Councilmember Digre is accused of using the incorrect address for voting and Councilmember
http://www.fixpacifica.com/docs/SueDResidence.pdf
Posted by Steve Sinai
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Pacifica's Economic Plan
Submission and comment policy
Want to share an article or opinion? Unlike some other Pacifica blogs, Fix Pacifica won't bury viewpoints we disagree with. Send your submission, along with your name, to fixpacifica@gmail.com.
People may comment anonymously, but any comments that degenerate into 1) personal attacks against individual blog participants; 2) incomprehensible gibberish; or 3) attempts to turn conversations into grade-school playground brawls, will be removed.
People may comment anonymously, but any comments that degenerate into 1) personal attacks against individual blog participants; 2) incomprehensible gibberish; or 3) attempts to turn conversations into grade-school playground brawls, will be removed.
Search This Blog
Recent Comments
Get this Recent Comments Widget
Historic Sharp Park Golf Course
Blog Archive
-
▼
2017
(232)
-
▼
April
(25)
- Planning Commission meeting, Monday May 1, 2017
- Pacifica Tribune: DA looking at Sue Digre complaint
- New Chamber of Commerce CEO
- Nextdoor claims privacy on public comments, kicks ...
- City Council meeting, Monday April 24, 2017.
- Digre-Gate Continues
- Economic development manager transition
- San Francisco senator calls for more market-rate h...
- Save our highway funding
- Video: CHP rescues man clinging to a cliff in Paci...
- City infrastructure wisdom: bonehead economics 1
- Reminder Planning Commission meeting, Monday April...
- City Council Budget Study Session, Tuesday April 1...
- Pacifica residents worried after cliff collapses
- Monday's Planning Commission Agenda
- Horace Hinshaw quitting as editor of Pacifica Tribune
- Spring Egg Hunt, Friday 4/14/17, and Saturday, 4/1...
- City Council meeting, Monday April 10, 2017
- Where does Councilmember Digre live?
- Economic rehabilitation and development studies, B...
- Introducing new Interim City Manager Keith Breskin
- Special City Council Closed Session meeting, Wedne...
- Chamber of Commerce, CEO steps down
- On being human, axiom
- April Fools' Day will be over tomorrow, or will it?
-
▼
April
(25)
Visitors:
49 comments:
Well I would think she would need to recuse herself from any vote on rent control for Monday night. How do you vote for something where you had a potential conflict of interest in from the beginning?
It looks like Sue D's current residence is a house. I don't know if that would be affected by rent control.
By Truth Seeker's logic, any council members who are landlords, property managers, tenants. or are in the real estate industry have conflicts of interest and should recuse themselves from any vote on rent control. I think that would leave John Keener and Deirdre Martin to decide the issue.
digre's residence will have to be investigated. We all know for voter and election integrity you have to live where you are registered to vote.. In the meantime Digre is going to have to step down from council and not vote on anything, pending resolution of these questions. Can you imagine the litigation over all previous council votes since 2012 where digre was the third and defining vote, if it's found digre was an illegal vote?
Let's see, Nihart, an avid library advocate, had to recuse herself because she lives too close to the proposed site but Sue, who lived in a complex that was the subject of heated council discussions, doesn't tell anyone she lives in there and proceeds to argue for herself. I see the logic of self-dealing going on here.
Oh what a blessed opportunity for the two smartest people on Council.
Just ask them, they'll tell you and tell you and tell you how smart they are.
Have no fear, Keener and Deirdre are here. Their puppet masters have been refining their game plan for at least 30 years now.
The City had knowledge of where Councilmember Sue Digre was living. Page 1 of the alleged lawsuit, Anonymous "Whistleblower" with insider information (no legal firm indicated), referring to Digre, claims from August 2012 "... even had her City Council agenda packets delivered to this location."
Well duh, all that moving, all those City Council Meeting CITY packets going to wherever addresses, yet the CITY knew nothing-- what's up with that???
