MISSION CITY LANTERN

Heartland Institute, Recent stories

2012-02-10T16:19:00.000-08:00

.Michele Ryan: Santa Clara Plays Fair

February 3, 2012 Steve Stanek

The San Francisco 49ers of the National Football League are trying to borrow $850 million that would be backed by taxpayers to build a stadium in Santa Clara, Calif. The costs and taxpayer risks have skyrocketed beyond what local officials promised, and a group calling itself Santa Clara Plays Fair is hoping to block the deal.

.

Heartland Institute wrote a critical piece about people hacking Al Qaeda's website. Apparently Heartland felt that Al Qaeda has a right to have a website free from abuse.

They specifically warned people to leave Al Qaeda's websites alone.

Gee, it is sure good Zahawerhi has a friend.

GIDEON YU NAMED PRESIDENT OF 49ERS

2012-02-10T16:07:00.001-08:00

In a move that is a significant advancement for diversity in the NFL, the 49ers have named Gideon Yu, one of the stars of Facebook, as President of the 49ers.

Yu has done strategic work as an executive with the team, and now becomes one the principal leaders of the franchise.

Yu is one of the few Asian American leaders in major league sports and the 49ers will make excellent progress towards the stadium with Yu as President.

SANTA CLARA PLAYS FAIR, A CREATURE OF BILLIONAIRES

2012-02-10T11:59:00.000-08:00

WHAT IS CONNECTED, WHO OWES WHO?

SANTA CLARA PLAYS FAIR IS AN OPERATION ORGANIZED, RUN, AND OPERATED BY SAN FRANCISCO AND LOS ANGELES STADIUM ADVOCATES

MICHELE RYAN SOMEHOW GETS ON THE POD CAST OF THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE, WHY??

WHO FUNDS THE HEARTLAND INSTIUTE???

MEET THE KOCH BROTHERS, THEY FUND THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE ALONG WITH AN EFFORT TO GET THE NINERS DOWN TO LOS ANGELES

PHILLIP ANSCHUTZ

FRIEND AND PARTNER OF THE KOCH BROTHERS

ANSCHUTZ WANTS A PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL TEAM IN LOS ANGELES, AND FUNDS THE EFFORT OF THE EXAMINER TO KEEP THE NINERS IN SAN FRANCISCO, ANSCHUTZ HAS THREE ARCHITECTS AS COLLEAGUES WHO BUY BASEBALL TICKETS FOR SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ANTONINI

ANSCHUTZ ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, HAS TIES TO MANY GROUPS SEEKING TO BLOCK THE SANTA CLARA STADIUM, ALSO OWNS THE SF EXAMINER, MAJOR BACKER OF KEEPING THE NINERS IN SF, EXAMINER HAS RUN OVER A DOZEN ARTICLES SUPPORTING SANTA CLARA PLAYS FAIR

BOB BLUMENFIELD, MAJOR BACK OF THE LOS ANGELES STADIUM, HIS STAFF, TRACI POMERANCE PERRIER PUT TOGETHER TWO SLATE CARDS FOR SANTA CLARA PLAYS FAIR, WORTH 2,000 DOLLARS IN CONTRIBUTIONS

MICHAEL ANTONINI, MILLIONAIRE DEVELOPER AND SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSIONER. HE ADMITS THAT THE IDEA OF SANTA CLARA PLAYS FAIR WAS ALL HIS DOING

ELECTION EDUCATION GUIDE, ALONG WITH EDUCATED VOTERS GUIDE CARRIED ADVERTISEMENTS FOR NO ON J AND THEY ADMITTED, LOS ANGELES CONSULTANTS ASKED THEM TO DO IT

PEET'S TAVERN, MAJOR DONOR OF SANTA CLARA PLAYS FAIR'S ILLEGAL PETITION

Some say nothing goes better with beer than politics. If that’s the case, consider heading to Pete’s Tavern in Mission Bay tonight at 6 p.m. to hear SF planning commissioner Mike Antonini’s views on the proposed Santa Clara stadium site, per a blog post in SF Weekly.

Antonini’s view, in a nutshell: the idea sucks.

HKS ARCHITECTS REPLACED A LOCAL ARCHITECTURAL FIRM ASSIGNED TO REDO THE FEDERAL BUILDING. ONE WEEK AFTER ANTONINI ASKED THEM TO MAKE A BID FOR A SAN FRANCISCO STADIUM,

HKS ALSO WORKS ON PROJECTS FUNDED BY AEG AND KOCH BROTHERS

HEARTLAND INSTITUTE AND MICHELE RYAN

2012-02-10T10:49:00.000-08:00

MICHELE RYAN

LED THE EFFORT FOR AN ILLEGAL REFERENDUM TO BLOCK A STADIUM PROJECT THAT WOULD OFFER JOBS TO EAST SIDE UNION HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS, AND FUND COMMUNITY PROGRAMS ON THE EAST SIDE. BUT. RYAN. SUPPOSEDLY AN EDUCATOR DECIDED TO JOIN FORCES WITH THE HEARTLAND INSTIUTE

With money inherited from their father Fred’s oil refinery business, the brothers own Brawny paper towels, Dixie cups, Georgia-Pacific lumber, Stainmaster carpet, and Lycra, among many other products. The Koch brothers also invest in the Heartland Institute, “a Chicago-based, industry-funded conservative think-tank, [that] has had a long history of climate denial that continues today.”

Each week, the Boulder City Council receives a packet that includes slick newspapers published by The Heartland Institute, the tagline of which is: “Discovering, developing, and promoting free-market solutions to social and economic problems.” The newspapers include such titles as,

HEARTLAND INSITUTE BRANDS GREENPEACE AS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION

HEARTLAND IS A MAJOR RECEPIENT OF EXXON MONEY

HEARTLAND ACCUSES THE NEA OF USING GANGSTER TACTICS TO RUIN AMERICAN EDUCATION

HEARTLAND ADVOCATES THE INCREASE OF OPIUM PRODUCTION IN AFGHANISTAN, MORE POPPIES, AS MICHELE WOULD SAY. LESS STADIUMS

HEARTLAND CALLS SONIA A LIAR. CAREFUL, MICHELE, YOU MAY NEED A GOOD JUDGE

BUT HEARTLAND IS BEST KNOWN AS AN ADVOCATE FOR TOBACCO USE AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE. "SMOKE IF YOU GOT 'EM" OUTSIDE MICHELE'S CLASS

Long before the Heartland Institute was in the business of organizing events like the “International Climate Change Conference” they were hard at work trying to minimize the negative public perception that second-hand tobacco smoke was bad for your health.

