How Clatsop County is Being Ruined by Professional Opponents

Opinion

Citizens for Elections not Recalls March 5, 2008

When you look at the rolls of the group Clatsop County for Open Government, the group attempting to recall Commissioner Lee, one thing is clear:

That the members of this groups don’t want OPEN government, but THEIR OWN government.

It does not matter to them that Richard Lee was elected, twice, by the people of Clatsop County’s District 3. The votes of those constituents is now being questioned by people who live outside of that district. Of 46 supporters on CCFOG’s website, only 18 were residents in Lee’s District 3, making this a campaign full of outsiders. Of the 8 leaders and donors, only 3 are residents in Lee’s district. Again, this is proof positive that something is motivating this recall other than Lee’s constituents being upset.

CCFOG’s driving force is a group of new comers and transplants (from places like Silicon Valley, California, and Washington, D.C.) . Loaded with savings counts and trust funds, they are targeting the leadership of Clatsop County one by one. On their Frequently Asked Questions webpage, it states that:

“Other commissioners should take no comfort from the fact that only Richard Lee was the subject of today’s [recall] action. .. [t]his is only the first, most immediate, step in the Group’s strategy …”i

It is clear that these people want Clatsop County to look a certain way, to be populated with certain people, and they will spend whatever it takes to make this happen.

Changing Clatsop County by Force

CCFOG is being bankrolled by Marc Auerbach, a former Apple Employee from Silicon Valley, California. Auerbach moved to Birkenfeld, a place where “some old-timers have never heard nor seen the internet” ii he says, which helps show his clear contempt for some of the North Coast. Mr. Auerbach is leading the charge against Commissioner Lee, hiding behind numerous false charges, but focusing solely on a single vote Commissioner Lee made on LNG.iii

The same issue brought Lori Durheim into the recall business. While CCFOG claims on their website that this recall isn’t about LNGiv, it is clear by the likes of LNG opponents that this is untrue. Ms. Durheim has organized anti-LNG rallies and fundraisers, has donated to Riverkeepers (a known anti-LNG group) spoken at numerous hearings to oppose LNG, and is now one of the leaders of CCFOG. Other LNG opponents involved closely in this recall are Scott Reuter (former Californian), Peter Huhtala, Helen Westbrook (who has publicly opposed Lee as well) and Leon Jackson. All of these people have opposed LNG and are attempting to punish Commissioner Lee for making a vote —- his job as Commissioner.

The threat to recall other Commissioners was recently followed through on, as Carolyn Eady, another CCFOG supporter, has pushed to recall County Commissioner Ann Samuelson form her position on the Jewell School Boardv. Ms. Eady, along with recall involvement, has also spoken out against LNG at multiple hearings. While she has contributed many volunteer hours to the County, it is clear that she is now working to destroy the current Commission and attempting to influence the makeup of the Board via recall, rather than the formal election process.

The most egregious of the CCFOG members might be Roger Rocka. While not a resident in District 3, Mr. Rocka has become the “spokesperson” for the group. Again, their website states that they are using the recall because, “[t]oo much damage has been done already”vi, but they fail to go into detail. Mr. Rocka is a donor to an anti-LNG group (Riverkeepers), has spoken out against LNG at a public hearing, and was involved in the pro-DA campaign, also as a spokesman. It is clear that being a professional opponent has become Mr. Rocka’s new job.

Lee Being Punished for Doing His Job

The other issues surrounding Commissioner Lee have been investigated by the County, which found nothing except false charges and personal vendettas. More taxpayer money has been wasted on this witch hunt, which now reaches its pinnacle with the recall election. Taxpayer money is being wasted.

In their coverage of the recall, The Daily Astorian states that CCFOG is made up of “a varied group of local leaders are supporting the recall”vii and Mr. Auerbach states that “Everybody has their own reason”viii to support. When you get right down to it intimidating our public officials for doing their job – that is, voting on issues – is what is driving this recall.

CCFOG Supporters and their Connections to Anti-Development Groups

Northwest Property Rights Coalition:

Marc Auerbach

Riverkeepers:

Truman Sasaki
Lori Durheim
Roger Rocka

Columbia River Basin Association:

Erin Moore
Don West

i. http://www.ccfog.org/faq.htm

ii. http://www.jvallone.com/samples/TechOverload.html

iii. http://dailyastorian.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubsectionID&ArticleID=4071

iv. http://ww.ccfog/faq.htm

v. http://www.dailyastorian.info/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=395&ArticleID49205&TM=69693.43

vi. http://www.ccfog.org/faq.htm

vii. http://www.dailyastorian.info/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=48559&SectionID=398&S=21

viii. http://www.dailyastorian.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=48535&SectionID=2&SubSectionID=2&SubsectionID398&s=1

106 Comments

On Mar 5, 10:54 PM, scott wrote:

Hmm.... I wonder how many employees of the PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRM that Mr. Lee is paying to write articles (like this one?) and mailers live in District 3? - or in Clatsop County? - or in Oregon?

The “professional opponents” are those that are PAID by Mr. Lee to run his election campaign.

Are the PR Firm employees doing this work for love of this County, or because they are being paid to do a job? The CCFOG group is not getting paid anything - in fact, it’s costing us all time, money and effort to do what we think is right, and we’re doing what is within our rights as U.S. citizens to do.

Respectfully, I would suggest that Mr. Lee should respond honestly to questions about his record instead of trying to paint CCFOG as “extremists” or a “vocal minority” - which we are obviously not. Did you listen to KAST this morning? Can you honestly say that a former Astoria Chamber of Commerce President, a former Clatsop County Commissioner, and a former schoolteacher and board member of CCC are extremists?

I can’t speak for others in CCFOG - just myself, because we are a very diverse group - so I say this from the bottom of my heart: I do not personally want to create “my own government” here as is suggested in this article. I just want our elected officials to be honest about their intentions, open to the idea that they are there to serve the public and not to further their own personal or business interests, and I ask them to hear and consider both sides of an issue before making a decision - and explaining their decisions to the public that they represent.

On Mar 5, 11:02 PM, Guy wrote:

And how many times have you sought out Lee with a concern? I have on several occasions. He is always willing to explain his positions to anyone who will listen. He’s real easy to find and his number is listed. So rather than trying for a recall has anyone from FOG tried talking to him?

On Mar 5, 11:12 PM, THartill wrote:

Good rebuttal Scott

Mr. Lee is paying to write articles (like this one?) and mailers live in District 3? - or in Clatsop County? - or in Oregon?

For the record this was as a anonymous letter sent to me with only the name Citizens for Elections not Recalls on it. I would guess it is local, but it could be from the Salem PR firm.

On Mar 5, 11:55 PM, Jon Dana wrote:

Mr. Lee isn’t running an election campaign.
Sorry CCFOG has no credibility, these people stand by and watch the daily Astorian print fiction and non-truths or nothing at all when it suits their agenda. If they had a shred of character they would explain why the paper didn’t print the e-mails between the DA and Sam Patrick (a sitting commissioner). Which is worse than anything Mr. Lee has done, so where is that recall. I guess when the crap comes out in the paper and they say nothing, they have their knee boots on and their all standing in it. Get some character grab a shovel and clean up your own backyard.

On Mar 6, 12:26 AM, Scott wrote:

Show some character “Jon Dana” - use your real name.

On Mar 6, 12:59 AM, Don Jana wrote:

What is driving the recall is some twisted sense of revenge on the part of the current district attorney and his wife. Anyone who denies it is only fooling themselves.

On Mar 6, 8:39 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

“Mr. Lee isn’t running an election campaign.
Sorry CCFOG has no credibility, these people stand by and watch the daily Astorian print fiction and non-truths or nothing at all when it suits their agenda. If they had a shred of character they would explain why the paper didn’t print the e-mails between the DA and Sam Patrick (a sitting commissioner). Which is worse than anything Mr. Lee has done, so where is that recall. I guess when the crap comes out in the paper and they say nothing, they have their knee boots on and their all standing in it. Get some character grab a shovel and clean up your own backyard.”

This time “Anonym Dana” you were pretty close. Yesterday’s Daily “A” interview with Lee? Total Rubbish!!!

Second only to this piece by NCO “Staff” trying to pass it off as an anonymous submission?

