65 Plaintiffs vs. City
First Prev
of 18
Next Last

“Liberty and justice for all”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#1 Oct 16, 2012
To read the filed court documents, http://www.scribd.com/collections/3917891/Sol...

“Liberty and justice for all”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#2 Oct 16, 2012
Be informed....

All that is complained about happened under ONE remaining Commissioner...Steve Green.

While he touts himself as an environmentalist, it has been HIS actions that put garbage on top of TWO drinking water wells.

While he touts himself as "for the people," it has been his actions that have violated the due process rights.

To put it simply, NOT ONE action taken in regards to acquiring a solid waste collection center was within the law.

Ask Commissioner Green the next time you see him, "how's Rubin's malpractice insurance working out for ya?"

Let's not forget that City Manager Fuentes is responsible, by law, for the adherence to our ordinances. FAILED!!!

And, as usual...lacking competent legal advice gets us into these messes, and malpractice insurance isn't going to fix any of this.

We can't fix stupid...but we can replace 'em.

Judged:

14

12

7

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Carmen

Eden Prairie, MN

#3 Oct 17, 2012
Just following this story from Wisconsin, and as a snowbird, I have a few questions:
1. Why was the current landfill closed? It was a great location, and the cost was low to allow people a place to responsibly dispose of their trash.
2. Are they planning to build another landfill, and if so, where?
3. Why are the petitioners upset about the recycling center/trash facility? Is it near a residential area?
4. If the petitioners do not want the trash center at this location, where do they want it?
5. If they don't want it all, where do they propose residential trash should be dumped?
6. Why aren't there competing private companies who could bid on residential trash contracts with individuals? Most towns have more than one trash service (Waste Management, Allied Waste, etc), and costs stay low because of the competition.
7. Why is that the same people are always against everything in that town? What is their alternative to it?

“Liberty and justice for all”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#4 Oct 17, 2012
Carmen wrote:
Just following this story from Wisconsin, and as a snowbird, I have a few questions:
I'll answer what I can. However, for the most information on what the Complaint for Declaratory Relief is about, and all the wrongdoings, you may read the actual complaint at http://www.scribd.com/collections/3917891/Sol...
Carmen wrote:
1. Why was the current landfill closed? It was a great location, and the cost was low to allow people a place to responsibly dispose of their trash.
Mandated by federal law. Operators of landfills were informed about 20 years ago that new regulations were being put into affect for environmental safety. Municipalities like ours were given 20 years to come up with a plan and the money to do it. We didn't. We ignored it, as we ignore so much. T or C doesn't have to follow any sticking rules, or so they think.
Carmen wrote:
2. Are they planning to build another landfill, and if so, where?
No. We do not qualify in volume for a new landfill. We will never qualify for landfill as long as we divide up the "resource" of our trash, i.e., City vs. County. If we were to decide as a community (and it must include all) that someday we want a landfill, we need to start planning now and in about a decade, we'll have one if our volume increases enough so we qualify.
Carmen wrote:
3. Why are the petitioners upset about the recycling center/trash facility? Is it near a residential area?
Once again, read the Complaint. In a nutshell,

28 property owners have the recycling center/solid waste collection center in their front/back yards, literally. They are adjacent (i.e., they share property lines).

It is on land deeded to the City for "recreational use only." Neither recycling nor solid waste are recreational.

Violates local zoning ordinances, even if the land could be used for something other than recreational, no special use permit, hearings, etc., was held as required for special land use as neither recycling nor solid waste collection are listed as a permitted right in M-1.(Although zoning the land "light industrial" when it is reserved for recreational use only is another claim.)

Violates due process. None of the adjacent property owners or citizens were given an opportunity to object. No public hearings, no appealable final decisions. The "kings" decided and said, "let them eat cake (or trash)." It is an illegal taking.

The trash is on top of TWO community drinking water wells, one located 150 feet and another 200 feet. Turn on your tap and get garbage water. Federal government and state government recommend 1000 foot radius "protection zones" for drinking water wellheads. Residential wells on adjacent properties utilized for irrigation purposes have already been poisoned and are unusable just since they started washing out the dump trucks on the property.
Carmen wrote:
4. If the petitioners do not want the trash center at this location, where do they want it?
That is beyond the scope of the litigation. Individually, however, I don't want the City to have any sort of trash center as they have demonstrated time and time again, they don't follow the rules, they don't care about our environment, and one less cash cow for them to rape us with.

