and be appreciative of the Council’s willingness to listen and work towards resolving. The alternative is to maintain stubborn resolve and in the process likely line attorney pockets at the expense of citizens.
ReplyDelete...sorry for the length but this situation has some history...cheers
You don't know what you're talking about 2:45. The Marrs were civil, and tried to settle, since 1999, then again in 2003-2004, and again in 2007. They wanted to compromise. The law firm of Sabine and Morrison wanted to stretch out the litigation, stretch out abusive discovery to finally obtain a default, so there would be no trial on the merits.
DeleteSabine and Morrison were belligerent and hostile, defiant to the Marrs, not the other way around. The Marr's home was invaded, and their peaceable dwelling destroyed by an orchestrated plot, which involved direct conflicts of interest, and unnoticed communications with and hearing before the judge.
Cheers.
It is my opinion if Marr/Braun try to rehash the city's offer to them of 2007, then they will place themselves back to that point where they have to admit there exists on their property an illegal structure that does not conform to city code. As I understand their side, they believe they do not have an illegal structure because it was done before incorporation of the city of Encinitas.
ReplyDeleteThere has been several court rulings on this case in which MarrBraun refused to comply. The city made many attempts, according to the correspondence I read, to try to rectify the situation, but were met with resistance. Needless to say, the case has gone on for some 10 years, with attorney fees being racked up by the city and some expense by Marr/Braun.
I find this whole case should not be in the hands of a sub-committee consisting of two uninformed members (Kranz who admitted he didn't read all of the documents) and (Gaspar who I'm sure had no time to read them either). They are not qualified, in my opinion, to render a decision in this case. The judge has ruled and it appears to me that Marr/Braun are in contempt of court for not doing as the judge ordered.
To let this case go on for this long is beyond my comprehension. Why did Marr/Braun just get a permit as the city requires and come up to city code?
Why was precious time wasted at a council meeting when this case had already been heard by the court? There are other important issues that the taxpayers are concerned with that are important to us.
Do we, the taxpayers, now have to pay for someone's stubborness? If so, I find that quite unfair to the rest of us.
subsequent records suggest that the "residential space" was and had always been separate from the garage (remember this structure was done way before good book keeping came to the county...I think the city was wrong in their original conclusion but it doesn't let the marrs of the hook for being uncooperative....I think they should calculated the property tax liability for changing the assessment from garage to residential, tack on penalty and interest, and some additional charges for them being so beligerent
Delete"Belligerent?" You might be, too, if you were asked for a legally binding admission of guilt and had your arguments repeatedly ignored. No one in their right mind would sign off on having done something illegal if it was not the case.
DeleteLook at Sabine and it's impossible to imagine he would not use such an admission of guilt against the Marrs in future. Sabine + vindictive Council and city employees is not a combo I'd be comfortable trusting.
The correspondence you read was all from the perspective of Glenn Sabine and his law firm, Sabine and Morrison.
DeleteThe Marrs did try, repeatedly, to comply, through the affordable unit policy. If your read the staff report, start at page 150. Everything preceding is BS by Sabine and Morrison, who prejudiced the court against the Marrs through misinformation, perception management, and inside connections, as City Attorneys.
The Marrs were never found to be in contempt. The City acted with contempt of their rights of privacy, and rights against wrongful search and seizure.
DeleteIf the Marrs would have just complied with the original notice to bring into compliance with existing city code just like any other dwelling that is not in compliance in this city. None of this 14 year drama would have unfolded.
ReplyDeleteYeah, it seems unfair when others do it too but the fact is that these good people got caught being unaware of the dwellings non compliance when they bought the property. The onus is on the buyer to inspect the property before buying it. It's called due diligence.
Bad things happen to good people all the time.
Deal with it.
The Marrs already were and are in compliance.
Delete7:13 so the law now is the city has to prove there was not a non conformance- it is the law, do you agree? and if so, can the city prove?
Delete7:13 PM
ReplyDeleteAfraid of something coming back to bite you?
Belligerent and stupid… two qualities that will not get you far in life.
ReplyDeleteKids take notice and learn something from these train wrecks.
You are belligerent and stupid, 7:40. You are belligerently preaching to yourself as you own stupid choir.
DeleteWhat a piece of work you are.
Ever get that the past cozy council egged the Marr's on and Sabine dragged this on, which only benefitted .... drum roll... Glen Sabine!
ReplyDelete7:37
ReplyDeleteI have survived many bites over the years and I'm still standing tall my friend. Nothing to hide in my life.
