First Prev
of 2
Next Last
observer

United States

#1 Jun 4, 2008
The little man who thinks himself a lawer just lost two claims he brought agnist the District. This make barrett 0 for 7. Five grand jury complaints went nowhere and he lost the two small claims.

“I'm a Multifacted Personality ”

Since: Nov 07

West Shores of the Salton Sea

#2 Jun 4, 2008
Any Grand Jury complaints filed this year will receive an "answer" when the Grand Jury's report is available to the public the end of July 2008.

What I'm wondering is the SCSD going to turn over the "judgments" to the Grand Jury so they see that a local court ruled on the very same issues director barrett turned over to them to deliberate and waste their valuable time on? I hope they will inform the Grand Jury to this double jeopardy play of barretts.
observer wrote:
The little man who thinks himself a lawer just lost two claims he brought agnist the District. This make barrett 0 for 7. Five grand jury complaints went nowhere and he lost the two small claims.
Long Time Resident

United States

#3 Jun 5, 2008
Well spent tax payers money!!
Grand jury investigations, small claims court filings, and continuous legal fees on his behalf,(all lost and considered not valid)!
WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT TO SPEND YOUR TAX DOLLARS ON??
This is rediculous -- Mr. Barrett swore, by election to his position, to support and uphold the District. He has done nothing but file suits against this District since he was elected!
How much longer is his term of office?!?!?!?!?!
Long Time Resident

United States

#4 Jun 5, 2008
Although the Grand Jury cannot ignore any complaint, I'm sure they look at the complaint and then the filing complainent and then cringe!
How many more of our tax dollars are we willing to spend so that Mr. Barrett can practice law!?!?
NOW IS THE TIME FOR R-E-C-A-L-L!!!!!!!!!!
AKA SCSD Director Barrett

Barnesville, OH

#5 Jun 18, 2008
If you actually look at the Decision by the Judge and read it with one grain of intelligence you'd see that the Judge weasiled his way out of making a decision.

First the Judge said that the defendant prevailed,
Then the Judge said that there was conflicting laws and that it APPEARED that the SCSD could charge the fees,

Then the Judge said that small claims court was not the place to consider conflicting statutes.

Sounds to me that he didn't say that my case didn't have any merit, but instead he stated that small claims court wasn't the place to consider "conflicts of law" (conflicting statutes).

What I got for $40's worth of filing fees was to see what the the SCSD's fecal counsel was holding in there hands.

Now when they assess me these fees in the upcoming fiscal year (July 1st, 2008-June 30th, 2009) I can file in regular court if I want to on the new years fees.
AKA SCSD Director Barrett

Barnesville, OH

#6 Jun 18, 2008
BTW: You can read more at www.saltonseawest.com or www.saltonseafarer.com or .org .net Sewer

Here's the scoop of the Sewer Standby Fee issue:

SCSD's legal counsel (Best, Best, and Krieger) claims that the district can charge the fee per 5471 of the Health and Safety Code.

But when I asked Robert Patterson of BB&K why they were still going to charge the fee this upcoming year considering that for the last 19 years they have been renewing the fee by RESOLUTION instead of the required ORDINANCE (H&S 5471(d)), Patterson simply stated that an ORDINANCE is the Same thing as a RESOLUTION so the District has done it right for the last 19 years

....he actually said that at a regular monthly board meeting!

That boy really needs to go back to law school if he really believes that, or to the unemployment office for total incompetence!

The CSD Law and the government code specificly tells you what makes an ordinance an ordinance...and when an ordinance is required only an ordinance will do....resolutions and motions have NEVER had the same meaning as an ordinance.

Even our illustrious topix editor Sheri Nguyen knows that.

See you next fiscal year folks
Long Time Resident

United States

#7 Jun 18, 2008
Mr. Barrett,
I state again that you swore by election to uphold and defend the purpose of the District. However, I have seen nor heard anything from you but everything against the District (rising legal fees, filings with agencies who (probably) have much more important things to deal with, and elongated Board meetings)!
CALLING FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS NAMES IS NOT THE WAY TO GET YOUR POINT ACCROSS!!!!
The Board consists of five different people with (in most cases) five different ideas, however BY YOUR SWORN POSITION once a decision is made by the Board YOU MUST SUPPORT IT.
I would much rather see my tax dollars (what little comes back to the District) maintain my sewer and fire department/parks than to be spent on legal fees to defend us AGAINST you!
You do have good ideas at times, but your methods, and temperment, work against you.
Good luck in the next election!
AKA SCSD Director Barrett

Barnesville, OH

#8 Jul 13, 2008
So "Long Time Resident" let me get this straight:

If 3 out of 5 directors vote to do something that is against state or federal law or their constitutions then I'm to follow the will of the board as a whole anyways?

