SewerWatch: I Need A "Client" -- Who Wants Their "$3,500" Bucks Back?

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

I Need A "Client" -- Who Wants Their "$3,500" Bucks Back?

No time for formalities!

If you paid even a nickel of assessment into the Tri-W sewer "project" scam, download the pdf file at this link, NOW, print it out, quickly fill it out, and drop it off at the Los Osos CSD office by the end of the workday on Wednesday, October 24, and -- I guarantee it -- you will have the most fun you've ever had with local government, and it won't cost you a penny! This... will... be... GREAT!... on so many levels.

What that document is, is an official "claim" letter that I created where it outlines why Los Osos property owners that paid ANY money towards the now-failed, Tri-W non-project, should NOW get that money back, because you were deliberately deceived by the early Los Osos CSD regarding the Tri-W scam, and now you deserve to get your money back.

So, my strategy to 1) FINALLY get a great ending to my book, and 2) get the victims of the Tri-W scam a tiny, tiny shred of justice, is to shell out a $50 filing fee to get my argument into a small claims court, but, according to Small Claims Court procedure, a "claim" from the plaintiff must first be "rejected" by the government agency that's getting sued, and that's where a Los Osos property owner that was scammed by the Tri-W assessment comes in: I need at least one of you (and hundreds would be hilarious) to fill out that "claim," and get it to the LOCSD office, pronto.

Susan Morrow, the LOCSD General Manager, recently told me that if this claim is submitted to the District office by Wednesday, October 24, that it would be included in the LOCSD Board's November 1 meeting agenda, and the "rejection" would happen THAT quickly -- one week... at an official meeting!

At that meeting, the District Board will (certainly) "reject" that claim, and then we can take it straight to Small Claims Court, pay a $50 filing fee (that I'll gladly pay for one "client") and argue, in Small Claims Court, using my mountain of primary source documents, that Los Osos property owners were victims of a scam, obviously.

We'll argue this: That the Tri-W "project" was nothing more than a cover-up for the fact that the "better, cheaper, faster" Solution Group scam -- the "drop dead gorgeous" ponding project slated for the middle of town, that was "the basis" for forming the LOCSD in the first place, in November 1998, and that never worked (as predicted) two years later, had failed, and, instead of the elected officials that heavily hyped "better, cheaper, faster" going back to the community in 2000, and saying something like, "Hey, 'better, cheaper, faster' isn't going to work, what should we do now?," those same elected officials, instead, made the decision to start lying to the people of Los Osos, the California Coastal Commission, the State Water Boards, and the County of San Luis Obispo, about the cost, viability, and rationale on why their SECOND "project" -- the vastly different Tri-W "project" (when compared to their original "better, cheaper, faster" scam) -- had to ALSO be built with a sewer plant smack-dab in the middle of town.

Due to my extensive reporting on this amazing story over the years, I have a gigantic stack of primary source documents that, WAAAAAAAY beyond a reasonable doubt, shows that's exactly what happened, and now, after the Coastal Commission's June 11, 2010 decision, where they did NOT select the Tri-W disaster, six years after they originally approved it, THAT's when it FINALLY became official that the Tri-W scam was just that... a scam, and now, considering that, according to sources, the Statute of Limitations for "fraud" on a civil case is "three years," there's plenty of time left on the SOL clock to file a "claim" with Small Claims Court, arguing that you -- a Los Osos property owner that paid money into the Tri-W assessment -- should now get your money back, considering that, it turns out, the Tri-W assessment was based on nothing but lies -- a scam.

I'll be posting the evidence for this fun, and excellent argument here on SewerWatch soon, but first things first: At least one property owner (and, again, hundreds would be hilarious) that was a victim of the Tri-W scam needs to download this document, print it out, fill it out, and then drop it off at the LOCSD office by the end of the day on Wednesday.

Everything you need to file your "claim" is contained in that document, however, if you'd like to change some of the wording around, here's a Microsoft Word file of the same document, so if you have Word, you can edit the "claim" form yourself, and then submit it.

And if the District sends it back to you because they say you didn't cross some "t," or dot some "i," then we'll just go ahead and consider THAT letter the "rejection" letter, and that will allow us to go to Small Claims Court.

A perfect example of someone that I have in mind for this strategy is Stephen Marsden, where, at this link:

http://www.ksby.com/news/good-question-what-happened-to-los-osos-sewer-assessment-/

... Mr. Marsden asks KSBY's, John Reger, "A few years ago, I paid $3,500 into a fund for a new sewer. What happened to that money?"

EXCELLENT question. Terrible answer by Reger.

The real answer to Mr. Marsden's great question is: He was lied to by the LOCSD regarding that assessment, and BECAUSE of those lies, that non-project never worked, and he was completely scammed out of his $3,500 bucks, and now, following the CCC's June 11, 2010 decision, Mr. Marsden, as well as all of the other property owners that paid into the Tri-W sewer assessment scam, should get their money back, plus interest, of course.

Mr. Marsden would be a PERFECT candidate for my little strategy here. He could download my form, fill it out, drop it off at the LOCSD office, have it "rejected" by the District, then he could take my super-tight evidence (that I'll supply here, for FREE, over the next few weeks) to the Small Claims Court, and, for just a tiny $50 filing fee, make one helluva an argument on why he should get his "$3,500" back: because he was scammed, clearly.

And one of the best things (among many) about the Small Claims Court process: They don't allow attorneys! AND, they allow a "plaintiff" to subpoena a "witness," and that person HAS to show up!

Oh, Paaaaavooooo.

But, first things first, if you're a Los Osos property owner that paid anything towards the Tri-W assessment scam, get that "claim" notice to the LOCSD office before Wednesday night, and, according to Morrow, it'll be officially included on November's agenda, where, of course, they'll be forced to "reject" it. Then it's straight to Small Claims Court.

How cool is that?

This... is... going... to... be... FUN!

###

90 Comments:

Thank you so much fro telling us about these sewer contractors. This is really good to know. I think that a neighbor if mine had some work done, and I will have to talk to him about it. Thanks!

By Unknown, at 7:20 AM, October 27, 2012
Oh Ron, this is just so lame. That money was, as explained in the past more than once, used for land and plans that are being USED in the current project.

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 7:03 PM, October 27, 2012
Maybe the one taker that you did have on this folly should be taking the VOTERS to small claims court as we'd have been flushing and forgetting with a BUILT sewer by now at Tri-W had the VOTERS not decided to pass Measure B which stopped the project - at least according to Lisa, Julie, Chuck John and Steve. But then, in that scenario, the statute of limitations has run out.

BTW, Tri-W wasn't the project brought to the CCC in 2010, the present one was, the one being built now with parts of the OLD project — the CDP for which expired on August 11, 2007.

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 8:41 PM, October 27, 2012
'toons, just curious: Are you paying into the Tri-W sewer assessment scam? In other words, in your property taxes, are you paying for the Tri-W scam?

If so, GOOD NEWS! You can file a claim, too.

I may not have made it clear in my main post, but that October 24th deadline that I mention was just to get it on the CSD's NOVEMBER 1 agenda, so they can "reject" it at THAT meeting, but there's still PLENTY of time for anyone who was scammed by the Tri-W assessment scam to download (for free) my "claim" pdf, quickly and easily fill it out, and drop it off at the CSD office so it can be "rejected" at the CSD's DECEMBER meeting.

And, they can do that all the way up to June 11, 2013, when the SOL clock runs out.

I just wanted to get the ball rolling now, instead of waiting until December's meeting, and, apparently, since 'toons says I had "one taker" (so far), that means that the CSD Board will now have to officially "reject" that claim at Thursday's meeting. Sweet!

That means that we can then go straight to Small Claims Court, and file our complaint.

Other than Paavo, the other person that I'm REALLY looking forward to subpoenaing, is the "Engineer of Work" for both the "better, cheaper, faster" scam, AND the Tri-W scam, John Wallace.

I can't wait to ask him, "When your 60-acre, 'drop dead gorgeous,' 'aquatic park' treatment facility, that relied on a series of AWIPS ponds, with a collection system that relied on retaining the town's septic tanks, failed (as predicted) in mid-to-late 2000, how in the f-ing world were you able to develop a COMPLETELY different sewer project -- from scratch -- for Los Osos in just six months, when it took the County three years -- from 2007 - 2009 -- to do the exact same thing?"

Either John Wallace is the most brilliant wastewater engineer on the planet, or the Tri-W scam was just a cover-up to hide the fact that "better, cheaper, faster" -- the "basis" for forming the LOCSD in the first place, according to Gary Karner -- had failed.

Which one of those scenarios makes more sense, 'toons? Now go download my "claim" file, fill it out, and drop it off at the CSD office, so you can be "rejected" at December's meeting, then you too can go straight to Small Claims Court, for just a $50 filing fee.

The funny thing? Pandora can do the exact same thing. So can Gordon. And Bob, and Frank, and...

You're welcome

How fun is this?

By Ron, at 10:48 AM, October 28, 2012
Ron, in all my writing over here, why would you even imagine that I would be calling the last project a scam? I supported it fully and have all along.

If I were to make any move into court it would be against the Lisa board's false claims - "We won't lose the loan!" "$100/month!" and many other assorted lies. We still suffer from the bankruptcy resulting from their naive and arrogant choices. Your adding of lawyer fees to the financial mess they are still in in just to address your stupid pdf at the next CSD meeting is vile.

You seem to have forgotten Montgomery Watson Harza completely in your history re-write, BTW.

You are the only person having any fun with this. The misled persons using your fakey claim (which has the same stink about it as the wrecklamator) are going to be let down and disappointed and that is just mean and sad.

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 10:04 PM, October 28, 2012
'tooncie writes:

"You seem to have forgotten Montgomery Watson Harza completely in your history re-write, BTW."

Ah, hellno, I haven't.

Like that great backdated contract memo from Buel isn't going to end up in my pile of primary source evidence for this case? C'mon, 'toons. You need to step up your game.

and;

"Ron, in all my writing over here, why would you even imagine that I would be calling the last project a scam? I supported it fully and have all along."

Of all the amazing dynamics associated with this dazzling case, that right there is one of my favorites.

The fact that all the people that were Jedi Mind Tricked by Pandora into supporting her scam, and fought SOOOO long, and SOOOOO hard for that now-failed (of course) scam, like 'toons and Joyce Albright, for example, are now willing to leave a chance at a $5,000 chuck of change on the table, just to stick to their Jedi Mind Tricked beliefs.

Absolutely beautiful!

$50 buys you a clear shot a $5,000. You'll never find those kind of odds in Vegas.

So, just to be clear, again:

If a property owner in Los Osos, paid even a nickel towards the Tri-W assessment scam, that property owner NOW (and until June, 2013) has a super-tight claim to get that assessment money BACK, plus interest, clearly, considering that the entire Tri-W assessment was nothing more than a scam, obviously, all for just a $50 filing fee in small claims court.

But the first step is to get your claim "rejected" by the Los Osos CSD Board, and they, apparently, can only do that at their monthly meeting.

Sooooo...

Download this document!: Tri-W assessment scam claim form.

... or, if you want to edit the wording, this document, then quickly and easily fill it out, then drop it off at -- or mail it to -- the CSD office, and if you do that by November 24th, your "claim" will make it on the LOCSD's December agenda, and the Board will be forced to "reject" your claim at their December meeting, and then you too can go straight to small claims court, for just a $50 filing fee.

AND, I'll have every shred of evidence that you'll need to quickly, easily, and slam-dunkingly win your case, posted here on SewerWatch, available as a free download.

Trust me, litigation doesn't get much easier (or fun) than that.

And, like I write in my main piece, how hilarious would that be?! Where, come their December meeting, there's a couple of hundred claims from property owners wanting their Tri-W scam money back (of course), and the Board has to "reject" them all?

AAAAhahahaha!

So, if you were a victim of the Tri-W scam, like Mr. Marsden (that I mention in my main piece here), download that file, fill it out, and get it to the LOCSD office by November 24. That entire process won't cost you a penny (unless you mail it in, then it'll cost you a stamp), and then you too can join in in the fun!

By Ron, at 10:24 AM, October 29, 2012
This comment has been removed by the author.

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 3:24 PM, October 29, 2012
I know writing here is hopeless and facts are not going to change your mind. For instance, the backdated memo is a non-starter as the Board was fully behind it.

I didn't even know who Pandora or the CSD Board was when I decided to support the sewer project in 2005 (the year I moved to Los Osos) when it came up on the ballot. You forget, I came from big, bad LA and had lived with gravity sewers my whole life. Having one seemed like a very good idea. I liked the one at Tri-W and I voted for it (against Measure B) and against the recall. No mind tricks were involved, just sewer experience. I did eventually get the history of where the Tri-W sewer started and could clearly see how the original project, while put forth in good faith, would need adjusting to accommodate the changing requirements of the Water Board.

You are putting way too much (worthless) stock in your fantasy sewer scenario. It makes as much sense as the recently failed very last gasp attempt to break up the Zone by PZLDF. You seem to forget that the sewer project had changed BEFORE the assessment even came to a vote in May of 2001!

You clearly have never been to small claims court and the amount of work that entails. Litigation is not fun. There is no clear shot at $5,000. You might find yourself being sued for false claims. How many of your "slam-dunks" have actually panned out anyway? No wait, I can answer that: ZERO.

