Some Pictures of Hobbs's Takeover of the Jenkel Property

[danejasper]

I drove down our devastated scenic corridor this morning. Judging by the location of the utility poles it seems to me that some of the trees cut down were on Caltrans property. If so, that would mean that the trees belonged to the people of California. Can anyone confirm this?

My guess is that the utility poles were in the public utilities easement, on the private property - this is pretty typical. You'll note utility lines crossing folks property at all sort of odd locations and angles, all by easement.

Heck, for that matter, does Caltrans really "own" the roads or property roads are on generally? I dunno.

-Dane

[Barry]

Reminder about controlling your email from this and other threads:

You can always go to any thread on the website and select your subscription setting for that thread. Here's a quick demo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9s_b-osjVM

[Sara S]

jbox wrote: "If we question Hobbs' morality and ethics, we must also question Jenkel's."

Being inept at dealing with this greedy world has no relation to Mr. Jenkel's morality or ethics; neither does being a little nuts.

i'll take goofy over greedy any day. granted jenkel has been incapable of handling his own business and this has impacted his neighbor hobbs. how would i like the access of my world class winery to be through a neighbor who can't evict drug addicted squatters? yes this is a tough situation.

hobbs seems to have chosen greed as his guide.

[RicoBoccia]

Here's the response from Whole Foods. They are not going to pull Paul Hobbs wines:

From: Brian Cofran (NC SRS)

Subject: Selling Paul Hobbs wines at Whole Foods Market
Date: Monday, June 6, 2011, 10:36 AM

First of all, thank you for writing in to our website. We are always happy and interested to hear from our local community. I have done some research on the issue you mentioned (https://www.watchsonomacounty.com/20...nto-his-ranch/) and have found valid points on both sides. Here at Whole Foods Market one of our prime mission statements is to support our local farmers and community. The Paul Hobbs winery employs many locals and is a positive participant in our community. At this time I cannot in good faith make the decision to stop carrying his wines. I hope this decision does not stop you from shopping in our store. You are a valued customer and I hope you continue to value us as well.

"a positive participant in our community"???
Sounds like a boycott and picket in in order!

Whole Foods supports Paul Hobbs clear cutting

Simple translation of Brian Cofran's email: When you are rich and powerful enough, you can do whatever you want.

Hope this helps.

[Iolchan]

What Can Man Do?

Imagine you are the Attorney General and you receive this letter. What do you do with it? Throw it in the circular file where it belongs, of course. I'll say it again, John Jenkel brought all of his misfortune down on himself (and the rest of us) because of his perverse desire to keep getting shot down in flames in a spectacular fashion. When he believes he's right and everyone else is wrong he should know he's not playing with a full deck. Everyone else knows it. Not to defend Hobbs, but he is just using the legal system in a neighbor dispute and is gonna win every time due to Jenkel's right to be a goofy guy who insists on seppuku at every opportunity, If we question Hobbs' morality and ethics, we must also question Jenkel's.

PS - He requests the AG issue an opinion that nobody can be declared a vexatious litigant? Are you kidding me?

Dear John Box: With regards to your last statement :

"He requests the AG issue an opinion that nobody can be declared a vexatious litigant? Are you kidding me? "

That is not an accurate rendition of what Mr. Jenkel wrote. What he wrote was this :


"It is impossible for me to defend myself in civil court because I have been declared to be a vexatious litigant even though I have never been a plaintiff. Please issue an opinion that no defendant, respondent, or petitioner is a vexatious litigant."


If you will note, he says that he has "never been a plaintiff." That means that he has never sued anyone himself, nor been the initiator of a lawsuit as a Plaintiff. He has only, ever, been either a defendant, respondent, or a petitioner. I called Mr. Jenkel today on the telephone, and asked him if he would confirm this. He did. I am not in possession as of today, of any information that contradicts Mr. Jenkel's statement. Can anyone comment?

As for the legitimacy of the paperwork which he has served the Attorney General of the State of California, I, personally do not believe that it belongs in the "circular file."

Although I am not a lawyer, I think that his paperwork has some merit. His case certainly does. A grave and egregious miscarriage of Justice has taken place before us all - a man's land has been taken by the State without due process, and the Title, essentially transferred, at a "fixed" auction to his millionaire litigant neighbor. What do you suggest the man do? Roll over, shrivel up, and die? He is a fighter, and will not go gentle into that good night. I respect him for that. There is something noble in it.

As for your proclivity to denigrate the man; while you are not alone, I wonder how much of this tendency of yours is a function of your own insecurity and fear? How much of it is a function of the common tendency to either project, or transfer one's own Angst?

How much of this > very common< tendency is a manifestation of " herd instinct?" - the desire to find acceptance amongst a Group, by vilifying the unaccepted Outsider - and a subconscious, jackel instinct, to turn on the wounded, and devour them, the way hyenas do?

Franz Fanon, the noted Algerian revolutionary and psychiatrist of the '60's, wrote of how colonized peoples were "colonized" in their own minds - of how they were systemically indoctrinated through the oppressive social apparati of Colonial governments to "identify with their oppressors," and "internalize their own oppression."

The subtext of what you have written, John Box, so far, in this thread about John Jenkel , is not only that he "brought it all on himself, and the rest of us" but that if We will all just conform and not step out of line, none of this will happen to rest of us. That is, we can all avoid trouble, and live happily into our doddering eighties, rocking out at Grateful Dead tribute Festivals, and the State will leave us alone -i.e. "We will survive."

Perhaps I am missing a piece of the picture. I do not live in the west county, nor have I seen any of John Jenkel's performances at the Sebastopol city council meetings, in Court, nor before the Board of Supervisors. I do not know Mr. Jenkel well, having spoken to him a total of perhaps only six or seven times - including today. All I can say, from having spoken to him in the past, is that he is an unusual man, and is sincerely opposed to America pursuing foreign imperialist wars of aggression.

I will say that I found Jenkel's position on Willie Brown to be a little wingey.
- Perhaps, a function of his own Angst that evolved into a vendetta against former Mayor Willie Brown because Brown revoked his license to operate his horse-drawn carriage business along the Embarcadero? But I am not, at this time, in possession of all the facts, and am not in a position to either prove or disprove any of his allegations on that score.

