Search
Subscribe to Updates
 |
 |
 |
LAWS AND CODESFRAUD: CASE LAW“The duty to disclose facts arises when a person undertakes to speak, so that the speaker is bound not only to tell the truth but also not to suppress or conceal facts within his knowledge which materially qualify those stated, because one who speaks at all must make a full and fair disclosure.” Browenlee vs. Hang, 1965. Regarding “Actual Reliance.” “It is not necessary to communicate directly with the individual or group or any number of people … (a person) is subject to liability if he or she communicates a fraudulent misrepresentation to a third person with the intention or with reason to expect that it would be repeated to, and relied on by, another or by a class of persons...” Markin vs. Wasserman, 1993. “Having reason to expect that a fraudulent misrepresentation will be communicated to, and influence a third party, requires only knowledge on the part of the person making the misrepresentation such that a reasonable person would conclude that there is a special likelihood that the misrepresentation will induce reliance by third parties.” Geernhart vs. Mitchell, 1995. Sentinel note: The three above court decisions apply to all the terrorists and their enablers who at any time spoke or wrote the LOCSD/RWQCB lie: “The RWQCB has mandated that Los Osos build a sewer. Los Osos has no choice.” The first decision applies to all of the LOCSD and RWQCB representatives, the Queen of Greed (Pandora Nash-Karner) controlled gang, the media and anyone else who spoke out, wrote about or sent mailers to voters prior to the June 2001 [illegal] Assessment District vote, or at any time, that promoted any lie, disinformation or intimidated votes or residents in any way. The second decision applies to everyone who has parroted any of the lies that have influenced voters and residents to vote a certain way, not vote at all, take a particular stance on an issue or to be intimidated and deceived in any manner. The third decision applies to all LOCSD and RWQCB officials and employees who actively conveyed the “mandated sewer” lie and any other lie that influenced the [illegal] June 2001 Assessment District or caused residents to be intimidated and deceived in any manner. PENAL CODEPenal Code Section 30–32 defines parties to crimes as “Principals” and “Accessories.” Penal Code Section 31 states: “All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it be felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, or not being present have advised or encouraged its commission … ARE GUILTY.” Sentinel note: Since 1999 when the LCOSD released the fraudulent RWQCB “mandated” sewer statement, all of the deliberate misinformation and threats spoken and written by the LOCSD, the RWQCB, all of the Pandora Nash-Karner enabler groups (Vote “Yes” For the Sewer, Save the Dream, et al), and all individual private citizens who had knowledge of any of the misrepresentations, are guilty of multiple counts of fraud. Penal Code Section 115.1(a): “The Legislature finds and declares that the voters of California are entitled to accurate representations in materials that are directed to them in efforts to influence how they vote. “Campaign advertisement" means any communication directed to voters by means of a mass mailing, a paid television, radio, or newspaper advertisement, an outdoor advertisement, or any other printed matter.” Penal Code Section 115.2(a) further states: “No person shall publish or cause to be published, with actual knowledge, and intent to deceive, any campaign advertisement containing false or fraudulent depictions, or false or fraudulent representations of official public documents or purported official public documents. Penal Code Section 182(a) If two or more persons conspire: (1) To commit any crime. (5) To commit any act injurious to the public health, to public morals, or to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws.” They are punishable as follows: “When they conspire to commit any crime …. they are guilty of a felony and are punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for five, seven, or nine years. “When they conspire to commit any other felony, they shall be punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as is provided for the punishment of that felony.” CALIFORNIA ELECTION CODECAEC Section 18500. Any person who commits fraud or attempts to commit fraud, and any person who aids or abets fraud or attempts to aid or abet fraud, in connection with any vote cast, to be cast, or attempted to be cast, is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for 16 months or two or three years. CAEC Section 18501. Any public official who knowingly violates any of the provisions of this chapter, and thereby aids in any way the illegal casting or attempting to cast a vote, or who connives to nullify any of the provisions of this chapter in order that fraud may be perpetrated, shall forever be disqualified from holding office in this state and upon conviction shall be sentenced to a state prison for 16 months or two or three years CAEC Section 18540 (a) “Every person who makes use of or threatens to make use of any tactic of coercion or intimidation to induce or compel any other person to vote or to refrain from voting at any election or to vote or refrain from voting … for any measure at any election, or because any person refrained from voting at any election or voted or refrained from voting for … (any) measure at any election IS GUILTY OF A FELONY punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months or two or three years.” CAEC Section 18540 (b) “Every person who hires or arranges for any other person to make use of or threaten to make use of any … tactic of coercion or intimidation, to induce or compel any other person to vote or refrain from voting for any particular … measure at any election, or because any person voted or refrained from voting at any election or voted or refrained from voting for any particular … measure at any election IS GUILTY OF A FELONY punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months or 2 years