David Hernandez on the Las Lomas lawsuit
This from community activist David Hernandez regarding the lawsuit filed by one Mr. Palmer, chief developer of the rejected Las Lomas Project in Newhall Pass, as posted in the Daily News
David Hernandez said:
Las Lomas Lawsuit-Super Majority
The remarks of Council member Smith hit at the very core of Los Angeles Politics and deserve repeating for all to see.
"It is appalling that Mr. Palmer would sue the city after being denied by a super-majority of the City Council," Smith said in a statement.
Mr. Smith, was it not a “super-majority” of the Council who ignored the City Attorney and put Prop R on the Ballot?
As a resident of Los Angeles, I welcome Mr. Palmer to the ranks of those who side with the Law rather than the “Super-majority”.
Sorry Mr. Smith, this is America not the Soviet Union.
With Las Lomas, as in Prop R, the City Council ignored the extensive report from the Los Angeles City Attorney and then relied on the City Attorney to defend their actions.
Using tax payer funds against the very people who’s Constitutional Rights you want to violate is a clever scheme.
The Las Lomas Challenge will, via discovery give Los Angeles residents a unique insight to the back room dealings of its elected officials, Santa Clarita Lobbyist and other Special Interests Groups.
Even though many of those opposing Las Lomas are friends, I must say “let the chips fall where they may”.
We did not have to agree on the project and might not disagree, but you did have an obligation to follow the law.
David Hernandez
David Hernandez said:
Las Lomas Lawsuit-Super Majority
The remarks of Council member Smith hit at the very core of Los Angeles Politics and deserve repeating for all to see.
"It is appalling that Mr. Palmer would sue the city after being denied by a super-majority of the City Council," Smith said in a statement.
Mr. Smith, was it not a “super-majority” of the Council who ignored the City Attorney and put Prop R on the Ballot?
As a resident of Los Angeles, I welcome Mr. Palmer to the ranks of those who side with the Law rather than the “Super-majority”.
Sorry Mr. Smith, this is America not the Soviet Union.
With Las Lomas, as in Prop R, the City Council ignored the extensive report from the Los Angeles City Attorney and then relied on the City Attorney to defend their actions.
Using tax payer funds against the very people who’s Constitutional Rights you want to violate is a clever scheme.
The Las Lomas Challenge will, via discovery give Los Angeles residents a unique insight to the back room dealings of its elected officials, Santa Clarita Lobbyist and other Special Interests Groups.
Even though many of those opposing Las Lomas are friends, I must say “let the chips fall where they may”.
We did not have to agree on the project and might not disagree, but you did have an obligation to follow the law.
David Hernandez
Labels: david hernandez, greig smith, las lomas
Posted by Red Spot in CD 14 @ 6/18/2008 03:35:00 PM
12 Comments:
David Hernandez is a penniless pauper and can't even spell (It's "whose," not "who's" here). And he's all over the place here: he wants to expose the lobbyist for Las Lomas, the developer he's siding with -- or is he saying, he wants to expose those who represent the community and the good of the city, those who didn't want the extra crazy congestion, smog and loss of desperately needed water, in order to profit a speculator who's trying to shake down the city for personal profit?
Bottom line is, Rocky Delgadillo was wrong in his "opinion," not for the first time, and wrong to release it as publicly as he did -- most of all, Richard Alarcon, whose (note, not "who's") former staffer is the lobbyist for Palmer/ Las Lomas, was very wrong to keep telling the Council that if the city doesn't go along with Palmer, he'll sue "and will win."
This was part of Alarcon's continuing Marxist grudge match against moderate-Republican Greig Smith.
THANK G-D WE HAVE GREIG SMITH TO TRY TO SAVE US FROM THE LIKES OF ALARCON, who poses a leftist man of the people, but is really an ethno-centric panderer, hater of "anglos" and the upholding of the law (opposes Rocky and the LAPD on the gang injunction in Pacoima, and recent laws to punish gangmembers).
Only time Alarcon seems to be able to stand and embrace gringos, is when they're upto shady deals involving rezoning against the wishes of the local constituents and their Councilmember (Gruel and Smith over Verdugo Hills and Las Lomas, respectively) -- then, he and his Machine members including Felipe Fuentes, Cardenas, Padilla, Nunez, Reyes jump to the rescue. Isn't that just too curious?