I grew up in the threshold of a classical old-Left family. I grew up in Berkeley and north Oakland in the Sixties, was tear-gassed in '68, & saw it all come down, firsthand. On many occasions, & in many demonstrations, I have chanted, in chorus, in unison, the old lefty mantra, "An injury to one is an injury to all." Well, it is true. An injury to one is an injury to all. And that is because we are all connected. "If you have done it unto one of the least of these, you have done it unto Me."

This is not about John Jenkel. This is about the State establishing a precedent to seize and confiscate the property of any citizen and transfer the title, in a closed-from-the-public "Auction" to a person who is already a multi-millionaire. And that is Wrong. It fulfills the Biblical definition of the word Oppression.

Let me remind you that Alfred Dreyfus was not a likable man. None of the many supporters of Justice for the man ever maintained that he was. He was drab, unimaginative and a conformist - a career officer in the French Army. He was not very friendly - or even appreciative of the many Drefusards who eventually rose from among the French populace to see that Justice was done in his case.

The common thread here is Principle - the principle of Justice being done in Court. If the Court will not uphold the principle of Justice, then why have government at all? The whole fabric of Civil Society eventually will break down...

And that is why the local citizens of the West County - those who care about social injustice - should organize a series of town hall meetings on the subject of this particularly egregious Injustice/Land-seizure, which may evolve - if there is sufficient will among you - into a "Committee of Inquiry" that can gather and assemble all the information that is pertinent to this case, and be in a position to present that information to the 2012 Session of the Sonoma County Grand Jury.

- Mark Walter Evans

[Dan Fox]

This is not about John Jenkel. This is about the State establishing a precedent to seize and confiscate the property of any citizen and transfer the title, in a closed-from-the-public "Auction" to a person who is already a multi-millionaire. And that is Wrong. It fulfills the Biblical definition of the word Oppression.

Let's leave the Bible out of this one, OK? No need to muddy further what is already a real mess.

The case in point in no way sets any kind of legal precedent, no way no how.

Don't believe me? Well, consider what happens (at least in the ideal case) with deadbeat dads. Mom is awarded custody of the kids and a reasonable amount of monthly support. And then Dad is so busy whooping it up with his new girlfriend that he habitually "forgets" to put the check in the mail.

I think that most of us would agree that that's a fundamentally unfair situation. Fortunately the law has a remedy. Mom is entirely within her rights to appeal to the court for help, upon which Dad's bank account can be seized, his wages attached and - oh yes - his property seized and sold at sheriff's auction to satisfy his debt.

And that's exactly, precisely, 100% the same process that was followed here.

This is a very old legal principle and goes back centuries. You might agree with it, you might not - but if you don't, I think you'd have a heck of a time trying to get the law changed.

And the law doesn't change based on whether the creditor or the debtor has more money. (I think we can all agree that that wouldn't be fair, either.)

So really - much as I'd like to say otherwise - I can really only see a few things here that are open to question:

- The conduct of the original lawsuit that led to the $350K judgement. A few hotheads have called this "based on lies" or some such but, frankly, the judge was there and saw the evidence, and you weren't. Lawsuits ARE about more than a rich person saying "My neighbor owes me $X"; there is a standard of proof that needs to be met. And since Jenkel did not appeal the judgement within the appropriate time frame, the judgement is a moot point now; unless substantial new evidence comes to light it can't be overturned now.

- The conduct of the sheriff's sale. Were the T's all crossed and the I's all dotted? Was the sale properly noticed? What ARE the noticing requirements? (And if you can't answer those questions, Mark, you're not in a good position to be calling names about the auction's supposed "secrecy"). If someone can answer these questions, and can find that something was actually done wrong, there might actually be a leg to stand on here.

- Was the clearcutting done with the appropriate permits from the county's Permit and Resource Management Department? It appears so (that's what Carillo claims anyway). Again, if it can be shown that there were irregularities in this process there might be room for complaint (but I'm not betting on it).

Other than that ... well, so vineyard #253 is going to go in on Highway 116. Personally I'm not quite sure why this one is supposed to be any more reprehensible than vineyards #1 through #252 were, but whatever. And Jenkel is, well - we all have our opinions about him, but I don't think that any of this is about him, only about what he has done. The point at which this could have all been averted, I fear, was when he decided to represent himself in the initial lawsuit against Hobbs. Everything since then has been an inevitable consequence. I think it's unfortunate, but it's frankly probably far too late to do anything about it now.

- D.F.

[Beverly Schenck]

Your glass is half empty! How sad.

[Hotspring 44]

Your glass is half empty! How sad.

...And you are saying that in response to...???

[Iolchan]

In Response To Dan Fox

Dan Fox has written, in response to a passage that he evidently considers the week link in my argument. I had written:

"This is not about John Jenkel. This is about the State establishing a precedent to seize and confiscate the property of any citizen and transfer the title, in a closed-from-the-public "Auction" to a person who is already a multi-millionaire. And that is Wrong. It fulfills the Biblical definition of the word Oppression."

Dan Fox lit into my missive by saying:

"Let's leave the Bible out of this one, OK? No need to muddy further what is already a real mess.

The case in point in no way sets any kind of legal precedent, no way no how."

We are probably all in general agreement that the past seventeen hundred years of Religious Wars, Institutional Feudalism, Crusades, Inquisitions, Heretic burnings, Pograms directed against Jews, Witch burnings by Rome, Protestant burnings by Rome, Witch burnings by Protestants, etc. etc., ever since the time that "Christianity" was hijacked and subjected to a hostile corporate take-over by Emperor Constantine and his Imperial henchmen; as well as all the Bible-thumping that has accompanied all of the Imperialist Wars of Europe and the U.S. from the sixteenth century to the present, do muddy the picture of the “Biblical definition” of anything.

But I disagree that the Bible has no place in a discussion of this sort. The Bible is still one of the four pillars - or Sources - if you will, of Law in the English-speaking world. The other three being: Grecian Law, Roman Law, and Anglo-Saxon Common Law. That’s pretty much a given, Dan. You can take it, or leave it, as you will.