or 3 years.” In addition to the many Penal and Election Code laws violated, a number of California Water Code (CWC) laws were also violated. Among them are laws that require a District to secure greater than 50% community approval to even consider a sewer (CWC 22171), go back to the community for greater than 50% approval to enter into an SRF Construction Loan (13416 & 13417c) and go back a third time to seek 75% voter approval to issue Bonds (75150). CALIFORNIA WATER CODESCWC SECTION 22171. The board may in its discretion by resolution call an election to be held in the entire district or only in that portion of the district proposed to be served to determine whether or not the district should provide for sewage disposal service. The ballots shall contain the following statement of the proposal: "Shall the (LOCSD) Irrigation District provide for sewage disposal, or acquire existing sewage disposal facilities, within that portion of its boundaries as hereinafter described not now provided with adequate sewage collection and disposal works." (Since accumulating this evidence, the Code designations regarding Bonds has been changed and is currently unknown to The Sentinel. The laws are still enforce and binding.) CWC 75150. After the formation of the special improvement district, the board shall call an election for the purpose of submitting to the voters therein the question of incurring the bonded indebtedness… Which election shall be conducted in the manner provided for incurring of a bonded indebtedness.” CWC [9401] (a) In connection with each bond issue specified in Section 9400, a statement shall be mailed to the voters with the sample ballot for the bond election. The statement required by this section… shall include: (1) The best estimate from official sources of the tax rate that would be required to be levied to fund that bond issue during the first fiscal year after the first sale of the bonds based on assessed valuations available at the time of the election or a projection based on experience within the same jurisdiction or other demonstrable factors. (3) The best estimate from official sources of the highest tax rate that would be required to be levied to fund that bond issue, and an estimate of the year in which that rate will apply, based on assessed valuations available at the time of the election or a projection based on experience within the same jurisdiction or other demonstrable factors. (b) In addition, the statement may contain any declaration of policy of the legislative or governing body of the applicable jurisdiction, proposing to utilize revenues other than ad valorem taxes for purposes of funding the bond issue, and the best estimate from official sources of these revenues and the reduction in the tax rate levied to fund the bond issue resulting from the substitution of revenue. Such proposal shall be followed by the words “Yes” and “No” on separate lines with a small enclosed space after each of the two words. CWC SECTION 22172. The ballots shall have printed on them under the heading “Instructions to Voters”: “To vote for a proposal stamp a cross (+) in the voting space after the word “Yes” following the proposal. To vote against a proposal, stamp a cross (+) in the voting space after the word “No” following the proposal.” CWC 22173. The voters shall vote for or against the proposal by stamping a cross (+) in the voting space after the word “Yes” or “No” respectively. CWC 22174. Notice of the election shall specify the purpose of the election…” and shall be posted in three public places in each election precinct in the area of the district in which the election is to be held for at least 20 days and published in a newspaper published in the county once a week for at least three successive weeks. CWC 12944.5(A) & (B), 12932, 12934(D), 75150 & 75152. Before a District can issue and sell Bonds, they must once again go before the voters and present all of the facts, hold an election and receive greater than 75% voter approval. This was never done. After voter approval to build a sewer and voter approval to issue and sell Bonds, the next legal step is to ask the voters permission to enter into an SRF Construction Loan with the State Water Board. CWC 13416. “Before a public agency may enter into a contract with the state board for a construction loan under this chapter, the public agency shall hold an election on the proposition of whether or not the public agency shall enter the proposed contract and more than 50% of the votes cast at such an election must be in favor of such proposition." CWC 13417 (c) “The notice of the election shall include … the purpose of the election, the general purpose of the contract and the maximum amount of money to be borrowed from the state under the contract.” This was never done. All of the above laws were deliberately circumvented by the LOCSD, the County and the RWQCB respectively. They deliberately violated laws in order to deny the community their civil and legal rights and used terrorist tactics to coerce and intimidate residents to influence the outcome of the illegal June 2001 vote and force compliance with their sewer policy. The June 2001 Assessment District vote was a contrived ploy to deceive the community into believing with their vote they had approved the sewer, had approved the Construction Loan and had approved issuance of Bonds. Whenever the Board was challenged at public meetings Rosemary Bowker or Bruce Buel would always respond with: “The 2001 vote met all of the requirements.” In fact, the vote met none of the legal requirements. Election Law requires a Ballot to specifically state what the voter is voting for or against. The June 2001 Assessment District ballot said nothing about approving a sewer, approving an SRF Construction Loan or approving the issuance and sale of Bonds. The only reference to what residents were voting for or against were the following words in capital letters at the top of the ballot: “FOR THE PROPOSED LOCSD WASTEWATER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1.” The LOCSD terrorists deliberately refused to allow