Earmarks and the CLRC's Mad Dash to Pork Barrel Legislation
Posted by: CotoBlogzz | 07/11/2008 7:26 PM
We have chronicled D. Vanitzian's Quixotic (some would called insane) battle against the California Law Revision Commission in general and the passage of Assemblyperson Saldana's Assembly Bill AB1921.
In a post January 16 2008 we wrote "In a scathing letter to the California Law Revision Commission ominously titled The Temple of Blame and Wholesale Titleholder Disenfranchisement, arbitrator and author D. Vanitzian questions the motives for the mad rush to "pass pork-barrel project, as she refers to the Statutory Clarification and Simplification of CID Law" We sent a copy of the letter to Brian Hebert, CLRC executive director, for comment - we did not get much.
Sources tell us that Mr. Hebert had very much determined that ASB1921 would pass - it was a done deal, after all, this was one of Assemblywoman Saldana's baby, there was practically no homeowner opposition and the CAI was playing ball. Worse yet. most of the homeowners responding probably did more harm than good, as their response was generally in the form of suggestions.
Ominously however, earlier this month, after we learnt of a potential "Mutiny in the Bounty" - 17 Lawyers opposed to the CLRC we wrote: "...however, What we can glean from the 17 attorneys standing up to the CLRC and their behind the scenes industry supporters who use the CLRC as their personal un-registered lobbyists is that they are on the verge of self-destruction. Perhaps AB1921 is the triggering event?"
We also promised that we would keep working on the Follow the Money Trail to see where the Assemblyperson Saldana's and AB1921'a support was coming from. Last month we found out that the Done Deal was Undone, and that the CLRC has pulled AB1921!
We asked Vanitzian to comment on the latest bizarre CLRC move pulling a Done Deal.. We also asked her to comment if Hebert's response to her now successful one-person-campaign had been arrogant, insulting, sarcastic, condescending or ....? Her response? No Comment!
Further, CLRC Memorandum 2008-28 dated May 28, 2008 contains an email addressed to Mr. Hebert from Mr. Donald Hany, thanking Mr. Hebert for his comments at an ECHO session.
Today we asked Mr. Hebert if he agrees that if meeting special interest group representatives (CAI, ECHO, for example) outside the auspices of the CLRC at best could be viewed as a conflict of interest and given that critics charge that CLRC has jurisdiction over existing statues, but not jurisdiction over CID Law, was CLRC handling of CID law issues within its jurisdiction?
Mr, Heberts' encapsulated response was: 1. I do not see a conflict of interest and 2. CLRC has jurisdiction of whatever it wants.
The takeaway is that if you have friends in the CLRC, why would you even think about having lobbysts?
In a post January 16 2008 we wrote "In a scathing letter to the California Law Revision Commission ominously titled The Temple of Blame and Wholesale Titleholder Disenfranchisement, arbitrator and author D. Vanitzian questions the motives for the mad rush to "pass pork-barrel project, as she refers to the Statutory Clarification and Simplification of CID Law" We sent a copy of the letter to Brian Hebert, CLRC executive director, for comment - we did not get much.
Sources tell us that Mr. Hebert had very much determined that ASB1921 would pass - it was a done deal, after all, this was one of Assemblywoman Saldana's baby, there was practically no homeowner opposition and the CAI was playing ball. Worse yet. most of the homeowners responding probably did more harm than good, as their response was generally in the form of suggestions.
Ominously however, earlier this month, after we learnt of a potential "Mutiny in the Bounty" - 17 Lawyers opposed to the CLRC we wrote: "...however, What we can glean from the 17 attorneys standing up to the CLRC and their behind the scenes industry supporters who use the CLRC as their personal un-registered lobbyists is that they are on the verge of self-destruction. Perhaps AB1921 is the triggering event?"
We also promised that we would keep working on the Follow the Money Trail to see where the Assemblyperson Saldana's and AB1921'a support was coming from. Last month we found out that the Done Deal was Undone, and that the CLRC has pulled AB1921!
We asked Vanitzian to comment on the latest bizarre CLRC move pulling a Done Deal.. We also asked her to comment if Hebert's response to her now successful one-person-campaign had been arrogant, insulting, sarcastic, condescending or ....? Her response? No Comment!
Further, CLRC Memorandum 2008-28 dated May 28, 2008 contains an email addressed to Mr. Hebert from Mr. Donald Hany, thanking Mr. Hebert for his comments at an ECHO session.
Today we asked Mr. Hebert if he agrees that if meeting special interest group representatives (CAI, ECHO, for example) outside the auspices of the CLRC at best could be viewed as a conflict of interest and given that critics charge that CLRC has jurisdiction over existing statues, but not jurisdiction over CID Law, was CLRC handling of CID law issues within its jurisdiction?
Mr, Heberts' encapsulated response was: 1. I do not see a conflict of interest and 2. CLRC has jurisdiction of whatever it wants.
The takeaway is that if you have friends in the CLRC, why would you even think about having lobbysts?
Mr. Ayer registered as a Republican to be electable in an interim election with no incumbents. He did...