Come on Tryan!!!!!

Why don’t we just let the citizens of District 3 decide this thing on March 25, is it?

The more Lee and his minions talk at this point the more damage they do to his cause.

On Mar 6, 9:36 AM, THartill wrote:

Jon Dana is his real name…

this piece by NCO “Staff”

You think I would flat out lie like that PM?

And if you didn’t notice....this is in the opinion section. Not on the front page.

On Mar 6, 10:06 AM, scott wrote:

I’m confused about what you’re saying here Tryan - are you now saying that a real person named Jon Dana that lives in Clatsop County sent you this piece entitled, “How Clatsop County is Being Ruined by Professional Opponents”?

I thought that you received it anonymously and didn’t know who sent it? Which makes me wonder why you would post it in your Editorials section without knowing whose opinion it actually was? This is especially true if it is a “professional opponent” at a PR firm paid by Mr. Lee that is accusing CCFOG of being professional opponents.

On Mar 6, 5:05 PM, THartill wrote:

How did I say that? I know you are smarter than this.....

You are a strawman pro.

Which makes me wonder why you would post it in your Editorials section without knowing whose opinion it actually was?

That has been my policy from the beginning.

On Mar 6, 6:57 PM, scott wrote:

No Tryan, I am genuinely confused and not trying to put words in your mouth - I’m asking you to clarify what you meant in your response to P. M.’s comment, because it sounded as if you were saying that Jon Dana wrote the editorial. As you know I’ve been staring at text until cross-eyed lately and I’m not understanding your reply to P.M. - it could be my fault.

Here is the part of the conversation that I’m referring to you - your response above to PM:

[TH - Quote]
“Jon Dana is his real name…

this piece by NCO “Staff” (italicized quote from PM comment)

You think I would flat out lie like that PM?

And if you didn’t notice....this is in the opinion section. Not on the front page. “
[TH - Unquote]

So there it is - I’m just asking if in this bit of conversation you are saying that Jon Dana wrote this editorial. Sounds as if I misunderstood.

On a second reading it looks as if PM is suggesting that Carrie B. may have had a hand in it.

So here’s another question - you make a guess above that this editorial is local, yet you immediately go on to say that it “may be from the Salem PR firm” - was this just intuition?

And when you say above:

[TH quote]
“For the record this was as a anonymous letter sent to me with only the name Citizens for Elections not Recalls on it. I would guess it is local, but it could be from the Salem PR firm...”
[Th end quote]

So was this an actual paper letter in an envelope? If so, was it postmarked from in town or our of town? If it was postmarked in town, what made you think it was maybe from the PR firm? If it was postmarked out of town, what made you guess that it is local? Was there any handwriting on it that looked familiar - is that why you thought maybe it was local?

Thanks in advance for addressing this.

Scott

On Mar 6, 7:21 PM, Carrie wrote:

I am getting pretty sick of this. Every person that disagrees with Mcgee or CCFOG is NOT me. I absolutely did not write this opinion piece, it isn’t my style of writing, it isn’t my verbiage, I happen to be of the opinion that everyone in the county has a right to be comfortable with all of the commissioners. I have not been asked nor have I offered to write anything in Lee’s efforts to fight the recall. It is really getting old defending who I am not.

After the BOCC meeting yesterday the above piece was given to me. It was being distributed to people, I was interviewing the commissioners and I don’t know who first was giving it out.

Jon Dana is a REAL person, and that is his REAL name. I have met Jon Dana before and he did not appear to be in the crowd at the BOCC meeting. I think Scott is confusing two conversations.

Who, exactly, made up the FAQs for the CCFOG page? Who made up the rebuttals to Lee’s comments? Did they have a local address? This kind of stuff just gets silly.

Pat, someday will you have the courage to actually open your mouth and talk to people, face to face? Cyber stalking is creepy. Why don’t you lay off it for a while?

On Mar 6, 7:32 PM, Name (required) wrote:

On Mar 6, 5:57 PM, scott wrote:

“So was this an actual paper letter in an envelope? If so, was it postmarked from in town or our of town? If it was postmarked in town, what made you think it was maybe from the PR firm? If it was postmarked out of town, what made you guess that it is local? Was there any handwriting on it that looked familiar - is that why you thought maybe it was local?”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeez, dude, chill out. What difference does it make? Whats the matter, can’t you handle the truth?
CFOG again has been righteously exposed for what they really are-a bunch of whiney, lying, power hungry self serving outsiders- and yet the only response you, who appears to be a voice of CFog, have to that dead on editorial are questions about postmarks and handwriting.

Obviously, you’re more concerned about discrediting the messenger than the message. A telling sign that your’s and your group’s position is weak and getting shot full of holes by the home team.

On Mar 6, 7:45 PM, scott wrote:

Gosh Carrie, I think you might be somewhat confused too.

It was not PM that said you wrote the editorial. I said it sounded to me as if he was suggesting that you might have written it. I could be wrong about that.

Carrie I think you must be right about me confusing two conversations. My apologies to TH on that if that’s the case.

But now I hear from you that you received a copy of this editorial yesterday? And you also don’t know who gave it to you? Just someone that you didn’t recognize gave it to you - so then maybe it wasn’t a local person, but a “professional opponent” from outside of the County would be my guess. Does that sound about right?

Are you saying that you posted it here at NCO? - because I thought that I understood that Tryan posted it.

Thanks for trying to help me clear this up Carrie, because as a reporter I’m sure that you’ll do your best to get to the bottom of the story while being as objective as possible.

Scott

On Mar 6, 8:15 PM, Scott wrote:

An anonymous poster says:
“Jeez, dude, chill out. What difference does it make?”

Not much difference - and don’t worry I’m not upset, but I do thank you for your concern.

It’s just that the title of the editorial suggests that our county is about to be overrun by “Professional Opponents,” and yet it appears that there is a good chance that it may have been written by an out-of-town PR firm! If that’s not a professional opponent, what is? Mr. Lee is himself paying “professional opponents” to run his campaign.

Do you begin to see the difference now?

On Mar 6, 8:25 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

It’s just that the title of the editorial suggests that our county is about to be overrun by “Professional Opponents,” and yet it appears that there is a good chance that it may have been written by an out-of-town PR firm! If that’s not a professional opponent, what is? Mr. Lee is himself paying “professional opponents” to run his campaign.

I betcha Tryan’s “Aunt Sally” probably wrote that piece Scott.

On Mar 6, 8:26 PM, An anonymous poster wrote:

On Mar 6, 7:15 PM, Scott wrote

Do you begin to see the difference now?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You’re grasping at straws. You can’t defend CFOG from the hard truth of the piece in question so your only alternative is to question or try to disparage the source. Why cant you get it through your head that the locals arent dumb and are getting damned fed up with all you Californians running around up here trying to tell people what to do and using lies to try to accomplish your ends?

On Mar 6, 8:28 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

“Pat, someday will you have the courage to actually open your mouth and talk to people, face to face? Cyber stalking is creepy. Why don’t you lay off it for a while?”

Don’t flatter yourself Bartoldus and which face would it be I would be talking to?

On Mar 6, 8:34 PM, Carrie wrote:

Gosh Scott, since you never, ever read here except on rare occasions you wouldn’t know when Pat says “staff” he means me because if Tryan doesn’t give Pat all of the names of the people who contribute news items to him, Pat doesn’t recognize them as valid people. Carrie Ank, you don’t exist! Those community posts you write, Pat doesn’t approve so you are not valid. The house market person, she doesn’t exist, the site developer, doesn’t exist. The opinion writers, they definitely don’t exist.

This is not a “story” it is an opinion piece. I didn’t see who the “source” of the paper was. People were passing out and looking at quite a few pieces of paper before, during and after the meeting. I did not see the “source” of all of the papers being distributed. I did not post this, I passed it on to Tryan as one of the items received at the meeting. He chose to post it, under “opinion”. Most of the time in the Daily Astorian you don’t know who is doing the editorial opinions. Tryan has chosen to do “opinion” pieces his way.

The only “professional” I saw at the meeting was a lawyer looking person talking to Carl Dominey. By the time I finished my interviews the person was gone. He vocalized often during the meeting and stood up once to make a motion or a “point of order”. Someone whispered asking who he was and someone sitting nearby commented he was with Leucadia and that he was there in support of the “red shirts”. I thought that was odd, and it may be a story I chose to follow up on. There appeared to be many in the crowd from Wahkiakum/Cathlamet area.

