Re: O.T. Things are getting ugly out there.



Richard Henry wrote:
"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:43F894CF.8060109@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


Jim Thompson wrote:

The law is even wider, it says, "Public "figures", so you don't even
have to be holding office to lose that protection.

...Jim Thompson

It appears to me that this Tanner has a good case for rightfully
trashing that bunch of low-lifes in the City Council. They are already
wasting government resources on what is clearly a *harmful* intimidation
tactic to which they have no legal right. Everyone is entitled to voice
their !opinion! under any circumstance, and especially at something like
a government council meeting to which they are implicitly invited for
just that purpose; it is clear from the context that this was an
expression of opinion. And I would not be too worried about anything any
/city attorney/ does- those idiots are out of their league on most legal
topics other than possibly contracts. And as for this offer to drop it
if he makes a public retraction, Tanner should tell them to go straight
to hell; had the same thing happen to me with an entity much bigger than
that little city council, and told them to go straight to hell where
they belong, the scumbags evaporated.


I don't even live in La Mesa, but I sent the mayor an e-mail saying that I
was amused how his intimidation had backfired, making them look like petty
tyrants.


You should remind the idiot that his State Constitution gives the people the *RIGHT* to comment (i.e. voice opinion ) on *any* matter relating to proposed rule or regulation change or introduction and that their behavior is an egregious interference and disregard of this fundamental government process. The most honorable course of action would be for the Mayor to resign from office immediately so as to avoid the embarrassment of a referendum, and in any case the voters will not make the same mistake twice at the next election. Kick the imperious bum out of office in other words.

.

Relevant Pages