How about yours?
looks pretty obvious 7:13 is afraid. Must be bad.
ReplyDelete7:49 PM
ReplyDeleteNothing also.
Dalakranz is a total suck up to Lynn. Pathetic. You will not only get trounced in the Mayor election. You will be a one term Council member. Two biggest mistakes- Supporting loser Vina. Two- the whole PV fiasco.
ReplyDeleteYour out!
Kranz is a total suck-up to his pals at Carltas.
DeleteThe judgment lien is not secured. You don't know what you are talking about, 10:14. The renewal of judgment eventually will be found to be void by the court.
ReplyDeleteThe Marrs don't owe the City a dime. The lawsuit was in the name of the People of the State of California. The City did not join in. The law does not provide for attorney fees when the People sue to abate a nuisance on information of a City Attorney. Encinitas Municipal Code effective when the Complaint was filed, and lodged by Sabine and Morrison shortly thereafter, in 2002, also does not allow for attorney fees as damages in a civil case for injunctive and declaratory relief.
The unit is illegal. A court case settled that issue. The Marrs got thrown out of court for misbehaving and ignoring the direction of two judges. Their own fault. If you or I or anyone else behaved the same way, the result would be the same. We'd be tossed out of court, and a default judgement entered against us.
ReplyDeleteDecisions have consequences.
Now we have a judgement, and a $188K debt. The comprise the city offered is fair: conform to code, and the debt goes away. Of course, the county tax assessor may have a problem with the years of incorrect living space square footage. That's between the Marrs and the County.
The alternative is the city should sell the debt to a collection agency to recover some of our legal costs. The collection agency will likely end up foreclosing. The Homestead shelter will protect $185K of the Marr's equity. They can't be wiped out. Whoever buys the house out of foreclosure will be required to remedy the code problem.
You remedy the code problem by tearing down the illegal unit and remodeling the property. All with city approval, of course.
DeleteBut let's look at reality.... I don't see the Braun/Marr/autumn folks leaving quietly. They will have to be evicted and that won't be pretty. Can you say neighborhood evacuation?? 2-4 blocks in all directions ?? You would think that with all their friends screaming vendetta these same friends could cobble together 10 G's and get them a lawyer. But it's doubtful we are dealing with people playing with a full deck of cards... Anger blinds and pride before the fall. And other such nonsense. ..... Plenty of trailers for sale in Leucadia.
There is no illegal unit. You don't determine what the remedy is. The final judgment cannot exceed the relief requested in the complaint. For the City to tear down the studio, still attached to the pre-existing garage, but separate from it, was never requested as part of any "relief."
DeleteThere is no way that the Marrs will ever be evicted. You have no idea what you are talking about, 7:46. What a jerk you are. The illegal units behind Gold Coast will be or already have been turned in because of your hypocritical comments and your mean spirited remarks, but it wasn't done by the Marrs.
Court's can't "settle" something that is not true. Justice is not served by disinformation and deceit.
DeleteWhich illegal units at Gold Coast ?? I'd like to go past there and see them myself.
DeleteWhen/if the Marrs are evicted and the lot goes to auction I'll be placing a bid, if I win I'll tear down the entire structure and start from the ground up. Of course you might out bid me and deed the property over to the Marrs which would be fine with me. Until then we'll just have to hold our noses because the stench from this case isn't going away soon is it??
The Marrs cannot be evicted. That's not part of the final judgment.
DeleteThere are several units behind the Gold Coast which have no permits on record. The Marrs did have a permit for the building that houses both their pre-existing garage, and the attached studio. Check out the residential building records.
The abstract of judgment is in the name of the People, not the City. The City has no right to change the name of the case in the order that Sabine & Morrison wrote out for the judge to sign to Plaintiff People (Encinitas) from Plaintiff People of the State of California ex rel. Glenn Sabine Encinitas City Attorney. The City is not entitled, as a non party, to collect its self represented City Attorney's fees.
DeleteSounds like the Marrs are still trying to argue their case on this blog. This does not belong on a blog, at the council level. The court has already ruled and a decision was made. How can someone defy the judge(s) so blatantly?
ReplyDeleteThe judge's order was never defied. You are trying to argue against the Marrs with your conclusions not based on facts in evidence, only misinformed and prejudiced opinions.
DeleteHubris can make one to do many foolish things.
ReplyDeleteYes, like target someone with assumptions, when you know nothing about the actual facts.
DeleteThat application was objected to, on the grounds that the Marrs were not and are not illegal. It was signed, under duress of the judgment lien, in an effort to settle through the affordable unit policy.
