While candidates are still pulling papers, the first “hit piece” in the 2008 Mission Viejo city council race is now being drafted.
Laguna Niguel Mayor Paul Glaab, who is also the local representative of ATS which has an exclusive contract with our city on citing cell towers, has just made a Public Records request on council member Gail Reavis.
For those unfamiliar with our history, and based on Paul’s request, it appears we need to turn the clock back to 2005 where this story begins. At that time the secretary of our former city manager filed a claim against the city for harassment naming Gail Reavis in that allegation.
The city is covered by the JPIA (insurance) which, according to Council Member Reavis, never provided advise nor defense in that action that the council majority approved resulting in a $10,000 settlement. To force an investigation councilwoman Reavis tells me she filed a claim against the city of Mission Viejo for $10 million “to get their attention” and it surely did. Gail tells me she “never intended to seek any funds.” Her sole reason for the huge amount was “to force an investigation and get peoples attention.” I am told that the city has always denied claims yet in this case did not take that position.
So folks that’s the long and the short of it.
But there is more to this story.
Laguna Niguel Mayor Paul Glaab has made a Public Records request “to see all detailed information surrounding the Council Member Reavis’ legal action against the City of Mission Viejo in 2005 for $10 million” including all related costs the city incurred.
If I am not mistake there is a new requirement from our state legislature that all elected officials have to take and pass a “mandatory ethics class” with the confirmation of course completion placed on file with your city clerk.
Is Paul Glaab inquiring on behalf of one or more candidates for the Mission Viejo city council? As he is not a resident of our city, and you typically do not include negative material in your standard mailings, I can only surmise that this discovery phase is to create a “hit piece” against council woman Reavis in this year’s election. Is this action by Mayor Glaab how you spell ethics?
Larry. You have only been engaged in CA politics for the past 20 years. In fact if you can recall we even found signs in MV in 2006 that read “Reject Barker & Greenwood” that were paid for by the campaigns of John Paul Ledesma and Lance MacLean.
That was a first for me. Seeing signs opposing candidates, not just Ballot Measures.
So folks, when the mail arrives, remember you heard it first on the Orange Juice!
PS: This is not an endorsement of Gail Reavis. I am not supporting her in this race and have told her so.
At the end of each city election, I think it can’t get any worse. In a city of 100,000, no one is interested in running, and we end up with lunatics and goofballs on the council.
Glaab isn’t a consultant, he’s a buzzard circling with other buzzards and flies (Kelley, Ury and MacLean). What a bunch of sickos!
Larry, Larry, Larry:
You have done it again.
Exposing Glabb who is ATS’s shill and Ury’s binkie. Yes indeed MacLean was and is a sleaze in the last election and he was funded by Southern California Edison with dirty money. But guess who else has taken those dirty donations ???
Grover
MV Citizen.
We agree. Having personally being “hit” in two city council and one water district race, with false accusations in last minute mailings, I can understand why qualified citizens, wishing to give back to their community, will avoid this arena.
While I recall some of the details related to the harassment allegations, for the Mayor of Laguna Niguel to enter the fray leaves himself open for public criticism.
Larry, I can’t believe you missed what Reavis said:
she filed a claim against the city of Mission Viejo for $10 million “to get their attention” and it surely did. Gail tells me she “never intended to seek any funds.”
From what I remember in the paper, this went all the way to the courts, and a judge threw it out. Now, if she was not out for the money, then she must have been using the legal system in a very bad way.
She had several other ways to get attention, isn’t it illegal to use the legal system in this wey? If it goes all the way to a judge, I think it is quite deceitful to say she was “not in it for the money”. Do you seriously believe that line?
And you seem pretty niave in your views on this one. I do expect more from you. You wrote this like you believed her.
Did Larry miss it.
As a reporter you let the person being interviewed make whatever statements they wish. Having been on both sides of discussions with media representatives not everything can be included in published reports. The Reavis’ told me of their legal limits in forcing an investigation.
That entire episode was rather costly to our city which goes beyond the $10,000 settlement and its related costs.
And the above quotes were repeated to me by Gail.
We leave it to you the reader to decide if she was off base in her strategy and tactics.
I am not niave in my personal feelings about this episode in MV politics. Challenging “damage control” is not my role in being the messenger in the basis of this post. Let’s not forget the connection between Mayor Glaab and the city as well as his relationship with current council members who may be hiding under a rug as the dirt hits the fan.
Let’s stay focused on the future “hit piece” and not whether or not Gail was wrong in her methods.
After reading the post Gail sent me a follow up note indicating that she has not requested my endorsement.
A councilmember suing her own city to “get their attention.”
But, of course, claims she never had any intention of accepting such damages — like that’s a good excuse. I know Id feel better if someone sued me for $10 million but later claimed it was just to get attention and there was never the intent to collect. That would be A-OK.
What Reavis is describing is, in other words, a frivolous lawsuit and an abuse of the tort system.
Now there’s responsible representation that deserves re-election!
So Larry, are you in favor of the legal system being used this way? To “get attention”. Your post sure sounded like you were on Reavis side…
Yes or no, pretty easy question to you.
Dirty politics is business as usual. Gail Reavis was the only councilmember to question why city manager Wilberg paid Paul Glaab $14,000 to write a fact sheet; without getting Council vote or approval.
Glaab must not have liked that much.
So, question for Ury: “what is your relationship with Paul Glaab and his PR marketing firm? what was your relationship with him and also Tony of ATS before they showed up at the city with their proposals? Did you get them into the city, via your special committee with MacLean?”
Looks like it’s just another good ‘ol boys club at work here.
Just the business of politics as usual….for anyone paying attention.
Haya Sakadjian
MVcell-out.org
Wow Haya, you are so right.
A city councilmember suing her own city for $10,000,000 is tiny compared to a $14000 bill for a service.
Yes, that is great perspective.
While there is a lot of spin, speculation, and storytelling going on here let me see if I have the FACTS as Larry presents them
1. A City employee “filed a claim against the city for harrassment naming Gail Reavis in that allegation” The settlement of that claim cost the City $10,000 and Larry says “That entire episode was rather costly to our city which goes beyond the $10,000 settlement and its related costs.”
2.Gail Reavis “filed a claim against the city of Mission Viejo for $10 million”
While Larry then says “that’s the long and short of it” he does not indicate what the outcome of the “claim against the city of Mission Viejo for $10 million” was or how much that cost the city.