The Digre residential homeowner address appears to be 780 Edgemar Avenue, which includes two (2) people listed as "S. Digre", according to Spokeo. One of those two (2) "S's" is likely Sue Digre; and Sue Digre claims that address as her official place of residence, and apparently it still is.
Domicile definition. Variations may be argued, but the simple law definition, according to Merriam Webster: "... a person's fixed, permanent, and principal home for legal purposes."
Legal dictionary definitions drift to inside the Country, outside the Country. In this instance, we're talking about inside one Pacifica neighborhood vs. outside another Pacifica neighborhood.
Recusing one's self from certain Council voting issues? It seems that might have been determined in advance at City level. Was it?
Was any inquiry made or discussed with Councilmember Sue Digre and the City in advance of this extreme lawsuit (?) action.
Can a lawsuit (whistleblower or not if applicable) even be filed as an Anonymous? And is this a lawsuit filed without a legal firm advisement and management? No legal firm is listed on the letter filing.
Finally, initially, why were the State Attorney General, Chief of Police, County and Local Officials and Organizations, newspapers and Fix Pacifica blog all copied?
(Guilty until proven innocent, through time and wasted expense, sounds a whole lot like tactics from the NIMBY campaign against MaryAnn Nihart's election campaign-- just the other side.)
Sue needs to recuse herself from Monday nights rent control discussion and vote. If she doesn't then, in my unlearned opinion, the vote is illegal. We've excused Digre because "she's a nice lady", "she has a good heart" or any other of a number of excuses. Digre knowingly, it appears, continued to break the law through 7, maybe 8, elections. Enough is enough. She has sat in deliberations when she should not have, represented herself in an untrue way, and made a mess of 5 years of council votes and deliberations. Time to go!
There is no lawsuit, there is just an anonymous letter which has no legal status.
136, "no lawsuit with no legal status" you say, yet without further inquiry copies were allegedly sent to the State Attorney General, Chief of Police, County and Local Officials and Organizations, newspapers and Fix Pacifica blog?
Oh, and Letter itself from Anonymous: what status does that have?
If someone put a name on that letter they would be subject to harassment, character assassination, and probably have their home picketed. We all know the tactics of the nobies, anything is OK. The name will come out if this is allowed to move forward. Any of you legal eagles out there look up election law and domicile?
I agree with 1:36 PM. It's just a letter that makes accusations and seems to be calling for an investigation. There's no lawsuit being brought.
It doesn't matter if the letter was sent to the Governor, the President, and God. It's still just an anonymous letter, which has the same value and importance as an anonymous post on Fix Pacifica.
Sinai, your slipping in your old age.
You haven't blamed Dan yet!
Someone went to some time and expense on that letter so I'm thinking there may be some follow through.
Town alligator, just because someone criticizes Dan anonymously doesn't mean I'm the one doing it. You ought to see all the stuff about Dan that gets put into the spam folder.
BTW - Town alligator is Dan! No doubt about it.
Digre's address shuffle has been an open secret for years. A basic inquiry to city staff and police about where her city hall agendas and mail were delivered will identify the address. A formal subpoena will identify even more. That sizzle you hear is a cooked goose.
Ah okay, no lawsuits yet... just a friendly, prejudgement legal style Letter from Anonymous to the City, alleging "perjury, voter fraud" (page 3), etc. with regard to City Councilmember Sue Digre: copy to the City Attorney, State of CA Attorney General, Police Chief, SM County Board of Supervisors, SM County Elections Officer, etc.
Nothing to see here, other than an Anonymous protecting his backside (also page 3), while at the same time failing advance City due diligence issue inquiry, such as follow-up with City Councilmember Sue Digre, and the City.
From the recent Presidential election, does this remind anyone of those chanting, "lock her up, lock her up"!? Ehgad.
658, in other words, the City knows Councilmember Sue Digre's home address. Guess that makes them complicit. According to your logic, guess they're "a cooked goose".