Whether or not Lee has chosen to hire professionals to deal with the libel thrown out by the Daily Astorian and the CCFOG group is not a story, yet, as far as I am concerned. Should he choose to take it to the next step, as I have heard many are encouraging him to, it may become a story.

Until I have more factual, sourced, information, all of this is on the comments section of the opinion page, because that is all it is at this point, relating to someone’s opinion.

On Mar 6, 8:45 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

“Until I have more factual, sourced, information, all of this is on the comments section of the opinion page, because that is all it is at this point, relating to someone’s ”

So what this says is:"We will call a story full of “Bovine Scat” a “Commentary” or “Opinion Piece” until we get some actual facts” to present as a “Real” news worthy piece?

Good Lord in Heaven, insanity has finally beocme commonplace in media!!!

On Mar 6, 8:56 PM, Scott wrote:

Thanks Carrie, for attempting to clear this matter up.

But now it appears that there is some discrepancy between what you say and what Tryan says.

Tryan said that he received this letter anonymously in an envelope marked “Citizens for Elections Not Recalls” - so does that mean that:

a) - you sent the letter to him anonymously in a “Citizens for Elections Not Recalls” envelope?

b) - you gave him the letter and he simply forgot who he received it from?

c) - Tryan received a copy of the letter and then you gave him another copy, but he neglected to mention to you that he already had received a copy, and he likewise accidentally neglected to mention here that another copy was given to him by you.

You can see how confusing this is for me Carrie - but I’m sure there’s a simple explanation. What do you think that is?

On Mar 6, 9:07 PM, What the wrote:

Scott,
I thought you weren’t going to read or post here anymore. Don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out. Everyone knows you are part of the cfog group so quit trying to deny it. You all should sell your houses and move into your own little neiborhood called “little kalifornia”

On Mar 6, 9:33 PM, Submit A Comment wrote:

On Mar 6, 7:56 PM, Scott wrote:

You can see how confusing this is for me - but I’m sure there’s a simple explanation. What do you think that is?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have you considered that you might just be an obsessed nutburger? That’s a pretty simple explanation. Perhaps you and McGee must make an appointment with Dr. Real so you can get to work on your issues.

On Mar 6, 9:44 PM, THartill wrote:

So this is what Tom Freel means when he says “You have to stir the pot every once and a while”.

On Mar 6, 10:06 PM, Scott wrote:

Yet another anonymous poser says: “Everyone knows you are part of the cfog group so quit trying to deny it.”

I apologize for sounding sarcastic, but what was your first clue as to my CCFOG involvement? Was it the giant RECALL sign that I was ssen publicly posting on the signature-gathering booths for several days, or perhaps my name in the paper as the “CCFOG Volunteer Organizer”?

And I do apologize for posting here again, as according to you this site is not meant for anyone but sons of the sons of the sons of the pioneers, so to speak, but I will post here when I want to unless TH asks me not to.

But to be clear - I am a resident of District 3 and a registered voter in Mr. Lee’s district, and I post here for myself, not for the CCFOG group.

On Mar 6, 10:13 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

I see the name calling squad has been trotted out to tidy up with senseless and vitriolic drivel.

This issue must now be dead

Do we even remember what the original topic was?

Oh, yes “the Professional Opponents thing>

I loved the assessment of determining the validity of a piece was interesting though...Just play it as an opinion piece until you can find some facts to insert to make it real news.

I don’t quite remember the Daily “A” skewing their stuff that way, they just treat all their stuff a real news outside the typical op-ed and letters to the editor.

On Mar 6, 10:19 PM, Some old chinese guy wrote:

scott - I saw this quote and thought of you and your ccfog buddies:

What the superior man seeks is in himself; what the small man seeks is in others.

On Mar 6, 10:27 PM, Name (required) wrote:

C = Californians

F = F***

O = Oregon

G = Gratuitously

On Mar 7, 7:31 AM, Anomaly wrote:

Patrick can’t remember the Daily Astorian skewing their stuff?

Houston we have a problem!!!

On Mar 7, 10:35 AM, Fat Man wrote:

So was this an actual paper letter in an envelope? If so, was it postmarked from in town or our of town? If it was postmarked in town, what made you think it was maybe from the PR firm? If it was postmarked out of town, what made you guess that it is local? Was there any handwriting on it that looked familiar - is that why you thought maybe it was local?

All mail dropped into the “local only” mail box goes to Portland and gets a “Portland Postmark” so that TH could not know if it was local.

On Mar 7, 10:52 AM, Fat Man wrote:

You can see how confusing this is for me Carrie - but I’m sure there’s a simple explanation. What do you think that is?

Scott, Yes I can see how confused you are. It dose not matter that a few of you do not “understand” TH Thanks for all the great posts

On Mar 7, 11:00 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

Emil?

Gone anonymous?

I’m shocked!!!!!

On Mar 7, 12:40 PM, AnotherAstorian wrote:

This is unbelievable! Why is it, that when a well written opinion piece gets published, the flags automatically get raised that “it must have been written by a PR firm” ??? Why is that? You must be saying that anyone who could possibly be FOR Richard Lee (or for LNG) doesn’t have the intelligence to write a quality piece? Give me a break!

To the many locals who regularly post some pretty great stuff on their blogs or write for some of the papers, this is a giant slap in the face!

And Patrick - I absolutely can’t believe you actually don’t think the DA is skewed. Regardless of who the story is about, if Forrester or Webb doesn’t like the person, it’s negative - and if news is made by someone they DO like, it gets buried or doesn’t get printed at all.

On Mar 7, 12:58 PM, Carrie wrote:

Scott, You are being ridiculous about sourcing an OPINION piece. If that is your PROOF that it is a professional who wrote it it is weak, especially for someone who spent a good deal of time last summer as the online punctuation, diction and spelling monitor. The thing is full of grammatical and spelling errors. It was not done by a professional as anyone looking at it with clarity can quickly discern. Pick on it for other reasons, you know you are itching to.

Pat, The Daily A treats all of their stuff as real news? In many people’s opinion, therein lies the problem. Tryan has the integrity to place iffy news on the comments page. YOU don’t remember the Daily A “skewing” their stuff? As you would put it, “‘nuff said right there”. It’s not worth my time to argue with a zealot or a fool.

On Mar 7, 2:36 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

“Iffy News”?

You mean “Rumor”? “Conjecture”? Speculation?

“Iffy News”.......OK, you said it not me.

Has this piece yo.....uh........this socalled anonymous writer with “Citizens For Elections, Not Recalls” allegedly wrote, become a news item yet or are you going to wait a little longer before it becomes verified, “Equine Scat”?

On Mar 7, 4:15 PM, scott wrote:

It’s very simple. Follow along.

Tryan said:
“For the record this was as a anonymous letter sent to me with only the name Citizens for Elections not Recalls on it. I would guess it is local, but it could be from the Salem PR firm.”

Carrie then said:
“I did not post this, I passed it on to Tryan as one of the items received at the meeting.”

So you see my point - someone seems to be “misremembering” something.

The only other possibility is:

a) - Carrie sent the letter to Tryan anonymously in a “Citizens for Elections Not Recalls” envelope, and Tryan forgot that he received a copy from Carrie.

-or-

b) - Carrie gave Tryan the letter and he simply forgot who he received it from, and that it had not been sent to him as he said.

-or-

c) - Tryan received a copy of the letter anonymously and then Carrie gave him another copy, but Tryan neglected to mention to Carrie that he already had received a copy, and he likewise accidentally neglected to mention here that another copy was given to him by Carrie.

So respectfully, which is it? I’m just looking for clarification.

