Tulelake, CA— Editorial
The very group of people who are against paying their back water and trash bills on time or at the rate of 10% are the very same group that are leaders of the recall effort against Randy Darrow the Mayor of Tulelake. They are against Randy Darrow for tying to enforce people according to a new city billing policy to step up and take responsibility for their past Water and Trash Bills owed to the city of Tulelake, CA.
On the agenda for tonight’s meeting is more discussion of the treatment options for the wastewater treatment plant. More like more of the same treatment of the same wastewater treatment the city has been getting for quite some time now. While the rest of us are still in the dark as to what the future is and when this treatment is going to stop and the wastewater discussion will have accomplished what it’s intended goal is and that is to begin the process of taking care of the wastewater in Tulelake. Which it seems all the talk has been going down the drain in the wastewater treatment the city of Tulelake has received to date with or without discussion and no action in the near fore seeable future for the city of Tulelake and it's wastewater treatment problem.
There will be discussion and action on Resolution 14-25 being presented by City Clerk, Joe Cordonier on the resolution for a recall election against the sitting Mayor, Randy Darrow to be held on June 3, 2014 and where others can put their name in the hat and be elected to a seat on the Tulelake City Council should the Mayor, Randy Darrow lose the recall effort being organized by the very group of people who are against paying their back water and trash bills on time by paying ONLY 10% on their past due bills that were their own fault, not the cities for getting behind.
Where Teresa Williams has put on the agenda her "Community concerns" with the agenda item slated for a discussion being lead by Teresa Williams herself.
And finally the last item on the agenda will be the closed secession for re Public Employee Performance Evaluation: Chief of Police (Govt Code 54957) with discussion and action behind closed doors in a closed-door meeting of the Tulelake City Council.
Come one, come all, the entire circus is in town at the city of Tulelake City Council meeting on Tuesday February 18th 2014. Starting at 7:00 PM located on Main Street at City Hall for more information be sure and call city hall at 530-667-5522 where quotes from Mike with Bear Technologies for a possible new phone system for City Hall, Public Works and the Police Department with discussion and action with Jenny Coelho and Mike with Bear technologies.
Pass the popcorn, and too bad we are unable to have an access channel to watch it all unfold right in front of us as some other cities are fortunate to have for themselves, that we are lacking in the city of Tulelake or even a website with the same name as Merrill, OR and Malin, OR have at their disposal now presently and work in progress for our sister cities from with the state line from Oregon 4 miles north of the city of Tulelake by North West and North East by 8 miles from the city of Tulelake, CA.
JG of TNT
Publisher, Editor, News Reporter and Photographer
TheRealRocks4me Published on Feb 10, 2014 It will only take 10 minutes of your time but you might find it educational and informative when it is over. IMO :)
They lied and should have been charged with perjury.
And this Editorial that was written four days before the EPO was filed with the court on February 22, 2014, with this city council meeting left out of their accusations against me filed with the court under penalty of perjury by all involved, the including the former Tulelake Police Officer.
Where at this city council meeting the only section that was played, was an edited portion of that post on YouTube as this defendant was explaining the use of the cane in a defensive manor posture. Where the opposite was presented in the city council meeting as well as in court in Yreka, CA to be presented as if it was an aggressive stance, and not a defensive one if the entire YouTube is played. But instead, it was presented out of context and not presented in its entirety as it will now be shown at the trial now set for mid-September in Yreka, CA before a jury as requested. Where one of the witnesses in the complaint made it to the hearing conducted once again without due process of law by one of the accusers presently as a witness for the Chief of Police in his defense of the charges claimed against him on a citizens complaint filed with the city of Tulelake City Council where the city of Tulelake has no policy for investigating the Chief of Police for Tulelake, CA only a police for the Chief of Police to investigate Tulelake Police officers.
Where another witness was not at this hearing but seemed to be available Amber, Tony's daughter who also works at Ross's Market for the hearing that was filed in Temporary Restraining Order case in Yreka, along with the Tulelake Police officer that was not subpoenaed by either side or even the court but was there as a specter in a Tulelake uniform on Tulelake Payroll sent by the Chief of Police, whose daughter just happen to be one of the witnesses against me in this hearing that took place. But not the one that took place at a city council meeting. Why, or why not? But she was not at the hearing that took place at a city council meeting without due process of law.
Why was it not played in its complete version instead of the edited one with the only section presented was a section that showed a picture the accusers wanted to present but if it is played entire may give an opposite impression than the accusers wanted to be known.
I am not going to provide the link, it is still there and anyone that wants to can go look entirely and decided for themselves what was said and what not said on that YouTube 10 minute post, posted on YouTube before the EPO on February 22, 2014 where a different story has been presented to the court under oath by all parties involved in the EPO that is now before the courts.
ReplyDeleteAnd this Editorial that was written four days before the EPO was filed with the court on February 22, 2014 with this city council meeting left out of their accusations against me filed with court under penalty of perjury by all involved, the including the former Tulelake Police Officer.
Where at this city council meeting the only section that was played, was an edited portion of that post on YouTube as this defendant was explaining the use of cane in a defensive manor posture. Where the opposite was presented in the city council meeting as well as in court in Yreka, CA to be presented as if it was an aggressive stance, and not a defensive one if the entire YouTube is played. But instead it was presented out of context and not presented in its entirety as it will now be shown at the trial now set for mid September in Yreka, CA before a jury as requested. Where one of the witnesses in the complaint made it to the hearing conducted once again without due process of law by one of the accusers presently as a witness for the Chief of Police in his defense of the charges claimed against him on a citizens complaint filed with the city of Tulelake City Council where the city of Tulelake has no policy for investigating the Chief of Police for Tulelake, CA only a police for the Chief of Police to investigate Tulelake Police officers.
Where another witness was not at this hearing but seem to available for the hearing that was filed in Temporary Restraining Order case in Yreka, along with the Tulelake Police officer that was not subpoenaed by either side or even the court but was there as a specter in a Tulelake uniform on Tulelake Payroll sent by the Chief of Police, whose daughter just happen to be one of the witnesses against me in this hearing that took place. But not the one that took place at a city council meeting. Why, or why not? But she was not at the hearing that took place at a city council meeting without due process of law.
Why was it not played in its complete version instead of the edited one with the only section presented was a section that showed a picture the accusers wanted to present but if it is played entire may give an opposite impression than the accusers wanted to be known.
I am not going to provide the link, it is still there and anyone that wants to can go look entirely and decided for themselves what was said and what not said on that YouTube 10 minute post, posted on YouTube before the EPO on February 22, 2014 where a different story has been presented to the court under oath by all parties involved in the EPO that is now before the courts.