Also, your repetitions here on this post of trying to make the sale again to this blog audience (of probably and optimistically five of us), is just plainly and laughably silly.

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 3:25 PM, October 29, 2012
tooncie writes:

"You seem to forget that the sewer project had changed BEFORE the assessment even came to a vote in May of 2001!"

Forget? Are you kiddin'? That goes straight to the heart of my excellent argument.

I mean, I have a "Summer 2000" Bear Pride newsletter, that then-LOCSD vice-president, Nash-Karner, "produced," and mailed to every "property owner and resident of Los Osos," where she's STILL raving about her known-to-HER-to-be DOA "better, cheaper, faster" scam [that's right... vice-president Nash-Karner used Los Osos taxpayers' money to produce a "news"letter (actually, more than one) that lied right to the faces of Los Osos property owners, of course. Damn, I love her. What a story!] and in that "news"letter, she also writes that an assessment vote will need to be passed to fund her "$55 million," 60-acre "aquatic park" scam, and then that exact same assessment vote schedule that she gives in that "news"letter, was the one used for the NOT 60-acre, NOT "$55 million," NOT "aquatic park," Tri-W scam.

Uhg.

THEN, I have another official CSD document, where it states that the "draft EIR" for the Tri-W scam was popped out by "November 2000!"

So, here's vice-president Pandora, in late "Summer 2000," absolutely raving to "every property owner and resident of Los Osos" (using their money, of course), about how great her, and her husband's "better, cheaper, faster," "AIWPS," "aquatic park" is going to be (when, in reality, it was in the trash at that point), and just three f-ing months later, John Wallace, QUIETLY, has an entirely different project whipped up, and then, come time for the assessment vote, Los Osos property owners are tricked into thinking they're voting for Pandora's "$55 million" "aquatic park" scam, when they are actually voting for the "$150 million," "5-6 acre," industrial sewer plant, Tri-W scam.

Oh wow, that's just going to look SO terrible for your friends, 'toons, when I present those documents in court, and then start asking John Wallace, under oath, "What in the hell happened there?"

Like I write, how in the f-ing world was he able to go from the failed "$55 million" "aquatic park" scam, that relied on retaining the town's septic tanks for its collection system, to a totally different project, the now-also-failed "$150 million," "5-6 acre," industrial sewer plant, Tri-W scam, with a completely different collection system, in just, what? Three months?!

He produced, from scratch, a totally new sewer system, for Los Osos, in just three months?!

Huh?

And, why didn't he just go back to the County's 'ready to go" project after the "aquatic park" failure? That would have been the ONLY logical thing to do.

I'll be sure to ask him that question, too.

See? Slam dunk, I'm tellin' ya. I mean, c'mon. It's SO obvious what happened, and it's VERY embarrassing for your friends. I gotta admit, 'toons, it's not looking so good for your friends, here.

By Ron, at 5:52 PM, October 29, 2012
Ron, it's looking even sillier for you. Montgomery Watson came up with the new sewer system. You might recall that Montgomery Watson (now with Harza) is a huge, global company, fully capable of a new design and that is what happened. If people didn't pay attention, well, they didn't. Always easier to blame someone else, isn't it.

You say, "…why didn't he just go back to the County's 'ready to go' project…" The CSD was formed to do away with that project or did you forget?

But go ahead, blather on. My best guess is you will find few takers.

To quote you "…when I present those documents in court." Really? So now you've written yourself a starring role? Well, let's call out the media! Maybe Al will bring a cell phone camera.

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 9:14 PM, October 29, 2012
'toons writes:

"But go ahead, blather on."

Blather on, I shall, like: Just how air-tight is this case?

I can ALREADY show that LOCSD vice-president Pandora KNEW she was running a scam with her "better, cheaper, faster" scam. She's ALREADY confessed to it.

Remember, 'toons? I've already exposed that fact in my piece, The Karner Confession, where I show how the Karners, in that crazy, ill-advised, rambling manifesto that they popped out in 2005, actually CONFESS to knowing that their "better, cheaper, faster" "AIWPS" scam was ALREADY "blown out of the water" in January, 1998.

They confess to knowing that... documented!

So, look how cool/fun this is going to be: At the Small Claims Court "trial," after I admit that "Summer 2000" LOCSD Bear Pride "news"letter into evidence, where vice-president, Pandora, is using Los Osos property owners money to lie to them about the state of her scam, and where she's absolutely raving about how great her AIWPS non-project is going to be, and how it will collect the entire prohibition zone, THEN, I'm ALSO going to enter into evidence the Karners' rambling manifesto, AND that January 1998 letter addressed DIRECTLY to the Karners from the RWQCB's, Roger Briggs, where the Karners CONFESS that it was that letter that led them to conclude their scam was already "blown out of the water"... in January 1998!.

THEN, I'm going to subpoena Pandora, and ask her, in court, under oath (and this is just SO great):

"Uh, Mrs. Nash-Karner, if you already knew that your AIWPS ponding non-project, if it had to collect the entire prohibition zone, was "blown out of the water," in January 1998, as you NOW confess to in your 2005 manifesto, then why did you, as LOCSD vice-president, pop out a "news"letter (using Los Osos taxpayer money) in the "Summer of 2000" -- nearly three years after you admit to knowing that your AIWPS project wasn't going to work -- where you rave, to "every property owner and resident in Los Osos," about how your AIWPS non-project was going to collect the entire prohibition zone, was "on schedule," and how residents would be "delighted" that the "center of town" was going to look like an "aquatic park," and then immediately after you published that newsletter, your AIWPS non-project/scam never worked, just like you already confessed to knowing it wouldn't?"

ZING!

You know what I think's going to happen in this case, 'toons? What the Small Claims Courts calls, "win by default," where the defendants -- the LOCSD in this case -- don't even send someone to represent them at the "trial."

I mean, seriously, who are they going to send to defend themselves against these HIGHLY embarrassing, and super-air-tight arguments? Susan Morrow?

I mean, she seems like a nice enough person, and all, but, really? Susan Morrow will know how to defend THAT question to Pandora?

Well, good luck, Sue!

Trust me, 'toons, not only is this VERY fun, it's funny.

By Ron, at 10:00 AM, October 30, 2012
The board is always represented by legal counsel, Ms. Morrow won't be defending that question.

Maybe you can explain the sentence, "I'm going to subpoena Pandora" to the readers here. How exactly are YOU involved in the one request that the CSD received? You do not have a dog in this fight, as you don't live here, nor have you. Has someone asked for your help?

I remind you, the assessment vote was done in May 2001. The new project was explained by then. Not paying attention is not an excuse.

You fail to see that the CCC did not approve Tri-W in 2010 because that was not the project that was brought before them, nor was the entity bringing a project the same one as before.

Your own personal logic, as always, defies actual logic.

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 12:56 PM, October 30, 2012
Toons projected:"I did eventually get the history of where the Tri-W sewer started and could clearly see how the original project, while put forth in good faith, would need adjusting to accommodate the changing requirements of the Water Board"
Well you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. The Cuesta study was hand delivered to the Karners before the election of the CSD. They knew perfectly well that the "Cheaper, Better, Faster" Idea was DOA. Friends don't let friends design sewer plants.

. I remind you, the assessment vote was done in May 2001. The new project was explained by then. Not paying attention is not an excuse.

Ya everyone got the slick voter pamphlet just like the election of the CSD in the first place, Oh wait! they didn't! it was a simple envelope in the mail. Not exactly the same thing, in fact not even close, like the later election to recall the board. 30 votes, I was a resident and I didn't get ONE SINGLE visit or contact from anyone except the pissed off neighbors that were incensed at the cost rising from 38.50 a month to what? 200 a month. Add to that the biggest political blunder of the century by the sitting board to DELAY the election until AFTER the start of construction. and there you have it.
Blunder
Lie
Incompetence.
I'm with Ron, especially now that I don't live there anymore. Popcorn anyone? 

By Mike Green, at 4:35 PM, October 30, 2012
Mike, howya been? And, welcome back.

I was actually thinking about you in my little strategy, here:

When you lived in Los Osos, didn't you pay into the Tri-W assessment scam, too? I'm not clear on what happens if someone pays into the scam, and then moves.

If you did pay into the scam, wouldn't you also be able to file a claim? That'd be kinda interesting to find out.

I mean, sure, you moved, but hey, you still got scammed, so, maybe you too could recoupe the money you were scammed out of. It'll only cost ya stamp to get the ball rolling. Pop up some corn, and join in on the fun! : -)

You certainly deserve your money back, that's for sure, just like anyone else who paid a dime towards that scam, including those neighbors you mention.

If you're still in touch with any of your former neighbors, feel free to send them on over here, so they too can download my claim form and turn it in to the CSD by Nov. 24th., so it can get "rejected" at December's meeting.

Then they can just roll right over to Small Claims Court, and use the evidence/arguments I'm supplying here as evidence in THEIR cases.

[continued next comment]

By Ron, at 8:00 PM, October 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by the author.

By Ron, at 8:04 PM, October 30, 2012
[ooops, let's try this again... continued from above]

For example, just from this comments section alone, they can now download, and enter into evidence at their Small Claims "trial":

- The Karners' rambling manifeston, from 2005, where they actually admit knowing that their scam was "blown out of the water" in January 1998. (They didn't quite think that document through, it would appear.)

- Then, they can download Roger's letter, addressed directly to the Karners, that's dated, January 23, 1998, where the Karners' admit that's when they knew their "better, cheaper, faster" non-project/scam wasn't going to even come close to working.

Then, any victim of the Tri-W scam can now also download that great "Summer 2000" Bear Pride "news"letter, where Pandora's still selling, HARD, her and her husband's "better, cheaper, faster" known-to-THEM-to-be-DOA non-"project," that they knew -- nearly three years earlier -- according to them, was never going to work... and alomst a FULL year before that scam ended up being the "basis" for forming the CSD in the first place, and getting Pandora elected to CSD Board, where it just went RAPIDLY downhill from there, and here we all are, in 2012-and-counting.

[What an absolutely amazing story. (I'm SO lucky.)]

Then, with those three excellent pieces of primary source documents entered in as evidence at a Small Claims hearing, a Tri-W scam victim can now ALSO easily subpoena Pandora, and ask her a version of the same kick-ass/hilarious question I pose above:

"Uh, Mrs. Nash-Karner, if you already knew that your AIWPS ponding non-project, when expanded to collect the entire prohibition zone, was "blown out of the water," in January 1998, as you NOW confess in your, and your husband's crazy 2005 manifesto, then why did you, as LOCSD vice-president, pop out a "news"letter (using Los Osos taxpayer money) in "Summer 2000" -- nearly three years AFTER you admit to knowing that your AIWPS project wasn't going to work -- where you rave, to "every property owner and resident in Los Osos," about how your AIWPS non-project was going to collect the entire prohibition zone, was "on schedule," estimated at "$55 million," and how residents would be "delighted" that the "center of town" was going to look like an "aquatic park," and then immediately after you published that newsletter, your AIWPS non-project/scam simply, and very, very quietly, vanished, of course, just like you already confessed to knowing it would?"

Well, there ya go: ANY victim of the Tri-W scam (maybe even Mike [but, certainly, his former neighbors]) can now do that exact same thing.

Doesn't get much easier than that. There's the evidence, and there's the question. And there's more to come, THAT tightly packaged. (Gotta love blog technology, huh?)

'toons writes:

"You do not have a dog in this fight"

Whadaya talkin' about? Didn't you read my piece? I get a spectacular ending to my book. Why do you think I'm doing this? I'm HELLA-motivated. A-duh!

and;

"The board is always represented by legal counsel"

Oh, I guess you DIDN'T read my piece... or didn't comprehend it, as usual.

No lawyers in Small Claims Court, Holmes. It's the rules. Which, not only excludes Seitz, but Marshall, as well.

If not Morrow, then who? You guys are running out of choices, wouldn't you say?

By Ron, at 8:13 PM, October 30, 2012
Mike Green - there are two things that you are talking about here: The formation of the CSD and the assessment. Ron's topic was the assessment, so let's stay there.

November of 2000 Pandora was off the board, so she was not around to create a pretty brochure for the assessment. But really, would that have been kosher? A pretty brochures to sway your vote? No, assessment voting comes as a simple envelope in the mail: Do you or do you not want to pay for the sewer. That's it.

You say that you didn't get a visit from anyone or contact from anyone. Who were you expecting? Why didn't you go to a CSD meeting? Is that the board's fault that you didn't go? Did you make any effort to find out what was going on? If you did and found out nothing, shame on the board, but if you didn't make an attempt - shame on you!

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 9:36 PM, October 30, 2012
So Ron, you didn't answer my question - how are you going to interject yourself into small claims court? Were you invited?

Be mad at the formation of the CSD if you want, but what exactly has that to do with getting your money back on an assessment that passed? To show us Ron, why don't you put up a link to a copy of the assessment voting form so we can all see how it was worded. Was the AIWPS pond/Step collection described in it?

There are exceptions to lawyers in small claims court BTW.

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 10:39 PM, October 30, 2012
Ron, nope didn't pay a cent, it's always been my philosophy to never "give" money to government until it's required.
Would you please hurry your ass up on the book? I would like mine signed please.