ReplyDeleteLynn,
ReplyDeleteThat can only be you posting at 1am, because not even your buddies who spoke at council would insist that you have not been belligerent.
I hope you will take a deep breath and think objectively for a moment about your legal position, and what your best option is. Your future, and your kids' inheritance is in your hands.
Don't blow it again, by reciting the legal non-sense that got you here.
My fear is that you are addicted to notoriety, drama, and public attention. Lynn, those things are not worth $188K.
You can keep fighting if you want. If you do, I just hope you feel like you are getting your money's worth.
Take care of yourself, and good luck to you.
I think most of the postings on this blog defending the Marrs have been by Lynn. She's the only one who knows the entire case and it is obvious in the comments. Really, come on, this should be a private matter between the city, Marrs and the courts.
DeleteThe blunder is now costing the city and the Marrs big time money. Is it really worth all of this?
Doubtful, 12:32. She has a very easily identifiable writing style, and there's little or no evidence of it in the comments above.
Delete5:35 you are free to believe what you wish.
DeleteI would like to know what Lynn's new found friend GASpar will do to help her. GASpar said at the council meeting that their relationship got off to a rocky start. Wonder why that is no surprise.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, this sub-committee should not be making any decisions on this case. They haven't even read the material (as admitted by Kranz).
Let's have a headline contests based on the best guess outcome:
ReplyDeleteCity Council Joins the Marrs on Mars and Gives Up $288,000
or
Braun and Marrs Agree to Talks....As Long As They Get Their Way
Headlines:
DeleteCity Council Sub-Committee of Gaspar and Kranz defends the city's code of enforcement regulations and urges the Marrs to comply with the law.
Footnote: We do not want to set a precedent of ignoring city codes.
Braun/Marrs agree to talks, as long as they do all the talking
DeleteOr
City Caves: Kranz agrees to pay Marrs triple the debt owed. City also forced to agree that "south" is actually "north."
There is no local precedent for any private party being sued by the city and being forced to pay attorney fees, or the other way around. There is no precedent for a private party suing the city and losing, and being forced to pay the City attorney fees.
DeleteThis absurd case has already set precedent for legal harassment through abuse of process under the color of authority.
The amount of the lien is not $288K. 1:03, you are making the majority of the posts against the Marrs and spouting gibberish.
12:12 A good night's rest would do your health good. You know who you are.
Deleteyou're right I'm wrong; 188k not 288....btw, I haven't posted much of anything beyond 8/21/14 2:43. 2:44, & 2:45--which granted, was a substantial number of words, but in terms of total posts, someone else holds that distinction...cheers
Delete12:32 you couldn't be more wrong about others besides Lynn posting in her defense. Nice try but that was a lie. There are many of us outraged by the way the city has treated the Marrs for their 'never was an illegal unit to start with' battle that has been selective from the git go. This city is lucky to not be sued as the Marrs are only looking to be treated fair and equitably for their' never was an illegal unit to start with'.
ReplyDelete3:49 So, let the Marrs sue. They have everything to lose.
DeleteCouncil has its reputation to lose. The Marrs lien has already been re-recorded, doubling it, with interest. They have nothing to lose, except their civil liberties and private property rights if they don't stand against government intrusion and coercion, abuse of process and selective enforcement.
Delete12:08 All of what you say has to be proven. Just because the Marrs say it is so, does not mean a thing. They have to prove they have been violated. So far, they have lost at every turn.
DeleteThe City Attorney has lost his reputation and violated the public trust at every turn, as enabled by past and current councils
DeleteViolated the public trust? What are you smoking? Encinitas city attorney NEVER HAD the public trust!
Delete3:49 Have you been to the Marrs to inspect the said property in question? If not, then you are only listening to the Marrs who believe it is a legal unit. The judge thinks otherwise.
ReplyDeleteThe judge never came to the property. Neither did the City Attorney. Code Enforcement Officer Marianne Buscemi did inspect. She did not declare it to be illegal, only what she described as "a quaint studio apartment." She also inspected the garage area, which is separate. The warrant, excecuted by Buscemi and six deputy sheriff's allowed for inspection of "only the garage area" for a zoning violation or other health and safety or building violations. Buscemi alleged none.
DeleteAgain, the City attorney never saw the property, and neither did the judge. They all rely on perception management and manipulation of the law by Sabine and his partner, Morrison.
In the Whitley case, Sabine is listed as "self represented." Sabine and Morrison are considered to be plaintiff, on behalf of the City of Encinitas. Self-represented attorneys, including the law firm of Sabine & Morrison, are not entitled to their attorney fees.