[cont'd]

“Liberty and justice for all”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#5 Oct 17, 2012
Carmen wrote:
5. If they don't want it all, where do they propose residential trash should be dumped?
County. One Plan. One Community. One Vision.

The only way our community will ever have a viable, long-term solution to trash is to pool our "trash." Volume equals discount. Divided we EACH pay more.
Carmen wrote:
6. Why aren't there competing private companies who could bid on residential trash contracts with individuals? Most towns have more than one trash service (Waste Management, Allied Waste, etc), and costs stay low because of the competition.
City passed an ordinance back in 1962 I believe that NO ONE else may provide trash services. It is a cash cow for the City, and they want the money and to hold residents hostage. They don't care about costs staying low...they want the opposite.$$$$
Carmen wrote:
7. Why is that the same people are always against everything in that town? What is their alternative to it?
I guess it is a perception: "against" or "for." I'm not against anything. I am FOR the rule of law.

The majority of the 65 people who filed the complaint are not the "same people." Not even close.

What's different? A person who stood up and was attacked did not do as expected--shut up and go away in fear--which has always worked in the past. It was such an anomaly that it was even written, "what's wrong with her? We've done everything imaginable to shut her up and make her go away, and she just keeps coming."

It's called honor, integrity and courage. And its contagious. I've not only demonstrated that we are not powerless, but the attacks can be endured, and you can WIN. And for many of the plaintiffs, this isn't some legal mumbo jumbo...IT IS THEIR HOME. For many of the plaintiffs, it isn't some legal mumbo jumbo...IT IS OUR DRINKING WATER. For many of the plaintiffs, right is right and WRONG IS WRONG, and if you don't stand up for your rights today, they aren't there tomorrow.

The City leaves no alternative but litigation. Many of the property owners had been complaining to the City for years. The past year, all public comments were ignored, all written complaints were ignored, all investigative news articles were ignored. And most importantly, all the required public hearings were simply not held. They've even spent public funds for political campaigning against the people's will (yep, using the citizen's money to fight the citizens). Our local governing body and public servants believe they are above the law.

"Let them eat cake," says the governing body and public servants.

I prefer, "We are a nation ruled by law, not by men."

And orange jumpsuits.

“Liberty and justice for all”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#6 Oct 17, 2012
Carmen wrote:
Just following this story from Wisconsin, and as a snowbird, I have a few questions:
P.S. Thank you for your thoughtful questions written with the intent to learn.

Judged:

12

11

7

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Liberty and justice for all”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#7 Oct 17, 2012
P.P.S. Don't confuse the petition for citizen initiative ordinance (the long-term solution to build One Plan. One Community. One Vision) with the Complaint for Declaratory Relief filed by 65 plaintiffs on Monday (immediate relief for an illegal site illegally done in violation of Constitutional rights).

“The eviler twin”

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#8 Oct 17, 2012
What a shame the petition and the complaint are being covered for The Herald by Kathleen Sloan. The story in today's paper is the best sample of the worst writing/reporting in the history of Journalism.

Can you sue them next?

“Liberty and justice for all”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#9 Oct 17, 2012
JustaRudeDude wrote:
What a shame the petition and the complaint are being covered for The Herald by Kathleen Sloan. The story in today's paper is the best sample of the worst writing/reporting in the history of Journalism.
Can you sue them next?
You can thank Mike Tooley for that.

Judged:

13

10

8

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
John

Bucyrus, OH

#10 Oct 18, 2012
Deb2me wrote:
<quoted text>
"what's wrong with her? We've done everything imaginable to shut her up and make her go away, and she just keeps coming."
Maybe a new pimp?

Judged:

11

11

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
no comment

Espanola, NM

#11 Oct 18, 2012
I see you are now called a "local resident" deb..you owe me a keyboard for that one Kathleen.

This sure sounds like a better story then trying to lock up that Elephant butte stray gas station dog..where's the national press now?

“The eviler twin”

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#12 Oct 18, 2012
Deb2me wrote:
<quoted text>You can thank Mike Tooley for that.
I think the word you're looking for is "blame" Tooley. I'll thank him when he fires that hack.