Let's just call it an expression of the higher, Moral Law.

https://www.google.com/search?num=10...&aqi=&aql=&oq=

The word Oppression is listed in Black’s Law Dictionary. The Biblical definition and usage of the term – ( there are several Hebrew words for Oppression in the Scriptures) expands on the shades of meaning of the one word we use in English. Passages and principles from the Bible may be cited in Common Law proceedings. The Bible, containing the Torah, a code of 613 moral laws, is also useful as a collection and compendium of chronicles, parables, and stories that will always retain cultural and historical significance.

Case in point: The coveting and seizure of Naboth’s vineyard by bad King Ahab, in 1 Kings, 21 – a story that is very germaine and relevant to the case we are discussing; and one that sheds much light on this situation. Here is a link. Check it out: https://worldebible.com/1_kings/21.htm

“The case in point in no way sets any kind of legal precedent, no way no how,”

I did not say ”legal precedent.” I said it established "a precedent” – nothing more. An in-your-face precedent of the sort that the power elite are always dangling in front of the body politic, to test the current social climate, and see what they can get away with. If we let them get away with this, then we can expect more of it. And, no, I do not agree that this thing can not be reversed.

“… consider what happens (at least in the ideal case) with deadbeat dads. Mom is awarded custody of the kids and a reasonable amount of monthly support. And then Dad is so busy whooping it up with his new girlfriend that he habitually "forgets" to put the check in the mail."

This simile of yours is not a fitting parallel, in my opinion, but does furnish material for a rather amusing Cartoon: Imagine, if you will, Paul Hobbs, wearing a dress, and with wig, children in tow, before the Bench, with offending former husband, farmer John, in overalls, straw hat in hand, being reprimanded by the scolding Judge, who says: “Since you are in arrears on your child support payments, you must pay Paula here $350,000, a just and reasonable recompense for your wayward negligence for not providing for your own kith and kin.”

It’s ludicrous, Dan. I think you will agree that not only does the punishment not fit the crime – if, indeed, crimes there were; this, also, is not an accurate picture of what happened in this case.

"I think that most of us would agree that that's a fundamentally unfair situation. Fortunately the law has a remedy. Mom is entirely within her rights to appeal to the court for help, upon which Dad's bank account can be seized, his wages attached and - oh yes - his property seized and sold at sheriff's auction to satisfy his debt."

Yes, I agree, one hundred per cent. That is a legitimate function of the Court - although it is one that is often abused.

"And that's exactly, precisely, 100% the same process that was followed here."

Again, I disagree, and for the same reason: your parable/parallel, does not fit the situation before us. The story about Naboth's vineyard does.

"This is a very old legal principle and goes back centuries. You might agree with it, you might not - but if you don't, I think you'd have a heck of a time trying to get the law changed."

Of course. No one can change any old, established legal principles; none at all. Only unjust laws and judgments may be changed and overturned. And in my humble opinion - as an outsider, who just learned last Friday the news of this thing, that has been unfolding since late April - this was an unjust judgment. I just feel it in my bones - as a Sonoma county property owner, and as a human…

"So really - much as I'd like to say otherwise - I can really only see a few things here that are open to question:

- The conduct of the original lawsuit that led to the $350K judgment. A few hotheads have called this "based on lies" or some such but, frankly, the judge was there and saw the evidence, and you weren't. Lawsuits ARE about more than a rich person saying "My neighbor owes me $X"; there is a standard of proof that needs to be met."

No, I was not there - to my chagrin. Can anyone who was there, in the Court, and witnessed this Decision, please come forth, and elucidate for the rest of we poor wayward stragglers the details of what went down? - What “evidence?” - What was the process by which the Judge arrived at the rather fabulous sum of $350,000 ? Are we to just assume that the “standard of proof” was met? - Was it? Again, this is why I think there ought to be a “Committee of Inquiry” into this case, set up as an objective “People’s Court.”

"And since Jenkel did not appeal the judgement within the appropriate time frame, the judgement is a moot point now; unless substantial new evidence comes to light it can't be overturned now."

I am not qualified to offer an opinion on this matter. Was the Appeal, indeed, not filed in a timely fashion? John Jenkel, from his statements on the phone yesterday, seems to think that it is not too late. Perhaps he is correct.

"The conduct of the sheriff's sale. Were the T's all crossed and the I's all dotted? Was the sale properly noticed? What ARE the noticing requirements? (And if you can't answer those questions, Mark, you're not in a good position to be calling names about the auction's supposed "secrecy"). If someone can answer these questions, and can find that something was actually done wrong, there might actually be a leg to stand on here."

All I know about this case to date, I have learned from three sources: First, there are the half-forgotten details that John Jenkel told me four years ago, in 2007, about his then-current problems with the winery neighbor to whom he had granted an easement through his property. [I had jumped his fence, to pay him a visit, to talk with him about the bleak prospect of endless War.] Also, what I have read in this thread, and the article in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat.

Posters to this thread have stated that the “Sale” was done in an obscure room in the back of the Sheriff’s Department, with deputy sheriffs in riot gear standing at the door; that it was improperly “posted” – and that Paul Hobbs was the only bidder. Who does know?

This is why we need a ”Committee of Inquiry” – a non-governmental body of concerned citizens: preferably local, petit-bourgeois landowners who have a stake of their own to lose, who also feel, in their bones, that Justice has not been done in this case.

- Mark Walter Evans

[Peace Seeker]

The Bible is still one of the four pillars - or Sources - if you will, of Law in the English-speaking world. The other three being: Grecian Law, Roman Law, and Anglo-Saxon Common Law. That’s pretty much a given, Dan. You can take it, or leave it, as you will.

What about the full body of Jewish Law itself (as differentiated from the occasional accounts of divine and prophetic judgment recounted in scripture)? I believe that centuries of Jewish jurisprudence laid the foundation for many of the forms of legal reasoning practiced in the courtrooms of England and the US (and probably most courts in Europe). I suspect the silence regarding Jewish legal authority in US jurisprudence is an artifact of Christian and English anti-Semitism.

NO, I'm not a "hypervigillant" Jew. I'm not Jewish. Christian and Anglo-aristocratic anti-Jewish bigotry is just the obvious explanation of why English legal practices (which US courts inheritted) disregard Jewish legal precedents and pretend they played no part in the development of English or US law.

Bigotry can be so fully integrated into our cultural norms so fully that we don't even notice it.