By Mike Green, at 11:55 AM, October 31, 2012
Mike writes:

"Ron, nope didn't pay a cent, it's always been my philosophy to never "give" money to government until it's required."

Smart man, and signed copy on its way, as soon as I wrap up my ending, which, by the looks of things, should be very soon. ; -)

'toons writes:

"November of 2000 Pandora was off the board, so she was not around to create a pretty brochure for the assessment. "

Well then, how do you explain this excellent primary source document (that I recently compiled, and will also be entering as evidence, along with those other three excellent pieces of primary source evidence [above]), that shows that not only did LOCSD Director, Pandora, create and "produce" the LOCSD's newsletters -- including that blatantly lie-filled (in an effort to deliberately deceive, obviously) "Summer 2000" "news"letter (while she was STILL an elected Director) -- she seems AWFULLY proud of the fact that she did, you know, since she lists the Bear Prides in her own business' portfolio?

In fact, the part I LOVE most about that "Summer 2000" Bear Pride "news"letter being her "first," is that, apparently, considering my New Times cover story -- that first exposed how the Karners' "better, cheaper, faster" disaster was on the brink of failure, and then, immediately after that tight-tight story was published, the Karners' "better, cheaper, faster" disaster was in the dumpster -- was published on July 7, 2000, I'm just going to assume that Pandora created her "first" Bear Pride "news"letter, as a direct "behavior based marketing" response (using Los Osos taxpayers' money, of course) to my kick-ass, 100-percent accurate, mindblowing-in-hindsight, cover story.

I'm sooooOOOOOO flattered!

By Ron, at 2:27 PM, October 31, 2012
This comment has been removed by the author.

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 11:11 PM, October 31, 2012
Ron, let me try to simplify here:

The issue is the assessment vote in May of 2001, THAT was the date of the vote. Blathering on about what Pandora did in 2000 is relevant to you perhaps, but won't play in small claims court. The project began as one thing and changed into another. So what. CSD meetings were public and anyone could sit in and see what was going on.

Your personal beef against Pandora has played out all over your blog showing us far more about your bizarro obsession with her than than anything she did. Your blathering above actually draws us away from your point and right into your obsession.

You still haven't answered how you plan on introducing your "evidence." Were you asked to participate as a "witness?"

Still waiting to see what that assessment form looked like. You really don't have a case here without showing us what people were assessing themselves to do, you know, the actual language of it.

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 11:13 PM, October 31, 2012
'tooncie writes:

"Still waiting to see what that assessment form looked like."

'tooncie, 'tooncie, tooncie, uh, you DO realize I'm SewerWatch, right? Like I'm not going to get there, in kick-ass SewerWatch fashion?

But first...

When I subpoena John Wallace (and, since his name shows up in my reporting [because his name shows up in primary source documents associated with my reporting]), I guess that means I must have an "obsession" and a "beef" with him, too, if we follow 'toons' faulty (of course) logic, even though I wouldn't know John Wallace, if a drank a friendly beer with him, which I would gladly do, same with Pandora)... when I subpoena John Wallace, and after I ask him how in the f-ing world he was able to pop out, from scratch, a polar opposite sewer project (to the "60-acre" "aquatic park" ponding system, with a completely different collection system) in just three months, when it took the County of SLO four years -- 2007 - 2010 -- to do the exact same thing, I'm then going to enter this excellent document into evidence.

The document at that link (that anyone who files a claim can now download and use in their case) is a pdf file I created (using primary source documets, of course), that shows the collossal difference between the 2000 LOCSD's "60-acre" "aquatic park" non-project, and the post-"Summer 2000" LOCSD's "5 -7 acre" Tri-W non-project, that they quietly -- after three years of massive hype for their "better, cheaper, faster" "aquatic park" -- switched to in, what? Just a couple of days after that "Summer 2000" "news"letter?

And then, while that document -- showing the dramatic, and highly embarrassing to the CSD, site comparison -- is being displayed on some sort of gigantic monitor in the courtroom, I'm going to ask Wallace (just like any Tri-W scam victim can do for only a $50 filing fee) a version of this question:

[continued next comment]

By Ron, at 9:18 AM, November 01, 2012
[continued from previous comment]

"Uh, Mr. Wallace, according to the LOCSD's 'Summer 2000' Bear Pride newsletter, that I've already entered into evidence, it reads, 'Los Osos is very fortunate to have a large undeveloped parcel in the middle of town... This site allows for the placement of the wastewater ponds,' and then that same newsletter contains a graphic of the 60-acre, 'advanced ponding system' treatment facility, packed into that 'large undeveloped parcel in the middle of town,' that 'allows for the placement of the wastewater ponds.'

Here's my question: After the 60-acre, 'advanced ponding system' failed, almost immediately after the publication of the 'Summer 2000' Bear Pride newsletter -- a "news"letter that actually raved about how 'on schedule' that '$55 million' non-project was -- and the treatment facility in the SECOND project, that you, and your co-conspira.... ERRR... "colleagues" miraculously popped out, from scratch, in just three months, did NOT have any ponds, and only required '5 - 7 acres,' then what the f--k was the rationale to keep the second, completely different, sewage treatment facility at the exact same 'middle of town' location as the first treatment facility, if that site was originally selected because its 'large' size 'allows for the placement of a series of huge wastewater ponds,' yet, the second, "5 -7 acre' project didn't include any ponds at all?

Well, rationale OTHER than to cover-up the fact that the first project had failed, completely, by mid-to-late 2000, as predicted by an army of State officials before the Nov. 1998 election that formed the CSD in the first place, solely on the back of that failed non-project, but not after "better, cheaper, faster" wasted two years, and millions of dollars of SLO County, State, and Los Osos taxpayer money?

Because, THAT rationale -- the cover-up rationale -- makes perfect sense.

And, before you give the answer: 'The central location saved money on pumping cost,' I want to do you a favor, and let you know that I've also entered into evidence the County's Los Osos Wastewater Project Pro/Con Report, that reads, '(Tri-W project) Con: Highest cost overall (when compared to ALL other project alternatives).'

So, Mr. Wallace, please tell this courtroom (I've always wanted to say that), if the 'middle of town' treatment facility for the Tri-W so-called 'project' had 'the highest cost overall' of all other alternatives -- and according to the County's careful analysis, it did... by far, in fact, that's just ONE of the excellent reasons WHY the County never even came close to selecting the Tri-W disaster as their project of choice, of course -- AND if the treatment facility for the Tri-W so-called 'project' also did NOT require a 'large' parcel of land to accommodate a series of huge ponds, then why did the second, vastly redesigned sewage treatment facility have to ALSO go in the same 'middle of town' location as the first 60-acre ponding project, if the Tri-W project didn't have any ponds, and had a nearly 10-times smaller footprint than the first?

[continued next comment (damn, I hate that "4,096 characters" limit. It's MY blog, why can't I comment as much as I want?)]

By Ron, at 9:25 AM, November 01, 2012
[continued from previous comment]

That doesn't seem to make any sense whatsoever, well, again, OTHER than to cover up the failure of the 60-acre 'aquatic park.' Because, that makes perfect sense.

So, what in the world was the rationale for building the sewer plant for the second, now-also-failed Tri-W (non)project -- that you, apparently, popped out, from scratch, in just three months, following the failure of the "aquatic park," that the CSD raved about in their "Summer 2000" "news"letter -- in the same 'middle of town' location as the first?'

Uh, Mr. Wallace? Mr. 'Engineer of Work?' Answer?'"

A-ZONGO!

Ya know, I actually DID think of a way that the current CSD could avoid the intense embarrassment of this ending up in Small Claims Court... over and over and over again, for the next several months: Instead of "rejecting" the claims, they should just accept them, and start cutting checks to the Tri-W scam victims, starting tonight.

Clearly, that'd be the right thing to do... clearly.

By Ron, at 9:26 AM, November 01, 2012
Ron, I think you have this all backwards. The judge will START with the assessment to see if it was illegal and work backwards. SO…why don't you show all four or five of us what that looked like, OK? Maybe lay off those friendly beers for ah hour or two and you will be able to see some logic in how this would play out, not just steam yourself up with your heated emotionalism to slam Pandora and Wallace. And it will also perhaps prevent you from one of your (granted, seldom) misspellings, "documets" and "collossal." And the odd assertion that May of 2001 follows summer 2000 by a "couple of days." And assorted punctuation inconsistencies and inaccuracies ("5 -7 acre' project).

Again, Montgomery Watson did the plan, why don't you ask them how they were able to do this so fast?

Please explain, "When I subpoena John Wallace." Are YOU filling out one of these forms of yours — oh wait, you have never lived here! So under what capacity will you be subpoenaing anybody?

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 12:44 PM, November 01, 2012
Toons
You need to look up the term "Ad hominem"
I do believe that Ron for the most part being hypothetical when he puts himself in that courtroom with one critical reality.
A lawyer never asks a question in court unless he already knows the answer.
How did Wallace put out that incredibly complicated TriW plan in only 3 months?
I'll bet the answer is they didn't. I'll bet the answer is they started on that plan about one to two years before. And if so, that answer would need some 'splaining' Don't ya think?
Of course this is all just hypothetical musings.

By Mike Green, at 1:31 PM, November 01, 2012
DING! DING! DING!

We have a winner!

Mike writes:

"A lawyer never asks a question in court unless he already knows the answer.
How did Wallace put out that incredibly complicated TriW plan in only 3 months?"

Exactly, and that's why I already DO know the answer to that question, and the answer is that you're 100-percent right: "they didn't."

Shhhh... don't tell Wallace, but I've got a stack of primary source documents that shows that Pandora's 60-acre, "$55 million," "advanced ponding system"/"aquatic park" non-project was fizzling out, lust like all those experts predicted it would (before the LOCSD election, of course), and as the Karners confess that they alrweady knew it would, as early as Summer 1999. Which means, that by "Summer 2000," that scam was SO far in the rearview, that even Wallace must have thought it was ancient history, and I've got a 12-pack of Heineken that says Wallace's jaw hit his desktop when he saw Pandora's "Summer 2000" "news"letter.

I bet that made him sick. I'll ask him that question.

Another question I'll be asking Wallace, while he's under oath, is, exactly -- to the day -- what date did that switch, from 60-acre "aquatic park," to 5-7 acre buried reactor, happen?

What date -- to the day -- did that dramatic shift happen?

I hope, for Wallace's sake, that it was WAAAAAY before "Summer 2000," and if Wallace does testify that that date WAS WAAAAAAY before "Summer 2000," well, my work's done here.

I mean, if that's indeed the case, and I'm postive it is -- because I have a ton of documents that show that's the case -- then the ONLY reason LOCSD vice-president would have "produced" that "Summer 2000" news"letter (using Los Osos taxpayer money, of course), that she then mailed (using Los Osos taxpayer money, of course) to "every property owner and resident of Los Osos," was an effort to cover-up the fact that her known-to-HER-to-be-DOA non-project -- the non-project that was SOLELY responsible for forming the LOCSD in the first place, and getting her elected to the Board, AND killing the County's then-"ready to go," reality based sewer project, had failed.

Uh, LOCSD Board, if you guys want to start cutting checks to the victims of the Tri-W scam, that'd probably be a really good idea, right about now. I'm sure John Wallce, after reading this comment section, would REEEELLY appreciate it.

'toons writes:

"So under what capacity will you be subpoenaing anybody?"

Uh, you HAVE heard of Google, right?

and;

"prevent you from one of your (granted, seldom) misspellings"

Fuuny. Ya know what happened, there? I recently did some tweeks on my computer, and now, for reasons yet to be determined, the spell check on the word processing software I use isn't working (inlcuding right now, so there could be some more typos in this post, I apologize in advance), and me without a spell checker, is like being without a microwave oven -- It's hard to live without ; -)

And, oh yeah, and if you're down to slamming me for typos, that usually means that even you know it's over.

The LOCSD Board is going to have one helluva decision to make tonight, eh? Either accept the claim, and cut the check, which means about 5,000 other property owners are instantly going to do the exact same thing, or "reject" the claim, where it's then straight to Small Claims Court, to subpoena people like John Wallace, Paavo, and Pandora, and asking them versions of the questions posed above -- questions that I already know they don't have answers to -- and, with all of those excellent primary source documents entered in as evidence.

Interesting choice. Best "Closed Session" ever!

By Ron, at 2:49 PM, November 01, 2012
This comment has been removed by the author.

By Ron, at 2:50 PM, November 01, 2012
Ron, Heineken? WTF? Get with the times bro! Offer up a case of Firestone Walker or get out.

By Mike Green, at 3:57 PM, November 01, 2012
Ron asked,hypothetically of course:"Another question I'll be asking Wallace, while he's under oath, is, exactly -- to the day -- what date did that switch, from 60-acre "aquatic park," to 5-7 acre buried reactor, happen?"
I would bust a gut if he said "From day two, those idiots in the LOCSD were out to lunch, but I could use the cash"

By Mike Green, at 8:03 PM, November 01, 2012
Mike Green, and Ron, you are right about one thing, Wallace didn't put out the new plan, Montgomery Watson did as I have said at least twice before. They are a global company, far, far larger than Wallace.

http://www.mwhglobal.com/

Look around on their website then come back and explain how they couldn't do this. Here, I'll make it easy, this is the link to their projects page:

http://www.mwhglobal.com/mwh-projects/

It's over all right, as in "this is a non-starter."