With that kind of past how could the media take the Heartland Institute and their upcoming climate conference seriously? Heartland could have easily played the role of the “Academy of Tobacco Studies” in the movie Thank you for Smoking

Public Liar

2012-02-10T09:15:00.000-08:00

NO LYING, CHUCK, YOU SAID THAT

AN EMBARASSMENT FOR SAN JOSE

A LIAR FOR MAYOR

MICHELE RYAN, STADIUM BAD, TOBACCO GOOD

2012-02-09T22:15:00.000-08:00

MICHELE RYAN, A TEACHER IN SAN JOSE WHO IS DIRECTED TO DISCOURAGE THE USE OF TOBACCO AMONG STUDENTS IS NOW MAKING PODCASTS FOR THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE WHICH POSTS COMMENTARY THAT NICOTINE HELPS PEOPLE STUDY

RYAN HATES THE STADIUM SO MUCH, SHE WILL ASSIST A TOBACCO INSITUTE SHILL

Brad Rodu, a professor of medicine at the University of Louisville and senior fellow of The Heartland Institute, disagrees with this premise. Writing in the Cincinnati Inquirer, he noted, “Nicotine, like caffeine, is addictive but otherwise relatively harmless. Nicotine’s benefits include improved concentration, enhanced performance of some tasks, and elevated mood. Tobacco smoke, however, containing thousands of toxic agents, is a dangerous nicotine delivery system, conferring risks for cancer, cardiovascular disease and emphysema. Eliminate the smoke, and you eliminate virtually all the risks.”\

HEARTLAND INSITUTE, SAME SITE THAT HOSTS MICHELE RYAN

MICHELE RYAN, TEACHER, ASSOCIATED WITH HEARTLAND INSITUTE

2012-02-09T21:58:00.001-08:00

HEARTLAND INSITUTE REGARDS NICOTINE AS LESS HARMFUL THAN COFFEE

MICHELE RYAN, SANTA CLARA PLAYS FAIR

STADIUM BAD, CIGARETTES GOOD

Michele Ryan, Teacher and Big Tobacco

2012-02-09T21:56:00.000-08:00

A SAN JOSE TEACHER IS MAKING PODCASTS FOR THE HEARTLAND INSITUTE.

THIS WHAT EDUCATORS SAY ABOUT TOBACCO USE AMONG TEENS

Posted on April 19, 2010

by admin
Leave a comment

NEW BEDFORD — They bear the names “Wild Honey” blunt wraps and “Peppermint” snus, but they are not the latest confections from Willy Wonka.

They are part of an effort by tobacco companies to market products to adolescents and teenagers, said Judith Coykendall at Partners for Clean Air, a Seven Hills Behavioral Health program in New Bedford.

“They smell delicious,” she said, reaching into her American Cancer Society tote bag, which she calls her “bag of poisons,” to pull out the cheerfully colored packets of “blunt wraps,” which look to the undiscerning eye like fruit rollups and come in enticing flavors — watermelon, strawberry, blueberry and “sexual chocolate,” the wrapper of which features a pair of bare female legs dripping with what appears to be melted chocolate.

Snus are marketed on the Camels website as a “smoke-free, spit-free” product and come in intriguing flavors, such as “frost” and “mellow.” According to the American Cancer Society website, snus are commonly used in Scandinavia as quitting aids. The clinical-sounding “Nicogel,” which looks exactly like a portable hand wipe and absorbs through the skin, is also marketed as a quitting aid.

SAN JOSE EDUCATIONAL LEADERS AND SMOKELESS TOBACCO

Though foreign to me, teens using chewing tobacco is not rare. The combination of convenience and subtleness of chewing tobacco has made it an issue on high school campuses despite its many health risks and cosmetic effects. In 2007, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 13.4 percent of male high school students and 2.3 percent of female high school students were smokeless tobacco users.

While I was aware of tobacco use at school in the more socially acceptable form of cigarettes, I never would have believed that my peers were chewing tobacco had I not seen it with my own eyes.

Students who chew smokeless tobacco use it in addition to cigarettes, turning to it as a way to get their shot of nicotine during the school day. Unlike cigarettes, whose cloud of smoke makes their users easy to spot, chewing tobacco is less obvious, especially because so many students chew gum constantly at school. . . .

Between the many harmful health effects and the unsanitary way it is used, chewing tobacco is, in a word, disgusting. I can't imagine why anybody would be willing to carry around a bottle of spit and basically guarantee themselves serious health issues just to chomp on a foul clump of leaves.

One thing's for sure, I definitely plan on being more cautious when handling other people's drinks.

HEARTLAND INSITUTE AND SMOKELESS TOBACCO
\Nearly 50 million American adults—more than a fifth of the nation’s adult population—smoke cigarettes. After vigorous efforts aimed at reducing that figure, the percentage of Americans who smoke has fallen by almost half in the past four decades. In recent years, however, the number of people quitting cigarettes has begun to level off, and many newly approved therapies intended to encourage quitting have proven largely ineffective—none works in more than about 8 percent of cases.

Consequently, some doctors and scientists suggest a “harm reduction” strategy in which smokers give up cigarettes and instead use tobacco or nicotine in different forms such as “e-cigarettes” or smokeless tobacco. In 2008 the American Association of Public Health Physicians endorsed tobacco harm reduction as a last resort for chronic tobacco users unable to quit altogether.

Opponents of this strategy say it doesn’t go far enough; they insist the goal of smoking cessation efforts should be the end of all nicotine use, regardless of source.

Brad Rodu, a professor of medicine at the University of Louisville and senior fellow of The Heartland Institute, disagrees with this premise. Writing in the Cincinnati Inquirer, he noted, “Nicotine, like caffeine, is addictive but otherwise relatively harmless. Nicotine’s benefits include improved concentration, enhanced performance of some tasks, and elevated mood. Tobacco smoke, however, containing thousands of toxic agents, is a dangerous nicotine delivery system, conferring risks for cancer, cardiovascular disease and emphysema. Eliminate the smoke, and you eliminate virtually all the risks.”