Ms Meeh-why would the Pac police deliver packages to an address? Was the cop lost? Sure looks like the Forest Lake house. Does not look Edgemar. Ms. Meeh here's a mission-- call the pacifica police chief monday and ask how long his staff have been delivering city hall mail to digre and where they were going. Report back, please!
Kathy Meeh & city hall complicity-- she has a very good point. If staff shipped material to Digre for years to an address not edgemar (listed on city website BTW as home) and then accepted re-election nomination papers listing edgemar as home, then yes, a big problem.
723, you have a job for me, how much are you paying? Otherwise, you're not talking to someone who cares.
FMV, the "legal residence" Letter is a stupid "gotcha" which failed preliminary research (understanding and intelligence), blown-up into eight (8) sophisticated (but meaningless) pdf pages.
755, the primary Edgemar home is probably in part owned by Councilmember Sue Digre.
I have it on good authority that some of the recipients of that letter took one look at it and threw it in the recycle bin.
7.6.3 Are the reasonably foreseeable, material financial effects “indistinguishable from the effects on the public generally?”
A public servant has a financial interest in a governmental decision if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect, distinguishable from the effect on the public generally, on the public servant or on one of his or her financial interests.
448 If the effect of a decision on the public servant’s interests is indistinguishable from the effect on the public generally, the public servant may participate in the decision. The FPPC has adopted a regulation to define the circumstances under which the effects of a decision on the public generally will be deemed indistinguishable from the effects on a public servant’s interest. This regulation sets forth a general rule and several exceptions that are to be applied in special circumstances.
7.6.3.1 The General Rule
The effect of a decision on a public servant’s financial interest is indistinguishable from the effect on the public generally if a significant segment of the public is affected and the effect on the public servant’s interest is not unique as compared to the effect on the significant segment.
450A significant segment of the public is at least 25 percent of:
All businesses or nonprofit entities within the jurisdiction;
All real property, commercial real property, or residential real property within the jurisdiction; or All individuals within the jurisdiction.
451 The effect of a decision on the public servant’s interest is considered unique if it results in a disproportionate effect on:
--The development potential, use, or income producing potential of real property or a business entity in which the public servant has an interest;
--The public servant’s business entity or real property as a result of the proximity of the project that is the subject of the decision
-- The public servant’s business entity or real property interests as a result of the cumulative effect of the official’s multiple interests in similar entities or properties that is substantially greater than the effect on a single interest;
--The public servant’s business entity or real property interests as a result of the public servant’s substantially greater business volume or larger real property size when the decision will affect all interests by the same or similar rate or
percentage.
--A person’s income, investments, assets or liabilities, or real property if the person is a source of income or gifts to the public servant; orThe public servant’s personal finances or those of his or her immediate family.
the fix pacifica cabal can now stop flapping it's gums.
word on the street is digre stages a tearful apology at monday council but then investigators are at city hall asking for documents.
so, 6:34, it's OK for Sue to engage in debate, decision making, and voting on property that she is renting, would that not be a conflict of interest?
634, now all you need is a direct link to the source you quoted, and we won't call it plagiarism-- oh, and a translator.
749 (maybe the same as 634) wow, wow, investigating City Hall over "where does Sue Digre" live, and what role did the City play in the cover-up of her temporary, interim, or default housing arrangements; and the plot to conceal that, and aspects of her personal family life.
Think I've had enough of this witch-hunt, seemingly propagated without underlying, basic understanding or advance inquiry of what might be personal issues, and probable accepted City oversight.
But don't worry Anonymous, your anonymity is protected. Barf, just an opinion from a flapper.
Town alligator, just because someone criticizes Dan anonymously doesn't mean I'm the one doing it. You ought to see all the stuff about Dan that gets put into the spam folder.
BTW - Town alligator is Dan! No doubt about it.
Sinai
Was the town alligator an instigator, or was the instigator an alligator.
Or was the alligator instigator a litigator?