12:06 The City Attorney and Judge do not have to see the property. They rely upon who is ordered to inspect it.
DeleteYour case and constant accusations of Sabine are shallow Lynn.
The person who got a warrant to inspect the property did not "return the warrant." Her later declaration did not allege that she confirmed any illegality. She only stated she inspected the garage and, afterwards, a "quaint studio apartment."
DeleteCounting votes, Gaspar clearly stated that further talks were not going anywhere if the Marrs were unwilling to work with the 2007 mediation as the basis for a compromise. Lisa Shaffer, in her newsletter said wiping out the court decision and debt without any concessions from the Marrs is a non starter.
ReplyDeleteThat's two no votes for the city rolling over.
The Marrs seem to be unwilling or unable to compromise along the lines drawn in the 2007 settlement offer (even though Lynn publicly agreed to it when put on the spot by Gaspar, which was pretty smart).
If they will only accept total victory, and two council members have already publicly ruled that out, then what are the chances the Marrs can run the table with Muir, Barth, and Kranz?
If the council rules in favor of the Marrs, then a bad precedent has been forever set. Not a good idea.
ReplyDeleteThere is no precedent in North County, San Diego County, or the State of California in circumstances such as this, where a case brought in the name of the People ex rel Glenn Sabine, Encinitas City Attorney, in a case for injunctive and declaratory relief, is granted a final default judgment, and then, nearly three months later, a self represented party, City Attorney Sabine and Morrison's law firm is awarded s post default, post final judgment order of UNNOTICED attorney fees.
DeleteA void judgment has no statute of limitations for an interested party to bring an action to confirm that it is void.
Quod Ab Initio Non Valet In Tractu Temporis Non Convalesait
Latin: That which was originally void does not by lapse of time become valid.
3:13 the bad precedent was set when the city went after and pursued a legal unit and then in 07 demanded they plead guilty to something they were not guilty of.
ReplyDeleteThat made the bad precedent worse.
Would you plead guilty to something you were not guilty of?
Answer that honestly and we are all on the same page.
How could that happen with your baseless condemnation of something you need to better inform yourself of?
I would hope you would defend yourself as well if conditions were similar. You would not roll over for false accusations made against you so you must appreciate Lynn and Russ not bending over through their unnecessary ordeal.
The Marrs need to fight their own battles and not involve the entire city.
DeleteEncinitas is becoming a "police state" under our current management. Perhaps if people like the Marr's didn't stand up the next knock will be on your door.
Delete9:53 The police can come to my door any time. I have nothing to fear, nor nothing to hide.
DeleteIf the Marrs believe they have a legal unit, then they should be proud to show it. Apparently, some untruths are being told on their part. The judge and the courts don't get involved just to have something to do. There is more to the story here than what meets the eye.
DeleteThat's like saying that we should all waive our Fourth Amendment rights against government intrusion and illegal searches and seizures of our private information, "if we have nothing to hide."
DeleteWhat did Patrick Henry say? "Give me liberty or give me death."
We should all be concerned about governmental intrusions, governmental lack of transparency, and governmental lack of respect for our civil liberties. You can give up your freedoms if you wish, 10:08. Russ Marr didn't fight for this country so that we would bow down to illegal authority.
It is the City that has abused its discretion and abused the process, violated the law, not the other way around.
Providing physical access to code enforcement officers is much less invasive than what will happen during bankruptcy proceedings.
ReplyDeleteIn 2024, the debt will double again to $376K. In 2034, the debt rolls up to $752K. Compounding interest is a powerful thing.
The award of costs and fees is void. There will be no bankruptcy and no interest added to a void order.
DeleteTranslation:
Delete"I reject your reality, and substitute my own."
You don't know what the reality is, only hearsay information, and misapplied authority. Some people would rather believe in comfortable lies than stand for the truth. Whatever your perception is, truth is truth. There will be no bankruptcy and no interest added to a void order. We get it that you hate the Marrs and wish them ill. Your own bitterness is a poison pill that is robbing you of your humanity.
DeleteQuod Ab Initio Non Valet In Tractu Temporis Non Convalesait
DeleteLatin: That which was originally void does not by lapse of time become valid.
can we get a separate blog for the Marrs topic so that these gems don't get lost in boring city council meeting land -- and perhaps we all agree to drop the anonymous curtain and show our faces?...just a thought..cheers
ReplyDelete9:09 How hilarious coming from one who posts "anonymous". You go first -- just a thought -- cheers.
Delete