[rossmen]

the question for me is was jenkel treated fairly? if you believe the civil and criminal justice system treats everyone fairly then please educate yourself. the question now is what can an average citizen do if they believe someone was treated unfairly by both local government and neighbor?

paul hobbs is vulnerable to citizen questioning because the wine business is extremely sensitive to perception. reviews, letters to stores ect are effective in changing corporate policy. there is always plenty of choice in how law is enforced, no matter what the enforcers say.

as someone willing to question government and corporate process jenkel's experience scares me. i often receive the advice, don't do or say that ross, they will get you. you seem to have taken that advice d fox.

Let's leave the Bible out of this one, OK? No need to muddy further what is already a real mess.

The case in point in no way sets any kind of legal precedent, no way no how.

Don't believe me? Well, consider what happens (at least in the ideal case) with deadbeat dads. Mom is awarded custody of the kids and a reasonable amount of monthly support. And then Dad is so busy whooping it up with his new girlfriend that he habitually "forgets" to put the check in the mail.

I think that most of us would agree that that's a fundamentally unfair situation. Fortunately the law has a remedy. Mom is entirely within her rights to appeal to the court for help, upon which Dad's bank account can be seized, his wages attached and - oh yes - his property seized and sold at sheriff's auction to satisfy his debt.

And that's exactly, precisely, 100% the same process that was followed here.

This is a very old legal principle and goes back centuries. You might agree with it, you might not - but if you don't, I think you'd have a heck of a time trying to get the law changed.

And the law doesn't change based on whether the creditor or the debtor has more money. (I think we can all agree that that wouldn't be fair, either.)

So really - much as I'd like to say otherwise - I can really only see a few things here that are open to question:

- The conduct of the original lawsuit that led to the $350K judgement. A few hotheads have called this "based on lies" or some such but, frankly, the judge was there and saw the evidence, and you weren't. Lawsuits ARE about more than a rich person saying "My neighbor owes me $X"; there is a standard of proof that needs to be met. And since Jenkel did not appeal the judgement within the appropriate time frame, the judgement is a moot point now; unless substantial new evidence comes to light it can't be overturned now.

- The conduct of the sheriff's sale. Were the T's all crossed and the I's all dotted? Was the sale properly noticed? What ARE the noticing requirements? (And if you can't answer those questions, Mark, you're not in a good position to be calling names about the auction's supposed "secrecy"). If someone can answer these questions, and can find that something was actually done wrong, there might actually be a leg to stand on here.

- Was the clearcutting done with the appropriate permits from the county's Permit and Resource Management Department? It appears so (that's what Carillo claims anyway). Again, if it can be shown that there were irregularities in this process there might be room for complaint (but I'm not betting on it).

Other than that ... well, so vineyard #253 is going to go in on Highway 116. Personally I'm not quite sure why this one is supposed to be any more reprehensible than vineyards #1 through #252 were, but whatever. And Jenkel is, well - we all have our opinions about him, but I don't think that any of this is about him, only about what he has done. The point at which this could have all been averted, I fear, was when he decided to represent himself in the initial lawsuit against Hobbs. Everything since then has been an inevitable consequence. I think it's unfortunate, but it's frankly probably far too late to do anything about it now.

- D.F.

[Iolchan]

An Interesting Question, Peace Seeker

What about the full body of Jewish Law itself (as differentiated from the occasional accounts of divine and prophetic judgment recounted in scripture)? I believe that centuries of Jewish jurisprudence laid the foundation for many of the forms of legal reasoning practiced in the courtrooms of England and the US (and probably most courts in Europe). I suspect the silence regarding Jewish legal authority in US jurisprudence is an artifact of Christian and English anti-Semitism.

NO, I'm not a "hypervigillant" Jew. I'm not Jewish. Christian and Anglo-aristocratic anti-Jewish bigotry is just the obvious explanation of why English legal practices (which US courts inheritted) disregard Jewish legal precedents and pretend they played no part in the development of English or US law.

Bigotry can be so fully integrated into our cultural norms so fully that we don't even notice it.

In the Library of the Diaspora Yeshiva, on Mount Zion, just outside the Wall of the Old City in Jerusalem, there is a Wall of books, eight feet high, and approximately fifty feet long. It is really a very awesome collection of books, all in Hebrew, and all beautifully bound, or rebound, as the case may be; some of them are very old, and very much out of print... It is an awesome room, this library, and a priceless collection of books. This is the full extent of the written, printed version of the Gemorrah, the Oral tradition, of the Jewish heritage. It includes, for basic starters, the Misnah, the Midrash, and the Talmud.

Very little of this material has made it into the Anglo-Norman body of the textus recepticus of Western Law. It is pretty much exclusively a Jewish treasure, and written, as I said, in Hebrew. It is the body of Rabbinic Wisdom-literature, and very few souls on earth even know about it. Only Rabbis, Rabbinic scholars, and Rabbinic students have ever read any significant portion of it.

https://www.google.com/search?num=10...Talmud,&nfpr=1

As far as Anglo-Norman Law goes, in general, even the 613 commandments of the Torah, that were handed down to Moses on the Mount do not rate as Law that Gentiles are required to keep, in the civic polis. They are also considered, in Anglo-Norman Jurisprudence, to be entirely a Jewish Affair. That portion of the Bible - from the Book of Exodus - that has made it into the fabric, and forms an essential part of the Foundation, and Structure of English Common Law, is the Ten Commandments. The Tenth of which, by the way, says "Thou Shalt not covet thy neighbor's house ... nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." A Commandment, I suggest, that Mr. Paul Hobbs, winery millionaire, has very pro-actively transgressed, in the case before us.

The most historically significant element of the Bible, I venture to say - the most forward-reaching, Progressive aspect, that really has counted for very much, in English, and subsequent Yankee history - are the Prophets, the Ha-Neviim, and their polemics against the Oppression of the Poor by the Rich. Once the Bible was translated into English, and copies became available for the general public to read, in the English language after 1611 (with the publication of the King James Bible) a remarkable thing happened: a whole generation of religious radicals grew up, who became educated and aware of what the Prophets - including Yahshua and the Apostles - had actually said.