You can always tell when someone like 6:34 (Stinkman) is playing pretend-lawyer. They really love huffing their own farts and thinking they know it all when they cut-and-paste from a California League of Cities doc as if it were clearly decided black letter law.
Dumbass pretend-lawyers like 6:34 are really really bad at knowing what they're talking about.
DAN: "Your honor, I hold in my hand a pamphlet from the California League of Ci-"
JUDGE: "Get out of my courtroom."
If Digre owned, rented, lived, leased, slept, "resided," or passed gas at a unit in Pacific Skies Estates while voting on matters related to Pacific Skies Estates...that's going to be a problem.
A big problem.
And no amount of plagiarizing is going to cover this one up, Danny boy.
Things I learned today:
We pay the Pacifica Police Department to deliver mail to city council members homes.
Um, hello? Post Office anyone? WTF?!
JUDGE: "Does counsel for the defense have anything they wish to add?"
DAN: "Your honor, in the case of Joe vs. Mort, it cl--"
JUDGE: "Excuse me. Sorry to interrupt, but are you reading from a Bazooka Joe comic?!"
DAN: "Y-yes?"
I demand a Forensic Investigation!
JUDGE: "What are the qualifications of defendant's counsel?"
DAN: "I do karate."
JUDGE: "Karate?"
DAN: "Your honor, I'm am a black belt. I can karate chop...yell Hi-YAH...all that good stuff."
JUDGE: "I see. Any other qualifications?"
DAN: "I uh...have a blog, your honor. It's kind of a big deal in Pacifica"
JUDGE: "A blog that's a 'big deal.' Uh-huh. How many monthly visits do you get to your blog?"
DAN: "Oh, quite a few! I get a--"
JUDGE: "How many visits are from people other than yourself?"
DAN: ...
Digre is presumingly going to participate in a council meeting tomorrow night on the subject of rent control. This is the same Sue that participated in the controversy about the mobile home park closing and evicting the tenants which sparked the whole rent control initiative. How is that right? Digre engages as a council person on a property where she is living, a pure conflict of interest, now she is going to vote to put some ghost written ordinance to a vote (or not, read the summary) of the public. None of this adds up to anything close to fair and impartial hearings.
word on the street is that the anonymous letter writer's legal theory is BS. City attorney says there's no there there. Expect nothing to happen. The people making a stink about this will be shown to be fools.
Do you know what the District Attorney does with anonymous letters with bogus, craptastic legal nonsense? Right.
You can have more than 1 residence. Much ado about nothing.
What a bunch of horse poo.
The two Tod(d)s have returned. Just like the good, old days!
Was Bray talking about what he just had for lunch??!
Tod vs Todd smack down....yeah!
Now we can at least be entertained while Digre, Keener, Deirdre and their puppet masters destroy what little is left of Pacifica. Pass the popcorn.
Did anyone bring up the issue about Sue D's address last night? I only caught about 30 minutes of the meeting.
An illegally elected official presumes to illegally pass laws. Councilmember Sue Digre sidesteps the law but expects the rest of us to abide by every word.
This is an outrage !
Write and call the District Attorney. Tell him to act to press charges and to remove her from her ill gotten office.
San Mateo County District Attorney Mr. Stephen (Steve) Wagstaffe
Email: swagstaffe@smgov.org
Phone: (650) 363-4636
Write or call her and tell her to step down before charges are pressed and the Recall petition is complete.
Councilmember Sue Digres
digres@ci.pacifica.ca.us
(650) 278-1606
Uh oh. CORRECTED Email address for Steve Wagstaffe
swagstaffe@smcgov.org
Oh please, call AND write the DA. He'll laff his ass off.
Apparently the DA is not laughing his ass off. As a matter of fact, he is in the process of gathering information to determine whether or not he will proceed with an investigation.
If Sue is removed, then the Council must fill the position, like they did when Vreeland quit. Or hold a special election. Could the four remaining council people agree on someone?
Post a Comment