“Liberty and justice for all”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#13 Oct 18, 2012
JustaRudeDude wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the word you're looking for is "blame" Tooley. I'll thank him when he fires that hack.
Hmmm...who would have guessed we would disagree? Kathleen is no hack. Without her reporting you would not know of either the petition or complaint or a hella lot of other issues. You might not like the truth and reality of our community, but it is the truth and reality. Ugly, isn't it?

P.S. it will never improve without the exposes and litigation...it's inbred.

P.P.S. is it beyond inbred and actually a curse of evil?

Since: Aug 11

Espanola, NM

#14 Oct 19, 2012
Calling Kathleen a journalist is like referring to Deb as a catalyst for civic improvement.

“The eviler twin”

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#15 Oct 19, 2012
Deb2me wrote:
<quoted text>Hmmm...who would have guessed we would disagree? Kathleen is no hack. Without her reporting you would not know of either the petition or complaint or a hella lot of other issues. You might not like the truth and reality of our community, but it is the truth and reality. Ugly, isn't it?

P.S. it will never improve without the exposes and litigation...it's inbred.

P.P.S. is it beyond inbred and actually a curse of evil?
Sloan is a hack. She's undisciplined, biased and dishonest in her reporting. The article in this week's Herald about the complaint is an embarrassment to the cause, the paper and the community. It should be obvious to anyone with even a partially functioning brain cell that that article was not written to get a story out. It was written to get a story done.

And I disagree that without her I would be ignorant of issues or petitions. For one reason I'm better connected to what happens in this community than that twit could ever hope to be. For another with your big yap flapping online it's impossible to not know what you're up to.

“The eviler twin”

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#16 Oct 19, 2012
Savage Heathen wrote:
Calling Kathleen a journalist is like referring to Deb as a catalyst for civic improvement.
You can't compare the two, actually. One is driven, disciplined, cunning and honest. The other is lazy, undisciplined, conniving, and a liar.

“Liberty and justice for all”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#17 Oct 19, 2012
You can't fix stupid...but you can replace 'em.

Good news. Rubin will NOT be the City's attorney on this suit. He has been replaced. Coppler Law Firm has entered their appearance from Santa Fe.

They will properly advise the City "you're screwed" and not make up statutes that don't exist. Always easier to deal with competence than incompetence.

“The eviler twin”

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#18 Oct 19, 2012
Deb2me wrote:
You can't fix stupid...but you can replace 'em.

Good news. Rubin will NOT be the City's attorney on this suit. He has been replaced. Coppler Law Firm has entered their appearance from Santa Fe.

They will properly advise the City "you're screwed" and not make up statutes that don't exist. Always easier to deal with competence than incompetence.
Replaced as in permanently or just in regards to this case?

Are you going to also investigate the sale of the property on McAdoo?

“Liberty and justice for all”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#19 Oct 19, 2012
JustaRudeDude wrote:
<quoted text>
Replaced as in permanently or just in regards to this case?
Are you going to also investigate the sale of the property on McAdoo?
Rubin cannot have legally been replace permanently except in an open meeting. Not that doing things wrong stops the city. So, I think just this case.

What is wrong with the sale of property on McAdoo that requires investigation? Give me a hint or something that piques my interest. These investigations take time and resources, and I need a reason.

If you don't want to do it publicly on Topix, I'm sure you're smart enough to get my number.

“Liberty and justice for all”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#20 Oct 19, 2012
I just had an email forwarded to me with questions about the $1.26 million bond taken out for the solid waste collection center.

I gave a quick answer, but I also realize the general tax and rate paying customers are curious about the money.

In a nutshell, we will get the money back after a judicial declaration the project is ultra vires and the bond will be cancelled. The public does not pay for illegal projects and money spent on an illegal project is illegally spent and must therefore be returned.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 18
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.

Williamsburg Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Pineknot Tue burping burbon 2
Wacko Case Town Tue burp 3
News Bishop Oscar CantAo: Bishop responds to editori... (Sep '15) Feb 14 mikebank 5
Feds Raid Sierra County Jail (Feb '14) Feb 8 Rangerman 142
TorC School District Feb 2 Tony 2
News Study: NM internet speed among slowest in U.S. (Jul '14) Jan '17 You forgot 24
I love living in Truth or Consequences (Mar '10) Jan '17 Social Critic 104

Williamsburg Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Williamsburg Mortgages