HEARTLAND TOBBACCO MONEY

Although Heartland calls itself "a genuinely independent source of research and commentary," its has been a frequent ally of, and funded by, the tobacco industry. According to a 1995 internal report by Philip Morris USA (PM) on its corporate contributions budget, the company uses its contributions "as a strategic tool to promote our overall business objectives and to advance our government affairs agenda," in particular by supporting "the work of free market 'think tanks' and other public policy groups whose philosophy is consistent with our point of view. ... [W]e have given general support over the years to such groups as the Heritage Foundation, Heartland Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Washington Legal Foundation and a variety of other organizations that help provide information about the ultimate course of legislation, regulation and public opinion through their studies, papers, op-ed pieces and conferences

Santa Clara Plays Fair

Michele Ryan of Santa Clara Plays Fair was interviewed by the Heartland Institute re: the $850 million in undisclosed loans for stadium construction for which Santa Clara's agency, the Stadium Authority, is responsible. These loans were not included on the Measure J ballot in June 2010. To hear the podcast, go to:

http://heartland.org/podcasts/2012/02/03/michele-ryan-santa-clara-plays-fair

Michele Ryan: Santa Clara Plays Fair
Heartland Institute\

Snuggim is insulting the city council again

2012-02-09T18:16:00.000-08:00

Do you think the King has read this??

Nope

He also does not believe in the Declaration of Independence

Why?

Because Twitty did not write it

BLAIR v. BETHEL SCHOOL DISTRICT

Ken BLAIR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BETHEL SCHOOL DISTRICT, a municipal corporation; Tom Seigel, superintendent of Bethel School District and in his individual capacity and his marital community; Jane Doe Seigel; Brenda Rogers, president of the Bethel School District school board and in her individual capacity and her marital community; John Doe Rogers; Susan Smith, vice president of the Bethel School District school board in her individual capacity and her marital community; John Doe Smith; John Manning, board member of the Bethel School District school board in his individual capacity and his marital community; Jane Doe Manning, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 08-35895.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 16, 2009. -- June 14, 2010

Before JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON and CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and LARRY A. BURNS,District Judge.*

Paul A. Lindenmuth, Law Offices of Ben F. Barcus & Associates, PLLC, Tacoma, WA, for the plaintiff-appellant.William A. Coats and Daniel C. Montopoli, Vandeberg Johnson & Gandara, Tacoma, WA, for the defendants-appellees.

OPINION

Ken Blair maintains his First Amendment rights were violated when his fellow school board members voted to remove him as their vice president because of his relentless criticism of the school district's superintendent. The district court disagreed, and so do we. To be sure, the First Amendment protects Blair's discordant speech as a general matter; it does not, however, immunize him from the political fallout of what he says.

I

BACKGROUND

Blair has served as a publicly elected member of the Bethel School District School Board since 1999. There are four other Board members, who are also publicly elected. The members of the Board elect their own president, vice president, and legislative representative. Blair has served in each position over the years, but most recently, until October 2007, he was the Board's vice president.

Defendant-Appellee Tom Seigel was hired as superintendent of the Bethel School District in 2000. Blair has been a persistent critic of Seigel almost from the beginning, repeatedly impugning his integrity and competence. There are many examples, but one makes the point: early in Seigel's first term, Blair apparently insinuated to the Board and to the State Auditor that Seigel was defrauding the school district by requesting reimbursement for his moving expenses when in fact Seigel had been moved by the military. Blair is apparently the only Board member who is dissatisfied with Seigel, and since 2005 he has consistently voted against renewing Seigel's contract.

On September 25, 2007, the Board voted 4-1 to extend Seigel's contract and raise his pay. Blair was the lone dissenter. The next day, he explained his dissenting vote to a newspaper reporter, who then quoted Blair in a story saying, “My biggest issue with the superintendent is trust․ I have too many examples to say he's doing a good job.”

Blair's statements to the reporter were the last straw for his fellow Board members, and on October 9, 2007 they voted to remove him as vice president. Blair then sued the Bethel School District, Seigel, and the other Board members under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he was retaliated against for exercising his First Amendment rights to free speech and petition. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding the Board's action didn't prevent Blair from continuing to speak out, vote his conscience, and serve his constituents as a member of the Board. We agree with this finding, and with the district court's more general conclusion that the First Amendment doesn't shield public figures from the give-and-take of the political process.

II

DISCUSSION

The First Amendment forbids government officials from retaliating against individuals for speaking out. Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 256 (2006); see also Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir.1986). To recover under § 1983 for such retaliation, a plaintiff must prove: (1) he engaged in constitutionally protected activity; (2) as a result, he was subjected to adverse action by the defendant that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in the protected activity;1 and (3) there was a substantial causal relationship between the constitutionally protected activity and the adverse action. See Pinard v. Clatskanie School Dist. 6J, 467 F.3d 755, 770 (9th Cir.2006). Here, it is uncontested that Blair's votes as a Board member and his statements to the newspaper were protected by the First Amendment, and that Blair's advocacy against Seigel was the cause for the Board's decision to remove him from the vice president position. It is also uncontested that the members of the Board are “state actors.”2 Were this a typical First Amendment retaliation case, we would be left to evaluate only whether the Board's action would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to speak out.

But Blair's case is not a typical First Amendment retaliation case. What's different here is the “adverse action” Blair is challenging was taken by his peers in the political arena. The record makes clear that Blair's fellow Board members wanted a vice president who shared their views. Because Blair didn't, they removed him by a procedurally legitimate vote. The peculiar context in which Blair's case arises distinguishes it from the ordinary retaliation case in three crucial ways.

First, the adverse action Blair complains of was a rather minor indignity, and de minimis deprivations of benefits and privileges on account of one's speech do not give rise to a First Amendment claim. Rather, for adverse, retaliatory actions to offend the First Amendment, they must be of a nature that would stifle someone from speaking out. The most familiar adverse actions are “exercise[s] of governmental power” that are “regulatory, proscriptive, or compulsory in nature” and have the effect of punishing someone for his or her speech. Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 11 (1972).

