WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE?

Submitted to Shelton Blog by Katherine Price

Did We Learn Anything?

In connection with the Jay Hupp recall petition, there is a big WTF amongst the air-breathers that is not being said out loud. This is in part because we are all shocked, because we all had such naive high hopes, and because we all respect and really like Al Brotche... but WTF?

If it was necessary for the petitioners to hire an attorney, it was also incumbent on the petitioners that the attorney have a lot of information; a great deal of information that it has taken us months to accumulate.

I don't know who briefed the lawyer, or how long the lawyer was briefed, or how often he was briefed, but Craig Watson and Al Brotche would have put on a much better presentation; they would have received generous leeway from the judge because of their status as pro-se petitioners; and they would have been able to help the judge see that on a couple of points, there was sufficiency to allow the matter to proceed.

Al and Craig would have been able to help the judge see this because they know the facts of the events that led to the recall petition; those facts are many and they occurred over months of misconduct by Commissioner Hupp. How much time did the petitioners have to brief this lawyer before he went into court and missed the boat?

The lawyer who appeared for the petitioners on Friday did not know the events that led to the hearing. Worse, he did not pick up on what the judge was fishing for and he completely failed to provide the judge with what she needed to rule in favor of the citizens.

Judge Pomeroy clearly knew the statute and she was, in fact, listening carefully and waiting for something that would allow her to rule in favor of the citizens, the statute requires it of her. The attorney, who did not know the facts and the events, missed any opportunity to help the judge because he simply did not know all that he needed to know. All that Craig and Al knew.

Water under the bridge? Sure.

Did we learn anything? Not so sure.

Not so sure, cause we had another hearing on Monday. Everyone knows how that turned out. Again, the attorney did not even know that two sales had been lost in Hiawatha because of Adage, something the judge would have had to recognize as actual damages. Not only did the attorney now know about that, but for some reason he named Adage Mason LLC as a defendant to the lawsuit AGAINST THE PORT, which allowed Adage a seat at the table in court on Monday. No, two seats at the table, in court on Monday.

And how about that letter from Barbara Adkins? Icing on the cake?

Strike three, we are out???

"Mason County has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with ADAGE Mason LLC to suspend the SEPA threshold determination..."

Take special note to call and ask the obvious questions, because Ms. Adkins has invited us to call: "If you have any questions, please contact me at (360) 427-9670, ext 286..."

John Smith has been suggesting a number of citizen xyz vs. whoever lawsuits; lots of them. Some causes of action are chemical trespass, which works well against Simpson and for the folks downtown.

What are our choices for the Port and Adage and the County???

The citizens seem better equipped at this point to pursue this matter than the best environmental attorneys, unless those attorneys are willing and able to take the time to know the circumstances that exist here, so as to convince a local judge to rule against King Tim and his Court of Fools.

Frustrated and barely able to keep it remotely light...