Wednesday, December 27, 2006

Never Say Die!

Apparently some aren't as burned out on the Eureka City Council appointment issue as I am. Members of the Eureka Civic Association must be among them.

They've found an attorney that says it wasn't the intent of the framers of the Eureka City Charter to allow the Mayor the tie- breaking vote in contested council appointments- Apparently a last ditch attempt to shift the balance of power on the Eureka City Council.

Of course, he seems to think the Charter allows tie- breaking votes on any other issue.

Reminds me of gun control opponents who say The People, as mentioned in the Bill of Rights, applies to the entire citizenry except in the case of the second amendment- the one that guarantees The People a right to keep and bear arms.
***********

Eureka resident(?), Goerge Clark, must be someone who won't let go of the issue either. He had a My Word column published in today's Times- Standard, although I was unable to find it online.

He suggests that the Eureka City Council is going against the will of people by not holding a special election to fill the city council position. He refers to the city council meeting where the issue was discussed, suggesting that the vast majority of those attending wanted a special election.

Seems to me I recall reading press reports of the meeting that said the audience seemed evenly split on the issue. Besides, that was just who showed up for the meeting and decided to stay until the issue was addressed. What about the people who left early or those that didn't show up at all?

George even threw out some anti- Arkley and anti- Marina Center rhetoric, something that's been a pleasure not to hear anywhere but some of the Humboldt blogs since the election.

I guess some people just won't let it go and, since they won't, I guess I can't either, as much as I'd like to.

53 Comments:

At 10:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.times-standard.com/opinion/ci_4907117

 
At 10:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Odds are, Bass will end up being in the position to cast the tie breaking vote because the Council will no doubt be split. Guess they are just putting even more pressure on her to find a candidate that can receive a unanimous vote-

Good Luck

 
At 10:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Clark owns the Kyota Restaurant

 
At 11:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Arkley wouldn't be caught dead in Kyoto, the restaurant that is-

 
At 11:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's hard to have a unanimous vote when one of the players, Chris Kerrigan, seems to want to take his ball and go home. I do have hopes that Larry Glass will work with the committee.
Really, Virginia has put the Neal Latts of the world on the defensive, by working towards a consensus, using a committee of folks from across the political spectrum.
If, If, If, the committee comes up with a recommendation, AND it's a two two split, I believe that Virginia, will be within her rights to cast the tie breaking vote, as the public process will have shown that two members werent willing to work together. That's what is so great about this, it will be a public process, open and transparent.

 
At 11:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I watched the eureka city council meeting the night of the new council was sworn in, and I dont think that its any surprise that an attorney chimed in with "virginia cant cast the tiebreaking vote". The Eureka City attorney said that she expected that there would be legal opinions stating as much.

 
At 11:52 AM, Blogger Fred said...

"Chris Kerrigan, seems to want to take his ball and go home. I do have hopes that Larry Glass will work with the committee.'.

I'm thinking along the same lines. My gut feeling is that Kerrigan will stick with trying to get the hardest left wing, strongest anti- Marina Center candidate appointed. Not so sure about Glass. I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up being fairly even handed about it.

I could very well be wrong. Only time will tell.

 
At 12:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So is Mrs. Bass does not consider any appointee who has expressed any anti-marina center opinions in the past, doesn't she really compare in many ways to Mr. Kerrigan's probably stance?

In other words, what does each figure need to do to make this work?


Just playing devil's advocate

 
At 12:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Glass was the leader of CREG. He sold Anti-Arkleyville stickers out of his shop. Glass may work with the council on some issues - but his vote has already been cast on the Marina Center.

 
At 12:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Has anybody heard anything more about the Arkley-The Movie, like maybe the directors name and how one could contribute to it?

 
At 2:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wonder what SF law firm this guy is from since there is not a Michael Zinn listed with the Cal.State Bar Association?

There is a
Zinn, David Michael Active 152067 Washington December 1990 (Wash DC)
Zinn, Frederic Michael Active 108719 Kingston June 1983 (New York)
and a
Zinn, Wayne Michael Active 63299 Anaheim Hills December 1974 (not in sf but in so.cal.)

who is going to share on this?

 
At 2:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"who is going to share on this?"


Wow, who's doing this research?


ER staff? T-S Staff?

Crawford?

 
At 2:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Try Matthew D. Zinn

 
At 2:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interestingly, one of the other lawyers there is Deborah Keeth, who is an HSU grad and did some work on Humboldt economics about six years ago.

 
At 3:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is setting up for the Supreme Court (how exciting hope you have lots of $,$$$,$$$ Neal) since Virginia will choose from the 3 candidates selected by a committee of moderates. Kerrigan and Glass can vote to approve this person or-Kerrigan can dig his heals in, Glass may cave in to Kerrrigan's will-but the deciding vote will be Virginia's. Cool.

Go ahead and take it to court-the new city attorney isn't going to back down just because you hired some out of town litigator.

 
At 3:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I believe there is no chance that Virginia will select ANYONE who could possibly have any serious questions about the Marina Center. She would never do that in honor of those who helped get her elected.

So... will Kerrigan conceed? Doubt it. For the very same reasons.

But why should he if the same arguement can be made for the other side? Simply because she has a vote (atleast she believes she does)

I think the only thing that sounds attractive about a special election is the people could decide it, once and for all. Too bad it cost so much.

I bet if Arkley needed the election to get his candidate in, he would offer to pay for the special election himself-

 
At 3:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It might not need to be a private court case. The state Attorney General has the prerogative to investigate the legalities of charter law.

 
At 3:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

hint: it's not a Republican.

 
At 3:37 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

Reminds me of gun control opponents who say The People, as mentioned in the Bill of Rights, applies to the entire citizenry except in the case of the second amendment- the one that guarantees The People a right to keep and bear arms.

There are some similarities in the argument, but it's a little bit different. The gun controller's argument is as follows:

As I pointed out on my blog, every word in a law is presumed to have meaning and purpose, and not put there for decoration, as is any difference of law. It's a basic principle of legal interpretation. So basically:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

cannot be interpreted as

The right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The prefacing clause must have meaning and effect. Unfortunately, the drafters left no clue as to what a "well regulated militia" is.

 
At 3:38 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

Anon 2:00 - the ER names him as "Matthew Zinn."

 
At 4:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gee, I guess I will go to the ER to get the name correct. The TS has him as Michael!

I am wondering who is paying him for this. I have met Neal and he could't afford a haircut.

 
At 4:54 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

Here he is.

Admittedly, he's a bit green. Apparently in more ways than one.

But it doesn't make him wrong, and it's a very basic argument.

 
At 5:10 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Eric wrote,"Unfortunately, the drafters left no clue as to what a "well regulated militia" is.".

Well, since there was effectively no standing army back then, at least as we know it today, 1st Revolution excepted, I would say it was generally the citizenry at large. That's how they dealt with military affairs back then.

Nowadays, Title 10 of the United States Code (I think), defines the militia as any able bodied male over 18 or 21 years of age. I forget what exact age it specifies.

 
At 5:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred you Shithead, the 2nd Amendment is about the *states* rights to keep and bear arms. If you had passed high school civics, you would know that.

PLEASE SIGN UP FOR EUREKA ADULT SCHOOL!

 
At 5:25 PM, Blogger Fred said...

The articles in the Bill of Rights are limitations placed on the federal government, shithead.

Here we go again; The People, according to this lefty is the government. So, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," means the right of state government to be secure from unreasonable searches by the feds?

Hmmmmm....

 
At 6:49 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

Fred - so then what is a "well regulated militia" as opposed to a mere militia?

Also, the anon poster has a point. None of the rights was applied against state governments until the 14th Amendment. Just ask Dred Scott.

 
At 7:47 PM, Blogger Anon.R.mous said...

I'm glad someone who is well versed in Environmental Law based out of San Francisco working for a EVIL LLC is telling the local control people what is right or wrong.

http://www.smwlaw.com/m_zinn.html

Do I have to do everything for you guys? Calling this fellow a "Bit Green" is like saying the Pope is a "Bit Catholic"

Matthew D. Zinn

Mr. Zinn joined Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger in 2001 after clerking for the Hon. John M. Walker, Jr., Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. He graduated magna cum laude from the University of Michigan Law School and received an MS in environmental policy from the University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment. Mr. Zinn served on the senior editorial board of the Michigan Law Review and was elected to the Order of the Coif. He received a BA with honors in politics and sociology from the University of California at Santa Cruz in 1994.

Since joining the firm, Mr. Zinn has represented clients in litigation and counseling capacities involving air quality regulation, Fifth Amendment regulatory takings, CEQA, endangered species conservation, water supply planning, and the public trust doctrine. Mr. Zinn’s work has included the following:

*

Defending the State Water Resources Control Board in several lawsuits filed by the federal Bureau of Reclamation and various water contractors challenging enforcement of water quality standards in the San Francisco Bay Delta;
*

Defending the South Coast Air Quality Management District in litigation at the trial and appellate level challenging the District’s regulation of air emissions from oil refineries (W. States Petroleum Ass’n v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 136 Cal. App. 4th 1012 (2006));
*

Defending the City of San Francisco in the United States Supreme Court in an action challenging the City’s affordable housing ordinance (San Remo Hotel v. City & County of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323 (2005));
*

Filing an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court on behalf of the National Council of Churches and other religious groups in Massachusetts v. EPA, No. 05-1120, supporting the petitioners’ challenge to EPA’s refusal to regulate motor vehicle emissions of greenhouse gases;
*

Challenging, on behalf of the East Bay Regional Park District, the City of Richmond’s approval of the sale of City property along the shoreline of San Francisco Bay for development of a casino;
*

Defending the City of Walnut in multiple litigation at the trial and appellate levels challenging the City’s decisions to protect habitat for the threatened California gnatcatcher;
*

Defending several of the firm’s municipal clients in litigation challenging various land use decisions; and
*

Assisting the City of Patterson in preparing one of the state’s first water supply verifications pursuant to new water supply planning legislation (SB 221) enacted in 2001.

From January to June of 2006, Mr. Zinn served as the first Environmental Law Fellow at Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley. Mr. Zinn conducted research on public policy responses to global climate change and worked with Boalt’s California Center for Environmental Law and Policy on a project to create a digital database of environmental impact assessment documents.

Mr. Zinn’s prior experience includes work as an assistant to the Associate Director for Natural Resources of the White House Office on Environmental Policy. While in law school he worked for the National Audubon Society’s litigation program; the Policy, Legislation, and Special Litigation Section of the Environment and Natural Resources Division at the U.S. Department of Justice; and the law firm of Arnold and Porter.

Mr. Zinn has published several articles on environmental, land use, and administrative law topics, including the following: California's New Water-Supply Planning Statutes: Selected Problems of Application, 2002 Cal. Envtl. L. Rep. 123; Policing Environmental Regulatory Enforcement: Cooperation, Capture, and Citizen Suits, 21 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 81 (2002); and Note, Ultra Vires Takings, 97 Mich. L. Rev. 245 (1998).

Mr. Zinn is a member of the State Bar of California and admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

 
At 7:50 PM, Anonymous jaime matteoli said...

I think that fred needs to be a eureka councilman.

 
At 8:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A "Green" lawyer? Who cares? What difference does it make?

Are we accusing Virginia Bass as anti-green?

 
At 9:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know you Jaime...you were at my house last week......

 
At 9:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

but does that me right, left, or....what????

 
At 9:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

and I agree, fred, ROCKS...ps, so do you
your wife, and the kids

 
At 9:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My understanding is Dr. Ken Miller has paid for the opinion. Him of the $200 phone in 215.

 
At 9:32 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

I'm glad someone who is well versed in Environmental Law based out of San Francisco working for a EVIL LLC is telling the local control people what is right or wrong.

I don't know what he said about "right or wrong." He did however offer a legal opinion about the Charter as written.

And by "green" I primarily meant inexperienced. However, it would appear that he has done much with his five years of practice.

 
At 2:32 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred writes:

"Here we go again; The People, according to this lefty is the government. So, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," means the right of state government to be secure from unreasonable searches by the feds?"

Fred.... I think this goes without saying, but youre defending the 2nd amendment by using the 4th...
If you had paid attention in high school class, you would know that none of the rights in the constitution is absolute. Take a good long look at what's going on today. Or for you Fred I'll repeat the simple analogy of yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

That being said, when you look at the whole 2nd amendement (I know you only like the second half but try not to cherry pick) even you must admit that it is not clearly in favor of individuals rights. I think at the least, even Eric would agree that 'well-regulated militia' implies organization. In this time frame, we are talking about white men of a certain age... Thats certainly not everyone dear Fred, thats certainly not 'the people'. Hell, those southern rednecks (Sorry if I offended you Fred) didnt want blacks to go to their public schools not that long ago Freddie.

Maybe you should run for city council Fred. Hell, its full of heavy drinkers so you'd fit right in.

 
At 9:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pray tell, what makes an environmental lawyer have special skills at interpreting a city charter?

And why is Miller who lives in Mck so involved with the eureka city council.

This is a big stinky Fred.

 
At 12:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What business does a legal resident of Louisiana have interfering in our local politics?

 
At 1:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred may not be the most intelligent person, but what he lacks in grey matter he makes up with in spirit!

 
At 1:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

12:54, get a life and get over the Arkleys...their family has lived here for an eternity. So have they and they have lots of businesses etc.

Miller is the pot doctor from Mck.

Zinn is an environmental lawyer (probably quite good) from SF.

Its like apples and oranges!

 
At 6:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rob Arkley's Daddy has been issuing rants on the local AM radio opinion line so nasty that most Klansmen would be repelled.

Does Daddy's son share any of the old man's attitudes or vitriol?

 
At 8:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

6:25 - I repeat...get a life.

 
At 9:42 AM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

I like apples. And oranges.

 
At 10:34 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Virginia will name the best qualified candidate to be the next Eureka City Council 2nd Ward representative.

Probably be either her husband or Travis Schnieder.

 
At 10:37 AM, Blogger Fred said...

I don't believe her husband is one of the people who filed papers for the job.

 
At 12:59 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

Also like peaches. Nectarines are my favorite. I've heard they're actually a cross between a peach and a plum.

 
At 4:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Polly Endert was Virginia's choice for the 2nd Ward. Any history on this person? Why her?

 
At 4:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

runs the Quality Inn, is in Rotary, does very good things in the community, is a woman, is smart, has consensus skills and.......won't be led around by the nose by anyone whatsoever.

I like her already!

 
At 4:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't tell me you were in the dark about the fact that the Arkleys are racists? Do any African-Americans work for Security National? (I doubt it.....) And in regards to "Arkley-The Movie", that was already done: it's called "The Great Dictator" starring Charlie Chaplin.

 
At 4:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How dare you say the rich-ass spolied brat Robin Arkley, Jr. is a racist! Why do you think he's such a right-wing Republican?

 
At 6:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"6:25 - I repeat...get a life. 8:45 AM"

I respond in this manner: You snivelling coward!

How DARE you questions my personal life!

I want you to be completely aware that I do, indeed, have a life. And a good life, it is, too.

My life is here, on this blog!

Here, I make the lives of others safe from foolish rants like yours; while simultaneously making them safe for rants like mine, which only serve to enlighten humankind.

Now, will everyone please refocus their attention on my question.

Does Robin Arkley, the son, share any of his Daddy's nasty attitudes toward other members of the human race?

This is so important a question, I cannot believe it has fallen to me and me alone to ask it. People! Get with it, everybody!

Remember, I did not say the old Arkley was RACIALLY biased. He might hate EVERYBODY, as far as I know from his radio comments.

Tell me what YOU know.

 
At 7:51 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric - he did not offer a legal opinion - he wrote an advocacy letter. He did not incur any liability and you know that.

 
At 1:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Arkleys ARE racist, from what I know about them.

 
At 1:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, I don't believe Eric can tell the difference. It would take some legal skills to know the difference.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home