They came to see that wicked kings, like Zedekiah, or even just foolhardy kings like Charles the first, were accountable to the Realm, and could be held accountable for their Capital crimes against the People - for instance, Charles I, making War against his own people. This is the aspect of the Puritan Revolution in England, that gripped the English Nation in the 1640's, that was a bi-product of the People becoming familiar with the radical, prophetic texts of the Ha'Neviim - the texts that, a Marxist might say, indicated a certain amount of Class-consciousness.

- Mark Walter Evans
www.paleoprogressives.org

[greenbuddy]

Jeepers! Good intentions aside this does not get clearer with the Bible and dead beat dads as added reference.
So let me get it right. This is OK, and we can expect more of the same,and there is little room for complaint? What America are you from? Forgive me,but I am still digesting the words clear cut, and scenic corridor in the same sentence. It makes me wonder with an arched eyebrow "Who do you work for Mr.Carrillo"? and "Where the hell are you from Mr.Hobbs"?I suppose I am not hearing the muttering bubbles of apology because he has his head so deeply imbedded up his ass the sound is inaudible.Disregard all around.This whole deal is OK because it is justified retaliation for a fallen Redwood.Really?I am sure there was an insurance claim filed. Puleeeze. The Graton fire station which we all need because we live in a forest ,for now anyway was built in a Christmas Tree farm,and look there are still Christmas Trees! I am not convinced there was not a better way, and I am going to continue to complain as much as I think is necessary. THIS IS NOT RIGHT,and I don't need anybody to help me see that. Picket on Burn day and Boycott whole foods and other local store that carry his products until he steps up right.

[Barry]

Here's a much simpler way to unsubscribe from individual email updates from this or other threads:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYgh9zPd4h4

[Iolchan]

A Simple Solution :

The only way for the West County community to achieve clarity – or a grounded collective understanding of the Reality of what happened in the case of the hostile takeover by the Paul Hobbs winery of half of the acreage of John Jenkel, stormy petrel of 9/11, is for local activists and concerned citizens to put their shoulders to the plow, and do the necessary hard work to organize a town hall meeting - in either Graton or Sebastopol - and publicly open up the can of worms to general scrutiny.

The devil, as they say, is in the details, and it is the minutia of this case – the Question of how it happened, and the apparent injustice of it, that is puzzling people now.

The Town Hall Meeting – a venerable tradition in rural New England, is the appropriate venue in which an exposition of the details of the Issue can be made. It is the proper, civil way in which concerned citizens may examine this Issue, decently and in order.

All of the Principals: Paul Hobbs, John Jenkel, Supervisor Ernest Carillo, Superior Court Judges Dean Beaupre, Rene Auguste Chouteau, and Gary Nadler, Sheriff-Coroner Steve Freitas; Ben Neuman of the PRMD, etc., etc., should be invited to come and speak and be allowed to read their own prepared statements. If any of the Principals who are invited to come should opt not to put in an appearance or read a Public statement at the Town Hall meeting, their absence will be a matter of Public Record, and they will be conspicuous by their absence.

The whole production should be recorded on film, and anyone who wishes to film the proceedings themselves should also be allowed to do that.

There should be a period of Q & A, in which the principals may be allowed to question each other, and be allotted sufficient time to answer every Question in full.

There should be a certain amount of time allotted for the Public to make statements, offer testimony, or ask questions of the principals.

At the conclusion of the hearing, John Jenkel and Paul Hobbs should both be allowed to offer their own ex tempore summary comments on the Issue, as they see it, personally.

If, after all this has been said and done, Questions still remain in the minds of some people about the “justice” or injustice of the matter =OR= if it becomes manifest to most people that in fact “Justice” was not served, then a Committee of Inquiry, made up of concerned citizens may evolve out of the town hall meeting, to tackle the issue of what to do next…

- Mark Walter Evans

[Peace Voyager]

My recent e mail to Jenkel with more action items for ya'll to consider. Please let him know if you want to help in some way.

John Jenkel


707-823-7083
[email protected]


Sent: Wed, June 15, 2011 12:09:26 PM
Subject: The question of War Powers anywhere & use of Marshall Law in Graton

Hi John,

I'm sorry my need to rest my injuries prevented me from trying to get the film crew from the Board of Supervisors meeting yesterday, to go to your farm after they went to the Bohemian Grove. The issues of the Grove have been well documented; yours have not, in the way which is needed. You and I know how some of the folks from the Grove empower those who are enabling harm to you and I, and our country. Deborah, and the film makers need to understand this better.

I'm glad you all were able to get on the same page of a few key issues; and you agreed to consider hiring them for a 10 minute production on your top issues; which I suggest are the ones in the subject line of this e mail.

I talked to Tony, the Producer of KSRO morning news, re: the War Powers Act being Constitutional, or not; he thinks it is, and has won each time it was challenged in court. (He also denies weather modification is really going on.)

The War Powers Act did not amend the Constitution.

Perhaps you should explain to him, and everyone else, in a 3 minute version, why the War Powers Act is not Constitutional; and what the Public needs to do to change it.

Today this is the hot issue in DC. EVERYONE, especially you, need to take this message to the State Capitol. There is no other way we can solve the local, State, and federal budget problems, unless Congress ends, PL107-243, and all others like it; to de-fund unconstitutional war.

Bringing your message, on your horse drawn carriage billboard; and on paper via foot, by as many folks as can come into the Legislators' office this week; would get the needed attention these issues need right NOW.

Getting a permit from the CHP to do this would not be hard. Doing it the right way, could get you the right kind of press coverage; to show you as a new Paul Revere - calling on everyone to wake up to the fact that each elected official must uphold their oath of office, to support and defend the Constitution, or be impeached & re-called, and/or, not be re-elected.

Don't be a fool alone on hill. You are not getting the needed results with just your small team, and signs only on your last stand of fence and trees there. I have helped bring your critical truth, in an independent manner, to the awareness of many effective people; it's time to work with the force of the public to get justice.

Even though I'm seriously injured, both physically, after being raped, assaulted, rear ended 2 times in a year; as well as, emotionally with the perpetrator and enablers of these crimes un-convicted, and holding full legal and physical custody of my child; I demonstrate daily delivery of important info to you from the manipulated press.