voters a secret ballot as was their right as well as standard procedure. The terrorists deliberately used an open ballot as an additional means of terror to intimidate and coerce voters. It worked. It was widely known around the community that since mid-1999, a number of individuals and business owners who had openly opposed the fraudulent sewer project and criticized the LOCSD had either been denied necessary permits or threatened by GM Bruce Buel and Karner with reprisals if they continued their opposition. Because it was an open election, many voters had been intimidated and feared reprisals if they had voted “No” so they either cast a “Yes” vote as the terrorists demanded or abstained from voting at all. In May, 2002, a substantial amount of evidence and support documents were presented to D.A. Shea with a request for a full investigation of the LOCSD, its Directors and GM Buel, Pandora Nash-Karner and her Vote “Yes” For the Sewer Committee for Election and Penal Code violations. The District Attorney refused to proceed with an investigation. In a July 2002 correspondence he stated that “… while some of the wording in the literature distributed within the Community Services District may not have been technically correct (i.e. “a waste water treatment facility has been ‘mandated’”), the context of the message is reasonably valid in light of the long standing order by the RWQCB. Sentinel note: CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 115.1(a): “The Legislature finds and declares that the voters of California are entitled to accurate representations in materials.” Not “technically” incorrect. “Accurate” means: “In exact or careful conformity to truth…” (Webster’s Dictionary). According to the law, "Campaign advertisement" means any communication directed to voters…” Penal Code Section 115.2(a) further states: “No person shall publish or cause to be published, with actual knowledge, and intent to deceive, any campaign advertisement containing false or fraudulent depictions, or false or fraudulent representations of official public documents or purported official public documents.” Apparently D.A. Shea has his own interpretation of "accurate representations.” He apparently believes that voters are not entitled to accurate and truthful information and are therefore not entitled to make an informed and intelligent decision as prescribed by law. D.A. Shea further stated in his July, 2002 correspondence: “Our office [believes] that statements and information distributed by LOCSD and its representatives are not such that a reasonable person would feel coerced or intimidated by them.” Sentinel note: According to D.A. Shea, all voters who had believed the lies that the RWQCB had “mandated” the sewer (a lie), that “Los Osos has no choice,”(a lie), that failure to pass the June 2001 vote would result in $10,000 per day fines against residents (a lie), that failure to pass would result in a more expensive County sewer (a lie), that failure to pass would permanently prevent the LOCSD from securing SRF funds (a lie), or that failure to pass will bankrupt the LOCSD (a lie) were unreasonable if they had felt coerced and intimidated. CALIFORNIA WATER CODE LAW ESTABLISHING ‘THE PROHIBITION ZONE’WATER CODE SECTION 13280-13286.9 13280. A determination that discharge of waste from existing or new individual disposal systems or from community collection and disposal systems which utilize subsurface disposal should not be permitted shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record that discharge of waste from such disposal systems will result in violation of water quality objectives, will impair present or future beneficial uses of water, will cause pollution, nuisance, or contamination, or will unreasonably degrade the quality of any waters of the state. 13281. (a) In making a determination pursuant to Section 13280, except as specified in subdivision (b), the regional board shall consider all relevant evidence related to the discharge, including, but not limited to, those factors set forth in Section 13241, information provided pursuant to Section 117435 of the Health and Safety Code, possible adverse impacts if the discharge is permitted, failure rates of any existing individual disposal systems whether due to inadequate design, construction, maintenance, or unsuitable hydrogeologic conditions, evidence of any existing, prior, or potential contamination, existing and planned land use, dwelling density, historical population growth, and any other criteria as may be established pursuant to guidelines, regulations, or policies adopted by the state board. 13241. Each regional board shall establish such water quality objectives in water quality control plans as in its judgment will ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses and the prevention of nuisance; however, it is recognized that it may be possible for the quality of water to be changed to some degree without unreasonably affecting beneficial uses. Factors to be considered by a regional board in establishing water quality objectives shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, all of the following: (a) Past, present, and probable future beneficial uses of water. (b) Environmental characteristics of the hydrographic unit under consideration, including the quality of water available thereto. (c) Water quality conditions that could reasonably be achieved through the coordinated control of all factors which affect water quality in the area. (d) Economic considerations. (e) The need for developing housing within the region. (f) The need to develop and use recycled water. 