Riverside Supervisors' Meeting- May 5, 2009

Discussion in 'GoldBase' started by i'mglib, May 5, 2009.

  1. lothar Member

    Re: Riverside Supervisors' Meeting- May 5, 2009

    So, yeah either that or listen to TomVorn and bullshit about making 79 a private road... Of course there will be a real impact to traffic on 79 if there is a better interchange and six-lane alternative.
  2. Tiny Dictator Member

    Re: Riverside Supervisors' Meeting- May 5, 2009

    the fact that he gave the copy away shows that he must have had another copy. he would not have given his only copy away.
  3. pacora Member

    Re: Riverside Supervisors' Meeting- May 5, 2009

    I hope this isn't taken the wrong way but...going to these meetings every Tuesday is the last thing that I want to do. However, if I can manage to roll myself out of bed each week, surely some others with concerns of their own can do the same.

    There's only so much which can be done with three minutes.
  4. Anonymous Member

    Re: Riverside Supervisors' Meeting- May 5, 2009

    zOMG, clearly he published the whole thing originally and doesn't want his fingerprints to be shown!!

    Clearly, anyone in the world cares about the mystery of the FUCKING PHOTOCOPY because it had a spiral binder!!!!
  5. Re: Riverside Supervisors' Meeting- May 5, 2009

    The ladies were awesome. Wish there were a thousand more like them out there. Ovaries of steel. 'Nuff said.

    The word "re-routing" is a bit stong for this situation, but there definitely is a situation. First, the docs:

    Resolution 2009-012, Authorizing Resolution of Necessity Regarding the Road Improvement, Widening and Extension of Clinton Keith Road and other roads in Western Riverside County. Introduced February 11, 2009:
  6. Re: Riverside Supervisors' Meeting- May 5, 2009

    The resolution seems to seek relief to heavy north/south traffic along Hwy by upgrading the east/west corridor referred to as Clinton Keith Road. I haven't researched this too see where this Clinton Kieth Road runs, but it certainly bears looking into considering how hard Miscavige has worked, and how much money he has invested, in getting Gilman Springs Road shut down. The timing of the resolution being submitted is suspect, as was Alhedef's presence at today's meeting. He left immediately after this resolution was being discussed.
  7. Haruhi Member

    Re: Riverside Supervisors' Meeting- May 5, 2009

    Clinton Keith Rd, Riverside, California - Google Maps

    Clinton Keith is a road in Temecula/Murrieta; it's very much south of Gold.

    I imagine that they're concerned with the section of the highway that runs along that area - where it meets the 15 and 215 with all of the South County traffic, not so much po-dunk INT territory.
  8. Re: Riverside Supervisors' Meeting- May 5, 2009

    Alhadef and Pete Labahn of the Riverside County Sheriff's Department:

    Alhadef, Labahn and another gentleman...

    ...who joined Alhadef in the cafeteria after the meeting:

    Supervisor Bob Buster chatting with the ladies:
  9. Anonymous Member

    Re: Riverside Supervisors' Meeting- May 5, 2009

    I live in the UK - so I'm a bit limited as to what I can do - but I just wanted to send props and thanks to Lirra and Julie. I thought you were both very impressive.

    I know that you've received some criticism for your continued focus on Jeff Stone lying about the "evidence" he used to railroad Ordinance 884. But for my money, today vindicated that persistence. I thought you were clear, to the point, and anything but "crazy!" If nothing else, I'm certain that Mr Stone's fellow supervisors are left with no illusions as to the truth of the matter.

    I realise that you'd like much more than this...the sense that you're banging your head against a brick wall must be immense: Jeff Stone is a very very arrogant man, who appears to be in politics for all the wrong reasons.

    I'm not close enough to any of this, to really know whether there's anywhere further that you can take this. It's frustrating in the extreme to see someone who's there to make and uphold the law, disregard it SO FLAGRANTLY, SO PUBLICLY, and SO UNASHAMEDLY. Sadly though, I suspect that his "calculation" that he can stonewall his way through it, is...probably correct.