On Mar 7, 10:13 PM, Lon Mathis wrote:

I am not a professional anything. I am pro-LNG, I do not have an agenda other then wanting elected officials to act
like leaders. I do not live in MR. Lee’s district. But as a CITIZEN, who is just as sick as most of us about this whole thing, I willingly signed my name to the list of supporters of the recall. I don’t pretend to be an expert, but come on...... Mr Lee tells the world that the planning department is just plain unprofessional? When you look at the laundry list of LEE wrongs and wrong actions, Am I the only one who thinks it all stinks? Why can’t Mr. Lee just say, “ I was wrong!” and lets work together to mend this.....But NO, I am announcing my intention to sue the county. RICHARD, don’t crap in your own back yard.
LON

On Mar 8, 5:51 AM, Pyhthian Knight wrote:

The planning dept. might be professional but they don’t treat everybody equally. Richard probably didn’t want anymore than that Heinzman dude got. Yep, Richard is guilty of wanting them to go easy on him, just like the rest of us pray for when we go in there. If that laundry list isn’t in your own hand writing you might want to question it. If you read it in the paper or on cccfog then it’s agenda driven. You might want to call the daily paper and see how the Dept. of Justice investigation is going. I’m sure we’ll be seeing a follow up story any day now. When your done recalling Richard and if they don’t appoint who you want, then it will be time to recall Samuelson, correct. Then Hazen? Hopefully they get to one in your district.

On Mar 8, 1:00 PM, scott wrote:

Whether or not there are problems in the planning department is not the point.

From the documents available, it seems clear that Mr. Lee is not on a crusade to make the planning department better for all of his constituents - but better for himself.

And as a County Commissioner, he had access that required him to behave responsibly, which it appears he did not do even after repeated warnings during inquiries into his questionable actions. Here’s just one snippet from the attorney’s report on some of Mr. Lee’s activities:

“Commissioner Lee has several outstanding sets of issues with the county planning department. The first involves compliance with conditional use permits for a golf course and an RV park and requests by the planning staff for compliance in at least two letters. The second involves five property transfers from Lee to neighboring property owners. Another planning issue involves compliance with flood hazard regulations.” The building Official indicates that 22 building permits are outstanding on the golf course and RV park and 10 of those permits are outdated.

More info available at http://www.ccfog.com

On Mar 8, 3:58 PM, just a question wrote:

THE 10 PERMITS THAT ARE OUTDATE, IS THERE WORK BEING DONE WITHOUT THE PERMITS. IS THIS JUST LIKE REASON 2 ON THE FOG WEBSITE. MR.LEE DOSENT HAVE PERMITS FOR THE WORK HE IS NOT DOING ON HIS RV PARK. THAT DOSENT MAKE GOOD COMMON SENSE WHY WOULD YOU GET PERMITS FOR WORK YOU ARE NOT DOING. HUH, OK, YA, THANKS FOR BEING FOR F.O.G.

On Mar 8, 4:55 PM, Ann Samuelson wrote:

My old company pulled three separate permits for work we had done in Lees RV park, one was closed out, the second one the inspector didn’t see the tracer wire in the sewer line, but it was there and that one is now resolved and the third one I am writing a letter to state the work we did do, but I no longer own a company that performs plumbing work , so I will be voiding the remainder of that permit and the next plumbing contractor to install the remainder of the work to be done on that permit will purchase their own permit. So that explains some of what might be open. When you are dealing with multiple trades and multiple permits on a project it is not unusual to have a number of them open until they are resolved. Resolution to a problem is sometimes an issue of interpretation as well. A FOIA request was also done on me regarding any permits my company had pulled in the last year with Clatsop County Building Codes as well. The mean spirit of this campaign should be of concern to all that live in Clatsop County. I could be employing more people locally, but have made a decision to do most of my work out of Clatsop County so that I do have exposure to effect how I make a living and be able to continue to volunteer many hours to make Clatsop County a good place for others to have jobs, get an education, mental health treatment, and many others to support positive change toward those goals. It is becoming very clear that there is much more behind this than an attack on commissioners given letters to the editor in last nights paper show a correlation between the Jewell School board recall effort against me and the recall effort against Richard Lee.

On Mar 8, 5:06 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

Richard Lee Developments: Current Un-Met Conditions From February 8, 2008
This information taken directly from a letter dated February 8, 2008 from Clatsop County regarding current conditions, met and un-met.

This is the current, as of that date, un-met conditions:

R.V. Park:

The conditions of approval from the January 31, 2005 Clatsop County Hearings Officer decision for the Lee RV Park Conditional Use Permit are listed below. The County’s determination as to the adherence to each condition follows:

2. Development shall comply with all applicable state, federal and local laws.

Condition not met. See discussion under Condition No. 3 below.

3. Prior to construction, the applicant shall obtain a Clatsop County development permit and a county building permit. The construction of the RV Park, accessory uses to the park and associated commercial uses shall comply with all requirements of the ORegon State Specialty Code and OAR(9)18-650-0000 through (9)18-650-0080 entitled Recreation Parks and Organizational Camps.

Condition not met. The appliocant has not remitted RV Park design and construction plans to the Clatsop County Building Codes Division to satisfy the requirements of OAR(9)18-650-0000 through OAR(9)18-650-0080.

6. Applicant shall detail walkways within the park including access locations to open space (golf course) areas.

Condition not met. See Condition No. 3 above.

11. Two additional fire hydrants shall be provided on site as as required by the State Fire Marshall.

Condition not met. Contact State Fire Marshall ay (503) 325-5515 x-24 for more details.

Golf Course:

The conditions of approval from March 13, 2003 Clatsop County Hearings Officer decision for the Lee Golf Course Conditional Use Permit are listed below. The County’s determination as to the applicants adherence to each condition follows:

1. A final design layout showing the golf course with 50-foot riparian setback noted, shall be provided to Community Development prior to development sign-off.

Condition not met. The CUP was approved 3/13/03. The applicant applied for a development permit (#20070797) for the golf course on 11/20/07. For reasons described in momoranda dated, 10/18/07, 10/25/07 and 1219/07, the Planning Department deemed the application incomplete on 11/21/07. The applicant submitted a final design layout plan for the golf course on 01/22/08. Development sign-off for the golf course is pending in the County’s review of the final layout plan and documentation by the applicant that all outstanding issues contained in the aforementioned memoranda have been satisfied.

3. Land disturbing activities in conjunction with preparing the site for the golf course shall be conducted in conformance with the standards in, Section S2.500-2.504.

Condition Indeterminable. See discussuin under Condition No. 1. Since development permit for the golf course was not applied for nor issued prior to commencement of construction acitivities for the golf course, it is not known if land disturbing activities were done in accordance with Section S2.500-2.504.

6. Applicant shall comply with any requirements for a fill permit as it may relate to the parking lot and out buildings

Condition Indeterminable. See discussuin under Condition No. 1. Since development permit for the golf course was not applied for nor issued prior to commencement of construction acitivities for the golf course, it is not known if land fill activities occurred and if so, if these activities were done in accordance with applicable development standards.

7. The property owner shall obtain all required development and building permits and approvals prior to construction. A flood hazard permit shall be applied for and approved for the golf course out building.

Condition not met. See discussion under Condition No.1

Several divisions of land involving a portion of the golf course property occured between 1984 and 2001 without benefit of land use approval. Section 2.050(2) of the Clatsop County Land and Water Development and Use Ordinance reads, “The director shall not issue a development permit for the improvement or use of land that has been previously divided or otherwise developed in violation of this ordinance....”. The applicant must rectify this situation (through use partitioning, property lines adjustments or other appropriate means) before additional permits may be issued for improvement or use of the golf course property.

To date, the applicant has not applied for a golf course out building. On two seperate occasions, the Community Development Dept. issued development permits(#20070226 and #20070651) for a golf course out building but the applicant voided one and changed the use classification to a residential (RV) storage building on the other.

8. All construction activities shall follow the Erosion Control Measures under Standards Section S4-304. The erosion control plan shall be submitted when applying for a development/building permit

Condition not met. See discussion under Conditions No.’s 1 and 3.

There were 21 items total to address. The preceeding is what is left.

March 3, 2008: Clatsop County Community Development confirms the following information: “Mr. Lee does not have all of the permits required to complete the RV park. The work that he is doing at this point is permitted. We have issued partial site work permits for utilities only for site “B” and utilities and park model set up permits for site “A”. Plans for the remainder of the site, the overall site and the required bath houses have not been submitted, approved or permitted.”

On Mar 8, 8:50 PM, Anomaly wrote:

And just how did he make the planning dept better for himself. Sure don’t look like it to me.