Perhaps that is what the public records request is attempting to find out.
Message to the good ‘ol boys crew,
There is no excuse for Gail’s actions while on the council.
Reavis was the only councilmember who was alert enough to ask the smart questions; but then succumbed to fear and intimidation by Ury, Maclean, Curly- whoever was hustling her around at the moment. Gail’s biggest blind spot is her fragile ego and need for “appearance”.
Ury on the other hand, is the biggest disappointment. He has the smarts and capability, but his blind spot has been his own sense of entitlement and greed. Ury’s got his hand in the cookie jar with his “Viejo Tech” municipal wi-fi company; and he can never advocate for the public because he’s manipulating for his own survival.
You know what I’m talking about; everybody who has been watching does.
Neither Ury nor Reavis should be re-elected. They are both disappointments, caring more for themselves than the public they are elected to serve.
Yet the people get what they deserve, and come November, we will know if the public is satisfied with the lot they’ve voted for, or if they’re ready to make a better choice.
Haya Sakadjian
MVcell-out.org
and yes, $14,000 for one fact sheet by Glaab, informing the city how they can “manage” public opposition to ATS, can hardly be considered one of the city’s better choices.
Haya
Jubal.
Perhaps you can explain why the Mayor of a neighboring city made a Public Records request in July of 2008 about an three year old claim involving a council member in another city that has zero bearing on his city of Laguna Niguel?
Perhaps Mayor Glaab is assisting in the removal of Gail Reavis who has voted no to “factoring” future receivables on cell towers for which Mr. Glaab has a financial interest? At a time when our city manager and your close friend Frank Ury boast of our huge reserves yet they promote “monetizing” the cell towers where ATS is the sole contractor for whom Mr. Glaab is the representative for ATS’s cell tower citing agreement in our city.
And Matt. We have been down this road before. Let’s be very open about your relationship for Frank Ury who, along with Gail Reavis, is up for reelection this November.
Is Paul Glaab his campaign Manager?
And even if he is, if it smells like a “hit piece” his questioning our city leads to only one conclussion. His discovery does not reach the bottom of the bar for integrity or ethical conduct by an elected official.
As to your bottom line. Where did I give readers any impression that I was supporting her reelection?
Did Larry miss it.
No, I was not happy with that entire sequence of events. It was a dark period in our city’s brief history. However, without your identifying your self I am not going to devote time rehashing all of the details which triggered this claim.
Let’s not engage in the misdeeds from 2004-06 that cost our city XX dollars. This train is beginning to run off track.
Why did Paul Glaab make his request?
I have sent him a copy of this blog post and await his feedback that we will gladly include in this post.
Matt. Unless you are the spokesperson for Paul we both know that you have an Agenda in the 2008 Mission Viejo election. As such your comments, while truly welcome, are suspect.
Did Haya miss it too.
While any lawsuit against any city comes at a cost to taxpayers we are not staying focused. The 2005 claim is in the “dead” file.
The “current” city council debate of “monetizing” our cell towers to get somewhere less than the full future revenues involves Paul Glaab due to his representing ATS. We are talking about a current action that involves compensation for Mr. Glaab.
Did Haya miss it. If you send me your address I will send you a 2008 calendar.
Concerned.
As I do not have documents at hand to provide the outcome and related costs to the $10 mil.claim you will need to follow future comments. City Hall is not open today or Sunday.
Perhaps you can explain why the Mayor of a neighboring city made a Public Records request in July of 2008 about an three year old claim involving a council member in another city that has zero bearing on his city of Laguna Niguel?
I think it is pretty obvious why: He’s probably putting together an IE attack mailer against Reavis. It’s a free country, after all, Larry.
And I have to laugh at your leaving it to readers to “make their judgment” about Reavis’ antics, but you’re always quick to leap to conclusions about MV politics you don’t like.
My “agenda” is transparent, Larry. I’d like Frank to win re-election and Reavis to go down in defeat. That’s not exactly a secret, kemosabe.
Kemosabe. Jubal
Thank you for acknowledging that Laguna Niguel Mayor Paul Glaab is working on a “hit piece.”
The good news is that the citizens of Mission Viejo have already been informed.
If everyone in Mission Viejo knows that Reavis sued the city for $10M, then she is toast. How in the world can a councilmember sue her own city and still ask to be reelected? Have you ever heard of such a thing?
Concerned.
My reference to “costly” can best be explained by perhaps a solid year of misdirection of our city council while these charges and infighting dragged on showing the lack of professionalism by our elected officials. It became a very ugly and dark period for the “finest planned community in America.” When we received that award they didn’t have this future council in mind.
Gilbert Note: There’s inadequate space on this blog to share the entire circumstances leading up to the litigation issue which consumed our attention for perhaps a solid year. After the employee “harassment” action was received, Mayor Reavis eventually retained the legal services of Newport Beach Attorney Philip Greer.
Before I take you down that path, and his testimony, let us not overlook the original question.
Why is Paul Glaab seeking documentation on MV litigation which we closed out a few years ago?
It’s simple. He stands to benefit financially from his arrangement with ATS. An arrangement that Gail Reavis opposes. That proposal goes well beyond the $14,000 stated in one of the comments.
Following is the November 15, 2004 testimony of Atty. Philip Greer at that MV city council meeting. Mr. Greer represented Mayor Gail Reavis in the allegations of harassment filed against her by a city employee.
“Gail: …and I do have one public comment request to speak from for the closed session. Phil Greer. Pardon me. Phillip Greer.