The prototypical plaintiff in these cases is a government worker who loses his job as a result of some public communication critical of the government entity for whom he works, e.g., Pickering v. Bd. of Educ. of Township High Sch. Dist., 391 U.S. 563, 564 (1968) (teacher dismissed by the Board of Education after sending a letter critical of the Board to a local newspaper), or a regulated entity that is stripped of its business license after engaging in speech that displeases the regulator, e.g., CarePartners, LLC v. Lashway, 545 F.3d 867, 871 (9th Cir.2008) (boarding home operators engaged in lobbying and other speech and petition activities which they alleged led to retaliation by the regulators), or a prisoner who is retaliated against by prison officials for filing grievances or initiating actions in court, e.g., Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1286 (9th Cir.2003) (prison officials allegedly retaliated against prisoner on the basis of his jailhouse lawyering activities), or citizens who are allegedly targeted by law enforcement because of their political speech activities, e.g., Mendocino Envtl. Ctr., 192 F.3d at 1288-89(police officers sued for engaging in conspiracy to falsely accuse political activists of a crime in an effort to inhibit their political activities).

Blair has little in common with these prototypical plaintiffs. Through the ordinary functioning of the democratic process, he was removed from a titular position on a school board by the very people who elected him to the position in the first place. The Board's objective in stripping Blair of his leadership position, ostensibly, wasn't to punish him for his advocacy but instead to put in place a vice president who better represented the majority view. But even if the Board's intent was to play political hardball in response to Blair's advocacy, his authority as a member of the Board was unaffected; despite his removal as Board vice president, he retained the full range of rights and prerogatives that came with having been publicly elected. The district court found Blair's removal from the Board leadership position didn't chill his speech, and the record supports that finding.

Second, as the district court intuited, more is fair in electoral politics than in other contexts. It is common for political bodies to have internal leadership structures and for members of those bodies to be openly partisan in voting for and against one another for leadership positions. In fact, we expect political officials to cast votes in internal elections in a manner that is, technically speaking, retaliatory, i.e., to vote against candidates whose views differ from their own. Indeed, an internal political leadership election is often a referendum on the majority point of view. Yet, to accept Blair's argument is to hold that the First Amendment prohibits elected officials from voting against candidates whose speech or views they don't embrace.3 Experience and political reality convince us this argument goes too far; the First Amendment does not succor casualties of the regular functioning of the political process.4

To lend perspective to this point, we conceive little difference between what the Board's internal vote against Blair accomplished and what voters in a general public election might do if they too were disaffected by Blair's advocacy. In other words, it wouldn't have been controversial in the least-and certainly not a violation of the First Amendment-had Blair's constituents refused to support his reelection on account of his outspoken opposition to Superintendent Seigel. We see no reason the Board members' votes here should be regulated in a way that the general public's are not.

Third, it is significant that Blair isn't the only party in this case whose interests implicate First Amendment concerns. To the contrary, we assume all of the Board members have a protected interest in speaking out and voting their conscience on the important issues they confront-issues like teachers' pay, curriculum policy, and allocation of education resources. The First Circuit has recognized this point explicitly: “Voting by members of municipal boards, commissions, and authorities comes within the heartland of First Amendment doctrine, and the status of public officials' votes as constitutionally protected speech [is] established beyond peradventure of doubt ․“ Stella v. Kelly, 63 F.3d 71, 75 (1st Cir.1995). Blair offers no rationale for why this assumption does not apply to the Board's vote on the seemingly less important internal matter of who among them is best to fill certain titular, leadership positions.

Here, the vote to remove Blair as Board vice president communicated to Blair and to the public that the Board majority viewed Seigel's performance very differently from the way Blair saw it, and wanted to distance itself from Blair's criticism of the superintendent. The point isn't that the vote against Blair was protected speech simply because it was expressive. Almost all retaliatory actions can be said to be expressive, including those that are manifestly unconstitutional. But, while Blair certainly had a First Amendment right to criticize Seigel and vote against his retention as superintendent, his fellow Board members had the corresponding right to replace Blair with someone who, in their view, represented the majority view of the Board.

While this is the first time our circuit has considered a First Amendment retaliation claim that arises in the context of the political process and public debate, both the Sixth Circuit and the Tenth Circuit have evaluated similar claims. In Zilich v. Longo, 34 F.3d 359, 361 (6th Cir.1994), the defendants were city council members who passed a resolution stating that an outgoing council member who had been a thorn in their side had never been qualified to hold office. The outgoing member sued on the ground the resolution was retaliation for his political opposition to the mayor. Id. at 363. The Sixth Circuit rejected the claim, recognizing that “[v]oting on legislative resolutions expressing political viewpoints may itself be protected speech,” and concluding, “[a] legislative body does not violate the First Amendment when some members cast their votes in opposition to other members out of political spite or for partisan, political, or ideological reasons.” Id.

Similarly, in Phelan v. Laramie County Cmty. Coll. Bd., 235 F .3d 1243, 1245-46 (10th Cir.2000), a community college board censured one of its trustees for violating an ethics policy by placing a newspaper ad encouraging the public to vote against a pending measure. The censured trustee sued, but the Tenth Circuit held that “[i]n censuring Ms. Phelan, Board members sought only to voice their opinion that she violated the ethics policy and to ask that she not engage in similar conduct in the future.” Id. at 1248.

We agree with the analysis of the Sixth Circuit in Zilich and the Tenth Circuit in Phelan. Blair's removal from the titular position of Board vice president is, for First Amendment purposes, analogous to the condemning resolution in Zilich and the censure in Phelan, and those decisions support our conclusion here. Disagreement is endemic to politics, and naturally plays out in how votes are cast. While the impetus to remove Blair as Bethel School Board vice president undoubtedly stemmed from his contrarian advocacy against Siegel, the Board's action did not amount to retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.

III

CONCLUSION

The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1. The district court held that “in order for governmental action to trigger First Amendment scrutiny, it must carry consequences that infringe upon protected speech.” Blair v. Bethel Sch. Dist., No. C08-5181, 2008 WL 4740159 at *3 (W.D.Wash. Oct. 24, 2008) (citation omitted). Just to be clear, we do not require actual infringement in retaliation cases. Rather, “[i]n a First Amendment retaliation case, an adverse ․ action is an act that is reasonably likely to deter employees from engaging in constitutionally protected speech.” Coszalter v. City of Salem, 320 F.3d 968, 970 (9th Cir.2003) (emphasis added). Put differently, the question is whether the alleged retaliation would “chill or silence a person of ordinary firmness” from continuing to speak out. Mendocino Envtl. Ctr. v. Mendocino County, 192 F.3d 1283, 1300 (9th Cir.1999).