On Mar 8, 9:06 PM, Kitty Vickles wrote:

The elected official who really should be recalled in Josh Marquis....

..... You know why.

On Mar 9, 9:53 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

<i."The elected official who really should be recalled in Josh Marquis....

..... You know why."</i>

And just exactly why would that be?

On Mar 9, 10:20 AM, scott wrote:

So I guess the conspiracy theory that the Recall is run by former Measure 4-123 supporters doesn’t really ring true once you see that the leader of Measure 4-123 has come out AGAINST the recall. (Sky Olson letter in the Daily A last Friday.)

The recall against Mr. Lee is a result of his own cumulative bad actions. The CCFOG slogan “...You Know Why” came about because everybody in the group and everyone that we talk to have their own reasons for wanting Mr. Lee to go.

It is insightful when Commissioner Samuelson writes above that the Lee Recall effort is an attack on all Commissioners - she obviously thinks that when Mr. Lee’s activities are challenged, she and the “Gang of Four” - the voting bloc in which she regularly participates - are being challenged as well.

On Mar 9, 12:11 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

And of course, Commissioner Samuelson, showing her true concern for solving the problems within the county in this socalled, “Community Builiding Campaign” sitting commission tries to pimp, prefers to take her focus out of county rather than stand her ground but still hang on to her seat?

Maybe she is at that decision making point that confronts many of us from time to time and that is: What takes priority in one’s life and is in the best interest of “The Community” on the whole?

Leadership, under scrutiny or otherwise, cannot be phoned-in no matter how one may try or, under some sense of denial, think that they can.

On Mar 9, 2:59 PM, clover lane constituent wrote:

A saturated paper bag holds more water than this Scott’s argument, if you look logically at his reasoning. Sky Olsen was never the “leader” of the pro 4-123, he was the treasurer. He never appeared on the radio or as spokesman, or wrote an editorial. If this Scott is saying the treasurer of the group is the leader, then his lies that Lee was the “leader” of pro charter group should be discounted and he should say their treasurer was the leader as well.

Insightful? The CFOG’s campaign website says the rest of the commissioners shouldn’t think this is stopping with Lee. “Someone” proclaimed on the KAST’s old forum’s “First we get back the stipend back, then we go after the people that took it.” You, Scott, how did the CRIODA people print out 24,000 pages of a flier without reporting an in kind contribution to the Oregon online reporting system? If it wasn’t 24,000 pages how do the members of CRIODA account for $2600 in postage paid to Sunset Presort? One would think after four and one half months of being told to keep quiet, and so many of CRIODA’s people on CFOG and wanting OPEN government, you, Scott would be anxious to clear up that “seemingly” hidden expense/contribution, or have you been told you still can’t talk about it?

Good job, sir, calling into doubt CFOG’s intentions of this vendetta being a so-called “community building campaign”. Although, in one way it is. I’ve known Mr. Lee a good deal of my life, ever since my family moved here with the Coast Guard in the late 1940s, and because of personality conflicts may have not always appreciated him. Because of this “campaign” against him he earned my vote and my son’s. He has a firm resolve and a capacity to persevere against adversity that I really wasn’t aware of. Most of us old timers know damn well that Lee’s not a liar or a thief. This campaign has shown us what a crappy newspaper we have and that we are in for a hell of a lot of problems if this recall goes through as outsiders turn to it instead of seeking and accepting compromise with locals. Sour grapes is sour grapes and we see this for what it is. Vendetta.

On Mar 9, 3:20 PM, Ann Samuelson wrote:

Mr. McGee,

I am not clear regarding your response. I state that most of my business is for work is done outside the area. This does not mean I am outside the area often, rather I have a project manager employed in another city. With technology one can work from their car in this day and age, something I do frequently, and work out of a home office when there. I believe it is in the best interest of the community I serve to not be vulnerable to the attacks of those that are attacking others. I have seen the toll this takes on county staff, community members, and other elected officials. It is not because I am afraid, intimidated, or it hurts my feelings that I make this choice. It is simply because it is clearly a huge waste of taxpayer dollars and my time to be “fair game” in this community. My energy is put to much better use supporting the good things going on in Clatsop County which I continue to do. You should have seen the graduates from Judge Brownhill’s drug court friday evening. People getting better, those that helped them get there supporting them, getting their kids back and out of the system, and in turn helping others in the community.

On Mar 9, 4:12 PM, scott wrote:

clover lane constituent (carrie?) wrote:

“Sky Olsen was never the “leader” of the pro 4-123, he was the treasurer.”

Actually, Sky was one of the Chief Petitoners for measure 4-123.

Sky copied every petition sheet, collected and counted and held onto every sheet, then numbered and submitted every sheet to the elections office.

Sky attended almost every CRIODA meeting and was an active leader and participant in decisionmaking.

As you point out, Sky was also the Treasurer for the group, collecting all donations, and handling the banking and paying the vendors.

Given all of that, could you explain to me how he wasn’t a leader?

To your other point - some question about flyers or payments on flyers (about which I know nothing) - I would strongly suggest that if anyone thought that CRIODA violated a campaign law they should have (and would have) reported it immediately to the Secretary of State’s Office. And if you think that you have a case - report it now - it certainly isn’t too late to do so.

On Mar 9, 4:50 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

”Mr. McGee,

And what business would that be Ann?

I’ve seen the successes from Judge Nelson’s Drug Court, first hand, and they are very encouraging.

Upon being elected you immediately become a “Public Figure” under “Public Scrutiny” and the perception you convey is how you are judged and treated.

Unfortunately life does not provide only good things in “Public Service” for you or any other “Public Servant” to deal with, you have to deal with all of them,equally effectively, not just those that interest you.

And my grandaughter says to me the other day, walking down Franklin Street: “Is that lady mad at you Papa? She didn’t say hello back.”

On Mar 9, 5:26 PM, Anomaly wrote:

Who is the gang of four?

Is this the same scott that had high hopes for TH as a rising political star/ and chided TH for not meeting with the District Attorney to work out their differences in private. It didn’t sound like open and honest govt. then and it still doesn’t.

On Mar 9, 6:00 PM, Miss Manners wrote:

On Mar 9, 3:50 PM, Patrick McGee wrote

And my grandaughter says to me the other day,: “Is that lady mad at you Papa? She didn’t say hello back.”

A woman is never too young to learn the lesson that to acknowledge the unsolicited advances of strange men on the street is to invite trouble. Hopefully, your granddaughter picked up on that.

On Mar 9, 6:43 PM, scott wrote:

Anomaly wrote:

“Is this the same scott that had high hopes for TH as a rising political star/ and chided TH for not meeting with the District Attorney to work out their differences in private. It didn’t sound like open and honest govt. then and it still doesn’t.”

I will post the entire email to Tryan that you are talking about if he wants that. I await his response, or he can post it himself.

The email that I sent to Tryan suggested at the time that I felt he was beginning to lose the appearance of an unbiased journalist, and that he should get both sides of the story. In the case that we were discussing, that would have meant talking to Josh. Nothing secret about it - that’s what good journalists do, they get both or all sides of a story in the interest of fairness.

And yes, in spite of our differences, I still have those high hopes for Tryan. He’s a smart and hard-working guy who cares for his community. I think he’s just fallen in with some bad influences, and that it’s a phase he’s going through that he will get out of somehow. As a matter of fact that was part of what that email was about. The fact that we all make mistakes, including me.

TH let me know if you want me to post that email that was mentioned - I still have a copy.

On Mar 9, 6:59 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

“A woman is never too young to learn the lesson that to acknowledge the unsolicited advances of strange men on the street is to invite trouble. Hopefully, your granddaughter picked up on that.”

I wouldn’t say a woman, I could say some women might, in a fairly pleasant and safe neighborhood, a gentleman of that neighborhood walking his grandaughter home from the local elementary school with a pleasant “hello” would perceive that as some kind of threat, inviting trouble.

Yes, I could see that...in some women but I don’t think all women are that acutely paranoid and thankfully, my grandduaghter, I am certain, did not see it as anything other than what most 8 year olds, innocently perceive, just some lady being rude.

On Mar 10, 6:59 AM, Anomaly wrote:

Why would anybody want to drag their granddaughter into this?

On Mar 10, 8:50 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

“Why would anybody want to drag their granddaughter into this?”