Madam Mayor, members of the City Council, Mr. City Attorney, Mr. City Manager: My name is Phillip Greer. I am an attorney in Newport Beach and I represent Mayor Gail Reavis. It is my understanding that on the advise of council, the city council intends to exclude Mayor Reavis and her attorney from those deliberations. It is our opinion that to so exclude Mayor Reavis, who is essentially a party defendant to this action, is to deny her the opportunity and the ability to participate in her own defense and to contribute an understanding of the full extent of the issues presented by this claim. Such action is a violation of the law and a denial of her right to due process and, in our opinion, creates additional and independent liabilities for the city council, members of the city council and the city itself. These liabilities are separate and apart from those liabilities contained in the claim to be discussed. Additionally, it is respectfully requested that the city council, either on its own motion or pursuant to the advice of council, disqualify and recuse from participating, Council Member Trish Kelley in these discussions. Numerous comments by Miss Kelley, both publicly and via e-mail, show a bias against Mayor Reavis. It is our opinion that this bias is so ingrained that Council Member Kelley will be unable to reasonably and rationally review the allegations contained in the claim and make decisions unencumbered by such bias. As such, Council Member Kelley may take actions or render decisions not based on fact but upon such biases, leaving the city council, it’s individual members and the City of Mission Viejo, subject to liability separate and apart from those contained in the claim. We believe that the underlying claim by the city employee and the subsequent actions taken by the members of the city council, are politically motivated and have no basis either in fact or law. The timing of the presentation is suspect. The allegations are contradicted by facts, and comments by council members may present a picture of involvement much greater than a simple concern for Mission Viejo and one of its employees. Regrettably, it appears that the die has been cast and unfortunately when the smoke clears, Mayor Reavis, I believe, will be vindicated and exonerated, while others who are participating in this will have their reputations ruined as a result of the facts that will be brought to light. I urge you to allow the mayor to participate in this process so that this matter might be resolved expeditiously and with nominal ramifications. Thank you very much.
Gail: Thank you. With that we will recess to closes session.
Peter (Thorson, city attorney): Madam Mayor.
Gail: I’m sorry. Peter: If I could respond to that.
Gail: Yes. Peter: Mr. Greer raised three items. The first on excluding the Mayor from the closed session. It is my view that the claim does not involve the mayor that is does ahhhh…..the city council is entitled to exclude the mayor from the closed session. There is two cases right on point on that issue. One is DeGrasse v. City of Glendora, and the other is Hamilton v. Town of Los Gatos. Second, with respect to the request that Council Member Kelley be excluded, I have discussed this with Mr. Greer. I find no cases that apply the bias issue to the discussion of a lawsuit and so I see no legal basis on which that can occur. And I have no comments on his discussion of the underlying claim.
Gail: All right, with that are we recessed to closed session?
Peter: Yes.
Gail: Thank you very much. Thank you.”
As a follow up to this post the following text is provided by councilwoman Reavis.
“Kelley, MacLean and Craycraft were in every closed session meeting. The now CA sent letters to the California Attorney General asking for a ruling on how they could proceed on this. During this time, the CLAIM was allowed to expire and not responded to my the city.
Then, having had nothing resolved, I had to make the ultimate decision WHETHER OR NOT TO FILE A LAWSUIT in the restricted time available to me by law. Since Ms. XXXXX had begun this episode, for about 8 months my name had been subjected to a cloud of doubt as to whether or not I had ‘harassed’ her. Still never investigated, frustrated and feeling that my rights to Due Process had been denied, I (we) decided to SUE.
..”the suit was against only KELLEY, MACLEAN AND RIOS. Among other things, it asserted DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS. The city & JPIA provided the three with attorney Lee Woods, which was provided and paid for by the JPIA Woods and his staffer Mr. Francis attended several of these closed session meetings where I and my attorney were excluded.
The substance of their argument to the court to toss out the lawsuit was an acronym S.L.A.P.P.
Gilbert Note: “A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”) is a lawsuit or a threat of lawsuit that is intended to intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. Winning the lawsuit is not necessarily the intent of the person filing the SLAPP. The plaintiff’s goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate.”
… based on their submissions there was one moment before an actual judge. Both attorneys ‘defended’ their briefs. My attorney did not make an argument, he told me there would be other days ahead to do that. Instead the judge ‘took it under advisement’, and made a ruling. It was short and sweet.
He upheld Woods’ argument that these three were covered by “privilege”, and that “PRIVILEGE COVERS COMMUNICATIONS THAT ARE FRAUDULENT, PERJURIOUS, UNETHICAL AND ILLEGAL”.
And, because this was a “S.L.A.P.P.” suit, they asked for and were awarded attorneys fees of $2835.00. All kinds of correspondence with Francis takes place now and they start demanding the judgment of $3105, (which was never explained to me), And, after nearly a year of trying to get a JPIA ruling on why I was being asked to pay for services which our insurance coverage had already paid for, signed an agreement with them to make payments. Which I have done and received a full release from them. I even appealed this to the Board of the JPIA and was denied.
Even after all this, the council on a 5-0 voted for me as Mayor in 2007!”
Note: The City of Mission Viejo is covered by their membership in JPIA’s insurance policy. Therefore we should not have incurred any legal expenses.
Yes, “You” missed it.
as audacious as it is to sue your own city, Ury’s insider dealings with the city of Mission Viejo regarding the ATS “Wireless Master Plan” is even more unethical.
Ask Ury, he will deny that his Viejo Tech company ever approached MV at all. He’s right; because he’s too shrewd for that. Ya gotta set everything up in place for yourself first. Never leave a finger print.
It amazes me that Ury is even running. Why doesn’t he just hang up his “public servant” hat and forge on with his corporate advances? Now that he has all the city contacts and “friends” he needs. Wouldn’t going after the money just be easier? Who could blame a guy just trying to make a buck?
Or does he still need more from this city?
and, “you” missed it; stating your real name might be a nice change for you.
Haya
MVcell-out.org
and getting back to the main point here…
What is this love triangle all about?
Ury recommends Tony/ATS and his $200K “master wireless plan”. The plan receives negative feedback from the public. ATS brings in Paul Glaab to assuage the masses. Glaab needs his chunk of change for the memo he puts out.
and lo, here is mayor Glaab back in the picture with a public records request. Is he working for Ury? Just a yes or no answer would do.
Wow,Larry has spent a lot of time on this blog post in the last 24hrs. What is interesting is that for someone who claims he is not supporting/endorsing Gail Reavis’ re-election bid he is certainly spending a lot of time and effort manufacturing issues to divert attention away from Gail’s past performance and behavior as a councilmember. He is also giving Gail a lot of space to explain away her past actions.
I am also now curious as to why Larry would suggest–“Let’s not engage in the misdeeds from 2004-2006 that cost our city xx dollars” or that those claims are “in the dead file” It would seem that a review and reflection on the past performance and behavior of an incumbent councilmember (in this case Gail Reavis) would, in fact, be an important factor for someone to consider in deciding if that person should be re-elected.