2. To be liable under § 1983, a government official must be “acting, purporting, or pretending to act in the performance of his or her official duties.” McDade v. West, 223 F.3d 1135, 1140 (9th Cir.2000). Although it is not obvious to us that the election (or demotion) of board officers is an official duty of the Board members-in the same category, for example, as overseeing the hiring of teachers and making curriculum decisions-we assume the Board members were state actors because the issue is undisputed here. See Anderson v. Warner, 451 F.3d 1063, 1068 (9th Cir.2006) (whether an officer acts under state law turns on the nature and circumstances of his conduct).

3. Blair argues his speech deserves enhanced protection because it was political speech that exposed corruption, mismanagement and waste within the Bethel School District. It is true that”[p]olitical speech lies at the core of the First Amendment's protections.” Kaplan v. County of Los Angeles, 894 F.2d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir.1990). However, we have limited the heightened protection of speech on matters of public concern to private citizens and government employees speaking as private citizens. See, e.g., Posey v. Lake Pend Oreille Dist. No. 84, 546 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir.2008) (involving a high school “security specialist” who voiced concerns about a school district's safety and emergency policies). No equivalent protection has been extended to government officials engaged in the give-and-take of politics.

4. To be very clear, we do not suggest that the retaliatory acts of elected officials against their own can never violate the Constitution. Obviously, they can. See Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116 (1966). In Bond, the plaintiff had been popularly elected to the Georgia House of Representatives, but was blocked from taking office by a vote of his peers on the trumped-up ground he could not, in good faith, take the requisite oath of office to support the Constitution. Id. at 118. The refusal to seat Bond was retaliatory and had the effect, deleterious to democracy, of nullifying a popular vote. Id. at 136-37. This would be a different case had Blair's peers somehow managed to vote him off the Board or deprive him of authority he enjoyed by virtue of his popular election-but they didn't. Bond and Blair have little more in common than the enmity of their peers.

BURNS, District Judge:

We Had it first

2012-02-09T17:51:00.000-08:00

JOHN DOE NUMBER ONE, MICHELE RYAN

MAY NEED TOBACCO MONEY FOR PAY FOR COURT COSTS

Santa Clara Plays Fair

Michele Ryan of Santa Clara Plays Fair was interviewed by the Heartland Institute re: the $850 million in undisclosed loans for stadium construction for which Santa Clara's agency, the Stadium Authority, is responsible. These loans were not included on the Measure J ballot in June 2010. To hear the podcast, go to:

Thanks for lying again, Will send podcast to Department 8, Santa Clara County Superior Court

http://heartland.org/podcasts/2012/02/03/michele-ryan-santa-clara-plays-fair

Michele Ryan: Santa Clara Plays Fair
Heartland Institute

heartland.org

The San Francisco 49ers of the National Football League are trying to borrow $850 million that would be backed by taxpayers to build a stadium in Santa Clara, Calif. The costs and taxpayer risks have skyrocketed beyond what local officials promised, and a group calling itself Santa Clara Plays

ALL ABOUT HEARTLAND

Although Heartland calls itself "a genuinely independent source of research and commentary," its has been a frequent ally of, and funded by, the tobacco industry. According to a 1995 internal report by Philip Morris USA (PM) on its corporate contributions budget, the company uses its contributions "as a strategic tool to promote our overall business objectives and to advance our government affairs agenda," in particular by supporting "the work of free market 'think tanks' and other public policy groups whose philosophy is consistent with our point of view. ... [W]e have given general support over the years to such groups as the Heritage Foundation, Heartland Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Washington Legal Foundation and a variety of other organizations that help provide information about the ultimate course of legislation, regulation and public opinion through their studies, papers, op-ed pieces and conferences."[1]

Internal company documents show the following contributions from PM to Heartland (which is probably an incomplete list):

$25,000 in 1993[2]

$65,000 in 1995[3]

$50,000 in 1996[4]

$50,000 in 1997[5]

$50,000 in 1998 (proposed)[6][7]

Roy E. Marden, a former member of Heartland's board of directors, was until May 2003 the manager of industry affairs for the Philip Morris (PM) tobacco company, where his responsibilities included lobbying and "managing company responses to key public policy issues," which he accomplishes by "directing corporate involvement with industry, business, trade, and public policy organizations and determining philanthropic support thereto." In a May 1991 document prepared for PM, Marden listed Heartland's "rapid response network" as a "potential spokesperson" among the "portfolio of organizations" that the company had cultivated to support its interests.[8]

In January 1993, PM executive Craig L. Fuller reported that Heartland was one of the "public policy organizations" being considered to sponsor a "conference on the impact of federal mandates/EPA regulations," as part of PM's strategic response to the EPA's decision that secondhand smoke should be classified as a proven lung carcinogen.[9]

In an April 1993 report, Marden noted that he was "developing strategy and tactics" to defeat legislation in California aimed at restricting smoking in public places. He was "liaising with contacts in the public policy arena (think tanks, public interest legal foundations) and the media to generate editorial, op-eds, letters-to-the-editor and position papers." With the Heartland Institute, he was working "re sponsorship of environmental seminars for interested journalists and legislators throughout the Midwest." Simultaneously, he was talking with PM's Washington office to decide how much money the company should give to public policy organizations in 1993.[10]

Fuller's monthly report for August 1993 noted that he had "leveraged numerous contacts in the public policy arena to generate positive publicity for PM and/or a fair hearing on our issues, with particular reference to the misapplication of science by the EPA and the resulting poor public policy ... and the policy arguments against the use of excise taxes to fund proposed health care reform." The Heartland Institute was one of the contacts they had "leveraged," along with the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, Capital Research Center, Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy, Consumer Alert, Mackinac Center for Public Policy, and the National Center for Policy Analysis. He had also provided "background material" about environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) to "various policy groups and media contacts. As a result, EPA Watch, the Heartland Institute and Capital Research Center wrote commentaries addressing the EPA and ETS. These commentaries are expected to appear in various newspapers around the country."[11]