13282. (a) If it appears that adequate protection of water quality, protection of beneficial uses of water, and prevention of nuisance, pollution, and contamination can be attained by appropriate design, location, sizing, spacing, construction, and maintenance of individual disposal systems in lieu of elimination of discharges from systems, and if an authorized public agency provides satisfactory assurance to the regional board that the systems will be appropriately designed, located, sized, spaced, constructed, and maintained, the discharges shall be permitted so long as the systems are adequately designed, located, sized, spaced, constructed, and maintained. (b) An authorized public agency shall notify the regional board if the systems are not adequately designed, located, sized, spaced, constructed, and maintained. (c) For purposes of this section, "authorized public agency" means a public agency authorized by a water quality control board and having authority to ensure that systems are adequately designed, located, sized, spaced, constructed, and maintained. 13283. In reviewing any determination that discharge of waste from existing or new individual disposal systems should not be permitted, the state board shall include a preliminary review of possible alternatives necessary to achieve protection of water quality and present and future beneficial uses of water, and prevention of nuisance, pollution, and contamination, including, but not limited to, community collection and waste disposal systems which utilize subsurface disposal, and possible combinations of individual disposal systems, community collection and disposal systems which utilize subsurface disposal, and conventional treatment systems. 13284. The state board may adopt guidelines, regulations, or policies necessary to implement the provisions of this article. CRITERIA FOR MAINTAINING ONSITE SYSTEMS. REQUIREMENTS TO ASSIST INDIVIDUALS WITH FINANCING FOR A NEW OR REPAIRED SYSTEM. WATER CODE SECTION 13290-13291.7 13290. For the purposes of this chapter: (a) "Local agency" means any of the following entities: (1) A city, county, or city and county. (2) A special district formed pursuant to general law or special act for the local performance of functions regarding onsite sewage treatment systems within limited boundaries. (b) "Onsite sewage treatment systems" includes individual disposal systems, community collection and disposal systems, and alternative collection and disposal systems that use subsurface disposal. 13291. (a) On or before January 1, 2004, the state board, in consultation with the State Department of Health Services, the California Coastal Commission, the California Conference of Directors of Environmental Health, counties, cities, and other interested parties, shall adopt regulations or standards for the permitting and operation of all of the following onsite sewage treatment systems in the state and shall apply those regulations or standards commencing six months after their adoptions: (1) Any system that is constructed or replaced. (2) Any system that is subject to a major repair. (3) Any system that pools or discharges to the surface. (4) Any system that, in the judgment of a regional board or authorized local agency, discharges waste that has the reasonable potential to cause a violation of water quality objectives, or to impair present or future beneficial uses of water, to cause pollution, nuisance, or contamination of the waters of the state. (b) Regulations or standards adopted pursuant to subdivision (a), shall include, but shall not be limited to, all of the following: (1) Minimum operating requirements that may include sitting, construction, and performance requirements. (2) Requirements for onsite sewage treatment systems adjacent to impaired waters identified pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 303 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1313(d)). (3) Requirements authorizing a qualified local agency to implement those requirements adopted under this chapter within its jurisdiction if that local agency requests that authorization. (4) Requirements for corrective action when onsite sewage treatment systems fail to meet the requirements or standards. (5) Minimum requirements for monitoring used to determine system or systems performance, if applicable. (6) Exemption criteria to be established by regional boards. (7) Requirements for determining a system that is subject to a major repair, as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a). (c) This chapter does not diminish or otherwise affect the authority of a local agency to carry out laws, other than this chapter, that relate to onsite sewage treatment systems. (d) This chapter does not preempt any regional board or local agency from adopting or retaining standards for onsite sewage treatment systems that are more protective of the public health or the environment than this chapter. (e) Each regional board shall incorporate the regulations or standards adopted pursuant to subdivisions (a) and (b) into the appropriate regional water quality control plans. 13291.5. It is the intent of the Legislature to assist private property owners with existing systems who incur costs as a result of the implementation of the regulations established under this section by encouraging the state board to make loans under Chapter 6.5 (commencing with Section 13475) to local agencies to assist private property owners whose cost of compliance with these regulations exceeds one-half of one percent of the current assessed value of the property on which the onsite sewage system is located. 13291.7. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit the land use authority of any city, county, or city and county. GOVERNING HOW A RWQCB MUST TREAT ANYONE WHO IS SUBJECT TO A HEARING. WATER CODE SECTION 13292 13292. (a) It is the responsibility of the state board to provide guidance to the regional boards in matters of procedure, as well as policy and regulation. In order to ensure that regional boards are providing fair, timely, and equal access to all participants in regional board proceedings, the state board shall undertake a review of the regional boards' public participation procedures. As part of the review process, and upon request by the state board, the regional boards shall solicit comments from participants in their proceedings. Upon completion of the review, the state board shall report to the Legislature regarding its findings and include recommendations to improve regional board public participation processes. (b) (1) The state board shall provide annual training to regional board members to improve public participation and adjudication procedures at the regional level. (2) Paragraph (1) shall be implemented only during fiscal years for which funding is provided for the purposes of that paragraph in the annual Budget Act or in another statute. PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST LAWIt is not only the legal and moral right of every citizen to hold a public agency or elected official accountable, it is the law that those agencies and officials do all they can to honestly and promptly respond to all legitimate public inquiries. GOVERNMENT CODE 6250. In enacting this chapter, the Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy, finds and declares that access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state. GOVERNMENT CODE 6251. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the California Public Records Act. GOVERNMENT CODE 6252. As used in this chapter: (a) “Local agency” includes a county; city, whether general law or chartered; city and county … district; or any board, commission or agency thereof; other local public agency…” (b) “Member of the public” means any person, except a member, agent, officer, or employee of a federal, state, or local agency acting within the scope of his or her membership, agency, office, or employment. (c) “Person” includes any natural person… (d) “Public agency” means any state or local agency. (e) “Public records” includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. (f) “State agency” means every state office, officer, department, division... board, and commission or other state body or agency… (g) “Writing” means any handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, photocopying, transmitting by electronic mail or facsimile, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing any form of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations thereof, and any record thereby created, regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored. GOVERNMENT CODE 6253(a). Public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as hereafter provided. Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law. (b) Except with respect to public records exempt from disclosure by express provisions of law, each state or local agency, upon a request for a copy of records that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, shall make the records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering direct costs of duplication, or a statutory fee if applicable. Upon request, an exact copy shall be provided unless impracticable to do so. (c) Each agency, upon a request for a copy of records, shall, within 10 days from receipt of the request, determine whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records in the possession of the agency and shall promptly notify the person making the request of the determination and the reasons therefore. In unusual circumstances, the time limit prescribed in this section may be extended by written notice... to the person making the request, setting forth the reasons for the extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched. No notice shall specify a date that would result in an extension for more than 14 days. When the agency dispatches the determination, and if the agency determines that the request seeks disclosable public records, the agency shall state the estimated date and time when the records will be made available. When the agency dispatches the determination, and if the agency determines that the request seeks disclosable public records, the agency shall state the estimated date and time when the records will be made available. As used in this section, "unusual circumstances" means the following, but only to the extent reasonably necessary to the proper processing of the particular request. As used in this section, "unusual circumstances" means the following, but only to the extent reasonably necessary to the proper processing of the particular request: (1) The need to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request. (2) The need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request. (3) The need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency having substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more components of the agency having substantial subject matter interest therein. (4) The need to compile data, to write programming language or a computer program, or to construct a computer report to extract data. (d) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records. The notification of denial of any request for records required by Section 6255 shall set forth the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial. (e) Except as otherwise prohibited by law, a state or local agency may adopt requirements for itself that allow for faster, more efficient, or greater access to records than prescribed by the minimum standards set forth in this chapter. GOVERNMENT CODE 6253.1(a). When a member of the public requests to inspect a public record or obtain a copy of a public record, the public agency, in order to assist the member of the public make a focused and effective request that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, shall do all of the following, to the extent reasonable under the circumstances: (1) Assist the member of the public to identify records and information that are responsive to the request or to the purpose of the request, if stated. (2) Describe the information technology and physical location in which the records exist. (3) Provide suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying access to the records or information sought. (b) The requirements of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) shall be deemed to have been satisfied if the public agency is unable to identify the requested information after making a reasonable effort to elicit additional clarifying information from the requester that will help identify the record or records. (c) The requirements of subdivision (a) are in addition to any action