The Oath of Office is an oath to uphold the laws of the State and the United States and their Constitutions....not the vote of 3 "misguided" directors.
Observer

Husser, LA

#9 Jul 13, 2008
barrett
If these Directors have broken the law so much why has NO ONE else besides the little man seen it? And if they are so misguided, did the people make a mistake voting them in, two of which have been reelected several times? I think there is only one misguided Director.
AKA SCSD Director Barrett

Barnesville, OH

#10 Jul 13, 2008
yada yada yada
Long Time Resident

United States

#11 Jul 15, 2008
yada yada yada???
Kind of like sticking your fingers in your ears and singing a song. If you don't hear it -- you don't have to deal with it or answer the accusation, right?
Long Time Resident

United States

#12 Jul 17, 2008
Director Barrett,
If the other Board members are doing things against the law (and if you are REALLY interested in making them follow the laws you persieve to be violated) why don't you spend your own money -- NOT THE TAX PAYER'S MONEY TO DO IT!!
The legal fees are out of control -- AMD YOU ARE THE REASON!!!!
It seems you are doing everything you can to destroy the Salton Community Services District.
I'm a resident and a voter and I (for one) do not like your methods!
You are standing on a 'soap box' that can easily be kicked out from under you.
Observer

United States

#13 Jul 18, 2008
listened to tape of the last meeting, the little man was in rare form, made himself look like the a$$ that he is. According to him the world is wrong and illegal and he is the great righter of wrongs. I wonder why the little man, if he is so great, can't keep a job?
MooMoo

Barnesville, OH

#14 Jul 21, 2008
yada yada yada when did The Seinfeld Show come back on the air? That was a good show.
Long Time Resident

Silver Springs, NV

#15 Jul 21, 2008
I am getting tired of the 'yadda, yadda, yadda.
Seems like your answer for no proof.
Answer the question presented to you!
Yadda, Yadda, Yadda is no answer at all and lets the rest of the world know that you do not have a clue as to what is really going on!
You have no answer and then answer with your infamous Yadda, Yadda, Yadda!
What? You present the question, with no clue as to a solution and then condem the public with Yadda, Yadda, Yadda?
THANKS FOR YOUR HELP!!!!!!!!!!

1
AKA SCSD Director Barrett

United States

#16 Jul 27, 2008
Hey "longtime",

Why don't you go to www.saltonseawest.com and read the government documents in the channel maintenance grand jury complaint. Then combine that knowledge with the fact that the SCSD Board did not make the required findings stated in the deed recorded covenants at the July meeting, yet they still voted to collect over the $10 minimum from two of the three channel tracts.

Now answer this question: Is not taking someones property or possessions without their permission or any other legal authority theft?

Directors Palmer, Medders, and Butler are theives. Plain and simple. Prove this theory wrong, I dare you.

At least there was one ray of hope at that meeting, that being that Director Neal also voted against this unauthorized and illegitimate fee.
In the Know

Fontana, CA

#17 Jul 27, 2008
Mr. Barrett
Is not stealing Mr. Butler's mail out of his box theft?? I understand you almost got arrested.
You can put anything you want on your website and just because it is there does not make it true.
No goverment agency has found any thing wrong with SCSD. The Grand Jury just inored your complaints.
Baby Barrett just keeps crying the same old stuff

“I'm a Multifacted Personality ”

Since: Nov 07

West Shores of the Salton Sea

#18 Jul 27, 2008
AKA SCSD Director Barrett wrote:
Hey "longtime",
Why don't you go to www.saltonseawest.com and read the government documents in the channel maintenance grand jury complaint.....SNIP
*Editor hat OFF*

Maybe Jimmy you need to put some new "news" items on your website other then the ones you keep rehasing over and over again, or just moving from different areas of the page to make it look like you've been a busy editor of your webpage. Rouhe resigning is OLD news.

The Grand Jury complaints are OLD news, though they will be sending their rulings out to the public in the next 15 days or so.

Please stop wasting the Public's money, time and energy on items that really have no merit.

Try reading a good book, taking an online course, or helping your fellow man, one way you could do the preceding is to turn your computer off, box it up and donate it to the West Shores Chamber of Commerce Yard sale on August 16-17 on Haven Drive.

Have a great day!

*Editor hat ON*
AKA SCSD Director Barrett

Barnesville, OH

#19 Jul 27, 2008
Hey "in the know",
When a document is given to one director it must also be given to ALL directors....there was no arrest, no almost arrested or anything relating to theft from director butlers box.
director palmer and butler and ass manger reagles was trying to keep an investigation about me secret because the result of the investigation was conclusive in its report that director Barrett did not and has not done anything illegal.
the aforementioned three spent thousands of dollars of the taxpayers monies on a personal endetta against director barrett because they are continuing their behavior of trying to shoot the messenger that is delivering the news of the corrupt district to the people.
Norm Niver

United States

#20 Jul 31, 2008
So,
Mr. Barett why don't you do it again so we can all see the Judge weasil out of it again and then do it again and maybe one more time.
I have been here for 31 years now and I had thought that I had seen it all. No I have not.
Good luck to the other directors.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Salton City Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Sean on Cover of May's Newsmax Magazine (Apr '11) Jun 7 Jolee arguello 2
New owners of Captn Jim's in Salton City May '15 Mary Butler 1
Consuelo Falomir Apr '15 Harvey Dent 2
Alarma: Criol Agua Purificada es Tóxico Apr '15 Oscar from Mecca 1
Alarma: Criol Agua Purificada es Tóxico Apr '15 Oscar from Mecca 1
What type of business are lacking in the Salton... (Sep '08) Apr '15 TMT 23
How do Mecca residents get high speed Internet? Apr '15 mecca760 2
More from around the web

Salton City People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Salton City Mortgages