Marden's monthly report for February 1994 noted that he was "working with the Heartland Institute in the planning of a health policy forum for state-level think tanks to develop a unified strategy and action plan, and in the use of their fax-on-demand technology to promote health care positioning consistent with our interests to legislators, public opinion makers and the public."[12] In April, he reported that he was working with PM's Washington office "and the Heartland Institute in the development of strategy and ally mobilization to preserve the deductibility of tobacco advertising expenditures."[13]

In 1995, the Heartland Institute introduced "PolicyFax," a fax-on-demand service that offered to send thousands of policy position papers by fax as a free service to government officials and journalists. On February 2, 1996, Marden reported that the service would be adding the summary of a report on secondhand smoke. "This telephone service is linked to ALL state legislators and key regional media throughout the country and is free to those audiences," he wrote. "Heartland maintains statistics on documents requested and we will be able to track requests."[14]

Later that month, Heartland president Joseph Bast wrote a letter to Tina A. Walls, PM's Vice President for State Government Affairs, informing her of a collaboration between Heartland and the American Legislative Exchange Council, another PM-supported policy advocacy organization on whose board Walls sits. In a handwritten note at the bottom of the letter, Bast added, "Roy Marden's on our board!"[15]

In 1999, Heartland was listed again in an internal PM document as one of the "portfolio of organizations" with which the company planned to mobilize against a U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit, with Heartland's "rapid response network" among the company's "potential third party activities."[16] On October 26 of that year, Marden sent an email to John Ostronic and Frank Gomez in which he listed "the key groups in my portfolio & key actions taken by those groups in opposition to the Fedsuit." Heartland's contributions to the effort included "blast faxes to state legislators, off-the-record briefings, op-eds, radio interviews, letters."[17]

Notwithstanding this long and intimate partnership with the tobacco industry, Heartland president Joe Bast bridled in February 2005 when writer Glenn Fleishman characterized the institute as a "sock puppet of industry" and criticized its role as both a tobacco mouthpiece and an opponent of municipal wi-fi initiatives. "No, there is no 'Philip Morris exec.' on our Board of Directors," Bast wrote in reply to Fleishman's article. Bast did not respond to a query from Fleishman pointing out that a biographical note on the Heartland website indicated that Marden worked at PM.[18] What was unknown was that Marden had left PM in May 2003 and the biographical note on Heartland's website was outdated.

Following SourceWatch's documentation of Heartland's ties to the tobacco industry, the group wrote that Marden "helped convince others in the company to approve contributions to us because of our opposition to high taxes on cigarettes, the abuse of tort law leading up to the Master Settlement Agreement, and other tobacco-related issues. This was not a conflict of interest: All nonprofit organizations put representatives of foundations and corporations on their boards with the expectation that they help “give or get” financial support ... Heartland was speaking up for over-taxed smokers and against nanny state regulations long before Philip Morris offered any funding and before Marden joined the organization’s board."[19]

Bast has also argued that "we do not take positions in order to appease or avoid losing support from individual donors. We have, in fact, a long record of standing behind our research even when it means losing the support of major donors." He also had no response when asked to provide specific examples from its "long record" of publishing reports against the pecuniary interests of its funders.[18]

More recently, in 2006 the Heartland Institute partnered with the National Association of Tobacco Outlets (NATO) in "a campaign to change public opinion about tobacco." The campaign will utilize press releases, letters to editors and an effort to win coverage in magazines and journals, according to an article about the partnership on the NPN Market Pulse web site, a news and information site for petroleum and convenience store marketers. Tom Briant, NATO's Executive Director, said, vowed to work to prevent public health smoking restrictions from being enacted in any more states. "We will certainly work to try and prevent similar statewide smoking bans from being adopted in other states," Briant said, "because we believe the owners of bars and restaurants should have the right to determine how they accommodate their customers and not have government dictate those kinds of regulations."[20]

In February 2009 Heartland lists 5 of its personnel as being "Tobacco Policy Experts".[21] These were Joseph Bast, Ralph Connor, the Local Legislation Manager; John Nothdurft, Heartland's Legislative Specialist; Brad Rodu, from the University of Louisville and W. Kip Viscusi, a Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University Law School.

Heartland also currently lists "Tobacco" as being one of its seven priority topic areas. In an essay -- titled "Tobacco and Freedom" -- Heartland's senior fellow - legal affairs, Maureen Martin and President, Joseph L. Bast, argue that smokers already pay too much tax, that proposals for further restrictions on tobacco and smoking are based on "junk science", that lawsuits against the tobacco industry are an example of "lawsuit abuse", that bans on smoking "hurt small businesses and violate private property rights", that the harm caused to smokers can be reduced by "educating" them "about their options" and that restrictions on smokers violate "the basic libertarian principles that ought to limit the use of government force."[22]

The introduction to Heartland's tobacco portal claims that it "cuts through the propaganda and exaggeration of anti-smoking groups by giving you access to the best available research and commentary from scores of independent research organizations, publications, and government sources."[22]

It also promotes Bast's July 2006 book of essays on tobacco, Please Don’t Poop in My Salad. Introducing the book, Heartland concedes that "defending smokers is a thankless task in today’s politically correct environment." While stating that "Bast doesn’t deny that smoking is an unhealthy habit" it argues that cigarette taxes and bans on smoking go too far and that there is a need to respect "the rights of smokers and the owners of ba

Political Fraud

2012-02-09T13:12:00.000-08:00

Did you know that Kevin Park got up during a meeting of the Charter Review Committee and demanded that the Committee provide him with a list of all the members of unions in Santa Clara?

Sounds bigoted.

Well, it really does not matter.

As a said before, if the motion for declaratory relief is not granted, then the city loses. If it is granted, it will mean Bill Bailey has to pay court costs.

Now, let us examine what development agreements are.

The main reason I list it is that you all can look it up on your own.

Or, you can go to College of San Mateo Library and while Nicky D is not surfing Indonesian dating sites, he can help you.

Section 201 of Cal Jur defines a devlopment agreement as one that addresses vesting of development rights for the construction of a project, so that the developer has a few years to construct the property, and it addresses zoning and land use.

section 65846-65489 Government Code

A DDA IS A AGREEMENT REGARDING THE CONVEYANCE OF LAND. IT IS A FINANCIAL AGREEMENT.

SANTA MAGARITA AREA V. SAN LUIS OBISPO, 100 CAL REPORTER

A development agreement freezes zoning and land use regulation due to the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT STATUTE.