Nobody but you, “Anonym” is dragging anybody into anything.

“Public Perception”.... as a “Public Figure”, all people, all ages, judge them by their “Public Actions”.

Something you don’t have to worry about, lurking in the shadows of anonymity.

On Mar 10, 9:34 AM, Sally wrote:

I wouldn’t consider Sky a leader, collecting money, banking, is just that, not a leader! LOL
Yes, why would papa drag their grandaughter into this? Mcgee didn’t want a pleasant “hello” he wants people to bow to him, coming from Mcgee it could be a threat!

On Mar 10, 9:55 AM, Anomaly wrote:

You are public figure now also.

When one stands on his soapbox and cries out to the world.

And proudly signs his name as validation of which he speaks.

Then shouts down to those with questions or a differing opinion

that their words mean nothing unless you tell us who you are.

Many of us do not care to join the club of disillusioned malcontents

As I slip this ballot into it’s secrecy envelope I wonder what’s next

Maybe you would like to know every ones personal and private vote

Thoughts, ideas, and opinions are yours to judge and that’s all

We’ve seen your judgment on others thoughts, ideas, and opinions also

When in disagreement you slip in the (rude) personal attacks,(CB)

If signing your name is the only way to validate an opinion or idea

It’s a very weak one. A good idea or opinion can stand alone.

So you can shout down at me and yell your name, that’s not my game.

Hopefully you can have a reasoned response for us in the crowd

This is the only way you’ll receive the respect your searching for.

On Mar 10, 10:24 AM, Anon wrote:

The gang of four as I see it is Josh, Cindy, Burr and Helen.

Also I think that if the recall petitioners fail in the recall they should reimburse the County the thousands of dollars it will end up costing the tax payers for their spiteful action to have an election.

On Mar 10, 10:32 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

Stop your whining anonym, you’re still a “nobody” no matter how you twist it.

The only accuracy in your being an “anomaly” is the “Abnormal” part and in that you are uniquely so and once again, your opinion, in the voice of anonymity, has no value whatsoever.

On Mar 10, 12:04 PM, for an open government my aunt fanny wrote:

Reuter, given your criteria for what a leader of a PAC is, lay off calling Richard Lee the leader of the opposition to 4-123. Lee was not a member of the CCCCI, he contributed FAR less than Josh Marquis did to the 4-123 campaign, Lee took out 1/5 the ads that Marquis did. According to your criteria Lee doesn’t fit the definition of a leader of a PAC in any manner.

According to you “Sky attended almost every CRIODA meeting and was an active leader and participant in decisionmaking.” For you to make that determination it would mean you were at all of the meetings, yet you state that “some question about flyers or payments on flyers (about which I know nothing)” I find that highly suspicious if not an outright lie. You mean to tell me that a group you belong to and that you went to every meeting for(since you can testify on someone else’s attendance) sent out “some flyer” and spent $2600 in postage and you were completely unaware of this occurring? Either you are a gawd damn liar or your group wasn’t even open with one another much less the rest of the public.

FOR an OPEN GOVERNMENT? Yeah, until its them you are asking to be open.

Are any associations, organizations, groups or affiliations you belong to, have contact with, are a part of accepting money from Leucadia (or a person associated w/Leucadia), Scott? Or is that something else “you don’t know” about the organizations you belong to? Real OPEN organizations you belong to there.

FOR an OPEN GOVERNMENT? Yeah, until you ask one of them a direct question.

Quit yer damn whining McGee, no one is asking you to run interference for Reuter (or are they?). Let him answer these questions, if he’s “allowed” to.

On Mar 10, 12:23 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

“Quit yer damn whining McGee, no one is asking you to run interference for Reuter (or are they?). Let him answer these questions, if he’s “allowed” to.”

So, who are you to be directing the input on this, site other than another “Nobody” with a bad attitude?

Could it be, and of course we all know how speculation is, that Hazen took the hit on that “stipend abolishment” in Lee’s behalf to avoid the appearance of vindictiveness on Lee’s part?

On Mar 10, 1:00 PM, Anon wrote:

Run a poll Pat and see if my opinion has more value than yours. I bet I win.

On Mar 10, 1:18 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

“Run a poll Pat and see if my opinion has more value than yours. I bet I win.”

Run you own poll “Anonym Anon”.

An “Anonymous Poll”.

Hmmmmmmmmm!....How would that work I wonder?

Nothing added to nothing, equals nothing.

Would be difficult to determine who won wouldn’t it?

Maybe Tryan and “STAFF” could run an “Iffy Poll” for you here with the “Most Likely” results, “Definitely Maybe” posted at some date in the future.

On Mar 10, 2:11 PM, Anon wrote:

Pat you should run it and fix it like all your other polls, that way you could win. Besides we aren’t anonymous since you think you know who all the anons are.

On Mar 10, 4:30 PM, Susie wrote:

I think it is so funny, when Mcgee gets worked up, mad, mean, rude.. accusations start flying when a person wishes to remain anon. To top his antics he blames Carrie for all the anon posts, how little he knows, yet he just won’t stop.

On Mar 10, 5:12 PM, waiting for reuter to answer wrote:

“According to Reuter “Sky attended almost every CRIODA meeting and was an active leader and participant in decisionmaking.” For you to make that determination it would mean you were at all of the meetings, yet you state that “some question about flyers or payments on flyers (about which I know nothing)” I find that highly suspicious if not an outright lie. You mean to tell me that a group you belong to and that you went to every meeting for(since you can testify on someone else’s attendance) sent out “some flyer” and spent $2600 in postage and you were completely unaware of this occurring? Either you are a damn liar or your group wasn’t even open with one another much less the rest of the public.

FOR an OPEN GOVERNMENT? Yeah, until its them you are asking to be open.”

Waiting for an answer from Reuter.

On Mar 10, 5:19 PM, Waiting an Answer Reuter wrote:

“According to Reuter “Sky attended almost every CRIODA meeting and was an active leader and participant in decisionmaking.” For you to make that determination it would mean you were at all of the meetings, yet you state that “some question about flyers or payments on flyers (about which I know nothing)” I find that highly suspicious if not an outright lie. You mean to tell me that a group you belong to and that you went to every meeting for(since you can testify on someone else’s attendance) sent out “some flyer” and spent $2600 in postage and you were completely unaware of this occurring? Either you are a damned liar or your group wasn’t even open with one another much less the rest of the public.

FOR an OPEN GOVERNMENT? Yeah, until its them you are asking to be open.”

still Waiting for an Answer Reuter.

On Mar 10, 6:02 PM, scott wrote:

I alredy told you once. Scroll back up and re-read the comments and stop wasting our time.

On Mar 10, 6:40 PM, Liz wrote:

I looked and don’t see where you answered the question.
Sounded like you said you were with the group, but didn’t know the goings on. Are you really confused about “some flyers”?

On Mar 10, 7:07 PM, scott wrote:

Look again. I said that I don’t know. Sky, the chief petitioner for that group, handled the finances as well, and I know nothing about them.

As I said if there was any chance of wrongdoing, do you really think the opposition would have done anything short of run to the Sec. of State’s office?

And if you believe that there is some issue - take it to the Sec. of State’s office - hurry! That would be a big story if true.

But in response to your query re: my confusion, that reminds me.

Before all of these cleverly timed distractions, we were about to hear from TH regarding whether he or Carrie were mistaken about how he received this editorial.

Well, Tryan?

On Mar 10, 8:00 PM, Clown-R-US wrote:

Uh-Oh Carrie’s going after the D.A.!!!!

CCM’s Dried Salmon Message Board :: General :: District Attorney Matters :: RECALL

Author Topic: RECALL (Read 82 times)
getting it ready
Guest
RECALL
« Thread Started on Yesterday at 5:43pm »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we had somebody with the ability to stand up to this guy and get the ball rolling, what would you like to see as a reason to recall Joshua Marquis from District Attorney of Clatsop County?

I think the number one reason is because he is ripping this county in half. But also, it is because he illegally let a child abuser get off with a slap on the wrist because of his vendetta against Ann Samuelson.

This criminal committed a Class C Felony because Seeley abused a child, causing her physical harm and Marquis let the guy off with probation AND is letting him expunge his record if he doesn’t do anything wrong during the next 18 months. Marquis is breaking TWO laws.