I am a critical filter for the most important truths on earth. Every time you turn your back on me, you waste our time to work on refining the key solutions, and getting the masses on board. You will not get Cogress to clean itself up without the masses enrolled.

Once you see that, you'll see how Songs for a Cease Fire is the best way to do that, beyond getting legislation to end strike-first policies. This is the cart which needs to get behind your horse.

I'm not afraid to speak all this truth to power; while I insist all these powers speak the truth. This is why I will run for office; I know it's the best way to get an incumbent to work right now, on behalf of their constituents; for a primary election to come in just a year.

Getting you your own website, which you could easily maintain; and helping to produce a new chapter of your story on video to put up on this site; is critical to helping an even wider audience, from which to put pressure on Congress to end unconstitutional mass murder, in all countries we are conducting it in.

Don't view what Deborah and the other folks are focused on as competition to your issues, they can be worked to complement and enhance each other's success.

I can find the original footage of the one I produced for you several years ago; this could get transferred to digital to go up on the site as well, so folks can see the history and evolution of your efforts.

Getting photos of Hobbs land rape needs to be continued with each change, this is an additional link for your website which needs to be managed. I've been doing this sort of thing since 2005. I have too much to do, to do it all, and I'm in great pain as I sit at my computer; which is why I want Ruth and Ned to do their parts to produce the Abuse News, etc.

(Any one else here have photos, please email them to me.)

The project Producers, both website and video, need to know what kind of budget you can afford. I suggested to Ruth a contract and proposal to have $300 to get the basic website started. Getting the videos online will be more, don't have an estimate just yet; but folks on Wacco have posted the tools for doing this for free.

I suggest to you to have a local company, Sonic, be your new website host. I also suggest you use them for cable/cel phone/landline (with unlimited long distance) and Internet Service Provider, this comes with e mail and one free website hosting.

I have their phone and web services, they are reliable. Also, the owner, Dane Jasper, is on WaccoBB.net. He seems sympathetic to your issues with Hobbs.

Another important piece of accounting for you; which would be of great value for the public to know, is how much of each mortgage did you continue to pay after the County and Hobbs claimed to own it? Now that Hobbs is getting new lawyers, this is even more important.

We have come too far for you to continue to pretend to misunderstand which side I'm on. It's not just yours OR mine; I'm on the side of the American people, as well as, every citizen on this earth; even the ones committing the atrocities. I want justice, not death.

This is the only way to create an inheritable future for everyone's kids and grandkids.

Let's make this Father's Day be great one for you and your family; let me help you with that too. It could do you all a world of good, and mend some old wounds. It would help your case with Hobbs and the County, to have your family on your side.

I know this is very painful for you to consider; but know that you have the power each day, to design a different outcome, if you're willing to do your best; control your anger. No one deserves to be yelled at.

I think it would be very helpful if these folks, with the Eagle Forum below, understood your issues better, so they could be more informed as they work for the greater good of our country, no matter what religious, or political belief one has.

Patriotically,

Colleen Fernald

+++++

Film Maker Anthony Hilder's site:

https://www.freeworldfilmworks.com

Santa Barbara City Council meeting on weather modification
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd6kRZTAY_0

++++

Conference in Sacramento this weekend:

Eagle Forum of California

https://www.eagleforumofcalifornia.com/
https://www.eventbrite.com/event/1797914611

++++++

2 stories on illegal use of force by our military:

https://warisacrime.org/content/cong...-end-libya-war

Congress Members Sue Obama to End Libya War

Submitted by davidswanson on Wed, 2011-06-15 16:09

On Wednesday in federal court, 10 members of the U.S. Congress sued President Obama in an attempt to end U.S. involvement in a war in Libya.

These are the plaintiffs: Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Walter Jones (R-NC), Howard Coble (R-NC), John Duncan (R-TN), Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), John Conyers (D-MI), Ron Paul (R-TX), Michael Capuano (D-MA), Tim Johnson (R-IL), and Dan Burton (R-IN).

According to a statement from Congressman Kucinich:

"The lawsuit calls for injunctive and declaratory relief to protect the plaintiffs and the country from (1) the policy that a president may unilaterally go to war in Libya and other countries without a declaration of war from Congress, as required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution; (2) the policy that a president may commit the United States to a war under the authority of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in violation of the express conditions of the North Atlantic Treaty ratified by Congress; (3) the policy that a president may commit the United States to a war under the authority of the United Nations without authorization from Congress; (4) from the use of previously appropriated funds by Congress for an unconstitutional and unauthorized war in Libya or other countries; and (5) from the violation of the War Powers Resolution as a result of the Obama Administration’s established policy that the President does not require congressional authorization for the use of military force in wars like the one in Libya."...

+++++

House Republican leader Boehner warns Obama over Libya


https://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_usa_libya_congress

by Susan Cornwell – Tue Jun 14, 7:53 pm ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters)

House Speaker John Boehner warned President Barack Obama on Tuesday that he was skating on thin legal ice by keeping U.S. forces involved in Libya for nearly three months without the authorization of Congress.
The letter from the Republican leader of the House of Representatives to the Democratic president threatened to turn lawmakers' unease over the Libyan conflict into a clash between Congress and the White House over constitutional powers.

Boehner accused Obama of "a refusal to acknowledge and respect the role of Congress" in military operations and a "lack of clarity" about why the U.S. was still involved in Libya.

He asked Obama to explain the legal grounds for the war by Friday, adding that by Sunday Obama would be in violation of the 1973 War Powers Resolution if nothing changed.

The Constitution says that Congress declares war, while the president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The War Powers Resolution sought to resolve the tensions in these roles and was passed by Congress over a veto by President Richard Nixon...

[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]

[greenbuddy]

Hello Neighbors, I am glad to hear this fight for change continues.Aside From Mr.Jenkel who has been left standing in the ruins of his homeland, Not a peep or shrug from the principle parties, and I am not surprised given my perception of their intentions and character. It is good to know that we are all not so fat and happy,(complacent and apathetic) that nothing outside of ourselves matters. There are many small fires burning around these issues I want to assure you all. This will go viral in a big way in the next week,and I highly recommend a continued presence on Yelp.com to express your thoughts on habitat destruction for Humans for Mr. Hobbs LLC profit margin.Simply log onto Yelp go to Paul Hobbs winery and emote freely.They have no way to delete the input and his rating will directly be unfavorably impacted.It will open the issue even further and keep it alive.So you see you can do just a small part by speaking up, and typing a few of your own valuable thoughts on the place we love and call home.Never underestimate the power of a few directed well intentioned people.In my experience, when you are a witness to Injustice or Wrongdoing and are passionately moved yet sits quietly you get Cancer.This is no time in America to hold back good thought and action.Just one mans opinion.........greenbuddy

[b.w. rose]

Hats off to the folks at Hobbs winery for achieving the impossible: Making John Jenkel into a sympathetic character.