In the AVCO case at 132 Cal Reporter, the court held that common law vesting was not good enough in California without a building permit, hence 65846 was enacted.

SANTA CLARA PLAYS FAIR GETS TO INTERPRET TITLE 17 AND NO ONE ELSE CAN.

These people are, ignorant and stupid.

The Funny thing is.....

2012-02-09T12:26:00.000-08:00

What is funny is that no one has to listen to me at all.

THE LEGAL AUTHORITY IS GOING TO BE JUDGE KIRWAN, DEPARTMENT 8.

OH, BRESS' CASE THE LAST TIME, 2485 IN COURT COSTS.

THIS TIME, COURT COSTS ARE GOING TO BE ASSESSED TO SANTA CLARA PLAYS FAIR, DR. RYAN, 100 JOHN DOES, INCLUDING BILL BAILEY, AND I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

I DO NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY, AND I CANNOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE LEGAL DEFENSE BEING SUCH A BAD TIME WASTER.

However, in March, it is going to be someone else that makes that call, and the funny thing it is, regardless of my horrid past and present, it still will be assessed.

won't it?

No Plays Fair

2012-02-09T09:20:00.001-08:00

Planning Commission approved general plan certification of stadium work.

No Plays Fair

We heard the hearing is March 5, 2012

Maybe they do not want to be heard.

Kevin Park did his smarmy bit.

I bet in school he was the head tattletale

Free tickets

2012-02-08T23:06:00.000-08:00

SAVE SANTA CLARA, AUTHORED BY RACIST ROBERT SMITH, WRITES THAT SAN FRANCISCO SUPERVISORS GET FREE TICKETS TO 49ER GAMES.

THAT IS BECAUSE OF THE DEAL SAN FRANCISCO SET UP FOR CANDLESTICK.

SANTA CLARA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS WILL SERVE AS THE STADIUM AUTHORITY BOARD AND WILL NOT RECEIVE FREE TICKETS.

OF COURSE, MILLIONAIRE DEVELOPER, AND PATRON OF SANTA CLARA PLAYS FAIT AND RACIST ROBERT, GETS FREE GIANTS TICKETS FROM ARCHITECTS ASSOCIATED WITH LENNAR.

PS, ANTONINI IS PAID AS A PLANNING COMMISSIONER.

KEVIN PARK IS JUST PAID TO BE A TWIT

"KEVIN PARK WHICH IS WHAT I USED TO SIGNED THE PETITION"

NO, KEVIN PARK SIGNED IT

T-W-I-T

SCPF, DUMB AND STUPID

2012-02-08T16:44:00.000-08:00

Development Agreement means vested rights and no PC action

The development agreement statute permits a city or county to “enter into a development agreement” with any property owner “for the development of the property.” (§ 65865, subd. (a).) In essence, the statute allows a city or county to freeze zoning and other land use regulation applicable to specified property to guarantee that a developer will not be affected by changes in the standards for government approval during the period of development. (City of West Hollywood v. Beverly Towers, Inc. (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1184, 1193, fn. 6, 278 Cal.Rptr. 375, 805 P.2d 329; Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Albany (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1199, 1213, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 102.) In the words of the statute, “[u]nless otherwise provided by the development agreement, rules, regulations, and official policies governing permitted uses of the land, governing density, and governing design, improvement, and construction standards and specifications, applicable to development of the property subject to a development agreement, shall be those rules, regulations, and official policies in force at the time of execution of the agreement.” (§ 65866.)

The statute declares that “lack of certainty in the approval of development projects can result in a waste of resources, escalate the cost of housing and other development to the consumer, and discourage investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning which would make maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic cost to the public.” (§ 65864, subd. (a).) The statute reflects the Legislature's conclusion that giving “[a]ssurance to the applicant for a development project that upon approval of the project, the applicant may proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval, will strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic costs of development.” (§ 65864, subd. (b).)

How Santa Clara Plays Fair ruined any chance to participate

2012-02-08T08:12:00.000-08:00

If you are a stadium skeptic, then understand Santa Clara Plays Fair has dealt away your concerns their own stupidity.

A court case for declaratory relief may not embroil you unless you are an officer in this motley organization of bigots and liars, but if you were a major leader in this silly effort to classify a disposition development agreement into a development agreement, then you are likely to have financial risk due to the action to seek court costs.

As soon as Measure J passed, Santa Clara Plays Fair lost an opportunity to seek a stadium advisory panel that would have been made up of citizens from all viewpoints that could have sought input into the financing deal.

Why?

Because the organization's main officer, Bill Bailey was having more fun being interviewed than seeking relevant participation.

When Bress and Michele Ryan crawled back under the rocks they have nestling in to put forth an illegal referendum, they demonstrated to the NFL and others how stupid and irresponsible they really are.

You have been used.

Used.

Legal Expertise

2012-02-07T22:12:00.000-08:00

COURT CALENDARS SHOW THAT A REAL PARTY IN INTEREST REGARDING THE SANTA CLARA SUIT AGAINST THE PHONY REFERENDUM, HAS HIRED LEGAL COUNSEL WHOSE FIRST EXPERIENCE WAS THE WORKING WITH THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IN 1974

VAST EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE ALSO WITH REFERENDUM LAW

ATTENTION SANTA CLARA PLAYS FAIR

WHEN YOU LOSE IN COURT, YOU GET TO PAY FOR IT

FIRST THEY GOT NIXON THE CROOK, AND THEY WILL HAVE BRESS THE CROOK,

SELLING TICKETS TO WIN DEADBEAT DEBBIE IS ON THE STAND

Oh, Deadbeat Debbie, Fathead Ryan, Bailey Boob, you missed this one!!!

2012-02-07T16:58:00.001-08:00

17.10.420 Judicial review – Time limitation.
(a) Any judicial review of the initial approval by the City of a development agreement shall be by writ of mandate pursuant to Section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and judicial review of any City action taken pursuant to this chapter, other than the initial approval of a development agreement, shall be writ of mandate pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(b) Any action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul any decision of the City taken pursuant to this chapter shall not be maintained by any person unless the action or proceeding is commenced within ninety (90) days after the date of the decision. (Ord. 1589 § 1, 7-5-88. Formerly § 8B-42).

