*Attempt to steal CA OHV Grant Funds*

[LYIN' KING]

2012-2013 California Budget

http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/

[Brewster2]

Originally Posted by LYIN' KING

2012-2013 California Budget

http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/

Wrong year. Our current working budget, 2011-2012, is the one we are discussing as it is that one that has the initiation of the ongoing "take" of $10M.

Ride on
Brewster

[atvobsession]

Not that it apparently matters since very little here is on-topic, but the vote is any minute.

[Kurtuleas]

I am this ][ far from locking this thread or moving it to chit-chat.

Keep the discussion on topic, discuss and disagree....but be adults.

Also remember: If someone disagrees with and issue or a way of dealing with it, DO NOT personalize it and take it personally....it's the issue we are talking about...not YOU.

[fermentor]

Originally Posted by atvobsession

Did they vote yet?

2-1, but changed it to only stealing for 3 yrs instead of 5.

[atvobsession]

Screwed.

[Kurtuleas]

Well....


That blows.

[Brewster2]

Lowenthal wanted it left open for more discussion but was persuaded by the chair to vote yes with the 3 year sunset provision.

All of you in Fullers district should send a BIG Thank You to her for opposing the misuse of the OHV funds.

Ride on
Brewster

[PJohnson]

That sucked...

Now that the vote is over, can a Mod please LOCK this abortion of a thread so it goes away.

Phil

[UglyJeepDriver]

The vote today was "only" a subcommittee vote, so the battle isn't over yet. I've heard that the governor isn't too hot on this bill because he has bigger plans for the trust fund.

[The Wolf]

One of things I got out of today's meeting is that the language of the bill only authorizes parks to take up to 11 million dollars. It is still aways from happening - but, if it does happen, it sounds like we need to put pressure on Ruth Coleman to not take the 11 million and find another option.

[Kurtuleas]

Can someone give me cliff notes on what all of you are arguing about? I lost track...

[aphantomduck]

Originally Posted by Kurtuleas

Can someone give me cliff notes on what all of you are arguing about? I lost track...

Kurt... the topic here is about a group that has decided to take a paid legal look at the legislative action (past and present) of the California legislature regarding the "taking" of (last year and for each and every year thereafter) of $ 10 million from the California OHV Fund.

Many who have posted in this thread have posted information and debated the wisdom of this group of taking on the endevor.

A few others have decided to take this thread on a different course.

The thread has moved on to what a legislative committee was deciding the fate of the OHV Fund.

There has been some great discussion from most in the thread.

Some here wish to move this thread in another direction.

In the end, the legal team has been hired and a meeting is scheduled for next week to update the group on their findings. The legislature has not shown they "get it" when it comes to taking our funds.

One of the two viable AMA Districts in California has (from what I'm told) supported the group. One OHV business group has not decided to support the same.

CORVA and CA4WDC have supported the group.

Two folks have made statements that BRC has taken the advice of its legal team (Paul Turcke sp?) and provided that the cause was not worthwhile. Mr. Turcke provides he has not undertaken a legal look at the subject.

Another legal team for it's OHV clients (Ecologic) has been referred to as taken a legal look and provided to its clients that the effort would be unsuccessful. This attorney from the same has not provided (from what I'm told) any legal rational for this alleged decision. I question if indeed his opinion has been asked for in this matter and I really doubt he has provided a "brief" to his clients as to any rational for his decision (if indeed there is one) on the matter.

What seems to me to be a "no brainer" approach by the group on assessing the legal merits of the legal theory advanced by themselves to a competent legal team has been a source of debate on this forum.

Kurt, I wish to thank Pirate for keeping this thread alive and allowing those who wish to follow your advice from today to discuss in an adult manner the issue.

[aphantomduck]

I'm happy to report that as of today, the OHVDC is only about $ 850.00 away from its fund raising goal to accompish this task.

http://www.ohvdc.org/about.php

I'm thinking that many folks here on Pirate have chip'ed in to help.

Thank you for your donations.

[cruzila]

Paying some bills tonight. I will look for an extra hun.....the rig can wait.

[Jbevs]

Originally Posted by aphantomduck

Dustin... I simply responded to a post that called for opinion THAT WAS ON TOPIC. What I wrote was not just my opinion but that of others that know Jeff better than I.

You seem to want to take a off topic personal shot to me.

How does you post add to keep this thread on topic?

The fact that you won't elaborate on your opinion publicly could be called cowardly, by I wouldn't say that as it is near a personal attack. If it was on topic to state, it is on topic to be more specific.

[OrangeCrash]

Originally Posted by aphantomduck

I'm happy to report that as of today, the OHVDC is only about $ 850.00 away from its fund raising goal to accompish this task.

http://www.ohvdc.org/about.php

I'm thinking that many folks here on Pirate have chip'ed in to help.