Anyway, I was just checking back to see if my previous questions about the facts presented had been answered—sadly they were not. Also not answered was a fairly basic question in comment 7 by “Did Larry Miss It”. The only additional information I got by checking back here was contained in a rather lengthy comment 21 which seemed to be an attempt by Ms. Reavis (through Larry)to explain away her past actions. In summary what I got out of that comment was the revelation that Gail Reavis apparently lost her lawsuit against the City and had to pay $3105 in attorney fees to the JPIA as a result of losing. It also shed some light on a comment made by Larry in the original post that the JPIA never provided advise nor defense to Ms. Reavis in these claims. It is apparent that she already had an attorney and therefore the JPIA couldn’t get involved. (Plus why would the JPIA who is supposed to defend the city, defend Gail Reavis who is the one sueing the city)
Larry did attempt to answer part of my questions by trying to blame the entire Council for what he terms a “very ugly and dark period”. However based on the facts presented only one councilmember — Gail Reavis — sued the city. And again in one claim it cost the city $10,000 or as Larry states “That entire episode was rather costly to our city which goes beyond the $10,000 settlement and its related costs” In the $10 million dollar lawsuit filed by Gail Reavis against the city the cost to the city are apparently unknown to Larry—again perhaps a good reason for the public records request so we can all find out.
Concerned:
You just don’t get it or you are so stupid and can’t read. Gail Reavis NEVER SUED THE CITY!
It was a claim because her rights were violated. Ury is the one behind saying Reavis sued the city. It did not happen. The $10,000 claim was by a employee who ex-boss was running against Reavis in 2004. Kelley, MacLean and Craycraft approved the claim without an investigation. First time in the history of Mission Viejo a clain was investigated. It cost Reavis 25% of the vote for her re-election, but she still won.
Reavis is the only member on the council that will stand up for the rights of the citizens.
Gail Reavis for President1
Insidethewalls,
If she did not sue the city, why did to go all the way to a judge? All I know is she tried to get $10,000,000 from the taxpayers from Mission Viejo, that is enough information for me.
Concerned.
you bet I have spent a sizeable amount of time trying to respond to every reader comment which requires official documentation or persoanl contacts. The transcript of attorney Philip Greer’s Nov 2004 public comments provides some insight into this Closed Session matter the night before that election.
Where do you prefer my going?
Apparently you are well versed in our city’s politics. There were several of us activists, possibly including yourself, that in addition to removing our mayor and mayor pro-tem, also worked together to remove our former city manager. The lawsuit against Gail Reavis may have wratched up that final settlement. That’s my unspecified comment as to the cost of misdeeds in the “very ugly and dark period.”
I have no issue with transparency as to the costs incurred by our city. I must respectfully bring all of us back on track.
Why is the Mayor of Laguna Niguel requesting that data?
As pointed out by Matt Cunningham it is surely for an I.E. For those unfamiliar with that acronym, an I.E. is an “independent expenditure” for which the candidates have no input or control. It’s what some may refer to as a “hit piece.” In the last election every voter in O.C. surely received their share of these mailings.
Furthermore. as a former candidate I did challenge the voting record of incumbents. That’s a given for any challenger. However I must repeat myself by saying that Gail Reavis is a thorn to ATS and Paul Glaab re ongoing council decision making that impact commissions from “monetizing ” cell tower accounts receivable.
Juice readers.
For the record. The transcript of attorney Philip Greer’s testimony was not provided to me by Gail or Rick Reavis or any of their supporters.
Good morning Concerned.
As I re-read your comment where you stated:
Larry did attempt to answer part of my questions by trying to blame the entire Council for what he terms a “very ugly and dark period”.
Question. How many members of the city council did it take to remove our city manager? ONE?
I rest my case!
Haya.
Thank you for staying focused. My sense is that either officially or unofficially Mr Glaab is assisting either or both Frank Ury and Trish’s hand picked candidate, Rich Atkinson, in the Nov election. Let’s remove any candidate who does not support the ATS effort in Mission Viejo.
And to repeat myself. I support transparency in government. Sadly that is something our city council majority, including Mayor Trish Kelley and Council Member Frank Ury opposes.
I am not trying to block anyone, including Paul Glaab, from requesting Public Documents.
Haya:
check your mv-cellout e-mail.
Hole in the walls:
Reavis did not SUE the City! She filed a claim against the city for violation of her rights. Now if you knew anything about claims against a city or any municipality, you would know that members can not vote to award financial support to another member of that city or municipality.
But, it sure is an attention grabber.
What she did do was sue Kelley, MacLean and a member of the city staff for also violation of her rights to be heard in the settlement of a frivolous claim against her. That suit had no monetary value attached to it. This did not cost the city anything and Reavis paid all the court and lawyer fees. To answer your first question the $10,00,000 claim did not go to a judge. Reavis did not push it after it grabbed the attention of people like you, and she let it run it course and evaporate. I hope “that is enough information for” you!
Larry, please get a life. So Haya who lives in Irvine can comment on politics in MV and criticize select council members, but Paul Glaab from Laguna Niguel cannot? I believe that is called hypocrisy, something you are very familiar with.
Larry, you used “hit pieces” on incumbents when you ran for office THREE times and lost! Obviously you and your opinions are irrelevant to residents of MV, you just somehow haven’t recognized it yet. You are a pathetic tired old man searching for relevance and continually missing it. You only feel good about yourself as you tear others down. I feel sorry for you Larry – you are sick, go get some help.
sorry guardian, it’s Laguna Niguel now….so I get to live with and comment on Glaab.
and I didn’t even pull any public records requests!
“guardian” is a nice name, but it’s really not that hard to just state your name; instead of hiding behind pseudonyms and slinging insults.
Haya
Who will guard the guardians.
Haya moved out of Mission Viejo to protect the health and safety of her son. Prior to her moving, a difficult choice for her and her family to make, she was very active in fighting the installation of cell towers where children are present. That activism including gathering petition signatures and speaking at multiple MV council meetings.
How many have you attended?
Therefore she is probably better informed than you on the topic and involvement of Paul Glaab
(unless you are Paul, Tony from ATS or a member of our city council or staff.
Who will guard the guardians.
I used hit pieces? what are you smoking?
I was victimized by former city council members who eventually lost their seats in future elections through our activism.
Big mouth. Show us one example of my using hit pieces in any of my races or take a hike.
The difference between us is that you can hide your identity and take pot shots at others.
Cowardly Lion. Let me ask the Wizard to consider giving you a badge of courage for you to wear.
Haya,
Why are you still concerned with Mission Viejo politics? Could it be that that you have finally found an audience on the lunatic fringe? Unfortunately, MV is full of half wits and idiots that subscribe to your nonsense of health issues with cell towers. Scientific facts are not even close to conclusive on cellular antennae and health. Since you are now in Laguna Niguel why not pester that council with your invective dim-witted postulate of health effects of invisible cellular waves and drop the MVcell-out BS. My guess is you will not have any lunatics to support your fantasy.