And " lust like all those experts predicted" will not be corrected by word processing....

The question that you seem to prefer to ignore, but of course it won't go away, is what did the assessment say? Funny how you don't seem to think this is important in determining that the assessment was a scam.

Hey, take a look at this - dated March 7, 2001, why look! it is the final report by Montgomery Watson:

http://swrcb2.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/los_osos/docs/master_docs/2001_03_07_ww_facilities_final_project_report.pdf

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 12:28 AM, November 02, 2012
Good news, 'toons! Got my spell check fixed!

'toons The Typo Nazi writes:

"The question that you seem to prefer to ignore, but of course it won't go away, is what did the assessment say?"

'toons, is it possible for you to stop whining for two minutes? Jeeze. Like I wrote above, that's on its way, and in hilarious, spectacular, SewerWatch fashion, as promised. Just be patient, my little #1 fan.

But first...

While I have Wallace "on the stand," and under oath, I'm also going to enter this great document into evidence.

That is page 8 (of 11 pages) from the Los Osos CSD’s “Los Osos Wastewater Project -- Frequently Asked Questions” document, dated "3/2/2004," and, in it, it reads, "A draft... EIR was prepared in November 2000... The Draft... included an extensive screening of alternatives... including alternative sites for the treatment plant."

How great is THAT?!

That one page is an EXCELLENT piece of evidence for my case, for a number of reasons, but, the most important, is that it supplies the right-side bookend for my "three month" time line, when it reads, "A draft... EIR (for the Tri-W disaster) was prepared in November 2000."

Awesome. Now we can take that "November 2000" date -- when, according to the CSD, the Draft EIR for the mid-town, 5-7 acre, non-pond-based, now-failed, Tri-W sewer plant was already popped out -- and hold that date up to that "Summer 2000" CSD/Pandora "news"letter, where she's still selling, hard, her known-to-HER-to-be-DOA, 60-acre, "aquatic park," "better, cheaper, faster" disaster, and there's our "three month" time line.

Considering that Pandora's "Summer 2000" newsletter was produced, popped out, and mailed to "every property owner and resident" in Los Osos as a direct reaction to my July 7, 2000 New Times cover story, where I first exposed the "better, cheaper, faster" disaster swirling down the toilet, I'm just going to round off that the "Summer 2000" "news"letter (read: deliberately misleading, taxpayer funded election material, as part of some bizarre scam) hit "every" resident's mailbox on August 1, and I'm also going to round "November 2000" off at November 1 (hey, why not?), and there's our three month time line: August, September, October 2000, to completely design -- from scratch --, an over-the-top complex, Coastal Zone located, $150-million community-wide sewer system -- the Tri-W non-project/scam -- AND even have a "Draft EIR" popped out... in just three months!

I... don't... think... so.

Which means (and this is just fantastic), I now also get to ask Wallace, while he's under oath, a version of this question:

[continued next comment]

By Ron, at 10:03 AM, November 03, 2012
"Uh, Mr. Wallace, if you had the Draft EIR for the 5 -7 acre, pond-less, now-failed Tri-W so-called 'project,' popped out by 'November 2000,' and considering the 'Summer 2000' LOCSD newsletter, that I've already entered into evidence, raves about how "on schedule" the now-also-failed 60-acre, AIWPS, 'aquatic park' treatment facility is... errr... was, and then, apparently, the moment that 'news'letter was dropped in the mail (in late July, 2000) to 'every resident of Los Osos,' that 60-acre 'aquatic park' project failed, of course --because, you know, it was predicted to fail -- then how were you able to conduct an 'extensive screening of alternatives... including alternative sites for the treatment plant,' THEN 'engineer' -- from scratch -- the entire, super-complex Tri-W non-project, THEN still have time to pop out a 'Draft EIR,' in just three months -- August... September... October ... 2000?

How did you do that?"

Then, I'm going to have some (more) fun:

"So, Mr. Wallace, let me see if I have this straight: The 60-acre, 'better, cheaper, faster,' 'aquatic park' -- that was SOLEY responsible for forming the LOCSD in the first place, in 1998, AND killing the County's then-'ready to go' project, in early 1999 -- fails completely, sometime AFTER 'Summer 2000,' according to the District's 'Summer 2000' 'news'letter, THEN, you embark on an 'extensive screening of... alternative sites for the (completely different) treatment plant,' and that 'extensive screening of... alternative sites' -- that you were somehow miraculously able to pull off in just three months, at the same time you and your co-conspira... ERRRRRRRR... 'colleagues' [finger quotes] were also 'engineering' the rest of the massively complex Tri-W non-project -- concludes that the best location for the completely redesigned 5-7 acre, non-pond-based, industrial Tri-W sewer plant, was the exact 'middle of town' location that was originally selected for the 60-acre, pond-based 'aquatic park' sewer plant -- a site originally selected because its 'large' size could accommodate a series of huge sewage ponds, according to District documents.

To be clear, your 'extensive screening' -- accomplished in less than three months, according to the CSD's 'Summer 2000' 'news'letter -- of 'alternative sites' for the Tri-W non-project sewer plant, led you right back to the same 'middle of town' location as the CSD's first failed attempt at a sewer project -- the DOA, 60-acre, 'better, cheaper, faster' disaster.

The, please explain to this courtroom, how in the f-ing world did that happen, especially when considering that the County's THREE YEAR [2007 - 2009] 'extensive screening of alternative sites' came up with numerous, MUCH cheaper, MUCH more environmentally preferred , MUCH less 'socially infeasible' sites out of town and downwind, and, of course, the County's careful process never even came close to selecting the 'middle of town' site for their carefully studied project?

So, how did YOU do that? How did your three month 'extensive screening' process end up with the exact same site as the first failed project?

I don't understand.

And, I want to remind you, sir, that you are under oath." (I've always wanted to say that, too!)

Can't wait. Too fun.

[continued next comment]

By Ron, at 10:06 AM, November 03, 2012
Mike writes:

I would bust a gut if he said "From day two, those idiots in the LOCSD were out to lunch, but I could use the cash"

Wallace, and every one of his other co-conspira... ErrrrrrrrRRRRRRRRR... "colleagues" [finger quotes].

Which goes straight to the gut punch these days: Where I exposed how Wallace and his "Presto-change-o!: 60-acre aquatic park-to-6-acre sewer reactor" buddies are STILL cashing checks from the County to... wait for it... build the County's project!... a project that wouldn't even be needed, had all those guys not created the Los Osos sewer disaster in the first place, starting in 1999 - 2000.

And, of course, it's one of Wallace's former co-conspira... ERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR... "colleagues" [finger quotes] that's hiring them to clean up the mess they all made, CURRENT SLO County Public Works Director, and former LOCSD interim-GM (throughout 1999, when the "better, cheaper, faster" disaster was in full-blown scam mode), Paavo f-ing Ogren.

Un... believable.

They all got paid FAT cash to create the Los Osos disaster, starting in 1999, with their "Presto-change-o!: 60-acre Aquatic Park-to-6-acre sewer reactor" scam, and NOW, they ALL get paid FAT cash, again, to clean up their own ginormous mess from their own deliberately made disaster.

How GREAT is that, well, from a journalism perspective?

And, of course, it's at this point in my story where I always have to write: Nice work if you can manufacture it.

[Man, I'm not kididin'... spell checkers are like microwave ovens. You don't realize how much you rely on them, until they break down. Uh, by the way, did I spell "ginormous" right, 'toons?]

By Ron, at 10:07 AM, November 03, 2012
"...my little #1 fan?"

Sorry, neither.

I shall quote you here:

"'Summer 2000' CSD/Pandora 'news' letter, where she's still selling, hard, her known-to-HER-to-be-DOA, 60-acre, 'aquatic park,' 'better, cheaper, faster' disaster, and there's our 'three month' time line."

REALLY? Because in your own blog post here -

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2009/07/exclusive-sewerwatch-investigation-how.html

- you state,

"In the 'portfolio' section of Nash-Karner's marketing business web site, under the link 'newsletters,' there is a copy of a 'Bear Pride' newsletter, with the words 'Los Osos Community Services District' next to it."

"Clearly legible in the graphic is the headline, 'People are asking questions about the wastewater project. Why has it changed? Where will it be, and why? How can we pay for it?'"

It looks to me like the date is July 2000, and clearly as you say, the topic is change to the wastewater project. That would mean NOT the 60-acre ponds, but the NEW plan. Maybe you can point us to a clearer copy linked in your files to verify that date, hmmm? (You know, that copy you got from your public records request?) Or maybe you won't because it sure wrecks your theory of three months to crank out a plan. They really had MONTHS MORE that they had been working on it.

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 1:47 AM, November 04, 2012
'toons, you're embarrassing yourself... even more... if that's possible.

'tooncie writes:

"It looks to me like the date is July 2000, and clearly as you say, the topic is change to the wastewater project. That would mean NOT the 60-acre ponds, but the NEW plan. Maybe you can point us to a clearer copy linked in your files..."

'toons, do you know how a link works? You know, where you guide your mouse over the colored text (usually blue), and then click the button on the mouse to go to that link?

Do you know how to do that, OR, are you THAT f-ing stupid?

Because, above, where you've posted your incoherent ramblings about a thousand times, I've supplied the link directly to that "Summer 2000" "news"letter -- where it contains a gigantic GRAPHIC of the 60-acre "advanced ponding system," with a collection system where the town's septic tanks will "still be used" -- about a zillion times.

I can only assume that the "judge," or lawyer, or, whoever it is that decides Small Claims cases in this county, is nowhere near as incompetent, or stupid, as you.

But I'm glad you brought that "Summer 2000" "news"letter up, again, because I'm also going to enter in as evidence, one of my favorite documents in this case:

Pandora's, Spring 1998, Solution Group "news"letter, that I scanned in years ago, and first made available as a public download.

I LOVE that document. It goes STRAIGHT to the heart of my entire story, and that is, how easily the general public (and regulators, for that matter) can be duped (read: Jedi MInd Tricked) into doing things they normally wouldn't do, just through a saturation-level "behavior based marketing" "strategy." Absolutely fascinating.

So, now, look at this AMAZING time line:

From early 1998 to "Summer 2000" -- nearly three years -- "every" Los Ososan was absolutely saturated with Pandora's lie-filled "news"letters. Lies like, "better, cheaper, faster" (when Pandora, and her husband, NOW confess that they already knew -- in early 1998 -- that it COULDN'T be any of those, because it was never going to work), and "$38.75 maximum monthly payment," and "drop dead gorgeous" "aquatic park" on "60-acres," and "lift the building moratorium," and "existing septic tanks within the Prohibition Zone will still be used," and, "the staff of the RWQCB has been enormously supportive of the District," oh, just on and on and on.

Pretty much every single thing in Pandora's "news"letters -- that she saturated (of course) Los Osos with, was a blatant lie, obviously, especially when viewed in the context of 2012.

'toons writes:

"They really had MONTHS MORE that they had been working on it.

Thank you, 'toons, for making my point for me, because, I WILL be hammering that point home in my "closing arguments" to the Judge:

Yes. The District HAD been working on the Tri-W cover-up months -- if not more than a year -- before Pandora's "Summer 2000" "news"letter.

[continued next comment]

By Ron, at 11:06 AM, November 05, 2012
Soooooo, if the 60-acre "aquatic park" was dead a full year BEFORE "Summer 2000," then why in the f--k is Pandora, in "Summer 2000," saturating Los Osos with a taxpayer-funded "news"letter, raving about how "on schedule" her known-toHER-to-be-DOA, already long-dead (at the time of that "news"letter), 60-acre "aquatic park" is?

"Your Honor, there's only one answer to that question: That "news"letter was nothing more than taxpayer funded propaganda in a deliberate effort to cover-up the fact that the only reason to form the CSD in the first place -- "better, cheaper, faster" -- had failed. In other words, 'taxpayer-funded fraud.'"

There's no other explanation.

By Ron, at 11:07 AM, November 05, 2012
Let's do the timeline again, for what actually counts here for your premise that: "…you were deliberately deceived by the early Los Osos CSD regarding the Tri-W scam".

Summer 2000 - the link in your post to the Bear Pride that talks about the old pond project. The headline was:

"People are asking questions about the wastewater project: What Is it? Where is it? How much is it? Is it safe? When will the moratorium be lifted?"

OK fine. The project CHANGES shortly after this. So what? Changing the project is not against the law. The assessment vote was for the NEW project, not the old one!! You are trying to make a case using the assessment and it just doesn't hold water!

By March 16, 2001, at a public CSD meeting, they are talking about amending the Montgomery Watson agreement for an additional recharge evaluation. Get it? Montgomery Watson had a PLAN that they were even amending at that point to add more stuff! The assessment vote is discussed too. IT IS A PUBLIC MEETING! Access that meeting here on audio to listen for yourself:

http://slo-span.org/media.php?slo=3#LOCSD

Scroll down to March 16, 2000 and either listen from off of the site or download and listen to it.

May, 2001 the assessment vote occurs. This is the document that you need to provide to make your case here. The rest is just your usual repetitive, weedy, angry blather at Pandora.