Who cares what Hernandez the pauper and Perpetual Pest thinks -- he and Ted Hayes are as relevant to the rest of us as is zuma dogg. (Yeah, Valley Doll, we know you've got it going on for him -- just shows ya.)
401, your pettiness over Hernandez's "whose" and "who's" issue is blinding me to learning what this story is about.
Yous may have some good points to make, but your i-m-p-e-t-u-o-u-s-n-e-s-s (note the correct spelling?) is a distraction.
So now, I will go back to learning about the substance of Mr. Hernandez's and your point.
Greig Smith is "right on" on this issue. Good thing for the city -- and for the residents of the Valley -- that someone was there to stand up for us.....
4:01 said Who cares what Hernandez the pauper and Perpetual Pest thinks -- he and Ted Hayes are as relevant to the rest of us as is zuma dogg. (Yeah, Valley Doll, we know you've got it going on for him -- just shows ya.)
For the record: I love each of my burros equally -- Mayor Sam, Red Spot, Antonio Watch, Joe B., Petra, Edward, Zuma and Joe M.
These are amazing people doing amazing things for the city that I was born in and which I love. Everyone on the above list is a hero in my eyes; in more ways than one.
xoxo
Let me chime in as well and TRY my best to spell everything correctly, so that you at least can't dismiss the point by claiming that my poor spelling is proof it's wrong.
A super-majority - or any majority is the basis of our democracy. We are a nation of laws, enacted by the majority of the people and/or their elected representatives, not a nation ruled by the advice of attorneys.
A large, perhaps even super-majority of THE PEOPLE voted Prop. R into law, which is how laws should be made (again - NOT simply based on the "advice" of attorneys).
We are a nation of laws and OF THE PEOPLE who approve them - not "of the attorneys" or their advice.
Mr. Hernandez incorrectly and perhaps intentionally attempts to strengthen a very weak argument by equating in one paragraph, "the advice of" the City Attorney with "the law" in the next. They are absolutely, positively not the same thing.
Anyone who practices laws, read the law, or ever even watches "Law and Order" knows this. No attorney's advice is equal to "the law" and competing attorneys, including those involved with Prop R always BOTH claim they each speak the law (through their interpretation and advice).
As the chief legislative (i.e. "law making") body of our city, the CITY COUNCIL stands closer to the law than any attorney because they MAKE the laws. It is the job of the City Attorney to ENFORCE the law our legislators make, and yes -- attempt to defend it when challenged, even if his initial opinion caused him to advise against adopting it.
But I think if you'll take the blinders off and go back to the City Attorney's advice in the beginning, you will also recall that at least part of his reasons for advising against Prop. R was because it's legality would be challenged.
Is a challenge of the law proof it's not legal?
Of course not, no more than being tested for intelligence is proof that you have none. It's the end result that determines it's legality, not the simple existence of a challenge.
And so far, those challenges have failed.
(Recall that the City Attorney also "advised" it was best to pay Tennie Peirce the huge settlement, and it's fortunate for all of us taxpayers that the lawmakers of our city - City Council, chose to ignore that "legal" advise).
Was that City Attorney's advice "law" in the former instance, but not the latter?
Or is the City Attorney's advice equal to law ONLY when he agrees with Mr. Hernandez's (or any other critic's) opinion of the law?
It would seem that's the point being made.
If history is any judge, under "advice of attorney" the Declaration of Independence would most certainly not be written. Legal experts of the time, most of them beholden in some way to the King of England, would have deemed it too costly to take a chance at creating the world's greatest democracy.
It would have been (in their opinion), "against the law"!
The elected lawmakers of the time fortunately kept their own counsel.
5:22, Sorry you have ADD and an obviously uncomfortable foreign item up your ass. Stumped by one edit, wow.
Hernandez' screed of self-importance wasn't a blog entry, but something he p-r-e-s-u-m-a-b-l-y thought out and revised before posted as something we're supposed to take seriously.
And yeah, I'm sick of a bunch of Penniless Paupers, from Zuma Dogg to Matt and Hunt and anyone else with an eye on the City Coffers, suing us speciously or acting as Cheerleaders for specious lawsuits.