Who Will Guard the Guardians?
While Haya is surely capable of defending herself I am thankful that she still has a concern for the health and safety of our children even when she has moved acorss the freeway. Her group of 200 or so MV resident ssitll face the issue of cell tower exposure. Ar eyou suggesting that she simply walk away to make you happy?
Using your logic I guess we should bring all US troops home to America. Those currently serving around the globe for whom the USA is where they currently live.
You can still carry on the fight for those issues you believe in regardless of your current mailing address.
to poster #37, haya has the courage of her convictions to sign her name, it is obvious that you do not.
i have said this many times before: hiding behind a cloak of anonymity is cowardly; you want to be heard but you do not want to be judged. by not leaving your name, you silence your voice of conscience and your communication becomes vindictive, spiteful and non-productive.
i salute haya for all the time she has dedicated to raising public awareness about cell phone usage. she has some pretty good heavy hitters in her corner. you go, girl!
see the following from last night’s Larry King Live program on cell phones and cancer:
here is a rush transcript from larry king live:
to view the video got to: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/07/30/lkl.cell.phone.cnn
Aired July 29, 2008 – 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
And we’ll be right back. And when we come back – hey, you got a call phone? You want to know this. Is it putting your children and you at risk for cancer? That’s next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Does cell phone use increase your risk of cancer? It’s a hot-button debate. The latest development, a memo from Dr. Ronald Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, offering precautionary advice on cell phone use to his faculty and his staff.
We welcome to LARRY KING LIVE. Dr. Devra Davis, director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh’s Cancer Institute. Dr. Keith Black, chairman of the Department of Neurosurgery and director of the Maxine Dunitz Neurosurgical Institute in Cedars-Sinai in L.A. And also from L.A., Dr. Paul Song, radiation oncologist.
Dr. Davis has this new book, “The Secret History of the War on Cancer.” Dr. Davis, what do you maybe of Dr. Herberman’s memo? It should frighten everybody.
DR. DEVRA DAVIS, DIRECTOR, CENTER ENVIRONMENTAL ONCOLOGY: Well, we don’t want to frighten people. We want people to take precautions. That’s the reason he wrote the memo.
KING: Precautions being?
DAVIS: Well, to use an earpiece and to not keep your phone on, on your body all the time and to make sure that children are not using cell phones.
KING: At all?
DAVIS: No, no, young children particularly need to be careful and particularly toddlers, who now have cell phones that they use to play with. This is a really bad idea.
KING: What led Dr. Herberman to this finding?
DAVIS: Well, he looked at the literature and was aware of the growing concerns that we do not have enough information, nor enough time to be sure that cell phones are safe. There’s reason for concern that they may be harmful, so we need to take precautions rather than waiting to experiment on the rest of us.
KING: Dr. Black, meaning, if they are harmful, we don’t know why they are harmful, right?
DR. KEITH BLACK, CHAIRMAN, DEPT. OF NEUROSURGERY, CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER: We know that microwave radiation can damage cells, and there’s been some experimental evidence to suggest there are harmful effects. As Dr. Davis said, at this point, they’re looking at the relationship between cell phone use and brain cancer. We have conflicting studies. Some studies, which are not absolutely perfect, showed no correlation. We also have some studies that tend to suggest a correlation.
One of the recent studies from Sweden show that if you use cell phones an hour a day for ten years, your risk may be increased as much as two-fold. The real concern is analogous to this: we’ve only been using cell phones for a short period. Most of the studies are for a short period of time. So if you have a 14-year-old who smokes cigarettes, we don’t expect that 14-year-old to develop lung cancer at 24. We expect them to develop lung cancer at 54. If you have an eight-year-old using a cell phone, we don’t expect them to do you feel lung cancer at 18, but at 48.
What happens after 20, 30, 40 years of use, that’s the concern and we don’t have the answer to that.
KING: If we have — we have millions of cell phones in use now, right?
BLACK: That’s correct.
KING: Has there been an increase in brain cancer?
BLACK: Well, again we know that if you look at studies, there have been various explanations to try to account for the increase in brain cancer. KING: Has there been an increase?
BLACK: There’s been an increase in reported incidents. That may be related to better MRI scans or more frequent use of CT scans, but we don’t expect at this early stage — we’ve only been using cell phones with a high frequency for less than ten years, for about 10, 20 years. So again, you know, the concern, and based on the biology we know with the development of cancer — the real concern is what happens after 20, 30, 40 years. And that is what we need to be concerned about, and that’s why I think the University of Pittsburgh advised us to be cautious.
KING: The evidence, Dr. Song, having done so many interviews over the years, against tobacco, was statistical. It wasn’t — they didn’t know why tobacco caused lung cancer, only that it caused cancer. You use tobacco, you’ve got an increased chance. Is that going to be the evidence here, statistical?
DR. PAUL SONG, RADIATION ONCOLOGIST: It could be, but it may be another 10, 20 years before we have the necessary statistics to make those recommendations. What we do know from radiation studies, whether it was people exposed in Hiroshima, to kids treated for cancer with radiation, is that sometimes it took 15, 20 years before people developed cancer, secondary that we could attribute to the radiation.
When we talk about cell phones, we’re looking at radio frequency, which is on the big spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. You’ve got radio waves on one side, which is responsible for TV, radio and cell phones, and then you’ve gamma waves on the other side. What we know about the gamma waves or the more intense radiation is that’s a ionizing radiation that causes DNA damage, that mutates cells that develop into cancer.
For the radio waves, there has been no clear evidence to suggest that it’s a DNA damage. So if there is some damage, it has to be some other mechanism that has really yet to be reported.
KING: So what would you say to people who use cell phones?
SONG: I think the most important thing is that when we look at any type of radiation exposure, whether or not it’s radio waves or gamma waves, is that the duration of your exposure. So clearly if you’re on the cell phone for a long period of time — I think we all have been in situations where our ear gets warm — that clearly means maybe we’re on a little too long.
KING: So do what?
SONG: I think that an earpiece may help to greatly reduce the exposure for radio frequency radiation, but people need to keep in mind if the phone is on the hip pocket, their whole body is still being exposed to the same amount of radiation than if it was up to their ear.