The question is – how is this a scam? The plan for the project changed. It was discussed at meetings as was the assessment. The assessment vote came up and people voted. So what's the problem?

Pandora's portfolio photo is the Bear Pride that you originally quoted in your July 2009 article with the words that you say are in the title:

"People are asking questions about the wastewater project. Why has it changed? Where will it be, and why? How can we pay for it?"

You did not show us a scan of THAT Bear Pride. The Bear Pride that describes the CHANGE!The question is: What is the date ON THAT BEAR PRIDE? That would tell us a lot, wouldn't it.

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 12:25 AM, November 06, 2012
MEMO to the LOCSD Board: Please, PLEEEEEASE let 'toons, and its incoherent mess of an argument, represent you in Small Claims court, in this case.

Pretty PLEEEEEASE!

(Too fun.)

By Ron, at 9:46 AM, November 06, 2012
Ron, why do you have so much trouble answering questions?

Will you provide us with a copy of the assessment ballot or won't you? It's real simple, yes or no.

Will you or won't you provide us with a scan of the Bear Pride showing the project has changed? Again, real simple, yes or no.

Your silly deflections from answering don't fool anyone.

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 11:10 AM, November 06, 2012
'toons whines:

"Will you provide us with a copy of the assessment ballot or won't you?"

Drum roll please. [ptttttttttttttt...]

Ladies and Germs, I now present (and, hopefully, this will [at least] slow down toon's incessant whining) the official, primary source, fresh-of-the-pdf-coverter, boringly titled, "... NOTICE OF THE ASSESSMENT BALLOT PROCEDURE FOR SUCH PROPOSED ASSESSMENT"

But first...

Before I roll this bad boy out, I want to go back to one of my earlier time-lines, that I'm also going to establish in court.

The time-line of Pandora's early 1998 Solution Group "news"letter (popped out almost a full year before the LOCSD election date [and how she now confesses to knowing, at the time she published, and then saturated (of course) Los Osos with that "news"letter, that her, and her husband's, known-to-THEM-to-be-DOA non-project that Pandora is over-the-top hyping (of course) in that propaganda, was never going to work... and she NOW confesses to knowing that fact... at the exact same time that she was saturating (of course) Los Osos with that "news"letter), through to her "Summer 2000" "news"letter, where she's STILL over-the-top hyping (of course, and, this time, on the taxpayers' dime) her known-to-HER-to-be-DOA non-project.

So, that's almost THREE full years of utter saturation "behavior based marketing," to "every resident of Los Osos," with nothing but blatant lies, like:

- "Better, cheaper, faster"

- "Maximum monthly payment of $38.75"

- "Drop dead gorgeous aquatic park"

- "Better, cheaper, faster" - "Better, cheaper, faster"

- "60-acres of advanced ponding system"

- "No odors"

- "Better, cheaper, faster" - "Better, cheaper, faster" - "Better, cheaper, faster"

- "Septic tanks will still be used."

- "Overall cost... $55 million."

- "Better, cheaper, faster" - "Better, cheaper, faster" - "Better, cheaper, faster" - "Better, cheaper, faster"

- "The staff of the RWQCB has been enormously supportive of the District."

- "On schedule"

- "Better, cheaper, faster" - "Better, cheaper, faster" - "Better, cheaper, faster" - "Better, cheaper, faster" - "Better, cheaper, faster" - "Better, cheaper, faster" - "Better, cheaper, faster" - "Better, cheaper, faster" - "Better, cheaper, faster"

[continued next comment]

By Ron, at 12:18 PM, November 07, 2012
So, with all of that in mind -- a steady three year, "behavior-based marketing," saturation-level diet of THAT, to "every" Los Ososan from early 1998 to late 2000 -- I now present, for the first time anywhere, the official "Project Description," that was "duly adopted on "February 15, 2001,"just six months after "Summer 2000", that the LOCSD presented to the property owners in the Tri-W non-project assessment scam:

"Your Honor, I now enter into evidence, good ol' 'Exhibit A' -- a bland, generic, one-f-ing-paragraph 'description' about some sort of 'wastewater, treatment, and disposal system,' where, due to the complete lack of projection description in that 'project description,' the ONLY logical conclusion on what it's 'describing,' is Pandora's known-to-HER-to-be-DOA, NOT 'better, cheaper, faster,' NOT '60-acres of advanced ponding system,' NOT 'maximum monthly payment of $38.75,' non-project, that she saturated Los Osos with for three years."

I mean, of course, the tiny, quiet, buried (of course) "Exhibit A," in the also blandly titled, "... NOTICE OF THE ASSESSMENT BALLOT PROCEDURE FOR SUCH PROPOSED ASSESSMENT" -- was describing the Karners' "better, cheaper, faster" scam, right? I mean, after three years of absolute saturation-level "behavior based marketing" "strategy" to "every" person in Los Osos about how "on schedule" her "odorless," "drop dead gorgeous aquatic park" is, OF COURSE that's what "Exhibit A" is describing.... right?

What? The generic, one-paragraph "project description" in "Exhibit A" was describing something OTHER than the project describe in Pandora's "Summer 2000" "news"letter, that she had in "every" mailbox in Los Osos (on taxpayers' dime, of course) just six months before "February 15, 2001?"

That'd be impossible, because it would be impossible to complete such a gigantic process, of developing -- from scratch -- a completely different, hugely complex, public works project... in the Coastal Zone, and then have it "duly adopted" by the co-conspira.... ERRRRR... "Directors" on the LOCSD Board, just six months after Pandora's "Summer 2000" "news"letter.

Of course "Exhibit A" wasn't describing something other than the Karners' "better, cheaper, faster" scam, because, that's simply impossible, according to the time-line found in Pandora's own "news"letters... right?

Uhhhh... any time the District wants to start doing the decent, just, human thing, and start cutting checks to the victims of the Tri-W assessment scam, well, that'd be fine with me, and, I'm sure, the victims, as well. They certainly deserve it. I mean, who wouldn't like a nice $5,000 check in the mail these days? Well, OTHER than 'toons?

By the way 'toons, "... NOTICE OF THE ASSESSMENT BALLOT PROCEDURE FOR SUCH PROPOSED ASSESSMENT," also reads, "John L. Wallace & Associates... as the 'Engineer of Work'."

That's why Home Boy's gettin' the subpoena, and not MWH, because it's his name on that document, not MWH.

By Ron, at 12:22 PM, November 07, 2012
First, thank-you very much for providing the assessment document, which, sadly for you, proves my point. My point being, that you are barking up the not just a wrong tree, but NO TREE AT ALL with your "assessment scam" idea. Much like the sad, old male dog who takes aim and then wets his own foot.

If you want to slam Pandora for pushing a particular sewage treatment idea for years and then having the vote come down for something else altogether, you have done it in your blog. And that is where your condemnation will have to stay. You do not reside in Los Osos, and if the CITIZENS of Los Osos wanted to make a case against her, it was their job to do and it should have happened YEARS ago - but guess what, it didn't happen!

Despite the last bit of text on the ballot being cut off for some reason, the "Attachment A" CLEARLY STATES, just what the citizens are voting on! There is no question about it, it is GRAVITY COLLECTION of waste to be treated to a tertiary level of treatment! "The treated wastewater will be land disposed through percolation systems and recycled wastewater irrigation throughout the community." NO MENTION of the old plan's septic tanks or ponds! THE CITIZENS READ THIS AND THEN VOTED TO ASSESS THEMSELVES FOR IT! What is so hard about that that you cannot get it even when it is right in front of your face?

And as for Wallace, he was the District Engineer! Of course, as such, HE SIGNED OFF on the project brought to the Board by Montgomery Watson, the giant, multinational sewage experts! (You keep incorrectly referring to them as Montgomery Watson Harza, but Harza was not part of the team at that point.)

You seem to be hinging another off-based premise that the new plan could not possibly have come together so quickly. That is the question that you should to be asking Montgomery Watson (Harza), the giant, multinational sewage experts who have built hundreds of plants. But then, like everyone else, I doubt that they will waste their time taking your calls. Just look at their website if you want to see what they are capable of doing.

Still waiting for your scan to prove my point that the community DID get a Pandora created newsletter talking about the new plan! Really, you should research this stuff with your blinders off before you attempt to lead citizens astray with your crazy ideas.

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 1:56 PM, November 07, 2012
'toons writes:

"Attachment A" CLEARLY STATES, just what the citizens are voting on!

Exactly. The Karners' "better, cheaper, faster" scam, right? Of course that's what they were voting on... rrrriiiight?

Like I write above, what? That's NOT what "Exhibit A" is describing?

I mean, in her "Summer 2000," LOCSD vice-president Pandora, writes, "Collection will rely on a gravity system..."

And, in the TINY amount of description -- after three years of over-the-top hype for "60-acre aquatic park" -- in that "project description," it reads (just like you point out) "gravity collection."

Well, there we go. I'll be sure to also hammer THAT critical point home in my closing arguments: Obviously, Exhibit A is describing the known-to-the-Karners-to-be-DOA, "better, cheaper, faster" scam.

What I LOVE about my argument, is that, not only is it a slam dunk, it's a jump from the free-throw line, 360, windmill, in-the-CSD's-Face, spectacular slam dunk.

And it's the beautiful "double whaminess" of it that makes it so great:

1) Clearly, the ONLY reason Pandora popped out that 'Summer 2000" "news"letter, was an effort to deliberately deceive voters (using their money, of course), so, when it came time for the assessment vote, there's that GORGEOUS argument that people had no idea what they were voting for -- they were duped into thinking they were voting for "overall cost of $55 million" "aquatic park," when, in reality, they were voting for a hastily tossed together $150 million industrial sewer plant in the middle of town.

and;

2) EVEN if a property owner WAS able to cut through Pandora's deliberate, taxpayer-funded deception, and KNEW they were voting for the Tri-W scam, well, it was just that, a hastily developed scam... to cover-up the fact that the only reason to form the CSD in the first place, had failed.

Of all the highlights in this case, the one I'm really looking forward to, is asking Wallace, while he's under oath, the question I pose above: "Really, Mr. Wallace? You and your co-conspira.... ERRR... you know what I mean, following the predicted failure of 'better, cheaper, faster' -- POST 'Summer 2000,' according to Pandora -- conducted an 'extensive screening of alternative sites,' and that THREE MONTH analysis brought you right back to the same mid-town site as the 'better, cheaper, faster' scam, when the County spent THREE YEARS doing the exact same thing, and their careful analysis didn't even come close to that conclusion? How do you explain that?"

Oh lord, this is going to be SO fun, and great.

PLEASE tell me, 'toons, that your friends at the LOCSD decided to do the indecent, inhuman thing, and "reject" a completely innocent victim of the Tri-W assessment scam's claim.

Because, if they decide to do the decent thing, and simply pay the claims, then I'm going to be bummed, because I won't be able to subpoena Wallace, Paavo and Pandora, and have all of this fun in an open, public courtroom.

[continued next comment]

By Ron, at 9:46 AM, November 08, 2012
Of course, my dream witness, is former CCC staffer, Steve Monowitz.

That "trial" would be over in a HURRY if I could just get Steve on the stand, you know, considering that he's ALREADY told me that the CSD lied to him about the Tri-W scam.

I could just simply ask him, "Mr. Monowitz, do you believe the Los Osos CSD lied to you when it came to the siting of the Tri-W disaster."

He will answer that question, "Yes."

I ALREADY know he'll say that, because that's exactly what he told me, when I asked him that question, six years ago.

Then it's pretty much straight to the, "I rest my case, your Honor" card, isn't it?

Hmmm... now that I think of it, Steve's going to be getting a subpoena, too.

'toons, are you going to be in the courtroom? I highly recommend it. Great theater, and it's free to attend!

My goal is to get about four or five of them -- "rejected" claims from Tri-W assessment scam victims -- lined up on one day in Small Claims court, and then I'll just "represent" them all on that day, one right after another.

Hey, as long as I'm there, with my slam dunk case all put together in a nice, tight 15-minute presentation, and then about another 15-minutes to quickly question Paavo, John, Steve, and Pandora, I could knock out five of those in one day... no problemo.

Heck, I'll even treat Paavo, John, Steve, and Pandora to pizza and beer at Woodstock's during the lunch break.

It'll be fun!

By Ron, at 9:48 AM, November 08, 2012
So many words, so little said!

But go ahead, have "fun" as you put it. You clearly have no idea how full of holes your so-called case is, but you know, if you want to waste YOUR time on it..........

The original plan as you well know, was a pond, keeping the existing septic tanks and partially sewering the community with Step collection.

How does, Attachment A (which clearly states gravity collection system with tertiary treated, land-disposed water throughout the community), suggest the original plan? Hint: It doesn't!

All the points you so want to air before the public to justify your maniacal rantings over the past 7 years, do not fit into what your original idea was, to prove that the assessment vote was a scam! Clearly Attachment A states exactly what the voters are assessing themselves for and they passed the assessment.

Your role in this silly, self-serving middle school drama, playing out only in your head (and never in the courtroom) would be hilarious if it were not so pathetic.

Still waiting on the scan of the newsletter where Pandora explains the new plan.