JUDGE CHEWS OUT SANTA CLARA PLAYS FAIR LAWYER, AFTER HEARING ABOUT SECTION 17 420

2012-02-07T16:57:00.000-08:00

Oh, Plays Fair, you got it wrong, John Does 1-100

2012-02-07T16:46:00.000-08:00

The charter provision is clear and requires no interpretation; and the requirements which were not followed are among the most important elements of the recall system established by the statute. It would seem that unless the general law governs [4 Cal.2d 21] recall elections in San Diego, no valid recall election could be held there, since no other procedure is provided.

Muehleisen v. Forward, 4 Cal.2d 17

City Code Governing Referendums for Development Agreements

By state law as well as through our city codes, we are allowed to collect signatures for any city council decision

we wish to vote on.

The DDA is a Disposition and Development Agreement. According to the Santa Clara City Code 17.10.160:

"A development agreement is a legislative act and it shall be enacted or amended by

ordinance only after a public hearing before the City Council. The ordinance shall be

subject to referendum and refer to and incorporate by reference the text of the

development agreement."

SANTA CLARA PLAYS FAIR

17.10.420 Judicial review – Time limitation.

(a) Any judicial review of the initial approval by the City of a development agreement shall be by writ of mandate pursuant to Section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and judicial review of any City action taken pursuant to this chapter, other than the initial approval of a development agreement, shall be writ of mandate pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(b) Any action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul any decision of the City taken pursuant to this chapter shall not be maintained by any person unless the action or proceeding is commenced within ninety (90) days after the date of the decision. (Ord. 1589 § 1, 7-5-88. Formerly § 8B-42).

BUT YOU DID NOT DO THAT,. DID YOU?????????????

Oh, fellas!

2012-02-07T16:35:00.000-08:00

see Kayboo, known as John Doe 23

Bailey, John Doe Number 4

Redfield, John Doe 12

situation of an initiative ordinance that is deemed an improper interference with the local legislative body's administrative functions assigned to it by a state statute or other controlling instrument containing the legislative policies to be administered. (See Simpson v. Hite, supra, 36 Cal.2d at pp. 133-135; Housing Authority v. Superior Court (1950) 35 Cal.2d 550, 557-559 [219 P.2d 457]; McKevitt v. City of Sacramento (1921) 55 Cal.App. 117, 124 [203 P. 132].) The present charter amendment interferes with no preexisting legislative policy but instead performs the purely legislative function of introducing a new regulatory scheme.

Birkenhead v. City of Berkeley

[3] The remaining point presented and raised by the demurrer, which is necessary to determine on this appeal, may be stated as follows: Respondent contends here, as he did in the trial court, that the act or acts as set forth in the referendum petition are multifarious, that they constitute several independent acts, part of which are legislative and part of which are administrative and not legislative in character. He contends, therefore, that they are not subject to the right of referendum, citing Bricker v. Banks, 98 Cal.App. 87 [276 P. 399]; Woodlawn v. Cain, 135 Ala. 369 [33 So. 149]; Dwyer v. City Council of the City of Berkeley, 200 Cal. 505 [253 P. 932]; Foster v. City Council of the City of Berkeley, 201 Cal. 769 [255 P. 1118]; Riedman v. Brison, 217 Cal. 383 [18 PaCal. 2d 947]; McKevitt v. City of Sacramento, etc., 55 Cal.App. 117 [203 P. 132]; Burdick v. City of San Diego, 29 Cal. App. 2d 565 [84 PaCal. 2d 1064]; Hyde v. Wilde, 51 Cal.App. 82 [196 P. 118]; Chase v. Kalber, 28 Cal.App. 561 [153 P. 397].

Knowlton v Hezmalhalch

PROPOSITION 8 DECISION IMPACTS THE SANTA CLARA PLAYS FAIR REFERENDUM

2012-02-07T16:21:00.000-08:00

THE DECISION BY THE NINTH CIRCUIT, HAS, AS THE SUPREME COURT DID WITH THE MALKEY DECISION, HAS A MAJOR IMPACT ON INITIATIVES AND REFERENDUMS

UNFORTUNATELY, WHEN SANTA CLARA PLAYS FAIR IS GETTING LEGAL ADVICE FROM JOHN BARLEYCORN, HERE, ONE WONDERS WHAT BAR BRIEF THEY ARE GETTING. A BRIEF FROM A MEMBER OF THE BAR, OR, WITH FLECK, LOTS OF TIME WITH HIM AT A BAR

what sorts of laws it can pass; and it marks the limits of our own authority. In the ordinary case, a law will be sustained if it can be said to advance a legitimate government interest, even if the law seems unwise or works to the disadvantage of a particular group, or if the rationale for it seems tenuous. See New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U. S. 297

ROMER V. EVANS

County Jail Measure

2012-02-07T08:53:00.001-08:00

Board of Supervisors wants to put a measure on the ballot to transfer control from the Department of Corrections to the board.

We went from the Sheriff to the Board, which established a Department of Corrections, and now wants to take the jail from that department to the board.

Makes sense, no?

Mixed up policy making, yes!

SANTA CLARA PLAYS FINALLY TRUMPS STADIUM BY INSISTING ON SANTA CLARA STEELERS AS 2ND TEAM

2012-02-06T22:05:00.000-08:00

GIVEN THE SUCCESS OF THE LA TEMPTATION, SANTA CLARA PLAYS FAIR HAS DECIDED TO DEMAND A LEASE AS THE 2ND TEAM

CO OWNERS OF THE SANTA CLARA STEELERS, BILL BAILEY AND JIM REDFIELD ARE SIGNING UP THEIR BEST PLAYERS FOR A SANTA CLARA PLAYS FAIR LINGERIE TEAM

SINCE WE ARE ENOUGH TROUBLE SUGGESTING THIS, WE WILL LET THE REST OF SANTA CLARA INSIDERS IMAGINE A SANTA CLARA PLAYS FAIR TEAM IN THE LINGERIE LEAGUE

AS A PROTEST TO THE NFL LOAN, SANTA CLARA PLAYS FAIR RAN A COUNTER PROGRAM IN ALL THEIR HOMES YESTERDAY, BAILEY AND RYAN ALSO DID THE DUET LIVE, MATCHING DRESSES

2012-02-06T21:50:00.000-08:00