137.533 Probation without entering judgment of guilt; when appropriate; effect of violating condition of probation. (1) Whenever a person pleads guilty to or is found guilty of a misdemeanor other than driving while under the influence of intoxicants or other than a misdemeanor involving domestic violence as defined in ORS 135.230, the court may defer further proceedings and place the person on probation, upon motion of the district attorney and without entering a judgment of guilt, if the person:

(a) Consents to the disposition;

(b) Has not previously been convicted of any offense in any jurisdiction;

(d) Has not completed a diversion under ORS 135.881 to 135.901; and

(e) Agrees to pay the unitary assessment for which the person would have been liable under ORS 137.290 if the person had been convicted. The person must pay the unitary assessment within 90 days of imposition unless the court allows payment at a later time. The person shall pay the unitary assessment to the clerk of the court, who shall account for and distribute the moneys as provided in ORS 137.293 and 137.295.

(2) A district attorney may submit a motion under subsection (1) of this section if, after considering the factors listed in subsection (3) of this section, the district attorney finds that disposition under this section would be in the interests of justice and of benefit to the person and the community.

(3) In determining whether disposition under this section is in the interests of justice and of benefit to the person and the community, the district attorney shall consider at least the following factors:

(a) The nature of the offense. However, the offense must not have involved injury to another person.

AND

Oregon Criminal Expungement
Oregon Rev. Stat. 137.225

(1)(a) At any time after the lapse of three years from the date of pronouncement of judgment, any defendant who has fully complied with and performed the sentence of the court and whose conviction is described in subsection (5) of this section by motion may apply to the court wherein that conviction was entered for entry of an order setting aside the conviction; or (b) At any time after the lapse of one year from the date of any arrest, if no accusatory instrument was filed, or at any time after an acquittal or a dismissal of the charge, the arrested person may apply to the court which would have jurisdiction over the crime for which the person was arrested, for entry of an order setting aside the record of such arrest. For the purpose of computing the one-year period, time during which the arrested person has secreted himself or herself within or without the state shall not be included. (5) The provisions of subsection (1)(a) of this section apply to a conviction of:

(a) A Class C felony, except for criminal mistreatment in the first degree under ORS 163.205 when it would constitute child abuse, as defined in ORS 419B.005, or any sex crime. (b) The crime of possession of the narcotic drug marijuana when that crime was punishable as a felony only. (c) A crime punishable as either a felony or a misdemeanor, in the discretion of the court, except for:

(A) Any sex crime; and (B) The following crimes when they would constitute child abuse as defined in ORS 419B.005:(i) Criminal mistreatment in the first degree under ORS 163.205; and (ii) Endangering the welfare of a minor under ORS 163.575 (1)(a).

Let’s get a huge list of reasons to RECALL Marquis. Maybe if we see the list one of us will get the courage to start the RECALL.

Link to Post - Back to Top Logged

JD Bishop
Guest
Re: RECALL
« Reply #1 on Yesterday at 6:59pm »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For breaking the law in regards to prosecuting the Indian family.

1) Charging a felony on a piece of evidence that was missing 2 pages from the middle and would knowingly have been dismissed by a judge

2) Threatening to charge with additional crimes if a plea wasn’t reached and then not charging those crimes when the plea was refused.

3) Threatening to charge children with felonies if the parent didn’t take a plea, and not following through when the plea was refused

4) Using illegal tactics to coerce pleas from people

5) Using illegally gotten evidence to coerce pleas from people
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged

Avid Reader
Spawn

member is offline

Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 17
Karma: 5 Re: RECALL
« Reply #2 on Yesterday at 8:26pm »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about colluding with a County Commissioner to change the County Charter to give himself more pay?
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged

Screaming Eagle
Guest
Re: RECALL
« Reply #3 on Yesterday at 10:38pm »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YES!!
TIME FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE COUNTY TO GET SOME PAYBACK!!
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged

im in
Guest
Re: RECALL
« Reply #4 on Today at 7:59am »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about talking with a County Commissioner regarding the Memorandum of Understanding after he told the Daily Astorian that he wasn’t allowed to talk to ANY county commissioners because they had their own attorney because OF the MOU? Not only unethical because he lied to the people in the paper about not talking to county commissioners but because he actually talked to a county commissioner directly about the MOU and influenced his vote on the MOU.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged

anon
Guest
Re: RECALL
« Reply #5 on Today at 9:43am »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the county should be paid back for the expense to hold a special election by this CCFOG.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged

im in too
Guest
Re: RECALL
« Reply #6 on Today at 9:56am »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about the McLaren family? Our money was wasted going after an innocent family! The money was the least of the in-justice. The family was forced to go into hiding out of State.
The family did NOTHING wrong!

Link to Post - Back to Top Logged

On Mar 10, 8:17 PM, Anomaly wrote:

“your opinion, in the voice of anonymity, has no value whatsoever”

No value in my words, we would expect no less from you, o great one

I’ll pay close attention to the value of your opinion when signed.

But for some reason I feel I’m already way ahead.

On Mar 10, 8:50 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

“your opinion, in the voice of anonymity, has no value whatsoever”

No value in my words, we would expect no less from you, o great one

I’ll pay close attention to the value of your opinion when signed.

Your Point, or is there one?

On Mar 10, 9:33 PM, scott wrote:

Okey-dokey, looks like this comment thread has gone to kookooland - accidentally? (I think not.)

Let’s just look back to the top of the list, shall we?

- The current recall effort is about Mr. Lee and HIS actions, and he is being recalled not by a small group, but by a substantial percentage of the voters in his district. Mr. Lee has spent thousands on “Professional Opponents.” CCFOG has not.

On Mar 11, 12:17 AM, H&R;Block wrote:

Recalling Marquis is a great idea!! He tried to pass a budget that was way over inflated in the amount of cases the DA’s office handles.
He got called on it and was made to look bad-that is why they jerked his stipend!

He’s a liar and a cheat and needs to go!

On Mar 11, 12:50 AM, Recall Marquis wrote:

For lying to the Assistant Attorney General of Oregon?

BUSTED!

email from DA Josh Marquis’ account on county provided services to Pete Shepherd, Assistant Attorney General 07/01/2007
“A citizens committee with which I am not affiliated has proposed gathering signatures for the county home rule charter. ... I am fairly certain that there have been no emails or correspondence or memos of any kind generated by me as District Attorney on this subject.”

email from DA Josh Marquis’ account on county services to Commissioner Sam Patrick 06/04/07
“Well the District Attorney approves the language...”
“When I get back lets discuss the core committee members....”

email from DA Josh Marquis’ account on county services to Mike Burton and Tom Lininger 5/18/2007
“I don’t intend to engage in any kind of negotiation with these people. If they want to cut my stipend they can live with the consequences.”

On Mar 11, 8:02 AM, BS filter wrote:

c’mon none of this can be true, it would have been in the Daily Astorian if it was. This would have been big news, can’t be true.

On Mar 11, 8:28 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

Yessireeee! NCO, on the way to becoming a respected source for respectable news for the region.

Jeesh!

Just like a gun, as dangerous as to whose hands it’s in and in some’s hands the potential inflict damage on themselves.

On Mar 11, 9:57 AM, letter to the editor wrote:

Comment sections are for readers to discuss with one another the events of the day. If you aren’t proud of the content of the comments quit planting the seeds of discontent. To imply that the comments at NCO are any different than comments of online news venues all over the PAC Northwest shows how truly naive of the online world you are. And YOU presume to give advice to an entrepreneur? Why don’t you try visiting a couple of the online news venues i.e. Willamette Week and read the comments there. Then whine about how the WW is not a “respected source” for news for the region. Read the Democrat Herald, The Argus Observer, Oregon Commentator, Ashland Daily, Blue Oregon, and the comment section under each story, or the the Seattle PI or, in the joker above’s case, read the letters to the editor and comments in the Daily Astorian and say the same thing. What a jealous hack he has become*.

