"Destroy Sharp Park" Über- Commander Brent Plater falsely accused Pacifica City Council member Jim Vreeland of being drunk during a public meeting about the Sharp Park Golf Course held on October 2, 2009:"Make sure to get the word out on Pacifica Riptide and in the Pacifica Tribune about the unacceptable behavior last night. When a city councilmember shows up drunk and truculent at a community lecture, people need to know about it."
That's what happens when you oppose Plater. Even Plater's buddies are running away from this stinker.
Brent Plater - he'll say anything if he thinks it serves his purpose.
Brent Plater - he'll say anything if he thinks it serves his purpose.
48 comments:
Plater's an attorney. What is it about law school that strips people of their ethics?
I think it begins the moment they complete the requisite course, "Moral Bankruptcy 101".
Plater and Vreeland? I have fleas less annoying than these two! I poop on them!
I am no fan of Vreeland ever since he filed a false police report on a friend of mine while Mayor. The event in question was witnessed by 3 people who all signed affidavits stating that Vreeland lied. Why did he file the report? To silence my friend who was starting to rally for Vreeland's recall because of his consistent and pathological lying. This is all documented and verifiable.
Nonetheless, this does not excuse the other pathological liar, Brent Plater, from doing similar deeds. The following link will take you to Plater's own blog spot which he calls "San Francisco Dog Blog".
http://sfdogblog.blogspot.com/2007/01/san-francisco-dog-owner-group-defends.html
This blog masquerades as a forum for "responsible dog owners" when in reality, it exists merely for Plater to attack dogs and their companions. In the case of the referenced blog entry, Plater describes a black SF merchant who had his store vandalized. Plater, always looking to play the various socially unacceptable cards (e.g., racism, anti-environment) in order to make his case, paints the SF Dog Owners Group (SFDOG) and their president Sally Stephens as somehow condoning KKK type violence against the merchant. Nothing could be further from the truth and Plater knows it. SFDOG has done numerous community outreach and charitable ventures throughout the years, and if a nicer, more giving person exists than Sally Stephens, I haven't met them yet. In fact, the merchant was interviewed later by another media source in order to verify Plater's accusations. The merchant categorically denied all of Plater's assertions with respect to the companion animals and their owners.
Why would Plater go to all of this trouble? Ask the golfers at Sharp Park why Plater went to all of the trouble to set up the RestoreSharpPark orgnanization and web site. While you're at it, ask the dog recreationists why Plater set up the GGNRA Big Year organization and web sites. Plater consistently hides behind a politically correct ideology, e.g., environmentalism, with the hidden agenda being self promotion for political power and financial gain. His lies to achieve said agenda are legend. In the words of my very own best friend (translated), "Plater wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in the butt".
Hey, law school doesn't "strips people of their ethics", corruption occurs on a relative scale and seems to be pervasive through-out the human race, occurrence may follow "bell curve" analysis. The Brent Plater example includes his interest and predisposition to manipulate the legal and political system through an "ends justifies the means" method. For most of us ethics matters, he may have neither the concern nor the gene.
Anti Platerganda:
There's a point where accusations are so exaggerated and over the top that they lose credibility, and you've gotten to that point. With no moderation, Fix Pacifica is expected to be a little edgy, but can I ask people to put a little thought behind their comments, and not gratuitously throw out accusations?
I'm counting down the hours until someone accuses Plater of being a Nazi.
Steve Sinai:
Which accusations are you referring to? Everything I said was true. Please be specific so that I can respond appropriately. I'm prepared to back up my statements. Are you prepared to handle the truth?
How is Plater personally profiting from what he's doing? He has an agenda, but I don't think his own personal wealth is part of it.
Everything else about Plater's intentions is mind-reading on your part. The guy exaggerates and distorts to the point of absurdity, but that doesn't mean we have to fall into the trap of fighting him with even greater exaggerations and distortions.