    I hope that I'm wrong, and that a bloody great big political hammer will smash that arrogant smirk off his face, but I really don't know where it will come from. If you've got any ideas: things that perhaps we can do, please let us know.
    It's certainly sad that his colleagues - even Bob Buster who seems like a decent guy - are happy to quietly acquiesce and say nothing.

    Anyway kudos to you both. He may have got away with it this time, but I do think that he'll think twice about disregarding his duties quite to publicly in future. He knows now that people are watching, and that it can come back and bite him in the ass.
  10. NotSoAnon Member

    Re: Riverside Supervisors' Meeting- May 5, 2009

    Firefox users can download and install the extension IETab. Right-click the link above and select Open in IE Tab. You will get a blank page that says Done in the lower right corner. Right-click the blank page and select View in IE Tab.

    At this writing, the video is not yet available for public viewing.
  11. TomVorm Member

    Re: Riverside Supervisors' Meeting- May 5, 2009

    The status of Gilman Hot Springs Road (in relation to Gold Base) is an important point right now, related to the relocation of their "no trespassing" monuments as well as to the court cases scheduled to be heard involving AO and AGP.

    My comments in this thread, were clearly "conditional" and were emphasized as being so. I don't know the full language of the Highway 79 re-routing proposal, and I invite others to investigate whether there are details associated within that proposal that might affect Gold Base (particularly if Gilman Hot Springs Road there is downgraded from "secondary highway" status). The proposal may have the "intention" of being about traffic relief, but that doesn't stop the clients of Aldahef from trying to slip their chosen language in there too (as we saw in Ordinance #884).

    Label that what you like, but don't let "bullshit" (like that from Scilon "bullbaiters") cause you to ignore the facts.
  12. anonsparrow Member

    Re: Riverside Supervisors' Meeting- May 5, 2009

    You guys are doing awesome. Excellent job today - thank you so much!
  13. churchlady Member

    Re: Riverside Supervisors' Meeting- May 5, 2009

    PLEASE TELL ME LIRRA WENT BACK FOR HER PURSE. I won't be able to sleep tonight.
  14. moarxenu Member

    Re: Riverside Supervisors' Meeting- May 5, 2009

    Go for it. All we need is one question:

    Mr. Stone, you are a pro-life Republican. What are you doing about stopping David Miscavige from forcing fifty pregnant every year to abort at Gold Base?

    That's all we need.
  15. SaulTigh Member

    Re: Riverside Supervisors' Meeting- May 5, 2009

    Wouldn't moving the highway be in the best interest of the community except for the cost of building a bypass?

    I mean, that way traffic doesn't have to pass through Gold, which reduces the chances of pedestrians at gold being struck. Cars don't have to slow down to pass through. Also if the road through gold becomes private, the county doesn't have to spend money to maintain it.

    I don't know, it seems to me like a win win for the county but there is the question of whether the cost of moving the highway is worth it.
  16. BigBeard Member

    Re: Riverside Supervisors' Meeting- May 5, 2009

    Whatever the Hwy 79 thing is, it's NOT retroactive. Easements & such that applied AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENTS is what counts. Any later changes should have no bearing on any pending cases involving Gold.

  17. Optimisticate Member

    Re: Riverside Supervisors' Meeting- May 5, 2009

    I think what the ladies are doing is pointing out that while a document was used in a formal legal process and that document also influenced the decision making process, it has not been entered into the public record. If it happened with 884, how many others have been passed with questionable documents that remain hidden from the public eye? If I were a resident I would be concerned about this as well.

    But that's just me.
  18. TomVorm Member

    Re: Riverside Supervisors' Meeting- May 5, 2009

    The official status of Gilman Hot Springs Road, relative to the width and location of a public right of way, is also critical to the legal ability to hold future protests in front of Gold Base (as the language of Ordinance #884 attempted to prohibit).
  19. Re: Riverside Supervisors' Meeting- May 5, 2009

    Wow... this board makes Chi look like a City of Angels. Is it possible for more SoCali's to get to these meetings? and if they don't want to speak give their time to Lirra and Co?

