After the Court Ordered the County of San Bernardino to vacate and set aside all approvals made on July 13, 2010 for the Nursery Products Composting Facility located in the unincorporated areas of Hinkley including: (1) certification of the environmental impact report and supplemental environmental impact report, (2) the approval of the conditional use permit, (3) the adoption of the findings, (4) approval of the statement of overriding considerations, and (5) the approval of the Mitigation and Reporting program, Vice-Chairman (Vice seems to be a fit don't you think?) Brad Mitzelfelt (who pushed the Nursery Products project when he was Chief of Staff to now-disgraced Bill Postmus and does not live in the High Desert but in the remote mountains of Wrightwood), 4th District Supervisor Gary C. Ovitt (who has a covered/enclosed sludge to compost project in his district but did not think the high desert deserved one!)and 2nd District Supervisor Janice Rutherford (after admitting she knew little about the project) voted to vacate items (1)-(5), then re-approved (1)-(5) AND simultaneously denied HelpHinkley.org's appeal (remarkable not only in the fact the appeal is ruled on at the same time as a decision is made to reinstate the decisions the court ordered be vacated [items (1)-(5)], but HelpHinkley.org had not filed an appeal--the time for it had not even started to run!)
.
First, to most people, appeals have to be made AFTER a decision is made--nor at the same time, otherwise, why have an appeal?Also, usually a party has to file an appeal. HelpHinkley.org hadn't.
Second, that is not the worst of it. After taking evidence and testimony yesterday, Supervisor Mitzelfelt said "he would not consider any of the testimony and materials submitted that day (of the hearing)"-So why have a hearing? Why invite the public to speak? What was the appeal considering record-wise? Just the supplemental report of the applicant, HelpHinkley.org? Where is the fairness in that?
.
Third, Supervisors Mitzelfelt, Ovitt and Rutherford further ignored the complaints that (i) the time to act had run, raising a jurisdictional question for the Board (the Board of Supervisors had until September 9, 2011 to comply with the Court's order -yesterdays hearing was 2 weeks late), (ii) Mitzelfelt had a conflict of interest voting on the project as an appellate "judge" as he had promised Nursery Products he'd locate a site in Hinkley after they were chased out of Adelanto, (iii) the notice of the hearing was defective under the California Environmental Quality Act and County Codes and (iv) the County failed to provide a comment period on the water assessment report prepared by Nursery Products that they claimed answered the Court's and the Mojave Water Agency's concerns. All concerns expressed, but never addressed.
.
Fourth, Nursery Products and the County used a "Centro Sub Basin" analysis to claim there was enough water--the basin they referred to was not the Harper-West Hinkley area, but the area which encompassed all of Barstow, Newberry, Daggett, Yermo and points in between. This is worst sort of deception by our leaders and Nursery Products especially since the recharge from the Mojave to Harper Lake was estimated by the Mojave Water Agency to be only 22 acre feet per year (through the Water Valley-Red Hill corridor).
.
The last court order in this ongoing CEQA battle was in significant part in response to a Mojave Water Agency comment letter saying there was insufficient evidence to show that a 900-1,000 gallon per day estimate water use was going to be adequate for an eight employee operation (with up to another 80 incoming drivers per day), covering 80 acres (the area authorized for composting operations) which would take, six days per week up to 1,100 tons of sludge (per day) in the specific area of this project, not the entire Mojave River BELOW Hinkley and there was no evidence the area could support that type of use, assuming it was true.
.
Despite a record being presented that was factual & documentary in the shortened and inadequate time given (which undermined Nursery Product's contentions), the crowd was called "emotional".
.
When the issue of environmental justice was again raised (e.g. the sludge-to-compost operation in Ovitt's District is covered and the West Valley of San Bernardino, which is in the South Coast Basin Air Quality Management District, requires these facilities be covered), it was ignored (again!)
.
I know the grand jury is busy, but this sure is the type of abusive governmental behavior someone should be looking at!
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Speaking of the FBI....lookie at the latest surveillance tool--you're holding it
According to a Wall Street Journal article that recently appeared, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies are now, and have been, tracking defendants and their lawyers through their cell phones, by "pinging" the phones and receiving a return reply by the phone. Its not clear is if powering down the phone frustrates that. If true, I have another thing to worry about? Nah, other issues like frivolous prosecutions come to mind. [article @ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904194604576583112723197574.html]-- author of article can be reached @: L Jennifer.Valentino-DeVries@wsj.com
BTW, "pinging" a phone is the process of sending sending an electronic signal to the phone. When your phone is turned on, you will see the relative strength of the signal, whether is is 3G or 1X or 1XEV, or whatever the GSM counterpart is. This relative signal strength has to do with how close you are from a cell tower...the closer you are, the stronger the signal. Your phone will periodically send a signal out, saying "I'm here" while searching for a cell tower, to establish or maintain a signal link to that tower so as to be ready to make or accept a cell call or other communication. This process of sending an "I'm here!" signal is called pinging.What the stingray device apparently does is capture a cell phone "ping" signal and, I'm guessing here, relate the electronic ID of the phone to an assigned telephone number. (It seems to me that the cell carriers are complicit in this by providing EINs to law enforcement.) This way, when the police capture a cell phone ping, they can identify the telephone number assigned to the EIN of the pinged response, and thus identify the person to whom the cell number is assigned. Then, once the police confirm that the signal they have identified through the ping response is from the phone of the target, then simply follow the signal around and, using triangulation from multiple cell towers and cell site locations supplied by the phone companies, they track the location of the phone. Nice huh!