Willamette Week http://wweek.com/editorial/3417/10489/
Democrat Herald http://www.dhonline.com/
Argus http://www.argusobserver.com/
Oregon Commentator http://www.oregoncommentator.com/
Ashland Daily http://www.dailytidings.com/
Blue Oregon http://www.blueoregon.com/
Seattle PI http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/
Oregon Live Forums http://www.oregonlive.com/forums/

*Or always was

On Mar 11, 10:22 AM, Anon wrote:

The only problem I see with this sites credibility is that it has a link to Grassroots people, a blog that is just a copy and paste of what others have written. It is collected by someone the Daily Astorian once called a Political Gadfly, but now he’s their bitch because he is the only one in the blog world who actually agrees with Forrester.

On Mar 11, 1:30 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

“The only problem I see with this sites credibility is that it has a link to Grassroots people, a blog that is just a copy and paste of what others have written. It is collected by someone the Daily Astorian once called a Political Gadfly, but now he’s their bitch because he is the only one in the blog world who actually agrees with Forrester.”

Care for a little cheese with that “Whine” anonym?

Poor thing.

On Mar 11, 3:53 PM, scott wrote:

“LETTER TO THE EDITOR” wrote:
“To imply that the comments at NCO are any different than comments of online news venues all over the PAC Northwest shows how truly naive of the online world you are.”

Respectfully, you are completely wrong. A letter to the editor sent to a legitimate news org must be accompanied by a real name, and a real contact number.

The news org then contacts you to make sure that you are the person who wrote it, and the persons name runs with the letter.

That certainly is not the case here.

On Mar 11, 4:59 PM, INTERPOL TO INVESTIGATE LEIGH..................... wrote:

“Respectfully, you are completely wrong. A letter to the editor sent to a legitimate news org must be accompanied by a real name, and a real contact number.

The news org then contacts you to make sure that you are the person who wrote it, and the persons name runs with the letter.”

Or in the case of the Daily Astorian (which is now exempt from anything approaching a legitimate news org); if your letter is not supportive of their position, will in all likelihood hit the circular file.

On Mar 11, 6:50 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

Could it be that they, The Daily “A” expected and required more than..."INTERPOL TO INVESTIGATE LEIGH” from you in your submission?

What’s that?

They what?

Required a verifiable name, address and phone number you say?

Those lowlife bastards.

Actually you should file a complaint with ACLU regarding your right to remain anonymous and unaccountable.

On Mar 11, 8:29 PM, submit a comment wrote:

After reading all the previous posts I’ve decided to cast a NO vote!!

On Mar 11, 9:12 PM, Anon wrote:

Hey, I sent a letter with my name and phone number and Webb called me and tried to get me to change my opinion. I wouldn’t and I stuck by what I had written and then he never printed it. Yeah, they don’t censor their in box.

On Mar 12, 12:33 AM, nemo wrote:

and Webb called me and tried to get me to change my opinion.

What a bootlicking assclown Webb is. I had never actually heard that twirps voice until during the big Dec storm blackout I was listening to KMUN and he was blathering away like some fag on meth about how great he and the Daily Astorian were. He is a nauseating personality in print and on the air.

On Mar 12, 12:42 AM, passed the da sniff test numerous times wrote:

“Respectfully, you are completely wrong. A letter to the editor sent to a legitimate news org must be accompanied by a real name, and a real contact number.”

“Required a verifiable name, address and phone number you say?”

You are both wrong.
NUMEROUS people write in “to the editor” of the Daily Astorian using pseudonyms. Guarantee you that everyone from federal employees, to state to city employees, CEOs to city managers, newspaper deliverers to county planners, bosun’s mates to cops are using pseudonyms to write in. All one needs is a phone number and when they call for a confirmation saying, “Yep, that was me who wrote it.” Oh, now I get it, you’re agreeing the Daily Astorian isn’t legitimate.

Willamette Week does NOT confirm name or number before publishing on the comment page. Democrat Herald, Argus, Seattle PI, Oregon Live, as well as dozens of others that have comment sections under their posts/articles, none of them require name and number before publishing on the comment page.

On Mar 12, 8:57 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

“What a bootlicking assclown Webb is. I had never actually heard that twirps voice until during the big Dec storm blackout I was listening to KMUN and he was blathering away like some fag on meth about how great he and the Daily Astorian were. He is a nauseating personality in print and on the air.”

Well, why don’t you post your piece here, let us judge its worth then?

On Mar 12, 9:59 AM, Anomaly wrote:

“ let us judge its worth then?”
Who is us? Are you the judge? Is us the jury?
Maybe if he just gave you his name you could start your judging process early. It seems, it’s not what the words say, but who is saying them that is important to you. Maybe he who speaks the loudest and most often, then yells his name, should be given more credence and respect. Then maybe not, for it hasn’t worked for you yet.

On Mar 12, 12:22 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

Me, you and them “Abnomaly”.

Got another “Anonym” complaining Daliy “A” won’t publish his/her/its musings well, publish it here, let us read it for its validity.

He/she/it obviously wants it in the mainstream so well, here you go, right here, everybody reads this thing don’t they?

On Mar 12, 12:32 PM, Sara wrote:

Now Mcgee wants to judge everyone, give me a break. For what reason does he want to judge posters? Why would it matter. Many good reasons to post anon, he is scary!

On Mar 12, 1:27 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

“Now Mcgee wants to judge everyone, give me a break. For what reason does he want to judge posters? Why would it matter. Many good reasons to post anon, he is scary!”

Especially when you cannot comprehend what you read, huh?

On Mar 12, 3:23 PM, Jennie F. Decker wrote:

Maybe Clatsop County was really being ruined by the locals. We should be grateful all these high rolling hotshots from California who, like Reuter, Price, Auerbach et al, moved up here recently to tell us how we should live and think where our families have been living and thinking for generations.

It was really terrible here before they showed up.

How we ever get along without them is a mystery, don’t you agree?

You don’t? Well, you darned fool.

And speaking of Reuter, Price, Auerbach and this McGee person, does anyone know what they actually, if anything, do besides blow copious amounts of smoke up people’s butts? Like, do they own businesses, employ people or, for that matter, even have jobs in the county?

On Mar 12, 4:50 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

“And speaking of Reuter, Price, Auerbach and this McGee person, does anyone know what they actually, if anything, do besides blow copious amounts of smoke up people’s butts? Like, do they own businesses, employ people or, for that matter, even have jobs in the county?”

Yes!

On Mar 12, 5:49 PM, LTB wrote:

Patrick, do you have a website associated with your work and if so what is the address?

On Mar 12, 7:28 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

“Patrick, do you have a website associated with your work and if so what is the address?”

Yes, it’s on the internet

On Mar 12, 9:16 PM, Dan Baergen wrote:

S.A. Reuter:

I am not a resident of district three, nor am I a long time resident of Clatsop County. I have, in the past, lived in southern california for a very short time. (yes, I know I should have captalized, but I just can’t do it). I live in District 4, and I will not have a vote in the recall effort. If I did I would vote NO because I am very familiar with S.A. Reuter. I would NEVER align with Reuter in any cause! I am an outsider too--just like Reuter. However, unlike Reuter, I do not wish to change Clatsop county to Brentwood, Los Angeles, or southern california. I would rather live in and be a part of the community---that is why I moved here!

I had the extreme misfortune to meet Reuter in Los Angeles where he lived in Brentwood. (yes, the same community as Dear old OJ lived in). He was self employed at the time. That should have been “red flag #1”. It would seem that Reuter sold his property in Brentwood and moved to Astoria.

I have a very deep concern. Why is Reuter now willing to be a champion of local politics in Clatsop county of which he knows nothing? Would the citizens of District 3 allow him to dictate to them how to live their life in Astoria Oregon? I think not---especially if they know him as I know him.

So what is the connection, and ultimate knowledge Reuter seems to have that makes him an expert on Clatsop County? Maybe it was his vast experience living in Brentwood being self employed. Maybe not. Maybe Reuter has been duped into taking a stance about which he knows nothing! But who in District 3 would do such a thing? I bet I know.

Come on District 3 somebody check this guy out before it is too late! “Lie down with dogs and you will get up with flees”.

NorthCoastOregon.com

Opinion

How Clatsop County is Being Ruined by Professional Opponents

106 Comments

Submit A Comment

Search

Local Blog Posts

Opinion Links

Recent Comments

Elsewhere

Local Links

Local Government

Clatsop Blog Network

Local Blog Posts