Calling someone a liar is a cheap, easy accusation that's so overused that it means nothing anymore. It's gotten to the point where the anyone with a different opinion is tagged as a liar.
I don't suppose you'd be willing to put your real name behind your accusations, would you Anti Platerganda?
What relevance does putting "your real name behind the accusations" have? I live in a community whose political core has been hijacked by extremists, and perhaps I'm being paranoid, but it seems like there have been repercussions for some who disagree with them.
In my opinion, calling someone out on their facts or telling them that they have no insight into the man's intentions are perfectly valid. Telling someone that they need to include their real name sounds like a Maybury-esque threat to use your editorial pen against those with which you disagree.
'What relevance does putting "your real name behind the accusations" have?'
Because people care about their reputations.
If you put your name behind your comments, it means you're backing them up with your reputation. If you post anonymously or under a fake name, (which I've done but won't do anymore,) it means you're afraid to back-up what you're saying because you know you'll develop a reputation as someone who can't be believed.
I have had the misfortune of dealing with Brent Plater for years now. What has been posted by Antiplaterganda has not been exagerrated in the least. I have never dealt with someone so shameful in his statements about others, so driven to prevail that he has no sense of the truth. I have worked with attorneys and submitted documents 60 pages long to government entities in an attempt to undo the damage Brent Plater has wrought. To a man, every attorney I have worked with has been seriously offended by Brent Plater's tactics. Brent Plater worked for many years for CBD, and his antics (sometimes successful) brought in a great deal of money in donations for CBD from those people committed to environmental causes at any cost. Yes, I believe Brent Plater has profited from this behavior, and I do not begrudge him his profits, except that I despise his methods because they are without ethics.
"Telling someone that they need to include their real name sounds like a Maybury-esque threat to use your editorial pen against those with which you disagree."
Please carefully read what I wrote again, Anonymous. (Although maybe you have a problem with reading comprehension.) I asked Anti Platerganda if he would be willing to put his/her/it's real name behind their accusations. I didn't threaten him/her/it that they "needed" to use their real name.
I happen to agree with Maybury's policy of using real names. Do you really think our positions should be nothing more than reflexively taking the opposite position of others? Not very thoughtful.
I am not a moderator. There are a group of people who have the ability to administer this blog, so anything one person does can be overridden by another.
Steve Sinai --
I can document to you, should you wish to see the truth, the lies spewed out by Brent Plater in his anti-dog crusade. He lied to Judge Alsup at oral argument in United States v. Barley, he lied to the San Francisco Police Commission about that litigation, he lied to the Animal Welfare Commission (who called him on it), and on and on. Everytime, I have challenged him to come forward and prove the truth of that which is not, and everytime he has shown himself to be a sheer and utter coward. Is he a Nazi? Certainly a Green Nazi in his representation of and support of the Nativists. So now I will challenge you -- I will put forth the details of Plater's lies at any forum you wish as long as you come forward with proof to the contrary.
Steve Sayad
Yes, people do care about their reputations, but there are more reasons than "being afraid to back up what they are saying" in play and, frankly, that is not the one I think of when using anonymity or any substitute name.
It's all about the eyes and ears of the world. He who is unknown moves quickly, hears much and sees most...doors aren't closed, connections hold fast and answers are blithely given.
It is an investigative tactic for me, not a character flaw indicating a lack of strength to back up one's observations and commentaries. Actually, it's a real plus...Let it flow brother, don't be so harsh to rush into all things and tell your real name. Ask any professional restaurant or movie critic the value of anonymity.
Let's get off the bench and stop being the Judge, otherwise this blog just might dry up before it blooms. And I think it is on it's way to blooming, so let's not be so judgmental about why folks do what they do. There are more reasons than one for anonymity.
After all, as an Englishman once said, "What's in a name, a rose would smell just as sweet, would it not?