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 1:38 PM, November 08, 2012
'toonice writes:

"Your role in this silly, self-serving middle school drama, playing out only in your head (and never in the courtroom) would be hilarious if it were not so pathetic."

Yet, you can't pull yourself away, my little #1 fan. I'm so flattered. : -)

See you in court... in the audience section of course, and, since you're not getting a subpoena (unless, of course, you ARE Pandora [which actually would make sense on why you can't pull yourself away from my blog]), you're going to have to pay for your own pizza and beer.

and;

"Still waiting on the scan of the newsletter where Pandora explains the new plan."

Boy, I'll tell ya what... If you have that, I'd SURE love to see it BEFORE I take my case to Small Claims Court.

So, you're telling me that Pandora popped out that "Summer 2000" "news"letter, where she raves about how "on schedule" her already-failed "better, cheaper, faster" disaster is, and then just a few weeks later, pops out ANOTHER (taxpayer funded) "news"letter that says that "better, cheaper, faster" is NOW in the dumpster, and ANOTHER -- completely different -- system, with a completely different treatment facility at the exact same location as her "better, cheaper, faster" scam -- is already ready to go?

Wow!

John Wallace is even more brilliant than I thought. According to 'toons, he can design over-the-top complex public works projects in just a matter of a few weeks. Even funnier than the ridiculous "three months" time-line that I've already established.

John Wallace for President, 2016!

By Ron, at 9:17 AM, November 09, 2012
Now that I think about it, I wonder if I can do some sort of "class action" thingee in small claims court? You know, where I "represent" a group of victims of the Tri-W assessment scam, and make the same case once, for all of them, instead of having to do it one case at a time, which would be redundant, and clog things up.

I'll ask the SCC "Advisor" that question.

That'd be sweet, 'cause, if I could put together a list of "dream clients" (like, Monowitz is my "dream witness"), where I'd "represent" them, all at the same time, in SCC, "pro bono" (of course), and show, exactly, how they were all victims of the Tri-W assessment scam, then, right off the top of my head, a potential "client" that jumps right to mind, is long-time Los Ososan, and former County CAO, David Edge.

David has both the history AND the wherewithal to grasp my excellent case. He'll see how tight my argument is in about 2 seconds, because he knows exactly what I'm talking about. He lived through it.

And, if I'm not mistaken, he lives in the Prohibition Zone, and has for awhile, which means he's also a victim of the Tri-W assessment scam, and could simply download, then file my "claim" to the LOCSD Board by Nov. 24, get it "rejected" at December's meeting, and then jump right on the "Tri-W Assessment Scam Money Back, Please!" bus, and away we all go, on a one-day trip to SmallClaimsCourtville.

Boy, who else would be good? Who else has the history (from about 1997), and the wherewithal, like Edge, to grasp how they were victims of the Tri-W assessment scam? You know, "dream clients."

David Chipping comes to mind, or is he out of the PZ?

Mr. Marsden, that I mention in my main piece, sounds like an excellent candidate, as well.

I'm gonna have to think on this one for a bit. Who would make for a great "client" in this case? I'd like to get at least five on board. That'd be great! A couple of hundred would be HIGHlarious.

By Ron, at 10:25 AM, November 09, 2012
Ron, if pointing out your flaws and calling you pathetic makes me a fan in your mind, fine (but sad). If you are flattered by that, fine (but sad). I am not Pandora, I am Lynette Tornatzky as my blog name says.

I only write in here to warn the unsuspecting that you are running a scam on people with your full-of-holes idea. It has to do with the harm you can cause; it isn't about YOU.

You also act like Pandora was the only person on the board. She wasn't. She was one of the board members. She didn't get to vote on stuff all by herself. Since the project changed a mailing seemed the most logical way to inform those who did not attend meetings.

YOU yourself put out the headline on the other newsletter(I am only guessing as to the date). YOU gave us the headlines, which are readable without the scan. Here is what YOU told us it said:

"People are asking questions about the wastewater project. Why has it changed? Where will it be, and why? How can we pay for it?"

So why don't you give us the date? I do not have newsletter. That is why I have been asking you for the scan. I find it odd that it took you until now for you to claim that you don't have it. Did you finally realize that showing us that newsletter would be bad for your case, so you "suddenly" don't have it?

How many times do I have to repeat myself that John Wallace did not design the project, Montgomery Watson did. Why do you seem to not read that part every time I post it? I will leave it as the last thing on here so maybe, just maybe, you will get it this time that John Wallace did not design the project, Montgomery Watson did.

http://swrcb2.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/los_osos/docs/master_docs/2001_03_07_ww_facilities_final_project_report.pdf

Also, if you go to page 3 and read the acknowledgements, John's Wallace's name does not appear.

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 9:21 PM, November 09, 2012
'toons, my HUGE #1 Fan, writes:

"You also act like Pandora was the only person on the board. She wasn't. She was one of the board members. She didn't get to vote on stuff all by herself."

You know what I love about that point?: Did Pandora inform her fellow Board members in 1999, that she knew, starting in January 1998 (as she now confesses) that her "better, cheaper, faster" scam was ALREADY "blown out of the water," and was never going to work?

In other words, did Gordon, Sylvia, Stan, and Rose ALSO know that "better, cheaper, faster" was DOA, OR did Pandora not tell them, too, just like she didn't inform the people of Los Osos, that the only reason to form the LOCSD in the first place was never going to work (as she confesses to knowing BEFORE the November 1998 election), yet, she kept over-the-top hyping that scam anyway?

Maybe I'll subpoena Gordon, too, and ask him just that one question:

"Uh, Mr. Hensley, when you were on the LOCSD Board in 1999, did Director Nash-Karner inform you that the '60-acre' 'aquatic park' non-project/scam that she and her husband used to form the LOCSD for no reason whatsoever, well, OTHER than to launder LOCSD money through her husband's SWA Group, was never going to work, as she NOW confesses to knowing at the time, OR did she also keep her fellow CSD Board members, just like the people of Los Osos, in the dark on that vitally important point?

Did you also know, Mr. Hensley, just like the Karners knew at the time, that 'better, cheaper, faster' was never going to work, during the two years that you futilely chased that non-project/scam as a LOCSD Director?"

I've got ANOTHER 12-pack of Heineken, that says that Pandora never told her fellow Board members -- like Gordon, and Sylvia -- what she and her husband NOW CONFESS to already knowing: That their "better, cheaper, faster" disaster/scam was never going to work from day one, and she just allowed her fellow Board members to waste all that time and money on that scam, just so the Karners could pad their bank account, through that SWA Group scam that I exposed.

Everything falls perfectly into place. Can't wait to get it all into court!

Yep... she Jedi Mind Tricked her OWN Board members! Absolutely beautiful... strictly on a journalism level, of course.

Gawd, I love her. She makes for THE BEST story.

By Ron, at 9:48 AM, November 10, 2012
Thanks for the information. I have been trying to gather more information about sewer services in colorado springs. Do you have any recommendations about who else I can talk to?

By Unknown, at 3:28 PM, January 14, 2013
Hey Ron! I've been following your exchange with sewertoons for some time, now. How did your case hold up in small-claims court?

For what it's worth, I think sewertoons is on the money with her rebuttals to your rants and claims of scams.

Sadly for Los Osos residents, a few people can bring good projects to a screeching halt simply by whining louder and longer than the project proponant have the stamina for. That's how your blog reads - on loooong whiny rant. There hasn't been any scam - just a lot of delays and false starts. I pity the political leaders in your county, Ron.

I have a little experience with the Los Osos sewer project from way back in the early days - long before Montgomery-Watson came on the scene. My firm was hired by the County to design the collection system and the treatment plant back in '97-'98. That project was put on hold after someone planted a snail shell on the future treatment plant site. They then called DFG to make a determination that there were rare and endangered species on the project site. The project spiraled down from there. That has been the only scam to befall the poor residents of Los Osos, and it has cost them dearly, over the years.

This poor sewer system and treatment plant has been studied more than any other sewer system in California history. It amazes me that peoply like you see conspiracies behind every corner - what a joke.

I sure hope you get your day in court because maybe that will stop the whining - after they laugh out of the court room. Maybe then the community can get on with their project. Until then, Los Osos will remain one of the last communities who allow septic tank effluent to pond in the streets during the rainy season.

By skylerrex, at 4:47 PM, January 15, 2013
WOW! I haven't been on here for a while as it seemed to remain frozen in time, but I see a very interesting post right above the one I'm writing! Sorry I took so long to get here!

First, skylerrex, that you for the compliment! I appreciate it.

Thank you too for the "snail" bit of history, a story with my extensive reading on Los Osos' sewer issues that I had not read! It goes well with the dead deer planted on the fence at Tri-W.

Then there is the agenda for the next CSD meeting on February 7, 2013. Use this link and look at Item 2B of the closed session items. You will see Ron's foolish errand being played out by a Los Osos couple. Like the PZLDF debacle, this looks to be another painful loser.

I'm happy to report that the sewer project is coming along beautifully. Yes, it is difficult with the roads torn up and it will be that way for a while. But we are tough, we can take it—on our road out of the third world septic swamp into the flush-and-forget future.

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 4:50 PM, February 02, 2013
'toons writes:

..."this looks to be another painful loser.

I'll be damned, 'tooncie, you finally got something right.

Not only is this going to be GREAT... on many, MANY levels, but, yes, also "painful" for the Los Osos CSD, as well as HIGHLY embarrassing for them.

I mean, again, who are they going to send to argue their so-called "case?"

I already feel embarrassed for that person, because that person is going to have to explain, to a packed courtroom, exactly how the 2000 LOCSD was able to "carefully" study "50 sites," design, from scratch, a massive gravity collection system, design, from scratch, a brand new treatment facility, and even have a site plan drawn up for said brand new treatment facility... in just one f-ing month! (Oh, and by the way 'toons, THANK YOU for reminding me that I already have a copy of that "Fall 2000" newsletter. That's a GREAT piece of evidence in this case, because it actually shrinks that already-ridiculous "three month" timeline that I outline above, to just one month. HIGHlarious.)

And that incredibly hastily developed disaster -- that was somehow tossed together in just one month -- never even came close to working... ten years later.

THAT's what the "defendants" are going to FINALLY have to explain... in an open (and packed) court room.

Maybe they'll send you, 'toons, to explain how they were able to do that. That'd be funny.

Although, come March 1, I'm sure you'll be there anyway... well, that is, if you can find a seat.

Yep, spectacularness happens on March 1. C-ya there!

By Ron, at 10:42 AM, February 04, 2013
Ron, you have simply forgotten that the money you state is owed to claimants was actually USED to design a collection system and buy property which due to AB2701 will be used, or is already being used in the current County project.

Transferred land (Tri-W for project mitigation), transferred plans (for the same collection system, only tweaked and added to, now that project is out of town) do not qualify for a suit in small claims court.

The stupid plan of yours is now causing the CSD to defend itself which means money for Mr. Seitz time. Then the County will have to defend itself as it now holds the plans for the collection system and is in line to take the land paid for out of the bond as outlined in AB2701.

That is why the closed session of Thursday's meeting has both the Moylen's vs. the CSD and the CSD vs. the County listed on the agenda.

Won't cost a penny—no to you it won't, you don't live in Los Osos under a bankrupted CSD.

So never mind the conflicting statements that you put forth in your article,

"...it won't cost you a penny!"

"...shell out a $50 filing fee..."

The rest of this scenario is costly and self-serving claptrap. Since your book skipped many, many chapters when you stopped writing in 2005, the lack of an ending won't really matter. Certainly not to us.

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 2:32 AM, February 05, 2013
'tooncie writes:

"The stupid plan of yours is now causing the CSD to defend itself which means money for Mr. Seitz time. Then the County will have to defend itself as it now holds the plans for the collection system and is in line to take the land paid for out of the bond as outlined in AB2701."

Don't forget about the State. They'll almost certainly end up defending themselves too, and that's where the deeeeeep pocket is, and the moment we win our small claims case on March 1, some smart attorney out there is going to see that State officials were negligent, and failed to do, well, what I did in my reporting, and that is to attempt to verify the lies that the CSD was telling them, and the State of California is going to get SOOOOOOO sued over the Tri-W scam.

Right off the top of my head, you know who would have a GREAT claim against the State of California? My Santa Margarita homies: Whitaker Construction.

The Whitakers, who were inked to the tune of some $25 million to build the Tri-W scam, got burned, BIG TIME, by the State of California's negligence.

Here's how: State officials from the CCC to the RWQCB to the SWRCB, ALL got lazy and failed to verify Pandora's "behavior based marketing" lies, and that led to a disaster/fraud of a non-project getting approved and funded by lazy, negligent state officials, and that led to the Whitakers getting burned, because that company THOUGHT they were bidding on a legitimate project (I mean, it HAD been approved by the SLO County Planning Commission, the SLO County Board of Supervisors, AND the California Coastal Commission before I first exposed it to be the exact fraud/scam that it is/was).

The entire mess/fraud ends up in bankruptcy court, and, instead of the Whitakers getting their $25 million, they got just a fraction of that, and, at the end of the wash cycle, I wouldn't be surprised if they actually lost money on the deal, due solely to the fraud.