BTW, "pinging" a phone is the process of sending sending an electronic signal to the phone. When your phone is turned on, you will see the relative strength of the signal, whether is is 3G or 1X or 1XEV, or whatever the GSM counterpart is. This relative signal strength has to do with how close you are from a cell tower...the closer you are, the stronger the signal. Your phone will periodically send a signal out, saying "I'm here" while searching for a cell tower, to establish or maintain a signal link to that tower so as to be ready to make or accept a cell call or other communication. This process of sending an "I'm here!" signal is called pinging.What the stingray device apparently does is capture a cell phone "ping" signal and, I'm guessing here, relate the electronic ID of the phone to an assigned telephone number. (It seems to me that the cell carriers are complicit in this by providing EINs to law enforcement.) This way, when the police capture a cell phone ping, they can identify the telephone number assigned to the EIN of the pinged response, and thus identify the person to whom the cell number is assigned. Then, once the police confirm that the signal they have identified through the ping response is from the phone of the target, then simply follow the signal around and, using triangulation from multiple cell towers and cell site locations supplied by the phone companies, they track the location of the phone. Nice huh!
Monday, September 12, 2011
What Would Mike Ramos Do with Troy Anthony Davis' Stay of Execution Request if it was before him??
Excerpted from September 9, 2011 article appearing in the New America Media
"The Troy Davis Case: Will America Execute Another Innocent?"
by Earl Ofari Hutchinson [See @ http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/09/09-11]
Without a stay of execution by the Georgia's Board of Pardons and Paroles, Troy Anthony Davis will be executed. From the facts, Georgia's Board of Pardons and Paroles should be agreeing to stay the execution and make a review of the record to make sure a mistake is not done (again).
The facts in his case? There was no murder weapon or physical evidence linking Davis to the murder, and a score of witnesses that originally implicated Davis as the shooter recanted their testimony. The witnesses have since the conviction claimed that they lied because they were scared stiff by police coercion, harassment and threats [7 witnesses say Troy is innocent according to Chang.org], and that another man committed the crime for which he will be killed [according to Amnesty International, nine people have signed affidavits implicating another man]. Others cut deals with police and prosecutors to walk free or to get lighter sentences for their own crimes. And yet others have long and dubious reputations as jailhouse snitches that prosecutor’s parade to the witness stand to finger a defendant, again in exchange for leniency.
WHAT CAN YOU DO? (1) Pray for justice & mercy to be done by the Georgia authorities and pray for the prosecution team to join in the request for first a stay of execution and an appropriate review of the record and appropriate action, (2) Sign a petition on line @ http://www.change.org/petitions/chairman-state-of-georgia-board-of-pardons-and-paroles-grant-clemency-to-my-brother-troy-davis or @ http://act.colorofchange.org/sign/troy/]
THE QUESTION MANY OF US HAVE: What would Mike Ramos, our current District Attorney do presented with the same record?
"The Troy Davis Case: Will America Execute Another Innocent?"
by Earl Ofari Hutchinson [See @ http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/09/09-11]
Without a stay of execution by the Georgia's Board of Pardons and Paroles, Troy Anthony Davis will be executed. From the facts, Georgia's Board of Pardons and Paroles should be agreeing to stay the execution and make a review of the record to make sure a mistake is not done (again).
The facts in his case? There was no murder weapon or physical evidence linking Davis to the murder, and a score of witnesses that originally implicated Davis as the shooter recanted their testimony. The witnesses have since the conviction claimed that they lied because they were scared stiff by police coercion, harassment and threats [7 witnesses say Troy is innocent according to Chang.org], and that another man committed the crime for which he will be killed [according to Amnesty International, nine people have signed affidavits implicating another man]. Others cut deals with police and prosecutors to walk free or to get lighter sentences for their own crimes. And yet others have long and dubious reputations as jailhouse snitches that prosecutor’s parade to the witness stand to finger a defendant, again in exchange for leniency.
WHAT CAN YOU DO? (1) Pray for justice & mercy to be done by the Georgia authorities and pray for the prosecution team to join in the request for first a stay of execution and an appropriate review of the record and appropriate action, (2) Sign a petition on line @ http://www.change.org/petitions/chairman-state-of-georgia-board-of-pardons-and-paroles-grant-clemency-to-my-brother-troy-davis or @ http://act.colorofchange.org/sign/troy/]
THE QUESTION MANY OF US HAVE: What would Mike Ramos, our current District Attorney do presented with the same record?
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Burum lawyers to get unredacted copy of Grand Jury testimony - San Bernardino County Sun- Wow, like why was a motion needed?
Burum lawyers to get unredacted copy of Grand Jury testimony - San Bernardino County Sun
Blogger Bob: Wow...imagine having to ask the court for the transcript of the proceeding that may exonerate you? Holding such exculpatory evidence is a prosecutorial no no, is it not? Were Jeff Burum not a wealthy man, represented by a former federal judge (who has to be pricy), does anyone really think the information would be released and the DA's office would be suggesting more may be released? Isn't everyone benefited by having all the cards on the table and there being full disclosure?
Blogger Bob: Wow...imagine having to ask the court for the transcript of the proceeding that may exonerate you? Holding such exculpatory evidence is a prosecutorial no no, is it not? Were Jeff Burum not a wealthy man, represented by a former federal judge (who has to be pricy), does anyone really think the information would be released and the DA's office would be suggesting more may be released? Isn't everyone benefited by having all the cards on the table and there being full disclosure?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)