required of a public agency by Section 6253. (d) This section shall not apply to a request for public records if any of the following applies: (1) The public agency makes available the requested records pursuant to Section 6253. (2) The public agency determines that the request should be denied and bases that determination solely on an exemption listed in Section 6254. (3) The public agency makes available an index of its records. After the truth regarding the illegal groundwater monitoring wells had been publicly exposed the LOCSD told the community they had spent “$75,000” on the 11 illegal wells to comply with the law. However, whenever the LOCSD was asked to produce an accounting of the $75,000, they refused. In fact, the illegal wells have never been addressed and are still allowing contaminates to enter the public water. In June, 2003, an extensive PRR with 21 Requests was sent to Roger Briggs of the RWQCB. Numbers 11–21 dealt with the 11 illegal wells and the RWQCB [mis]handling of them. The PRR asked Briggs to supply copies of any and all Cease and Desist Orders issued to the County regarding to the illegal wells. There were no CDOs issued. The Request asked if the County Health Department was ever notified as prescribed by law or issued a CDO regarding the 11 illegal wells. They were not. Question 13 asked for copies of all tests conducted by the RWQCB using the 11 illegal wells to determine the alleged Nitrate contamination of Los Osos water by on-site systems and the results. Their response was to state that they did not have the “… available resources to create the specific report… requested (nor are we required to), nor are we aware of the existence of such a specific report.” The “available resources” are manpower. The law requires they make all efforts to produce the requested material. It does not address “available resources.” If they had produced studies based on tests from the illegal wells, they would be admitting fraud and violations of CWC laws. If there was no data they would be admitting the entire project was based on lies. “(nor are we required to)” is contrary to the law. As previously stated, they are required by law to do all they can to locate any and all material related to a legitimate Public Records Request. All that Request must do is identify the area of concern, not specific documents. The RWQCB repeatedly told the community that Los Osos’ on-site systems were polluting the Bay and groundwater, so logically there should have been scientific data to support the allegations. Yet when data was requested, the RWQCB didn’t have the “resources to create the specific report.” The Request then asked Briggs to identify by proper identification all of the “poorly constructed groundwater monitoring wells” mentioned in his 1984 memo. His response was that his 1984 memo was available for copy. Questions 15–21 asked if and how the RWQCB had complied with specific Water Code laws relating to the illegal wells, water protection, etc. Briggs dismissed them by stating, “These questions are not proper public records requests.” Of course he could not say they had obeyed the law because that would be a provable lie and place him on the record and liable for prosecution. He could not say they broke the law because that would be an admission requiring immediate criminal and civil legal prosecution. The fact that these illegal wells were allowed to be left open by the RWQCB, the County and then LOCSD is undeniable. The fact that these illegal wells have been used to collect fraudulent and specious data for more than 20 years is undeniable. The fact that these illegal wells continue to pose a serious health and safety risk to Los Osos water is undeniable. The fact that the RWQCB and Roger Briggs are on record in 1984 as stating the only areas of contamination in Los Osos groundwater were found in “... the poorly constructed groundwater monitoring wells,” yet have refused to do their duty as prescribed by law is undeniable. CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAY CODES: CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONDuring its investigations, The Sentinel uncovered additional laws and codes that apply to the illegal activity of the LCOSD, RWQCB and SWQCB terrorists in regards to their preventing residents from exercising their legal rights prior to the illegal June 2001 Assessment District vote, violation of civil rights, continued use of coercion and intimidation tactics, illegal assessments, illegal issuance of Bonds and more. As has been already stated in The Sentinel, the issuance of Bonds requires a two-thirds voter approval before a District can issue and sell Bonds. STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE SECTION 2800-2811
CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE SECTION 2950-2956
2950. If the legislative body finds, after taking the steps provided by Sections 2821, 2822 and 2823, that the probable assessments will not exceed the limitations set up by this division, it may cause the clerk to mail prepaid postcards giving notice of its findings and proposed action. STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE SECTION 2995-29962995. If the improvement or acquisition is made, all or any part of the cost of the proceedings taken under this division may be included in the incidental expenses of such acquisition or improvement as a part of the amount for which special assessments may be levied or bonds payable by special assessments issued under the law under which the acquisition or improvement is made. STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE SECTION 3010-3012 3010. All objections to the form, contents, validity or sufficiency of the report on the project and all objections to the form, contents, validity or sufficiency of the notice of hearing on the report shall be made in writing and filed with the clerk of the legislative body at or before the time fixed for the hearing on the report, and if not so made at such time shall be waived and no objection thereto may be made thereafter except in case of actual fraud. ASSESSMENTS |