"If you post anonymously or under a fake name, (which I've done but won't do anymore,) it means you're afraid to back-up what you're saying"
Physician, heal thyself. You accuse someone of mind-reading when assuming someone else's intentions, and then you immediately do the same thing. I just provided my reason for posting anonymously. Perhaps you are the one with a reading comprehension problem.
Attacking the person rather than their argument is in my experience a common trait of those who "reflexively take the opposite position of others".
"I live in a community whose political core has been hijacked by extremists, and perhaps I'm being paranoid, but it seems like there have been repercussions for some who disagree with them."
Anony-mouse: That used to be Summer Rhodes' reason for not posting under her real name on Riptide. It was lame when she said it, and it's lame when you say it.
If it is the truth, I would like to see it in print regardless who posts it.
Steve Sayad (Why do I think that's not a real name?) said: "So now I will challenge you -- I will put forth the details of Plater's lies at any forum you wish as long as you come forward with proof to the contrary."
This is your forum for providing evidence of Plater's bs. I'm not going to defend Plater's honesty or ethics, because I don't think there's much to defend. But I think you need to do more than simply claim that Plater lied about this, and lied about that, blah, blah, blah...without going into more details and providing some kind of genuine evidence.
"I can document to you,..."
So do it.
And it's lame when you engage in petty ad hominem sniping when there are real problems to discuss in this community.
But that was really clever what you did with the whole "Anony-mouse" thing. I can't wait until you bust out the "I'm rubber; you're glue" move as your pièce de résistance.
There you go... You got me to do it too. You've really elevated the level of discourse here. Bravo.
'But that was really clever what you did with the whole "Anony-mouse" thing.'
I thought it was better then addressing you as "Mr. Chicken", which is a more appropriate name.
"Let's get off the bench and stop being the Judge, otherwise this blog just might dry up before it blooms. And I think it is on it's way to blooming, so let's not be so judgmental about why folks do what they do. There are more reasons than one for anonymity."
If people can back up what they say, they don't need to provide a real name. But if they have no evidence, why should I believe someone's accusations if they don't have the guts to put their name behind what they say/write?
Steve Sinai --
You are showing yourself to be a Plater-like coward.
So here are just three examples.
(1) When Plater sought to intervene on appeal (for Audubon, CBD, etc.), he asked counsel for the defendants (of which I was one) whether we would stipulate to their intervention. I told him I would not because, "putting aside his political agenda", the issues they sought to raise on appeal were not raised in the trial court. When Plater filed his amicus petition, he stated to the Court that I opposed their intervention "because of their political views". A lie.
(2) At the time Plater was seeking to intervene in the litigation for these anti-dog groups, he appeared before the Police Commission. He stated to the Commission (I have a tape thereof) that three individuals were suing the GGNRA to make the entire Park off-leash. He knew this was false. When I told him I would be appearing at the next Commission hearing to set forth his misrepresentation, he refused to appear. A coward who lies.
(3) When those of us who simply wish to retain the 1979 Pet Policy petitioned the Animal Welfare Commission to pass a resolution against the GGNRA continuing to attempt to circumvent its own 1979 Pet Policy, Plater wrote an Op. piece in the Chronicle using terms such as "sensitive habitat". When asked by the Commission whether such terms could be found in the ESA, Plater asserted that they could be so found. An absolute lie. The Commissioners posed the rhetorical question to him "whether anything he had written was true. Perhaps more significantly, when asked by Judge Alsup whether the GGNRA Superintendent had the discretion to enact the Pet Policy, Plater stated he did not. Plater knew he was telling a lie, as the Court's decision reflects. Judge Alsup said to Plater what others should: "sit down and shut up young man."
Would you like more? Would you like to defend this pathological liar? He is a shame to the environmental movement.
Nice. If I stipulate that I'm a scaredy cat and that you're practically a superhero, could we move on to Pacifica matters? Or do you need to throw down a "nanny, nanny, boo-boo" or brag about how well-endowed you are first?
I don't need a stipulation; it's right there in your anonymity.