Soooooo... the Whitakers, and their REAL attorney, could now simply take my air-tight argument, show it to State officials, and say something like, "Look, you guys got lazy, you failed to do your jobs, and, therefore, you approved a disastrous fraud, which, in turn, led us to submit a proposal to build the what-turned-out-to-be-a-scam, we lost a fortune on that scam, BECAUSE of your laziness (read: negligence), and now we want to be compensated for the damages that your negligence cost us. Oh, and next time, do your f-ing job."

Yep... they can now do that.

And that's just one off the top of my head. Another one? Any property owner that paid even a nickel towards the Tri-W assessment fraud. Some smart attorney out there can now do some class action thingee with those property owners against the lazy, negligent State officials, like Darrin Polhemus, who made the decision to fund the Tri-W fraud, even AFTER I showed him (time-stamped and documented) that it was a fraud.

So, don't forget about the State of California when it comes to agencies that are going to have to "defend themselves" over the Tri-W scam/fraud. That's where the BIG dough is, and attorneys tend to know things like that.

By Ron, at 10:09 AM, February 05, 2013
There are plenty of attorneys in Los Osos. You will note that not one of them is pursuing your scheme. That ought to tell you something. Tri-W was a legitimate project. Your thinking it wasn't does not make it so.

The CSD if it sold everything does not have $25 million, that is why pennies on the dollar were hammered out. Once the bankruptcy settlement was reached there were 30 days to protest and Whitaker didn't, the only appeal was by Monterey Mechanical. So too late on that scam idea.

But then, facts never seem to penetrate your ego bubble. I don't care for your sake when this thing crashes and burns, just the couple scammed into this PZLDF-style idea, they will be hurt.

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 11:54 PM, February 05, 2013
The 'toonster writes:

"Tri-W was a legitimate project."

Uhhhhh... I must admit, it has been awhile since I've been out to your neck of the woods.

Could you do me a quick favor, 'toons? Run down to the middle of town and lemme know if you see anyone "picnicking" in a sewer plant?

I mean, did I miss something?

And, hey, for the millionth time, I am not a wastewater engineer, so maybe it IS possible to "carefully" study "50 sites," develop, from scratch, a massively complex collection system, develop, from scratch, a massively complex treatment facility, AND even pop out a detailed site plan of said treatment facility... in just one month.

That's all the "defendants" have to do in this case... is explain how that's possible. (Maybe skylerrex knows the answer to that question.)

Of course, it doesn't help their case that the so-called "project" that the 2000 LOCSD whipped together in just one month, never even came close to working... 10 years later, on June 11, 2010.

And, speaking of ol' Seitzy, I have a quick question for him: Did he sign off on that lie-filled "Summer 2000" "news"letter, or did Pandora just hit the "print" button on her home computer, and then start licking stamps?

Because, if he's going to whine (like you, toons) about defending the CSD in this case, then maybe he shouldn't be signing of on deliberately deceptive "news"letters, that are paid for by the same people that are paying his salary.

So, uh, Jon, did you sign off on that "Summer 2000" "news"letter, or did Pandora send that to "every resident of Los Osos" all on her little lonesome?

For his sake, I sure hope it's the latter.

Oh, and, again: No lawyers allowed in Small Claims Court. So, who the District is going to have represent them on March 1, remains a mystery.

Ruby asks:

"I have been trying to gather more information about sewer services in colorado springs. Do you have any recommendations about who else I can talk to?"

Oh, hellyeah I do. I HIGHLY recommend gathering your sewer information for Colorado Springs from the 2nd District Parks Commissioner of SLO County. That'd be GREAT for my story.

By Ron, at 10:57 AM, February 06, 2013
Ron you are confusing a legitimate project with a built project. Pismo was a legitimate project but it wasn't built either.

I think you are confused about your 50 sites. The CSD committee working on this did the work. It was parcels of land that they found of appropriate size and they reduced the list themselves based on:

• Designated as open space and therefore not developable
• Contained land slopes greater than 10%, which would be costly to develop
• Designated as crucial habitat, and therefore not developable
• Already developed and occupied
• Designated or considered prime agricultural land and therefore not developable

They dropped the list down to seven sites. If you are interested in the background, you provided the link above to the report on the Water Board's site, start on page 4-1.

It remains to be seen what happens to the case as the County is now involved. I will try to keep readers updated, as when you lose, which is every single time you come up with a harebrained scheme like this, you never write a thing about it.

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 1:03 AM, February 07, 2013
The 'toonstinator writes:

"I think you are confused about your 50 sites."

Welp, you're going to have to talk with your friend, Pandora, about that one, considering she's my source on that, when she writes in HER "Fall 2000" "news"letter that the "LOCSD considered over 50 parcels" for their second non-project -- a non-project that they somehow miraculously tossed together in just one month, and that never even came close to working... ten unbelievably di$a$trou$ year$ later.

And I'll also be making the point in court about how VERRRRRRY convenient it was for the LOCSD that, after considering "over 50 parcels" (in just one month) for their second project, the site that rose to the top just happened to be the exact location as their FIRST project... that ALSO never even came close to working, and was solely responsible for forming the LOCSD in the first place for no reason whatsoever, AND killing the county's "ready to go project."

Which means that, not only was the Tri-W fraud responsible for completely wasting the 2000 decade, but ALSO responsible for completely wasting the 1990 decade, because it was solely responsible for killing the county's "ready to go" project, that the county spent nearly the entire 1990s developing, at a cost of millions upon millions of COUNTY taxpayer money, that would go on to be completely wasted due to the Tri-W fraud.

Now, let's have a little fun with numbers: According to RWQCB figures "one million gallons a day" of pollution is coming out of Los Osos septics tanks... every... single... day. That's 365 million gallons of water pollution every year. Sooooo, where's my calculator? Let's see here... If it wasn't for the LOCSD/Tri-W fraud, the county's 1990s project would have been up and running, what? Let's just say 2000. Now, the county's current project won't be ending the pollution until, what? Let's just say 2015. That's 15 YEARS of water pollution completely attributable to the Tri-W fraud. 15 years, at 365 million gallons of pollution a year, which totals... damn! My calculator just exploded!

'toons, before I go, I have quick question for you: Do you think that my first New Times cover story, Problems With the Solution, published on July 6, 2000, and where I first exposed how the Karners' "better, cheaper, faster" disaster was about to fail, and then, immediately after that story was published, it failed, was accurate, OR, do you think that my reporting in that story was inaccurate, and that the Karners' "better, cheaper, faster" disaster did NOT fail?

Which one?

By Ron, at 11:34 AM, February 07, 2013
Ron, you might want to check the date of the hearing. Or not.

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 12:59 AM, February 08, 2013
Last I checked: "March 1, 2013, at 8:45AM"

What? Did the CSD ask for a different date? If so, no biggee. Lemme guess... they want the court date on June 12... one day past the Statute of Limitations. Ah, now that's the LOCSD that I've come to know.

'toons... what about my July 2000 cover story? Do you think it's accurate? (Kick-ass reporting, yes? I mean, look at what an amazing scoop that was -- I was the first, and sadly, ONLY reporter to show that the ONLY reason to form the Los Osos CSD in the first place -- the Karners' "better, cheaper, faster" "70-acre" "aquatic park" disaster -- wasn't going to work... and it wasn't going to work AFTER Pandora over-the-top hyped it to the residents of Los Osos for the previous three years, during which, it was also solely responsible for killing the County's "ready to go" project, that COUNTY taxpayers had spent some $6 million developing over the entire 1990s. SPECTACULAR story... and Pandora's friends at the worse-than-nothing Trib NEVER wrote one word about it. And, if they HAD done the slightest bit of follow-up to my intensely newsworthy cover story, the fraud that I'm about to lay out in Small Claims Court would have been fully exposed in 2000, and the project would have simply reverted back to the county's "ready to go" project... 13 years ago. That would have been the only logical thing to do at that point. Trib. Pathetic.)

Of course, equally pathetic is the fact that Roger Briggs -- just like the Karners -- ALSO was aware that "better, cheaper, faster" was never going to work, from day one (January 1998), but STILL allowed LOCSD vice-president, Pandora, to waste two years chasing it, and then it failed, as predicted... of course.

How cool is that? By allowing the LOCSD to waste two years on a DOA disaster -- that Briggs knew was never going to work -- Roger is directly responsible for 730 million gallons of water pollution. Of course, if we take that logic to its conclusion, Roger, it can be argued, is responsible for the past 15 years of water pollution in Los Osos... because had he just shown up at the first LOCSD meeting, and told them, "Look, if you waste one nano-second on that DOA disaster that you seem to call a 'project,' I am going to 'fine you out of existence.'"

HAD Roger simply done that, the county's "ready to go" project would have been up and running in about 2000.

See? ANOTHER example of the State of California's gross negligence in this dazzling case.

By Ron, at 11:59 AM, February 08, 2013
The Water Board can't tell you what sort of treatment to use. When the information about the ponds was later updated, it could match the nitrate requirements needed but would require many more acres than the land in town. You are completely wrong about people not wanting parks. The idea of natural treatment (ponds) and Step did not die out but was resurrected as a battle cry by the recall supporters. Could this have been done? Yes. Just not cheaply, which was a leftover fantasy from the Pandora days.

I don't get why you don't make the connection that I made above and harp on the recall supporters for carrying the object of your disaffection's ideas forward. Oh yes, I forgot, you have a thing for Julie which prevents that. Lucky girl!

Anyway, the County is involved in the case now. Look up the new date, which isn't, as of this writing, June 12.

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 2:05 AM, February 09, 2013
'tooooooons writes:

"The Water Board can't tell you what sort of treatment to use."

No, but they CAN tell you, "Look, if you waste one nano-second on a disaster that we all already know will never work, we will fine you WAAAAAAAY out of existence, immediately."

Ol' Rog COULD have said that at the 1st CSD meeting, but didn't, thus, it CAN be argued, the resulting 15 years of delay associated with the "better, cheaper, faster"/Tri-W fraud is solely Roger's fault... as I've been reporting forever. (I wonder if Rog will show up in court to watch this case. He's retired now, so he has the time.)

"... the County is involved in the case now."

Cool! Just when I thought my book ending couldn't get any betterer.

Soooo, 'toons? No comment on my July 2000 cover story? Accurate? Inaccurate? Do you love it? Hate it? Or, are you just going to go Wolcott, and pretend it doesn't exist?

By Ron, at 10:11 AM, February 09, 2013
Sad how you seem to need to beg for approval.

Legally, I don't think Briggs could have said that.

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 1:48 AM, February 10, 2013
'tooncie writes:

"Sad how you seem to need to beg for approval."

I'll just take that as you, "Going Wolcott," and pretending that my July 2000 New Times cover story doesn't exist.

Of all the logic contortions that you guys have to do to make your false narrative work in your tiny, iddy-biddy heads, that's one of my favorites -- the "pretend it doesn't exist" contortion.

I guess it was just "my opinion" that that story was published... on 40,000 copies... and distributed county-wide... on July 6, 2000, right?

That's another one of my favorite logic contortions from you guys: The "It's your opinion that [insert fact here]" contortion.

We see that one on display even in these comments: It's my "opinion" that a graphic of a 70-acre "aquatic park" shows up on page 5 of Pandora's "Summer 2000" "news"letter. According to you guys, that's just my OPINION that that graphic is on that page... in that document.

Fortunately for our great country, those contortions don't work in our justice. I'm pretty sure that when I introduce that "Summer 2000" "news"letter as evidence, you guys can't say to the judge, "Your honor, it's only Mr. Crawford's opinion that that document exists."

Well, you CAN do that... if you want to be even MORE embarrassed.

'toons writes:

"Legally, I don't think Briggs could have said that.

Now THAT's an opinion. See the difference?

By Ron, at 9:38 AM, February 12, 2013
There is no convincing you of the flaws in your so-called logic. Let's just see how this ends. Promise to report what happens, whichever way it goes?

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 2:18 AM, February 13, 2013
'toons writes:

"Promise to report what happens, whichever way it goes?"

Promise. Of course, you'll have to buy my book to read it. : -)

By Ron, at 9:03 AM, February 13, 2013
Oh, you mean that you won't blog what happened?

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 2:46 PM, February 13, 2013
'toons writes:

"Oh, you mean that you won't blog what happened?"

Oh, I probably will. (You'll send a FAT donation, in appreciation, right?... my little #1 fan.)

by the way, 'toons, above, you write:

"I will try to keep readers updated, as when you lose, which is every single time you come up with a harebrained scheme like this, you never write a thing about it."

What's interesting about that take, is that I've never "lost" any of my attempts to get the tiniest bit of justice in this case. As I've shown repeatedly, ALL of those conflicted, and, therefore, worse-than-nothing (at least in this case) "regulatory" agencies ALL just made up reasons not to even look at this amazing case. You know, like, "Not in our jurisdiction," when it IS in their jurisdiction, or, "The Statute of Limitations has expired," when it HASN'T expired, or just no reply at all.

In fact, that's a GREAT section in my book: A few years back, I began to notice that these agencies that give the appearance that they are around to actually HELP the People of California, were SOOOOOO conflicted on this mind-blowingly excellent story, that I actually started pressing them on pursuing it, already knowing they were just going to make something up on why they couldn't. The result? Chapter after excellent chapter of worse-than-nothingness. From Katcho to Kamala to Blakeslee. From the waaaaaay worse-than-nothing FPPC, to the waaaay conflicted SLO County Grand Jury. Oh, just on and on and on... Pandora's friends at the BOS, SLO County Sheriff's office, SLO County Counsel's office, AND SLO County DA's office... ALL of them just over-the-top-weaseling out, and simply making up reasons up on why they couldn't help the People of California, including the completely innocent CDOers.

TOTAL system meltdown, and a GREAT section of my book. (Uh, THANK YOU to all of those lazy, conflicted, worse-than-nothing agencies/people. They all played right into my writing strategy. Beautiful work guys! [Craig Swaim? You Rock!])

So, to be clear, right now, my win-loss record is 0-0 when it comes to finding justice in this amazing case. I haven't "lost" squat.

What's SO beautiful about the Small Claims Court procedure, is even if the SLO County Small Claims Court system is as conflicted in this case as ALL of the others that I mention above, at least I'll be able to FINALLY air out my spectacular evidence in a courtroom, BEFORE they make up a reason why they can't rule on it.

If you want something done right...

By Ron, at 9:46 AM, February 14, 2013
Nice ploy, you haven't really "lost" anything, all of those agencies were were simply weaseling out! All your losses were ACTUALLY WINS! WOW! Who knew?

So.... are the Moylen's aware of your proposal to speak on their behalf?

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 2:39 PM, February 14, 2013
'toons writes:

"All your losses were ACTUALLY WINS!"

Well, IF you could read, you would have noticed that what I actually wrote is that my win/loss record is 0-0. No wins. No losses. Which is exactly why I'll be seeing you on the 1st... that is, again, if you can find a seat (maybe Richard or Gordon will give you their's... maybe.)

'toons, the Typo Nazi writes:

"the Moylen's"

It's: the Moylan's... with an 'a,' Einstein. That's at least the second time you've done that in these comments.

Ya know, back at ol' Cal Poly journalism school, if someone turned in a story with a misspelled name, you got an automatic F.

By Ron, at 9:26 AM, February 15, 2013
This comment has been removed by the author.

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 1:58 AM, February 16, 2013
Sounds like you have become pals with the Moylans. Thanks for the spelling correction.

I never went to journalism school. Journalism school theoretically schools journalists. When did you decide to become an opinion piece writer?

Hmmm, you didn't exactly frame your challenges as anything but win-lose in past stories. When the Moylans walk out with nothing, what are you going to call that?

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 1:14 PM, February 16, 2013
'toonsy writes (at 1:58 AM... before she "removed" her comment... but not before it was emailed to me):

"Since I have corrected your spelling before, looks like we are now even. Looks like we both get Fs."

Well, if you could read, you would have noticed that it was only a misspelled name that warranted an automatic F. Simple typos were just a small ding on the overall grade. And, TRUST ME, I would get an A-fucking-plus for my story here.

So, to recap:

Me: A-fucking-plus

You: Automatic F

By the way, a GREAT little SewerWatch anecdote, is one I've never mentioned... until now:

When my New Times cover story, Problems With the Solution was first published in July, 2000 (you know, 'toons, the story that you and Wolcott have to pretend doesn't exist) the person that stopped by my house and handed me my first copy of that story, the morning it first hit the streets, was my looooong-time good friend, one Allan Park. Yep. THAT Allan Park -- the O.J. limo driver that the Trib profiled on Sunday.

How great is that? The person that delivered to me my first New Times cover story, was O.J.'s limo driver.

In the Trib's story, it also talks about how Allan hung out "with a friend" on the Redondo Beach pier until 10:00 p.m. the day the story broke.

That "friend" was my brother.

Small world.

By Ron, at 10:51 AM, February 18, 2013
Yeah, sorry about that first posting, I realized my mistake and corrected it.

But you haven't answered my question about your new chumminess with the Moylans. Did they ask you to be a witness?

You do realize that after you lose, according to the Court website, "As the plaintiff, you CANNOT appeal the judge's decision on your claim. Only the person or business you sued can appeal the decision." Fat chance the CSD/County will appeal the decision in their favor.

It's nice that it is YOU giving YOU an A+ and all. And I'm sure Mr. Park is thrilled to get a mention on a sewer blog......

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 3:31 PM, February 18, 2013
'toons writes:

"And I'm sure Mr. Park is thrilled to get a mention on a sewer blog

He called me on his way to that interview with the Trib, and I told him, when that story comes out, that I was going to relay that great story of him handing me my first copy of Problems With the Solution. He laughed.

You see, unlike you, 'toon's, Al-dog GETS jokes.

'tooncy sez:

"Fat chance the CSD/County will appeal the decision in their favor."

This would probably be a good time to recap what's happening here:

To make this as clear, and as simple as possible, ALL the CSD has to do on March 1, is either:

1) Explain why they popped out, and then mailed to "every" resident of Los Osos, a "news"letter hyping a "drop dead gorgeous" 70-acre aquatic park as "on schedule," when their own documentation (that I'll be submitting as evidence) clearly shows that that "drop dead gorgeous" 70-acre aquatic park had already failed at the time they (read: Pandora) popped out that "news"letter.

or

2) Explain how they were able to "carefully" study "over 50 potential sites" for a sewage treatment plant, develop (from scratch) a massively complex collection system, AND develop (from scratch) a massively complex treatment plant in just one month -- when it took the County three years to do the exact same thing -- and then that incredibly hastily developed disaster (that VERRRRRY conveniently for Gary and Pandora obfuscated the fact that the only reason to kill the County's then-"ready to go" project, AND form the LOCSD in the first place, the Karners' "better, cheaper, faster" scam, had failed, as Problems SOOOOOO accurately shows) ALSO failed, ten unbelievably, over-the-top disastrous years later, on June 11, 2010.

That's it.

That's all the District has to explain. If they can explain either one of those arguments, then, hey, they probably WILL get the ruling in their favor. Of course, the problem they face is that BOTH of those takes are air-tight accurate, as their OWN documentation proves: Pandora's LOCSD "Summer 2000" "news"letter WAS a fraud, obviously, aimed at deliberately confusing property owners into voting for her assessment scam, AND the unbelievably (literally) hastily developed Tri-W disaster WAS nothing more than a fraud, to cover up the fact the the Karners' "better, cheaper, faster" scam had failed.

And that's why I call the argument that I'll be presenting on March 1, my "Checkmatier Argument": Either one of those I mention above shows fraud, yet BOTH of them are nails-tight accurate.

Oh lord, just like I write in my main piece: This... is... going... to... be... fun! (I don't know who the District is going to send to represent them, but I already feel sorry for that person. This is going to be VERY embarrassing for that person, when they attempt to answer those two arguments. I mean, fer godsake, "better, cheaper, faster" had ALREADY failed when LOCSD vice-president popped out that "Summer 2000" "news"letter raving about how "on schedule" that scam was. Uhg. Em-bar-ras-sing!)

tooncy writes:

"But you haven't answered my question about your new chumminess with the Moylans. Did they ask you to be a witness?"

Welp, you're about to find out on March 1, arncha?

By Ron, at 10:50 AM, February 20, 2013
Accurate? Doubtful. It wasn't one month.

Relevant, not even close. I don't think you'll sell your version of the facts to the judge. But go ahead, have "fun."

Will you take a loss as a loss this time or just pretend the count is still 0 to 0?

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 8:19 PM, February 20, 2013
'toons, quick question: Do ever get tired of being embarrassingly wrong, publicly? It sure doesn't seem like it.

I mean, above [10/30/12], 'toons writes:

"November of 2000 Pandora was off the board, so she was not around to create a pretty brochure for the assessment."

Embarrassingly wrong, and embarrassingly wrong.

According to Pandora's own web site, she created that "pretty brochure" WHILE she was "LOCSD vice-president" AND "Chair" of the "LOCSD Wastewater Standing Committee."

See, your problems (plural), 'toons, are that 1) you don't know how to read, and 2) you don't know how to click on a link (although, not that #2 matters, considering that you don't know how to read, so it wouldn't even matter if you DID know how to click on a link.)

So, 'toons, ask you friend, Pandora, this question: Why did she, as "LOCSD vice-president" AND "Chair" of the "LOCSD Wastewater Standing Committee," pop out that "Summer 2000" "news"letter, raving about how "on schedule" her "70-acre" ponding system was, when the District's OWN documents show that disaster had failed loooong before she popped out that "news"letter.

Because, after I enter all of my excellent evidence, that's exactly what I'll be asking the Judge.

Why would she do that? Well, clearly, there's only one answer to that excellent question: Fraud... and, even worse, fraud aimed at the same people that paid for the fraud. Ouch!

C-ya on the 1st, 'toons.

By Ron, at 11:28 AM, February 21, 2013
Is that all you have Ron?

Immaterial Stuff:

• You know that Pandora was replaced by Frank Freiler in the November 2000 election! As to whether she left office then or in January 2001, is immaterial.

• You never did give us a link to a scan of the newsletter on that webpage you link us to, where you can read that the project had changed by the headlines ("People are asking questions about the wastewater project. Why has it changed? Where will it be, and why? How can we pay for it?"), but the date is illegible. So where is that brochure scan and link? What is the date?

• Where is a link to a scan you should have made of the "assessment brochure" as you call it? The assessment ballot was opened June 21, 2001. What did people agree to assess themselves for? You keep thinking it was for ponds and Step, but it wasn't.

• Your link only goes to that sample page of her website, but nothing is there to substantiate that it was created at any particular time. Nor does her grafted on bio on that other link substantiate anything.

• So what we have is a summer newsletter that you claim arrived on July 7. Do you have one that is postmarked? Probably not, those things are usually mailed out of a mailing house using a postal indicia with no postmark date.

• In May of 2006 even Bleskey said the assessment was used for the purpose intended, no refund would be available.

• I've countered your gobbledegook in prior posts and won't bother to repeat them here.

Material Stuff:

• The project was approved by all of the regulating agencies, was in progress and because of lies and a recall, it was stopped by 20 votes. If not for that, we'd be flushing and forgetting right now.

• The Coastal Commission did not approve the Tri-W project on June 11, 2010 as it was not the project before the board.

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 3:32 AM, February 22, 2013
C-ya on the 1st, 'toons... if you can find a seat.

By Ron, at 9:24 AM, February 22, 2013
Well, in case someone is still reading over here and in case Ron hasn't yet heard the news, Mike Seitz, LOCSD General Counsel announced at tonight's meeting that the judge came in with his ruling today and his decision was in favor of the District.

So..... how are you going to favorably spin this loss Ron?

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 2:39 AM, March 08, 2013
'tooncy writes:

"So..... how are you going to favorably spin this loss Ron?"

Are you kidding? That whole experience was GREAT, and I'm just getting started. I'm a seasoned Small Claims Court pro, now!

Ya know, 'toons, considering that you and Lou, like over 4,000 other PZ property owners, are STILL paying $200-something a year for the Tri-W fraud on your property tax bill -- and will continue to pay for that scam for the next f-ing 20 years -- you guys could be my NEXT "client."

It'll be great! We'll take what we learned from Round 1, and then knock 'em out in Round in 2.

By the way, it was lovely finally meeting you. See? I don't bite.

By Ron, at 10:13 AM, March 08, 2013
Sorry Ron, maybe wasting time of both "clients" and the court are fun for you........

No, Lou and I won't be clients. We were fine with Tri-W and know that money was spent on permits, plans and land. We were bummed when the project stopped soon after we moved here in 2005. And we can all see what the costs to stopping that project was to the community. I think there are 15 years left to pay on that one and now we get to pay for the next one too. Plus, we have an almost $25,000 lien on our house.

So what is "Round 2?" How much is that going to cost some poor person - that is if you get any takers. It's clear you will need a new angle.

Yes, the meeting......lovely. Apparently you left your fangs at home here on the blog.

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 2:02 AM, March 09, 2013
Ah, Ron, you are having waaaayyyyy too much fun. Ditto for Toonces.

By Churadogs, at 7:09 AM, March 09, 2013
'toons writes:

"... that money was spent on permits, plans and land."

Uhhhh... 'toons? That's kinda the point. The money WAS wasted on permits, plans, and land. Permits that were NEVER used. Plans that were NEVER used. And a gigantic chunk of land, that was NEVER used for a mid-town "picnic area"/sewer plant (god, that's funny just typing that phrase. It makes me laugh.)

and;

"No, Lou and I won't be clients. We were fine with Tri-W..."

MEMO to Jimmy Fallon: I found two other people that don't want "cash back" -- other than that adorable little baby you use in your credit card commercials.

Chura writes:

"Ron, you are having waaaayyyyy too much fun."

Yep, and it's about to get A LOT fun-er.

By Ron, at 9:53 AM, March 09, 2013
Ron, the plans were never used because of 20 votes, hardly a mandate. They used most of the collection system plans and Tri-W was used as the current project mitigation, so all that was lost was the permits.

By Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 3:24 PM, March 09, 2013
This is a great post. I am concerned with the Calgary sewers. Someone has to be.

By Unknown, at 12:18 PM, March 15, 2013
Nothing like a great plumberto help you out of sewage like this!

By Unknown, at 1:10 PM, October 21, 2016

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

I Need A "Client" -- Who Wants Their "$3,500" Bucks Back?

90 Comments:

Previous