NC Media Watch

Is this PR to rebuild reputation of Clerk-Recorder Office after the lawsuit?

Russ Steele

This is a press release that appeared in the County CEO's Friday Memo.

Nevada County Clerk-Recorder, Gregory J. Diaz, is pleased to announce that the California Secretary of State’s office has certified Nevada County Elections as an official Ballot Finisher, defined as an entity that “processes sheets or unfinished ballot cards to make ballot cards to be used in California elections.”

Certification requires:
• Knowledge of ballot creation and layout regulations
• Accurate inventory control forms and ballot security documentation
• Enforcing a high level of ballot security during the finishing (printing) process
• Ensuring finished ballots are securely transported from one location to another
• Voting System vendor testing and certification of ballot production quality
• On-site inspection

The rigorous certification process was a year-long endeavor, beginning with the creation of the ballot finishing program, requiring approval from the voting system vendor, and culminating in an on-site inspection of the facility and security measures by a representative from the Secretary of State’s office; Nevada County Elections staff successfully satisfied all these requirements.

Earning this certification allows the Nevada County Elections Office the opportunity to realize possible cost savings on ballot printing in upcoming elections. Printing ballots on demand eliminates the practice of estimating ballot inventory levels needed for an election, which will increase both efficiency and security going forward.

Special thanks to Assistant Clerk-Recorder, Gail Smith, and Clerk-Recorder Assistant I, Elise Strickler, for their hard work during the process and successful completion of Nevada County Elections’ Ballot Finishing Certification.

I wonder if this training and certification was mandated after they screwed up the numbering of past ballots?  If it saves taxpayer money, that is a good thing. After the lawsuit the County Elections Office has a lot of making up to do, if they hope to recover the tax dollers flushed down the legal drain.  Your thoughts?

Supreme Court, the supreme global warming skeptics?

Russ Steele

Lawrence Solomon, writes in the Canada's Financial Post:

The justices of the United States Supreme Court this week became the world’s most august global warming sceptics. Not by virtue of their legal reasoning – the global warming case they decided turned on a technical legal issue — but in their surprising commentary. Global warming is by no means a settled issue, they made clear, suggesting it would be foolhardy to assume it was.

“The court, we caution, endorses no particular view of the complicated issues related to carbon-dioxide emissions and climate change,” reads the 8-0 decision, delivered by the court’s acclaimed liberal, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The court decision noted that the Environmental Protection Agency itself had “Acknowledg[ed] that not all scientists agreed on the causes and consequences of the rise in global temperatures,” before suggesting readers consult “views opposing” the conventional wisdom.

Specifically, the justices’ recommended reading was a superb profile of Princeton’s Freeman Dyson, perhaps America’s most respected scientist, written in the New York Times Magazine, March 29, 2009.

Freeman, an unabashed skeptic [and a member of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council], believes that carbon dioxide, rather than being harmful, is both necessary and desirable, arguing that “increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

Somewhat in the same vein, Justice Ginsburg notes carbon dioxide is necessary and ubiquitous, and thus shouldn’t be the target of indiscriminate attacks. “After all, we each emit carbon dioxide merely by breathing,” she notes, repeating a point that Dyson couldn’t have said better himself.

Full decision of the Court is here.  I am looking for the YouTube video of Freeman Dyson explaining his views on global warming, but ran out of time this morning.  Stay tuned for the update.

Climate Courtroom Worm Has Turned

Russ Steele

John O'Sullivan has the story here.

In a landmark court ruling in New Zealand that will send tremors around the world, the once respected Greenpeace is stripped of its charity status.
 
High Court Judge, Justice Paul Heath made the groundbreaking decision today after overwhelming evidence was presented that proved that the organization's illegal activities were motivated by zealous political advocacy and crossed the line of what charities are permitted to do.

Arrogance often leads to over stepping one's boundaries and leads to destruction. It appears that Greenpeace is on the that path. 

As a consequence of the shock New Zealand ruling Greenpeace’s political activities mean it will be de-registered as a charity and thus lose the prestige and tax advantages associated with that status.

Stay Tuned. Can a US lawsuit be just around the corner to strip them of their non-profit tax status?

From the CEO's Friday Memo - AtPac Case Update

Russ Steele

Favorable Ruling in the AtPac Case:Mike Jamison provides the attached ruling by Federal Magistrate John Moulds rejecting a request by the AtPac attorneys with the concluding statement,

“the record does not support plaintiff’s assertion that defendants have willfully and repeatedly violated the court’s discovery order.”

Yes, but here is the full paragraph from the order:

Plaintiff’s briefing fails to demonstrate circumstances warranting a forensic examination of defendants’ and their counsel’s computer systems to assure production of the documents which this court has ordered produced. Although it appears there has been some foot dragging on the part of defendants, the record does not support plaintiff’s assertion that defendants have willfully and repeatedly violated the court’s discovery order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s request for forensic examination is denied.
2. The temporal scope of the waiver of privilege is limited to documents existing at the time of the November 18, 2010 order.
3. Billing records need not be produced as those documents are not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

As I recall the County has already been fined $20,000 Dollars for their "foot dragging." I guess the Judge decided that was enough retribution.

Over the e-mail Transom: Obama's Long Form Birth Certificate is a fake

Russ Steele

I watched this compelling analysis on a link at Rebame's Ruminations. Now a regular reader has sent me a link and requested I post it for your analysis.

I do not question where Obama is borne, but he is hiding something. The evidence presented by this young computer graphic expert is rather compelling. Watch it for yourself, and then I would like to hear your thoughts. Is his analysis flawed?  Is there a better explanation for the changes detected in the Long Form document?  Also, follow all the four video clips and then answer this question:  Why was Obama's 1961 live birth certificate published on a pre-printed form only used after 1974?