[inezalea]

.


Today I checked Yelp. Paul Hobbs Winery is down to a 2-star rating. It had 2 1/2 stars when I posted my comment several days ago.

Of the current 9 reviews, only 3 are positive; all the other reviews are recommending a boycott.

Here is a direct link to Hobbs Winery on Yelp, where your comment can help eliminate Paul Hobbs from the itineraries of this summer's Wine-Country visitors.

Perhaps wine-country tour companies should be made aware of our sentiments as well.


https://www.yelp.com/biz/paul-hobbs-winery-forestville

[Iolchan]

Dateline, June 14, 2011, WASHINGTON'S BLOG:


"Pentagon Papers Whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg Says That
the Government Has ORDERED the Media Not to Cover 9/11"

https://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011...er-daniel.html


To quote from WASHINGTON'S BLOG:


"What Does Ellsberg Say? "

"Ellsberg says that the government has ordered the media not to cover 9/11:
Ellsberg seemed hardly surprised that today's American mainstream broadcast media has so far failed to take [former FBI translator and 9/11 whistleblower Sibel] Edmonds up on her offer, despite the blockbuster nature of her allegations [which Ellsberg calls "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers"].

As Edmonds has also alluded, Ellsberg pointed to the New York Times, who "sat on the NSA spying story for over a year" when they "could have put it out before the 2004 election, which might have changed the outcome."

"There will be phone calls going out to the media saying 'don't even think of touching it, you will be prosecuted for violating national security,'" he told us.

"I am confident that there is conversation inside the Government as to 'How do we deal with Sibel?'" contends Ellsberg. "The first line of defense is to ensure that she doesn't get into the media. I think any outlet that thought of using her materials would go to to the government and they would be told 'don't touch this . . . .'" He [Ellsberg] supports a new 9/11 investigation.

He says that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers". (Here's some of what that whistleblower says.) He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11.

And he says that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that "very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been", that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of those in office, and that there's enough evidence to justify a new, "hard-hitting" investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath (see this and this)."

[end quote]
-------------------------------------------------------


We all know that our local daily, the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, known as the Times Light (as in Bud Light) by the smart alecs among us, and which has given local 9/11 dissident John Jenkel such “wonderful press,” is an affiliate of the New York Times.

Consider, also, this missive from WASHINGTON'S BLOG,
May 25, 2011:

https://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011...n-be-kept.html

One begins to wonder just how far-fetched the so-called “conspiracy theories” of Citizen John Jenkel really are…

- Mark Walter Evans

[foxrosie]

I just added my own review. Wanted to urge others to do the same. I know very little about the history John Jenkel's "antics", but the travesty of justice (money and power succeeding in taking land from the "little guy") and destruction of land/redwoods along a scenic corridor motivates me to join the boycott. It feels good to have "Yelp" as a way of expressing my opinion with some real impact. Hope you will all do the same!

[inezalea]

I would like to recommend " The Last Mountain" a documentary that opened in SF this week at the Embarcadero Cinema because it's brings up the same issue of big business's hold on politicians the freedom this allows them to engage in horrific practices to profit, in this case, from coal extraction in Appalachia.

It's a horrifying look at "mountaintop removal" in West Virginia by Massey Energy, the third largest US coal mining company -- its control of politicians, disregard for environmental laws virtually without consequence, and the devastation of small nearby coal mining communities beneath the mountain, from contamination, flooding, high incidents of death from cancer. The film Is also about a small coal mining community that has been fighting back with the help of robert kennedy Jr. against a Goliath that makes Paul Hobbes Winery seem like a tiny ant by comparison, although the issues are eerily the same.

https://www.movingpicturesnetwork.co...entary-review/

[KellytheSinger]

I have visited John Jenkle many times... He's a Good man. he's from a good California Family. that sent him to Stanford University. He's smart. He's a farmer type guy who works his ass off and loves his horses. Good rich people are rare nowadays.
He thinks lawyers are all snakes. and Hobbs lawyers are taking advantage of this. knowing John will not fiight them with lawyers.

God damn these winery bastards. John Jenkle gave them easment to get to their land on the condition that they not disturb these big old trees he loved on his property. Once they got what they wanted from him, they turn into assholes. that are now
blighting hiway 116 and imposing on all of us. Evil Winery. Hobbs is an evil winery. Please people help John. he's a loner, and his reasons for being so are manifesting in ways that will hurt all of us.
Who Im I? Im a Service Connected Disability retired Sonoma County systems support tech Service Connected Disabled United States Marine Corps veteran. Im a patriotic American. and what they have done to john Jenkle is being done to all of us.

[KellytheSinger]

I posted some tips on how you can easily help this and other worthy threads on WaccoBB.net get wider visibility here.

God Bless you Barry for stepping up on this one. This one is big, wrong and evil.

[Barry]

God Bless you Barry for stepping up on this one. This one is big, wrong and evil.

Did you click the share or like button?

[RicoBoccia]

I have visited John Jenkle many times... He's a Good man. he's from a good California Family. that sent him to Stanford University. He's smart. He's a farmer type guy who works his ass off and loves his horses. Good rich people are rare nowadays.
He thinks lawyers are all snakes. and Hobbs lawyers are taking advantage of this. knowing John will not fight them with lawyers.