I'm glad that I was able to bring the two Steves together by presenting you both with a weak-kneed anonymous foil. Apparently, not only does including your names give your arguments more weight for some reason, it helps with your self-esteem issues.
My work is done here.
That's a nice punt-and-run. Typical of the coward who has no substance, just rhetoric. Good boy, run away from a discussion you know you cannot win and intervene in only to be the protagonist. Truth be damned.
I was never even talking to you. Please cut down on the caffeine because you're starting to get hysterical.
Well now you've joined the ranks of Plater as being a liar. Your post was aimed at "the two Steves". Who else did you have in mind. And your work here was done? Seems not.
wow, you'll never see this kind of action on Riptide! Grab some popcorn, this could be entertaining. I also have had the misfortune of dealing with the entity known as PlaterBrent, who disavowed any connection to CBD, despite his profile on findlaw.com listing his phone number as being at the Center for Biological Diversity.
Stephen Sayad and Steve Sinai are both real people, and I think both of you need to shake hands and realize we are fighting a common enemy.
Jesus. I thought from your earlier lawsuit comment that you might be from somewhere else and were just visiting to share your Plater axe-grinding with the locals. But with the way that you like to argue for the sake of arguing, I'm starting to guess that you're from Pacifica. You're almost neurotic enough to be a council member.
"So here are just three examples..."
Nicely done, Mr. Sayad. That's exactly the type of detail we need.
BTW - I'd like to maintain my reputation as Pacifica's biggest bad-ass, so please don't expose my cowardly side.
"Grab some popcorn, this could be entertaining."
The more arguments and activity we have here, the better the chance that search sites will find us.
No, I'm certainly not looking to usurp your title or status.
I only wish to point out the liar that is Plater, and how he has done two things: alienated true environmentalists (in contrast to those who truly are) and been the GGNRA's biggest prostitute. While I spent a lot of time training Newfies for water rescue at the beaches in Pacifica, I'm a born and raised San Franciscan. And this raises a point that I have not seen in the debate over Sharp Park. We've know the NPS/GGNRA is fond of producing false environmental reports. The Drake's Bay report is one example. And those of Daphne Hatch on the effect of dogs on the Pacific Coast population of the Snowy Plover is another. What is also missing are counts of all the garter snakes in the backyards of people living west of Twin Peaks. Having grown up there and still frequenting the area, there is no question that the GS continues to thrive. It's endangered status comes about because the agencies that want to take away recreation and make all federal and state parks into "look only" areas will not count these GS'. Plater and GGNRA/NPS are quite similar: snakes under rocks.
Stephen: We're on the same side in recognizing that Plater is a con-man. I just think we need to go beyond simply accusing him of being one and leaving it at that, because the "liar" charge is so over-used in Pacifica that it has no impact anymore. (Same with being called a "racist." That used to be a big deal, but now the result is a big yawn.) We need to be able to show verifiable examples of his bs, which really isn't that hard to do.
I never heard of Brent Plater before the Sharp Park issue, but I remember the first time I was in the same room with him as he gave his spiel, and I was thinking to myself "Wow, this guy will say anything."
I would like to thank S.F. attorney Stephen Sayad for weighing in on this. I think he has validated the veracity of Anti Platerganda, Suzanne Valente, Butch Larroche, Attorney Bo Links, Joe Faulkner and others.
Steve --
It's a bit ironic that the topic comes up at this time, as I'm in the process of putting together a complaint with the State Bar. It will be a difficult case because it does not involve a client of his complaining of his unethical conduct. But at least it will be in the public domain.
"What is also missing are counts of all the garter snakes in the backyards of people living west of Twin Peaks."
Mr. Sayad,
You appear to have a common misconception about the SF garter snake. Not only are there presently none of them in San Fransisco, none have ever been found there at any time in the past. The name might be what threw you off, a more accurate name would be the San Mateo garter snake, because virtually all of their historical habitat is in San Mateo county.