    Is the way the board is conducting business something the ACLU could be alerted too? Co$ is still a hot button topic in the press. This could garner some attention to a board not looking for it? Just a thought don't know if this has been brought up before......
  20. Re: Riverside Supervisors' Meeting- May 5, 2009


    Earlier this week AO went to the clerk and requested all the documents pertaining to Ordinance No. 888, which was the emergency 30-day enactment ordinance attendant to 884. Guess what. Not a single sheet of paper exists substantiating the need for that "emergency" order. Stone and Walls eventually and oh-so-generously reversed that particular ordinance, but the fact remains that there's some serious shenanigans being pulled at the Supervisor level.
  21. Obi-Wan-anon Member

    Re: Riverside Supervisors' Meeting- May 5, 2009

    Maybe this is another way to go. He may have given away HIS only copy, but does anyone else on HIS staff, or do any of the other supes have a copy? Does the County Attorney have a copy?

    Since this booklet was instrumental to the passage of 884, it's disappearance makes that law suspect. They would not be able to reply to court challenges about the law.
  22. Anonymous Member

    Re: Riverside Supervisors' Meeting- May 5, 2009

    Doesn't matter - fucking use the law to hang the shill. Any and all advantages - use them.
  23. Relyt Member

    Re: Riverside Supervisors' Meeting- May 5, 2009

    You can still kind of protest at 30 feet from the center of the road, but it makes it harder to park vehicles. Maybe 1-3 vehicles on the side of the road, but you could only go so far. It would also make it easier for them to claim trespassing, and since the cops don't exactly check to verify whether or not you're on their property, they'll just take the lazy route and arrest ya, cite ya, and let the judge sort it out.
  24. Re: Riverside Supervisors' Meeting- May 5, 2009

    Tuesday again. Is there another meeting due today?
  25. Haruhi Member

  26. Ann O'Nymous Member

  27. Re: Riverside Supervisors' Meeting- May 5, 2009

    I've noticed something though, during each hearing, Jeff Stone seemed to cut off each person after each session time was over. Strangely enough, this reminded me of a King of the Hill Episode which then led me to finding Form AP-006 of the Rules of California Court aka Application for Extension of time



    What this application does is that it extends the amount of time given to the person, which means that it will give us more time to persuade the supervisors without Jeff stone going "STFU & GTFO"

    Also, according to Title 8 Rule 8.0030 of Riverside County Superior Court Local rules,

    And Rule 137 of California Rules of Court:

    TL;DR: Application must be up to date.
  28. Anonymous Member

    Re: Riverside Supervisors' Meeting- May 5, 2009

    Kindly if that is the question you have wanted answered so badly for the last few weeks, perhaps you'd like to go and ask it yourself.

    She and Julie both want to stay on topic and are not in this for protesting Scientology, I think because they live so close to Gold and are now well known I believe that to be a wise choice.

    Perhaps AO would be willing if you contacted him. But Stone has not answered any questions I doubt he would answer that one and dismiss it as being from to far out in left field because Jeff Stone believes that Scientology is a nice group of folks that just happen to give him money from time to time.

    I also doubt that it is quite as pointed of a question as you imagine, the GOP "claims" they are a "big tent" on that issue and California being a blue state I doubt that it would be a big issue with the GOP and I think it might end up being a plus in that state if he was pro choice. Granted pro choice does not mean pro-coercion but he does not believe that is an issue because he does not believe it happens. Jeff Stone thinks we are crazy conspiracy kooks lets not help him.
  29. Anonymous Member

    Re: Riverside Supervisors' Meeting- May 5, 2009

    No, I'm sorry but this is real misleading. You tried and I commend you for that, but you're doing it wrong.

    Court rules are for court - the judicial branch. BOS is the executive branch. You might as well apply customer wait times at McDonalds to the time speakers have to wait at the BOS meeing.
  30. Herro Member

    Re: Riverside Supervisors' Meeting- May 5, 2009

    Sorry to state the obvious Ann, but NYPA.
  31. fitch2000 Member

    Re: Riverside Supervisors' Meeting- May 5, 2009

    bumping for info on this disappearing emergency order paper work

    anything ever found? I called and the clerk said i would need item #s to get copies of the "anonymous pamplet" I told her I didn't have it and Jeff Stone didn't enter it in the record but I thought Julie Walsh did, she transferred me away :(

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins