The waft of sunshine blowing up Humboldt County’s nether region was struck down Monday when a judge threw out a lawsuit by one of Rob Arkley’s oddly-named developer groups.
Humboldt Sunshine filed the suit in February in attempts to force the County to open up more land for what they call affordable housing. But opponents of the suit saw it as the latest strong-arm tactic by developers who desire a countryside riddled with McMansions.
The shiners have 30 days to amend and re-file the lawsuit.
So this is like the DA’s lawsuit, but wasn’t created on the taxpayer’s dime?
Well, it was fought on the taxpayer’s dime and will continue to be if Arkley pushes it.
But unlike the DA’s suit, this one was tossed on a motion to strike.
It didn’t even get to first base…
Correction: According to the ER the judge granted both a motion to strike and demurrer.
Ok so it is no different than the DA’s suit.
Humboldt Sunshine — how Orwellian. It also sounds like it could be a name of some type of a contraband agricultural product.
Ok so it is no different than the DA’s suit.
The DA’s suit against Palco was thrown out on demurrer, not a motion to strike. Arkley’s suit against the County was thrown out on both.
Humboldt Sunshine — how Orwellian.
It is. Their logo could be a smiley face with gleaming teeth. And it would be raining money.
Yep, this is almost as good as all the frivilous antipalco suits gettin tossed…
What did the court strike and what was the demurrer granted for? Isn’t true that they can amend the complaint unlike the DA’s suit?
“Humboldt Sunshine — how Orwellian. It also sounds like it could be a name of some type of a contraband agricultural product”
Carol, I agree! It’s just as Orwellian as names like “Local Solutions”, “Citizens for Real Economic Development” “Baykeepers” and a number of others…
Dontcha just hate it when the other side uses the same tactics used by groups you support?
BTW, I think its deplorable on all sides, and I am glad it got tossed, just as I will be glad when CREG goes by the wayside as the balloon tract gets developed.
What makes you think CREG is going to go away, 10:03?
Carol,
I believe that the balloon tract will be developed, as planned.
Even if they don’t, in fact, go away, they will be irrelevant.
Anon,
What about the contamination? Do you feel it will be cleaned up completely if at all?
Carol
Carol,
You probably better skeedaddle back on over to the site to make sure no more skullduggery is going on.
Of course it will the site will be cleaned up – as per the requirements currently set up under the law; you know, the same standards that everyone else is required to adhere to.
all the frivilous antipalco suits
All of them? Which ones, aside from the DA’s suit (which was not ruled to be “frivilous”).
No skeedaddling for me, thank you, as there are many others that are keeping an eye out on the “goings-on” at the site, such as the groups you previously mentioned, plus official governmental agencies.
I don’t care to partake in another blog-fight with you either -
I have enough on my plate right now!
Cheerio!
10:03am,I want to know who the Citizens For Real Economic Development are?I’ve never heard of them,and who are they a front for?
C-FRED! Hmmm….
Ahhh, you have no “cred” yourself, Heraldo…dang, I got the group name a wee bit off; still doesnt change the fact that there are groups around here on the left that are every bit as “Orwellian” as the Humboldt sunshine group.
Heraldo,
As you know, you already got your ass kicked two weeks ago on this, as you were deleting posts as fast as they were posted that were bringing up the statute of limitations on the most recent lawsuit.
As far as the frivilous(sp) lawsuits, here ya go…
(or go to Rose’s blog)
http://watchpaul.blogspot.com/2007/05/who-is-bob-martel-executive-director-of.html
“Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Who is Bob Martel? “Executive Director” of “Humboldt Watershed Council”
He’s listed as the “Executive Director” of “Humboldt Watershed Council.”
In April of 2000 the North Coast Journal reported that “Local activist Bob Martel received an expensive setback this week in his ongoing battle against Pacific Lumber and its parent company, MAXXAM. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Martel’s appeal to an earlier decision in MAXXAM’s favor and ordered him to pay the company legal fees of more than $110,000.
The case concerns the failure in 1988 of a savings and loan association in which MAXXAM and its chairman, Charles Hurwitz, were investors. Martel contends that Hurwitz exercised control over the company; Hurwitz denies the charges. Related cases are still pending, but the court ruled that Martel’s case was “frivolous.”
Martel disputes that claim, saying that the suit cost him $250,000 and took five years of research. That, he said, “doesn’t actually fit the definition of frivolous.”
As to how he might pay the legal fees awarded by the court, Martel said he hasn’t earned “more than six thousand dollars in a year in recent memory”
MAXXAM spokesman Josh Reiss said that the corporation intends to pursue the claim.
###
On April 29, they reported that “A taxpayer and a local nonprofit group have been ordered to pay legal fees for two separate lawsuits involving Pacific Lumber and its chief stockholder, Charles Hurwitz.
In 1995, Humboldt County resident Robert Martel filed suit against Hurwitz, alleging he had defrauded the federal government of $1.6 billion in the collapse of the United Savings Association of Texas 11 years ago, according to a report in the Times-Standard. Now Martel has been ordered by U.S. District Court Judge Lynn Hughes to pay Hurwitz’ $110,123 in legal fees and expenses.
Hughes ruled that Martel’s suit was “abusive litigation” because Martel had based much of his suit on information garnered from newspaper reports. Hughes also said Martel, who had filed the suit as a taxpayer, lacked standing to sue on behalf of the federal government.
Neither Martel nor Hurwitz could be reached for comment.
In a separate case, the Garberville-based Environmental Protection Information Center was ordered to pay Pacific Lumber $17,731 in legal costs as a result of a June 1997 lawsuit. EPIC sued PL in March of 1995, maintaining that the California Department of Forestry should have prepared an environmental impact study before it granted the company a salvage-logging permit for spotted owl habitat now protected as part of the Headwaters Reserve.
EPIC spokesperson Kevin Bundy said U.S. District court judge Louis Bechtle dismissed the suit because EPIC “couldn’t convince the court (salvage logging) would violate the endangered species act.”
John A. Campbell, PL president, recently issued a statement saying PL is entitled to the court costs.
“The favorable court ruling highlighted that salvage and other logging would not cause a take of endangered species,” he said. “The court … made clear in this case that endangered species would benefit from the working relationship developed by Pacific Lumber, federal wildlife agencies and the California Department of Forestry.”
Bundy said the amount EPIC must pay is a fraction of the $700,000 PL originally requested to cover fees.
###
In other coverage, it is reported that: “Judge Hughes characterized Martel’s pleading as “Regurgitating politicized half-truths” …Describing Martel as “a bystander” who “knows nothing, saw nothing, did nothing,” U.S. District Court Judge Lynn N. Hughes determined that Martel “lacks standing, was not the original source of the information, and filed his suit too late.” Martel filed suit in January 1995, saying he was bringing the action on behalf of the U.S. government; however, the U.S. government declined to participate in the suit. (Missed another statute of limitations did ya, guys?)
Is this why getting Paul Gallegos to file the lawsuit for them was so important? Martel and Miller lacked standing.
And who paid the $250,000 Martel claims to have paid out?”
See you cant really answer with anything but pot shots – substitute Growth for Development and lay off your stash for a bit Mark, and I think it’ll become apparent…
you were deleting posts as fast as they were posted that were bringing up the statute of limitations on the most recent lawsuit.
There’s a nice little thread on a previous post in which the SOL was discussed. Sorry you missed it.
“There’s a nice little thread on a previous post in which the SOL was discussed. Sorry you missed it.”
Didnt miss it Heraldo; we caught it, especially your deletions of cogent, relevant, non-spam which called you to task on several issues…
Posts which you deleted in a comical frenzy, until you were nabbed over on Rose’s blog.
If memory serves me correctly there was mention in the town dandy’s column regarding the post in question in your blog, yet, curiously, you had deleted it, rofl.
Your memory fails, sorry to say. Here’s the SOL thread which inspired the Town Dandy.
I think it’s “steee – rike!”
There was some debate about that. I thought the emphasis should be on the “ike.”
ahh heraldo, spin it all you want, but the fact remains that you deleted comments that didnt spin things the way you hoped they would be spun…facts got in the way of your spin, so you just deleted…
Mark or Heraldo,what-ever. CREG is irrelevant right now. Carol isn’t it nice that you all have the time to spy on a private property owner,that’s Orwellian. Mark don’t even try to spin your BS on removing posts or we’ll be back on you like slime on a progressive. Will be a short time till we have an eyesore gone from Eureka. Good for Rob. Good for us. Good for Carol.
Hi. Mark here. Just thought I’d let you know that I am not Heraldo, and I have no idea who he (or she?) may be.
Of course, I can’t prove that and I’m sure you won’t believe me anyway, so I’m not sure why I even bother.
Oh, Hi, Mark, Welcome to the party. I never thought you were Heraldo. Heraldo won’t tell us who he is, and there has been some conjecturing from anons that you are him/her/whatever.
Which eyesore will be gone from Eureka, 8:37?
“Which eyesore will be gone from Eureka, 8:37? “
This is typical of both Carol and her dear hubby Greg – more deflection, not dealing with is being talked about…
As if the eyesore isn’t well known, especially with the primary opposition of the project being mentioned in the same post…
Back to the issue though – why can’t you acknowledge that while in fact, a group with a name like Humboldt Sunshine is rather “Orwellian” (which, btw, I agree) that other groups on the other side of the political spectrum such as CREG, Baykeepers, Local Solutions, and many others, are just as “Orwellian”.
You just hate it when the other side resorts to the same tactics that you guys have been using; i.e. quasi-official sounding names, and barrages of lawsuits.
Ah thank you – finally a good round of posts, not deleted and right on point.
way to go 8:10
Oh THAT eyesore. That is the trouble with being vague in these posts. I actually thought this was suggesting someone was moving to Baton Rouge.
“Vague”….uhhhh sure. A pot shot at the Arkley’s , which has no substance proves that you, 9:39, have no valid response.
Thanks so much for contributing Ork.
*yawn*
“the big eyesore”,you mean the building on 5th and D which houses Starbucks cofee?
Sure Mark, that is sooooo ugly, especially when balanced against what was there before.
I do agree that the area was fairly ugly prior too.The building just sticks out like a sore thumb though.I guess it depends on taste.
Define “Orwellian”:Orwellian (of or relating to the works of George Orwell (especially his picture of a future totalitarian state)- from:
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
I am not sure about which side you think I am on, anon, 8:10. How do you know?
Regarding eyesores: there are plenty of eyesores all around this geographically beautuful area from illegal dumping to too much signage on Broadway. If you are referring to the Balloon Tract(k), I believe that it is looking better than before (Thank you). My concern is all the pollution left over from the railroad’s heyday is seeping in the bay. This does not mean I am not concerned about other sites along our bay that have contamination.
I have shellfished on the east coast in my childhood. I don’t shellfish here, but I will eat some shellfish now and then from the bay but am concerned about the dioxin levels.
P.S. Do you think there really will be a functioning railroad again?
Carol said:
“Define “Orwellian”:Orwellian (of or relating to the works of George Orwell (especially his picture of a future totalitarian state)- from:
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn “
Yes, and it fits the definition of all of these cutsey named orgs, regardless of whether they come from the right, OR the left.
For you to infer that totalitarian states only exist in right leaning
countries/states/situtions is ludicrous.
The FACTS are that they have (and do continue to) existed in countries from both sides of the spectrum, but then again a political extremist such as yourself is unwilling to acknoweldge as much.
“I am not sure about which side you think I am on, anon, 8:10. How do you know?”
I “know”, based on you and your husband’s past posts/rants on this blog as well as others. That is how I “know”. It is quite clear. For you to suggest that you are in fact, on the fence, or that your positions are not known is comical.
Well good, that you acknowledge that we are comical. I hope you realize that my comment regarding Humboldt Sunshine sounding Orwellian and like a contraband agricultural product was intended to be humorous. Come on, keep your sense of humor!
Your comment indeed included a humorous pot reference, but given that you later included a definition of “Orwellian”, I seriously doubt you intended that to be be humorous.
What IS funny is you and others refusal to aknowledge that Rob Arkley is simply playing the same game that groups like the Baykeepers, EPIC and others have been doing for years.
Personally, I think the tactics are shitty, regardless WHO is behind them.
You are as mentally small as Mark is without his lifts. You might as well be pissing on your own foot as trying to place someone like Arkley in a box of your creation. He doesn’t need anything in or from Humboldt County. He has such a busy life that most of you would drop dead trying to keep up with him on only one day. Your silly,little ideas about his motives are so damn dumb its beyond belief. Carol I’m sure you’re a very nice lady but seriously you are not on the ball enough to even hold a secratary’s position with him. What you should do is try to learn from people who are smarter than you. People who are more generous than you. People who do much more than you. Arkley is all of those. Slip off your shoe and drain out the piss.
At least Carol can spell “secretary”. Pffft.
Ooooooooooohhh a spelling error!!!
You sure told 10:40, Greg.
LMAO. God it is so rich to see windbagGreg show up to defend his wife.
This is getting too fun. 10:40 and 11:56 – thank you for making me lmao -