KING: So it’s what choice of cancer do I want? Hip or brain? SONG: Surprisingly, the concern about radio frequency exposure is not so much for the brain or the hip, but really the testes or the eyes. Those are the areas that are most sensitive to radio frequency, because they get hot and they don’t have the blood vessels to cool off.
KING: Would you say, Dr. Davis, always use an earpiece. Don’t put a cell phone up to your ear?
DAVIS: If at all possible, use an earpiece. It does reduce substantially the signal, because the further away you can have the phone from your body, the better off it is from you.
KING: What about 8 and 9 — 10-year-olds all over elementary school running around with them now?
DAVIS: Right now, unfortunately, of the 28 million children in this country between the ages of eight and 12, about half of them are using a cell phone. Sometimes it’s their mom and dad’s, but using it frequently. We’re all very concerned about that. We know the cell signal gets deeply into the brain of a child.
KING: Are you concerned, Dr. Black, about the child?
BLACK: Yes, I am. We know that young brains may be more susceptible, and they have a longer exposure. And some of the studies have also suggested that the longer the exposure, the higher the risk. I think the key thing here, Larry, is that we would assume as a society that cell phones are safe, that the government wouldn’t allow us to use this device unless it was safe. The reality is it’s a source of microwave radiation. There have been studies to suggest there may be an associated risk of brain cancer and also a benign tumor of the ear, and there have been some studies to suggest eye tumors as well.
The important thing for your listeners to hear is that they need to be cautious, because we may not have the answer to this for another 10 years.
KING: Another distinguished doctor will be joining us, and we’ll take some calls too. And some may come from cell phones. Stay there.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I try to use the speaker, you know. I mean, you hear stuff on TV. It’s like why not just use the speaker?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I actually text message a little more, because I hear about that all the time, and you think maybe 50 years down the road or something, it may affect you negatively. So, you see people using that all the time and you think, maybe we’ll all be affected like DDT was back in the ’40s or something like that. So it definitely is a concern right now for me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Do you think there’s a link between cell phones and brain cancer? That’s our quick vote tonight. Go to CNN.com/larryking right now, cast your vote.
Joining our panel from New York is Dr. Ted Schwartz, director of brain tumor surgery at New York’s Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell.
Where do you stand on this issue, Ted?
DR. TED SCHWARTZ, N.Y. PRESBYTERIAN/WEILL CORNELL HOSPITAL: Larry, thanks for asking. First of all, I want to say I certainly understand the public’s fear of this issue. And I think that want to do everything I can for myself, for my patients, for my family to avoid any risk that would cause brain tumors. But I think there are a few things we agree upon here. The first is that the majority of brain tumors are not caused by cell phones. Brain tumors have been around long before cell phones were in existence. There’s not an increased incidence that is significance, and it’s probably an increased incidence of our ability to pick them up and our ability to publicize them.
The other thing I think we agree upon is that the currently available literature is at best inconclusive about whether there’s a link between cell phone use and brain tumors. There are just as many studies showing that cell phones decrease the risk of brain tumors as increase the risk. And we’re not here talking about the facts that cell phones may be protective.
KING: What do you make of the report out of the University of Pittsburgh.
SCHWARTZ: The Pittsburgh report is no new data. They’re just looking at the data that currently exists. One of the problems with these long term studies, these ten-year studies is that they’re based on the use of analog cell phones. Nobody uses analog cell phones any more. They have a higher power. They emit more power. We use digital phones now and there’s absolutely no data on digital phones, their long-term use and the incidence of cancer.
The question is, is it reasonable to base a public health warning on a lack of evidence? Basically, we have no good evidence one way or the other. And my answer is no.
KING: Let’s take a call. St. Louis, Missouri, hello.
CALLER: Good evening, Larry, and good evening to your panel.
I actually have two quick questions. If there’s any study showing that using cordless phones are harmful? And living by a cell phone tower, if that’s harmful?
KING: Two good questions — Dr. Black?
BLACK: Cordless phones emit a much lower frequency of radiation, and they’re much safer than cell phones. And I have no real concerns, Larry, with —
DAVIS: Well, there has been a study from Sweden where they have used cordless phones longer, and unfortunately what they found was that there was a doubled risk of a brain tumor with long use of cordless phones. And many cordless phones actually have as much radiation as a cell phone, if not more.
KING: Cell phone tower?
SONG: That’s something that’s still under debate. There’s a lots of investigation of whether or not there might be an increase of lymphoma with people living next to cell phone towers, but still no conclusive data exists.
DAVIS: I guess that’s the issue, if I may say. The data that we’re talking about here are human, sick people. That’s the challenge. That’s why the doctor wrote the memo. That’s what we do as Pittsburgh. We’re doing one of the best things in the world, in terms of treating people with cancer. All the people here work on that. Yet, if we think there’s a way to avoid future cancers by reducing the risk of something that may cause a lot of problems in the future, we ought to try to do that.
KING: Dr. Schwartz, how do you use your cell phone?
SCHWARTZ: I put it right up to my ear and don’t use an earpiece unless I’m driving. I think that’s the general recommendation.
KING: You put it up to your ear?
SCHWARTZ: I have it right here, but I wouldn’t take a call. I think it is safe to use, again, based on the current available data. We don’t know whether watching a television has an increased risk of causing cancer. We don’t know whether using a hair dryer increases your risk of cancer. IN fact, there are some studies showing there might be a link. But they’re not well-performed studies, so we don’t go around issuing public health warnings about it, based on the fact that we don’t really and do have enough evidence. So I think it’s a little premature to issue those kinds of warnings.
KING: Dr. Davis stays with us.
Dr. Schwartz and Dr. Song, Dr. Black, always good seeing you. Thank you very much.
You did four brain surgeries today, right?
BLACK: Correct.
KING: LARRY KING LIVE contacted cell phone companies to take part in our program today. We contacted T-Mobile, AT&T, Motorola, LG Electronics, Qualcom, Nokia, Verizon, Samsung and Sprint. All declined our invitation. We contacted Erickson too, got no response. Many companies we spoke with us referred us to the association that represents the wireless industry. They too declined our invitation, but they did give us this statement, quote, “This is an issue that should be guided by science. The overwhelming majority of studies that have been published in scientific journals around the world show that wireless phones do not pose a health risk. Furthermore, this is the public position of leading health organizations, such as the United States Food and Drug Administration, the American Cancer Society and the World Health Organization. Public statements and declarations not guided by published scientific research can have the effect of misinforming the general public. As technology continues to evolve, the industry supports continued research. But we want to stress the fact that this a consensus among leading health organizations concerning published scientific research, and they show no reason for concern.”