Exit Question: Based on this analysis, do you think that Obama's Long Form Birth Certificate has been altered? Why?

County Council Spins the AtPac Lawsuit (Updated)

Russ Steele

It appears the the County and Diaz will also be joining Aptitude Solutions in switching legal teams. This arrived from the County Council this afternoon while we were out to dinner.

Media Release                                May 4, 2011

 In the lawsuit filed by AtPac, Inc., Defendants County of Nevada, Clerk-Recorder Gregory Diaz and Aptitude Solutions, Inc. have decided to be represented by the firm of Pillsbury Winthrop. As the case moved closer to a trial date later this year the County felt that a law firm with offices in the Sacramento area would be advantageous.  The litigation costs will be split between Aptitude and the County.

This case arose out of the need of the County Recorder to have a computer program that would allow it to efficiently record, index, retrieve and copy official records. These records, are critical to the functioning of our society. In 2009, the County, in a competitive process selected  Aptitude Solutions, Inc. The new system has proven to be economical and efficient.

The Recorder’s Office was then faced with the task of how to extract its data from the old program in order to put it into Aptitude’s program. The County requested of AtPac  if they would assist in the extraction; their response did not give any assurance that the process could be accomplished in the time that the transition needed to occur. The Clerk-Recorder could not allow the performance of his official duties relative to the County’s Official records to be compromised.  Aptitude Solutions, Inc. agreed to assist in the extraction. The lawsuit followed.

There has been considerable and understandable concern about the cost of defending this lawsuit. Neither the County nor Mr. Diaz chose to be sued. AtPac’s attorneys have demanded $1,000,000 to settle this case. The County has not been shown any evidence that AtPac has been harmed financially by the data extraction and we continue to believe that defending against the suit is in our citizens’ best interest.

I am pleased to hear that we will only be paying for one legal team, not two. It will be interesting to hear the other-side of the story.  Yes, it is hard to find the evidence when County staff scrubbed the servers that had the evidence.  You may recall this scrubbing upset a Federal Judge who said senior county staff should have know better. So, this opens this question was it deliberate, incompetence, or stupidity?  Your choice!

Update (05-04-11, 20:00) George Rebane and Rebane's Ruminations posted his transcript of a bi-weekly commentary on KVMR-FM which was recorded on 21 April 2011: The Diaz Case Continues. He added an addendum of information from a subsequent conversation he had with a Nevada County staffer on insurance risk. This transcript generated over a 110 comments from community observers.

Update #2 (05-05-11, 07:00) The Union has a little more on this story, but not much. Details here.

Over e-mail transom: KNCO AtPac Interview today, Union story tomorrow

Russ Steele

A regular reader has sent a note that KNCO"s Chuck Whitten will have an interview with AtPac's lawyer, Mr. Thomas, at 5:05 pm and 5:40 pm today on your AM radio at 830. It promises to be quite interesting.

The Union will be running an article on the AtPac vs Nevada County & Greg Diaz lawsuit tomorrow.

As i said before this story has legs, Stay Tuned.

OMG, Aptitude Solutions has jumped ship from the Diaz/County Legal Team

Russ Steele

Here is the notice:

PLEASE TAXE NOTICE that Clpress, LLP hereby withdraws as attorneys of
record for Defendant APTITUDE SOLUTIONS, INC. in the above-entitled action.

APTITUDE SOLUTIONS, INC. hereby substitutes Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP as its attorneys of record in the place and stead ofCypress, LLP.

I have heard rumors that Aptitude Solutions wants to settle and the County and Diaz are holding out for some vindication in a trial.   Splitting up the legal team would indicate that they are now on seperate paths to a solution. What a mess!

Exit Questions:

1. Are the County and the Taxpayers now paying for two legal teams instead of one, due to the indemnification agreement?  
2. How much more is this doubling of the team going to cost the Taxpayers?
3. Which defendent does NOT see the hand writing on the wall?

Stage being set for epic environmental battle

Russ Steele

According to an LA Time’s article the Supreme Court indicates it will dismiss 6-state global warming lawsuit, indicating that the EPA should be the final voice on the regulation of GHG, not single judges in seperate states.  This puts more pressure on the EPA to carry out the environmentalist mission of destroying the US economy.

On the other side the Republican House and the Tea Party that are not ready to let the environmentalist destroy our economy with out a fight.  This will be an epic battle between personal freedom and social engineering regulations.  If the Supreme Court gives the EPA the power to regulate, the Republican will have redouble their fight to preserve our open market economy and preserve our personal freedom to live as we chose, and now how some government bureaucrat thinks we should.

This will be one of the epic battles in 2011, leading up to the 2012 election. Stay Tuned.

Supreme Court skeptical of greenhouse gas regulations

Russ Steele

California is one of the States what wants to force power companies to reduce greenhouse gases, not just in the California, but very where there are power plants.  However on Tuesday the US Supreme Court cast a skeptical eye toward a ground-breaking environmental case that seeks to use public nuisance law as a way to force five major power companies to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases in the fight against global warming.  However, the court will not address the key issues, does greenhouse gas emission cause global warming.  Only if your are a true believer in Goreism Cult of Global Warming, but the court stays away from religious issues.

The Christan Science Monitor has the rest of the story on the Courts slepticism here.

In questions from the bench during an extended 80-minute oral argument session, many of the justices expressed concern about using the judiciary to by-pass the approach to greenhouse gases embraced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Congress.

Chief Justice John Roberts said litigation against major power companies over global warming raises a wide variety of policy issues, including questions about the potential cost to the US and world economies.

I find it refreshing to learn that US Supreme County would be worrying about the cost of greenhouse gas regulations, something California Legislature and Regulators refuse to address in any realistic way.

H/T to regular reader for pointing to this article.