VD, you feel free to love whoever you want -- your list just shows a lack of good judgment or discernment, but that's YOU, girl. Guess that's a club even Graucho Marx could join -- but wouldn't.
Hey David Ineffective Turd Hernandez:
How's your Measure R challenge going?
Yeah, thought so.
Preliminary Hearing Held in Jamiel Shaw Murder Case
Espinoza's murder charge includes the special circumstance allegation that the defendant was an active participant in a criminal street gang and
the murder was carried out to further the activities of the criminal street gang."
Prosecutors have not decided whether to seek the death penalty for Espinoza, a 19-year-old illegal immigrant who was released from jail the day before the shooting.
A sometimes emotional Johnson said she saw the killer get out of a small white car with tinted windows, approach Shaw, then shoot him. "He fell straight down to the ground," she testified.
With Shaw on the ground, the shooter pointed a gun at the young black man's head and pulled the trigger. The gunman then fled to the white car and left, according to Johnson's testimony.
Johnson said she was about 50 feet away from the shooter, but prosecutors did not ask her if she could identify the defendant as the shooter. When she saw Shaw get shot, Johnson said she was frozen in shock for 5-10 minutes before telling anyone what happened. Her cousin later called police about the shooting, she said.
According to police, Shaw was three blocks from home when he was confronted by Espinoza and another suspect about 8:30 p.m.
Espinoza got out of the car and asked Shaw, "Where are you from?" -- meaning what gang -- before he opened fire, police said.
The shooting occurred a day after Espinoza was released from county jail, where he had been serving time for assault with a deadly weapon, police said.
Shaw lived in an area claimed by Bloods gang members, according to police. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Bob Bowers blocked the efforts of Espinoza's attorney, Deputy Public Defender Jorge Guzman, to ask the witnesses questions about Shaw's alleged ties to gangs. Bowers ruled that such questions were irrelevant at this time. Espinoza, who has pleaded not guilty, made his court appearance in orange jail clothes. He has at least two tattoos, a teardrop under his left eye and a "BK" tattoo behind his left ear.
In the area, BK is a well-known abbreviation for the Blood Killers, a gang clique.
Another witness, Yisenia Sanchez, testified that she was driving Espinoza and another man around town the night Shaw died in the 2100 block of Fifth Avenue.
A clearly uncomfortable Sanchez, who averted her eyes from Espinoza during the court proceedings testified that Espinoza and the other passenger were "trying to figure out where he (Shaw) was from." She testified that Espinoza got out of the car and that she heard one gunshot and then a scream. The teen said that Espinoza was "aggravated" when he returned to the car and that she was afraid for her safety, but acknowledged under cross-examination that she drove to Culver City Park and started making out with him.
City of Los Angeles needs more Councilmembers like Grieg Smith who are not afraid to take a stance against a developer.
Elect Carmen A. Trutanich as City Attorney.
David you need to back off of Las Lomas. Everyone knows both you and Cesear Garcia are in Dan Palmers pocket. How much is he paying for your support? Is it really worth it to either of you to be discredited. Our communities are digusted by the actions of both of you. You need to come over to the other side. Las Lomas will always be a project in a bad location and that will never change. We don't want it.
Carmen Trutanich? Give me an f=in break! A real right-wing Republican from Harbor City -- where the hell IS that -- who's in the lap of the NRA.
Yeah, a real good chance at dealing with metro LA. Schmaltz attempt to get the sympathy of simply Valley Old Lady voters -- and I love this, he describes his four kids on website as "My Overachieving Kids." Barffff. Can you be any more OBNOXIOUS and PHONY using your kids?
What about running on your OWN RECORD, Trout? That consists of running a law firm with right0-wing clients. REAL GOOD chance of working with our Mayor and Council.
Ms. Doll, I will do my best to deserve your kind words.
As for the Zorro Marxist, he NEVER gives up, does he? I assume this is about costing LA as much as possible in attorney's fees so he can stand up later and say "I TOLD YOU SO." Either that, or forcing a reversal along the lines of the City Atty's on Home Depot.
Mean, racist, and vindictive... a very sad thing for the people of Los Angeles, and CD 7.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home