And we’ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: We now welcome, in Atlanta, Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the America Cancer Society, a practicing oncologist, and our old friend Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN’s chief medical correspondent, a practicing neurosurgeon himself.
Dr. Brawley, what do you make of the report out of Pittsburgh?
DR. OTIS W. BRAWLEY, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY: I understand exactly why people are concerned, and I share their concern. but I think we need to tell people what’s known, what’s not known and what’s believed, and not confuse what’s believed with what’s known. First off, the number of brain tumors in Sweden, the first country to get cell phones has actually gone down over the last 25 years. The number of brain cancers in the United States has actually gone down. They’ve not been flat or gone up with cell phones.
Secondly, this is the kind of radiation that is not ionizing radiation. This is not microwave radiation. And a lot of people are confused by that. I think we also need to know there are 19 studies that have been done, three that suggest that cell phones might be associated with brain tumors, 16 that actually exonerate cell phones as a cause of brain tumors.
So we have to take all of these things into concern. I’m afraid we’re pulling the fire alarm, scaring people unnecessarily, and actually diverting their attention from things that they should be doing. And when we do need to pull the fire alarm for a public health emergency, we won’t have the credibility for them to listen to us.
KING: Dr. Gupta?
DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: You know, I agree with what Dr. Brawley has said. I think part of the issue here is trying to prove a negative, trying to say that these are not dangerous and they are safe as well. You know, part of the issue is — and I think Dr. Brawley’s obviously looked at a lot of the studies — one of the ones that a lot of people quote — and I read these studies exhaustively — defines, for example, a regular cell phone user as someone who uses a cell phone once a day for six months.
Now, that obviously is not how most people use their cell phones. It’s not to say if you use it more than that, you’re definitely at risk. but I don’t know that the studies have been good enough and they certainly, I don’t think, have been long term enough.
So I think right not to pull the fire alarm, but are we missing something here? Should we be a little more careful?
BRAWLEY: I would agree with you that we don’t know what the 20 or 30-year experience is going to be with cell phones. I would also agree with you that of the 19 studies that have been done, each one of them, actually, I could criticize. Indeed, in my 20 year career, I think I can criticize virtually every study I’ve ever read. So you’re right. There’s a great deal of unknown here.
If an individual is concerned about this, we really do need to tell them the simple answer is use an ear piece. I agree with the recommendation that kids with developing brains ought not be using cell phones a lot. I have no problem with a child using it occasionally. But I am worried about people who are on it or four, five hours every day.
KING: That’s fair enough. We have an e-mail question from Sage, Santa Barbara: “If the WHO Interphone study confirms a link between cell phone use and an increased risk of brain cancer, what should the public health community’s response be” — Dr. Brawley?
BRAWLEY: I think we’re going to have to look at the Interphone Study very carefully. For those listeners who don’t know, the Interphone Study is run by the World Health Organization of the United Nations. It’s actually been completed for about two and a half years and the people who actually ran the study have yet to publish it. There’s a lot of discussions going on amongst those scientists as to exactly what the data show. And it would be really nice if it were published, I must tell you.
KING: Thanks, Dr. Brawley, great seeing you. We hope to have you back real soon.
BRAWLEY: Thank you.
KING: Dr. Gupta remains. He will join our panel members. We’ll have some e-mails coming in right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: We’re back with Deborah Davis, Dr. Ted Schwartz, Dr. Paul Song and, in New York, Dr. Sanjay Gupta.
Dr. Gupta wanted to add something about cell phones and children — Doctor?
GUPTA: One thing that Dr. Brawley brought up is this idea that electromagnetic radiation that can be of concern. Larry, I know you like pictures. Sometimes they can be worth a thousand words. Take a look here. This was from a study looking at the amount of penetration of this electromagnetic radiation in a five-year-old over. Certainly see it’s more. This is the brain and this is the amount of radiation penetrating into the brain, compared to a 10-year-old and compared to an adult.
Again, this type of radiation is not ionizing radiation, which everybody agrees, I think, is bad for you. But the question is what is this really doing to a young child’s brain? A lot of these studies being done on adults. Now you have children using these phones and they’re going to use them their entire lives. They’re going to have 60, 70 years usage. What is that effect of penetration of radiation on the brain?
KING: And Dr. Davis, during the break, you said you agreed with the industry?
DAVIS: Of course I agree with the industry. That’s the reason why we issued the warning. The reality is we do not have studies yet and, with all due respect, we can’t vote on whether or not cell phones cause cancer with polls. What we need is independent research. In fact, Dr. Herberman and the doctors here, Dr. Song and I, Dr. Bondy from MD Anderson, we join now to call for the cell phone industries to make their data publicly available for independent evaluation by scientists. The cell phone industry is correct, that is the only way we’ll answer the question.
The old phones were bad, but let’s see whether the new ones have any risk at all, given the fact that so many of us are using them now.
KING: Dr. Schwartz, we have an e-mail from Danny in San Clemente (ph): “I hear all these stories that cell phones may cause cancer and they scare me, but I’m a teenager, so I’m on my phone all the time. I like to talk to people through the speaker phone on my cell phone. Is that dangerous?”
SCHWARTZ: Well, if he holds the phone far or close, again, currently available data doesn’t show it will really make a difference, because the data is suspect. There are no good studies. We need better studies. I agree with most of the people here, that we should focus on good randomized studies, where we follow patients for a long period of time, or people who use phones and see if there’s an increase incidence of brain tumors over time. Then we’ll know the answer and we can issue appropriate statements.
KING: Dr. Song, what does your gut tell you?
SONG: I think that it’s still way too soon to tell, because any radiation induced malignancy takes about 15 to 20 years for us to see. With regard to the last question, I just wanted to add that the viewer, if you hold your phone half the distance from where it is right now, you will actually reduce your radiation exposure by a quarter. So it’s probably a good idea to take more advantage of the speaker use if you are concerned about it.
Again, there isn’t any clear evidence that doing that is going to reduce your cancer risk because we don’t know that it does cause cancer. If you are concerned about any radiation frequency exposure, that might be a safe thing to do.
KING: We’re down to about a minute. Dr. Gupta, an e-mail from Jack in Davy, Florida: “if future research shows that cell phones can cause cancer, what are we supposed to do? Cell phones are a very big part of today’s world. Terminating cell phone use would be extremely disruptive, assuming it was even possible.”
