Technology = A+
Audis = A+
IDEA = A+

info = D-

After listening to the audio three times, I still have no clear belief that what is being put forth (the constitutional law was violated) happened, no clear yes/no, not even a real good sense of maybe. Also, would like to have had more questions asked about the ramifications if it is declared a violation, like will someone be charged and tried (IE past/present supervisors). GReat idea, just needs a bit more 'meat'

Sorry you feel that way about the info, although I think we covered the points you mentioned.

Still, Jonathan and I are not well practiced at interviewing.

BUT, for our next podcast interview, it's probably a good idea to solicit questions from readers.

Do not berate your selves, I felt you guys did a great job, it was the answers from Prof. John Eastman, that was lacking. And the questions you asked were good, altho some comments made were a bit misleading, like the 500k, it is an assumed figure, because no one knows for sure the cost, it might be more, might not, but the way the comment about it was made, was as if it was a given. All in all i thought it was an excellant addtion to the the site, and am sure you will get better as you mature in the use the technology. And the problem ,may be that the entire issue of "Retroactivity" has to be determined by judical review and decree, which menas all the comments up till that time are specualtion, and that is what drives the comments by all those involved, it is hard to actually say what will happen, when your not sure, cna can only say what you think might occur based on your personal interpetation of the facts you have. It is waht makes good conversation and lively debate.

I agree with TiG. There are too many variables and opinions to determine what a court might find. Professor Eastman admits that he has relied upon Supervisor Moorlach's contentions for at least part of his opinion. Which in and of itself is clearly biased.

I also noticed that Prof. Eastman ran a law center that specialized in representing Taxpayer's interests through challenges of the constitution.

Why would Supervisor Moorlach's chief of staff go to a lawyer who specializes in challenging goverment under constitutional statutes? One answer might be that he is the expert, and yet another might be that he is like minded and therefore would readily bolster their argument as he has in the past. I would venture to guess its the latter. That way they can lean on the other supervisors and get them to buy what they are selling. Obviously he served his purpose, but that doesn't make it anything more than a one sided debate. Sooner or later this thing will wind up in a court of law and the other side will be heard. I'm willing to bet is won't be a slam dunk then!

San Diego's City Attorney has tried many different angles to accomplish the same thing in his city that John Moorlach has in OC, albeit through different legal avenues. He has come up short in every attempt. His story can be found on Jon Fleishman's FlashReport. In Fact, he just lost another attempt last week. He is also an attorney who felt he had a good case and came up short.

Nothing is settled and its more of an uphill battle than Supervisor Moorlach would have you believe.

Jubal,

Now that you've interviewed another one of Moorlach's mouthpieces, why don't you give someone from the other side a chance?

Interview someone from AOCDS or one of the OCERS reps like Ron White, who know both sides of the story. Moorlach and his camp are great at leaving out facts which do not favor their cause.

They don't mention the 1.8% pay cut the Deputies took for eighteen months back in 2002 and 2003 to get the 3@50 deal from the county, or the 21 millon Carona gave the county out of his own budget to make it work. This is exactly why an independant study is still needed before the Board votes.

Greenhut and Lowe have absolutely no interest in printing any of these facts either. Their coverage is so one sided, it's ridicules. At the Board meeting, Marino is given 45 minutes to state Moorlach's case. Everyone else get 3 minutes. That's fair isn't it?

Regarding your interview, for being such a huge expert why did Eastman have to continually keep deferring back to Moorlach's opinions and research? Answer: Those who can't do, teach (or administrate.)

Those who can't do, teach (or administrate.)

Or get government jobs.

To Taxpayer above,

The Sheriff's dept. is hiring! Why don't you rear end down there and apply?

What really bothers me about this issue is Moorlachs's tactics . Why all the secrecy all these months? Don't you think that some of the recent retires would have reconsidered their retirement date had this information been given to them? I think so. I'm' sure many have sold their homes and made other financial moves that people make when they retire. Are they just out of luck? From what I understand, the deputies paid into the general retirement fund for many years. To say that they didn't pay for the retirement benefit is just not true. What about his fight with the unions over the medical grant? Moorlach wants a split pool forcing those already retired to pay several hundred dollars a month more for insurance and that wouldn't save the taxpayers a dime as the grant amount would stay the same. It would only force the retired deputies to buy insurance that the county offers. Which is a lot more expensive. Why is he so upset that the deputies union manages their medical trust so efficiently? Perhaps Moorlach should research why the county spends so much on their own group medical plans. The county needs to shop around some more in that area for sure. It just seems to me Moorlach has a political vendetta against the sheriff deputies union and the sheriff himself.

another taxpayer:

1st and last warning: if you can't make your point with making personal attacks, go to a blog that allows that kind of commenting.

I edited out the offending portion. Next time, you'll be sent to the Village of the Banned.

Now Jubal is the "Blog Ploice"

I knew he always wanted to be a cop. Better not let Moorlach know though. He be over at your house attempting to steal food out of your mouth.

Cheers!

You must be new here. I've always policed the comments to enforce the very simple rules: 1) no personal attacks or gossip; 2)no profanity/obscenity.

If you can't observe those rules and still make a point, you have a problem.

Jubal,

How about it? Why not an AOCDS interview? Give them equal time.

I think the blog entry before me deserves an answer. Why wouldn't the author of this interview wecome some imput fron the other side?

Jubal, I think you owe this person a reply.

I've no problem interviewing an AOCDS spokesman, but I don't "owe" any anonymous commenter a reply.