There are indeed lots of garter snakes in SF, but they are other more common varieties. Even at Sharp Park, which is SF garter habitat, only about 5% of the garter snakes are the endangered SF garter.
I hope this helps clear up your misunderstanding.
Mr.Butler,
You have no scientific basis to state that Stephen Sayad is wrong. Your historical reference may be correct, but the reason there is no designated critical habitat for the SFGS at this time is because there are no credible studies to tell us where they are or how many of them are actually in any given area. There have been reports from scientists in the past who believed they are extirpated in the Sharp Park area. There are only a few anecdotal reports of sightings (and the discovery of a dead one near the SF airport which halted construction some years ago). Our current reports re. the SFGS come from the GGNRA who as Mr. Sayad aptly pointed out, have been documented to have falsified scientific studies to serve their own purposes. You rush to accept their assertions, yet you discount the assertions of Mr. Sayad. How does Mr. Sayad's report differ? You didn't approve of the source, i.e., Mr. Sayad?
Suzanne,
Are you actually agreeing with Steven that the SF garter snake "continues to thrive" in the "backyards of people living west of Twin Peaks"?
It appears that there is no scientific fact certain enough for the extremists on this site to deny.
For a reality based overview of the species, may I recommend this site:
http://creagrus.home.montereybay.com/CAsnakeSFGarter.html
Ian, can you shed some scientific light on how Sharp Park has caused the snakes to disappear? How about sharing some scientific evidence on how closing the course will make them return? In case it isn't clear, by facts and evidence, I'm referring to "hows" and "whys", not a petition signed by a bunch of like-minded environmentalists.
Apparently there is no scientific fact that the environmental extremists won't make up.
I love this Blog!
Lois
If anyone, including Mr. Sinai, still doubts any claim with respect to the lack of veracity of Brent Plater and/or his propensity towards self-promotion, I invite you to check out the following:
Brent Platers Blog
I never said I thought Plater was honest, because I don't think that. My point was that if people are going to throw out generic, overused accusations like "he lies" under a fake name, they need to provide examples of what he said, and why they are lies.
Even posting a link to his blog isn't good enough. What may self-evidently be lies to you may look perfectly reasonable to others.
That posting on Mr. Plater's Blog sounds like an attempt to deceive to me. Certainly does not sound reasonable to me, either. A little hyperbole goes a long way in this case.
People who want to "Restore" Sharp Park probably think what Plater wrote is perfectly reasonable, and people who don't know anything about Sharp Park and are reading about it for the first time may think it sounds perfectly reasonable. Simply saying "he lies" and leaving it at that won't have any effect.
We can't assume everyone thinks the same way we do, or assume what's obvious to us is obvious to others.
"It is also killing two of the Bay Area's most wondrous and imperiled animals: the endangered San Francisco garter snake - arguably the most beautiful and imperiled serpent in North America - and the threatened California red-legged frog - the largest frog native to the West, made famous by Mark Twain's short story "The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County."
no evidence whatsoever to support this allegation made by Brent Plater. Its not reasonable, there is not one single documented case or paper suggesting that anything about Sharp Park Golf Course is a threat to any endangered species. Pure conjecture on Mister Plater's part.
Steve Sinai quotes (just from this thread alone):
"The guy exaggerates and distorts to the point of absurdity..."
"I'm not going to defend Plater's honesty or ethics, because I don't think there's much to defend."
"We're on the same side in recognizing that Plater is a con-man."
"Wow, this guy [Plater] will say anything."
"I never said I thought Plater was honest, because I don't think that."
Mr. Sinai, I suppose your judicious use of euphemisms puts you above the "liar" fray, but I really see it as a distinction without a difference. In the final analysis, I guess it all boils down to what the meaning of "is" is.
Awesome powers of mind-reading, Mr. Platerganda. Do you also possess x-ray vision?
It sure is easy to take potshots at people when you're too cowardly to identify yourself, isn't it?
Post a Comment