GUPTA: I don’t think it is possible and I don’t think that you need to terminate usage. The earpiece sounds simple, but it can be very effective. The idea is that the cell phone may be giving off — may be a radiation source, simply moving it away from your brain. Use a wired earpiece, don’t carry it in your pocket. There are simple things that you can do and still have access to your cell phone.
KING: Dr. Schwartz, do you think we’ll find out the answer?
SCHWARTZ: I think if we do the right study, we’ll find out the answer. But if we don’t do the right study, we’ll never know.
KING: Do you we’ll find out, Deborah?
DAVIS: I think we shouldn’t wait 20 years to experiment on our children. That’s why we need to take precautions. We will eventually solve this scientifically, but I’m concerned about what we do in the meantime. And that’s why we’ve issued this precautionary statement.
KING: We are out of time. I thank you all, Deborah Davis, Dr. Ted Schwartz, Dr. Paul Song, and Dr. Sanjay Gupta..
Guardian in “hiding”
Yes! you are right on; scientific facts are nowhere conclusive on the hazards or safety of cell phones/antennas. That is exactly the point isn’t it? Why put them in parks where children congregate, when the jury is still out? why place our children in the position of epidemiological test subjects?
You are exactly right, and this is why the public is concerned. When the results aren’t in yet, some prudent caution can be used in choice of placement and power/wattage output of antennas.
Nobody says this technology is going away. It isn’t. But what we ARE asking for is more responsible citing policy, and lower power outputs when data can still be transmitted.
Have you ever stopped to consider that two needs or positions can co-exist in mutually beneficial ways. Or is it all about you???
And yes, absolutely, when a group of citizens in Laguna Niguel approaches me to help them fight for their public safety; you bet I’ll start a LNcell-out.org
Really, in attacking bloggers and citizens, you fail to address the actual content of what we’re questioning. You divert the subjet away from the corruption taking place in Mission Viejo and you conveniently avoid answering to Ury’s conflict of interests with his municipal Wi-Fi company Viejo Tech.
and what monetary interests Paul Glaab would have in writing hit pieces.
I’m still expecting that in one response you will come out of hiding and share your name.
Haya Sakadjian
http://www.MVcell-out.org
Cathy- nice transcript; but you see that “Guardian” just uses cell towers as a diversion to deflect the subject away from what he really doesn’t want discussed:
Ury’s corruption, his municipal Wi-Fi company and dealings with the County & City, and Paul Glaab’s monetary interests in supporting him or Atkinson.
He’s avoiding the actual subject and the actual content by attacking bloggers/citizens.
It’s the oldest trick in the book. And as juvenile as hiding behind trees.
Haya
Folks.
As this blog is read by people around the country let’s not dig any deeper with in depth info regarding health concerns on another issue, such as cancer and cell towers. There is linkage that involves the relationship between Laguna Niguel Mayor Paul Glaab to ATS and the City of Mission Viejo where they have an exclusive Contract regarding cell tower revenues.
Haya/Larry –
So you are saying that it is inappropriate to challenge and criticize “blogger/citizens” when they grossly misrepresent data and lie about known facts, but it is O.K. for you all to rail against council members in MV and LN? Hypocrisy to say the least!
While I’m no fan of Ury, if he is corrupt where is your proof? Why don’t you submit your “facts” to the DA to prosecute? Is it because you have no facts only your fraudulent and dishonest opinions? You are morally and ethically corrupt to make false accusations. My spouse works within the legal field and he believes Ury and Glaab have legal actionable defamation of character charges against the lot of you for publically posting knowingly false accusations. Maybe a lawsuit would level the debate to true facts and expose you all as the spurious scoundrels you really are.
You are right “Guardian in Hiding”; at least we can now assume you are a female. Do you insist on anonymity because of your fears and legal machinations? How much time do you spend worrying about such nonsense?
However, thank you for your very good ideas and suggestions.
It is time to make Public Records Requests on every meeting that Ury has had with County Supervisors and other municipalities on his Wi-Fi Negotiating services. Public Records requests are in order over Ury’s relationship with Glaab, ATS and pricey wireless routers that were placed in the city when cheaper services were proposed.
Public Records requests are in order on all ATS dealings with plans to monetize city cell tower leases.
Thank you for the very good suggestions.
But still, no one will answer the main issue: WHY IS THE MAYOR OF LAGUNA NIGUEL getting involved in Mission Viejo politics???? and does he have MONETARY INTERESTS to do so?
Is it a coincidence that Glaab works for ATS whom Ury and Maclean sheparded into Mission Viejo???
Why can you nor anyone else JUST ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS???
the answer, to me, is obvious.
And here’s your press headlines:
“Mayor Glaab of Laguna Niguel sues Mother of 4 year old/ and Cell Tower Activist over 1st Ammendment Rights”
That would look quite wonderful for Glaab, wouldn’t it?
The subtext could read, “Mother refuses to comply with Subpoena to appear in court, invoking Bush Administration Karl Rove’s failure to do the same”
Then we could get Steve Greenhut to do the investigative work on the Glaab-Ury-ATS-Viejo Tech connection.
And maybe, finally, we would get some answers.
Who Will Guard the Guardians?
Your opening allegation is all wet.
“So you are saying that it is inappropriate to challenge and criticize “blogger/citizens”…”
As a strong supporter of the First Amendment I encourage readers to comment on my writings as evidenced by my bottom line over the past two years on the Juice Blog where I make that request of every reader.
Perhaps you need to re-read my opening setnences of this story and not divert attention away form the facts:
“While candidates are still pulling papers, the first “hit piece” in the 2008 Mission Viejo city council race is now being drafted.
Laguna Niguel Mayor Paul Glaab, who is also the local representative of ATS which has an exclusive contract with our city on citing cell towers, has just made a Public Records request on council member Gail Reavis.”
Obviously you are a resident of south County. What is your position of Paul’s data request?
Guard the Guardians:
Like your pseudonym your law suit fantasies are completely circuitous.
Why would Paul Glaab sue a blogger and an activist over defamation of character, when he appears poised to defame Reavis’ character, over a lawsuit she filed in order to protect the defamation of her character???
it’s a little silly isn’t it?
Not to mention the fact that elected representatives are exempt from immunity against slander/character suits.
Didn’t your husband’s attorney friends mention this to him?