I have mixed feelings. As a Sebastopol resident (and a Stanford man), I'd like to understand better what happened in court in Hobbs v. Jenkel and in the process of the forced sales of Jenkel's parcel(s). But as an attorney I'm put off by Jenkel's apparent knee-jerk dislike of lawyers. As others have said, he apparently screwed himself over in court and refused professional help that might have made a big difference. Regardless, if anyone can collect the relevant pleadings from the case (the complaint, any motions e.g. for summary judgment, whatever Jenkel may have filed, and any rulings issued by the court), whether from Jenkel or the courthouse (where they are pubic record and can be had for the cost of photocopying), I would be happy to read them and provide the evaluation of an experienced litigator. Private communication would be fine to coordinate this. Cheers, Rico

[Runningbare]

Whatever the merits of this case, I'd like to see this Stanford referencing go away. It is not a reference that attests to any ethical integrity or to any ability to think critically. This has been true from the founding. With the present excuses advanced by the university president and the academic senate and various faculty regarding the sanctity of tenure, it has reached a new low in ethical integrity and a new high in hypocrisy with its harboring of Condi RIce.

I've dealt with one honest lawyer in my life. That's it, though. The rest have been lower than a mafia guy I had to deal with decades ago. No regrets there.

Did you hear the one about why the school of piranha didn’t strip the flesh off a boatload of attorneys that tipped over into the water during an excursion? When asked why they hadn’t made lunch of them, one piranha responded, “Well, they’re lawyers. Professional courtesy, you know.”

/mhqc/ Stanford ’68 & 2000

Question for Rico,

How do lawyers justify an hourly rate 10 to 50 times what the rest of us non-professionals earn, not to mention the exorbitant percentage of settlements they take?

In "Long White Robe" Danny Sorentino sings:

Now I know I wasn't all that I could be
And at the gate, there will be a long line in front of me
And everyone is pushing forward
Don't wanna get stuck back with all the lawyers
When I go let me wear my long white robe

Now most people don't seem to be worried 'bout where they're bound
Everyone's thinking they're going up when they're going down
You ain't going to be playing no golden flute
You're going to be wearing that asbestos suit
When I go, wanna wear my long white robe

[RicoBoccia]

Question for Rico,

How do lawyers justify an hourly rate 10 to 50 times what the rest of us non-professionals earn, not to mention the exorbitant percentage of settlements they take?

This is a rat's nest of a discussion, but I'm dumb enough to jump in. The simplest answer is because people are willing to pay it; if they weren't, fees would go down, just like any other good or service in a market economy. (Why does the same bottle of lemonade cost twice as much at Pacific Market as at Andy's? Shop around!)

I have never heard of a fee arrangement where the lawyer gets a percentage of a settlement or judgment PLUS an hourly fee. It's more common to have a hybrid arrangement where the client pays an hourly fee that is capped at some total OR a percentage of the settlement or judgment, IF there is one. Many lawyers work for contingency fees ONLY, which means that if they lose, they get nothing, i.e. they take all the risk and eat all the expenses. (E.g. A one-day deposition, which is a short one, can cost a few hundred dollars for the reporter and her fees for transcripts, "computer time," etc.) For each "exorbitant percentage" that a contingency lawyer takes, he typically works on several cases where he not only gets no fee whatsoever, but has paid significant money out of pocket along the way.

But how did that lawyer get in that lucky position in the first place? Well, he went to law school and likely emerged deeply in debt after 3-4 years, easily $100,000 worth these days. Then he took the bar exam, which in California weeds out about half the hopefuls. (The passage rate in the most recent exam in February was 42.3% overall, 55% for first-time takers.) Wanna risk $100K in debt and end up with no license to practice? Join the fun!

Then there are these annoying little things called, in California, the Rules of Professional Responsibility, a.k.a. legal ethics, which are policed by the state bar and under which you can lose your license for any number of reasons. Have you ever forgotten to deposit a check or not balanced your check book for a month or two or made an arithmetic error when you did? Pity the lawyer that ever does anything like that with a client's money.

Also consider that the typical law firm has one support person per lawyer -- a receptionist, administrative assistants, law clerks, paralegals, a bookkeeper, a runner to file things at the courthouse, an IT person for chrissake. All these people have to get paid out of the hourly fee for the lawyer's time. Try paying those people with contingency fee promises.

Then there's the little matter of professional liability insurance, a.k.a. legal malpractice insurance. It ain't cheap. And be sure to pay the rent on your office, too, and the guy who comes to fix the photocopier seemingly every week.

Finally, you do all this for the privilege for helping a client get out of a jam he usually created for himself, and when you do your reward is to be the one person the client can complain to because his own screw-up cost him as much as it did. (Never mind that it was a lot less than it would have been without you. You're the face of his problem, so enjoy his "gratitude.")

All that said, a lot of lawyers are jerks or worse. But their fees are usually the least of it.

Hope this helps.
Rico

[podfish]

.. How do lawyers justify an hourly rate 10 to 50 times what the rest of us non-professionals earn, not to mention the exorbitant percentage of settlements they take?

I suspect the average person has little idea of the earnings of corporate executives and some business owners. When you make your living by serving the needs of at best a few dozen people, there's not a lot of revenue potential. Thus the disparity between rock-star and teacher earnings, for example. Lawyers and doctors seem to be the highest-paid professionals that most people encounter, and so they, along with afore-mentioned rockstars and sports figures, get the wrath. Oh yeah, politicians too - they make more than the average.
But the amount of wealth that sloshes around far from the eyes of the common ilk is staggering. Lawyers (and doctors, these days) are starting to get the same pressures from off-shore services (e.g. law clerks and radiologic technicians in Mumbai) as machinists and welders have been having - so don't worry. They'll be in the same slow boat soon.

[Geni Houston]

It continues to amaze me that our beloved West County community who preaches peace, love and progressiveness repeatedly assumes what other say to be the truth with very little additional information.

I am sure that some of you know facts, maybe someone even knows all the facts, but I am also quite sure that most responding here are deriving their information from this thread and a few articles.

I don't know all the facts and I am not defending Mr. Hobbs, but I do have personal knowledge that he tried to relocate some of the redwood trees - haven't seen that noted anywhere.

And, as much as I love the waccobb experience (it has done many great things for me) I question the ability to go "viral" with possible incomplete information. I also do not believe that Mr. Hobbs or Mr. Jenkle for that matter, are required to respond to anyone's accusations, except the authorities. A similar situation happened last year with a post that several people jumped on the tar-and-feather wagon and then it just petered out as there was nothing to back it up.

We have strong feelings about the destruction of trees and yet we have no qualms about the destruction of a man.