Thank you for your donations.

83
***** sponsors

** $14372
***** donated towards our goal.

WOW, thanks to all that stepped up........

[R290]

Originally Posted by cruzila

Paying some bills tonight. I will look for an extra hun.....the rig can wait.

Dang your really stepping up here. I drop a magazine subscription and sent N2Dirt the money instead.

[aphantomduck]

Originally Posted by Jbevs

The fact that you won't elaborate on your opinion publicly could be called cowardly, by I wouldn't say that as it is near a personal attack. If it was on topic to state, it is on topic to be more specific.

Once again, I am not the topic in this thread young lady.

Might I suggest you read the thread from the beginning and add your opinion or new information about the topic.

[duneburner]

just donated $100. I think a law suit might just work.

[Jbevs]

Originally Posted by aphantomduck

Once again, I am not the topic in this thread young lady.

Might I suggest you read the thread from the beginning and add your opinion or new information about the topic.

I read the thread. I am not interested in discussing you, your personal habits, your bowel movements, or what it's like haunting a lake in search of watercress. I attempted to discusss a post relevant to the thread topic. Once again you hide behind idea that any explanation of your own post (which must have been on topic) will be too far off topic to allow the thread to continue. Something smells fishy, and I believe it is the red herring you continue bringing up. Your pm was entirely unnecessary, amusingly condescending, and just plain utterly rediculous. I don't intend to respond to this dead thread again as you will continue to evade any direct questions, but feel free to to pm me again.

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by Jbevs

dead thread

Goal reached . . . $15153
http://www.ohvdc.org/

Let's get on with it!!!

[Jeff Knoll]

Targeted contact info. Hope this helps.


Sub 3 Resources and Transportation
Committee Members

Committee Members


District


Office & Contact Information

Richard S. Gordon - Chair


Dem-21


Contact Assembly Member Richard S. Gordon
Capitol Office

State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-002 1; (916) 319-2021

Betsy Butler


Dem-53


Contact Assembly Member Betsey Butler
Capitol Office

State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0053; (916) 319-2053

Jared Huffman


Dem-6


Contact Assembly Member Jared Huffman
Capitol Office

State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA, 94249-0006 ; (916) 319-2006

Brian W. Jones


Rep-77


Contact Assembly Member Brian W. Jones
Capitol Office

State Capitol, Room 4126, Sacramento, CA 94248-0001; (916) 319-2077

David G. Valadao


Rep-30


Contact Assembly Member David G. Valadao
Capitol Office

State Capitol, Room 2174, Sacramento, CA 94248-0001; (916) 319-2030

Bob Blumenfield - Dem. Alternate


Dem-40


Contact Assembly Member Bob Blumenfield
Capitol Office

State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0040; (916) 319-2040

Jim Nielsen - Rep. Alternate


Rep-2


Contact Assembly Member Jim Nielson
Capitol Office

State Capitol Room #6031, Sacramento, CA 95814; (916) 319-2002

[LYIN' KING]

Now that some of the dust has settled, is it go or no regarding Baker, Manock & Jensen, the OHVDC, N2Dirt and CORVA?

[UglyJeepThing]

There is a certain point when legal strategy issues have to be taken off-line, out of the public purview, and we have reached that point.

Saturday represented a deadline that we were waiting to pass that will be an important point. It concerns repayment of certain funds by the state, and we had to make sure that it wasn't included in the budget that was just signed in order to be able to file suit for repayment. We didn't want to tip our hands to the state, who read this forum, in case mention of this particular loan was then added to the budget and repayment delayed. There were two loans at issue, one amount was included, the other amount wasn't, so we're good on one point.

The memo we received asked many more questions than we had anticipated, and asked us to do a lot of research. But it also gave us certain scenarios along with predictions of success. We worked last week for hours looking up background legal information and corroboration, and I feel really good about what we've been able to prove. Dave Pickett has been an invaluable help, along with everyone else who has been participating all along.

Does this answer everyone's questions? Of course it doesn't, and I offer anyone who wants to talk with Joe or with me personally, please call us at 916-775-4744 during evening hours.

The results this year with the budget now add to the issues, and that is why as soon as the memo was released, we had to wait until after the budget was signed to see how the language contained in the budget affected another one of the issues, concerning the effectiveness of the division in being able to carry out it's legislatively mandated goals.

What we are doing is being really, really careful - we have a lot riding on this for the entire community, and we don't want to mess it up in any way.

Our next meeting with the attorneys is mid-July. What the firm did tell us is something we knew all along - this is a very complicated issue with some contradictory case law, even the definition on what constitutes a public highway is stated one way in the CVC and another way in the Revenue and Taxation Code.



Amy