TCA's Complaint "Completely Without Merit"

Blogs

« Picture Your Favorite Park. Now Picture It Gone. | Main | Why Won't the Times Print Obscene Jokes About Blacks? »

Posted by Alex Brant-Zawadzki in 241 Toll Road

February 1, 2008 10:08 PM

Permalink | Comments (1)

Earlier this week the Transportation Corridor Agencies filed a complaint against Smart Mobility, preparers of planning studies for opponents of the TCA's Foothill-South (241) toll road extension. The complaint alleged that Smart Mobility's engineers, who are unlicensed in California, "are violating California law by practicing civil and traffic engineering without legal authorization." It seems the agencies don't like the Vermont-based firm firing spitwads at the TCA's toll road from the far side of the country.

When we last reported on this, the TCA was described as "playing a bit dirty and grasping at straws", and even "the pot calling the kettle black." TCA even undermined its own argument when a spokesperson claimed the study contained no engineering whatsoever. But what say Smart Mobility? And where?

Here what say Smart Mobility! Lucy Gibson, a principal at the group, says the complaint is "completely without merit," using law which sounds relevant but does not in fact apply to the task her group performed. Gibson describes their reports as "planning studies. We did not sign and certify the documents," says Gibson, "which is what you need a license for. What we’ve done does not require us to be licensed engineers in California."

This is strange. After all, why would the TCA file a meritless complaint? And why not take legal action? According to Gibson, "It seems like they are trying to silence us - sort of a 'kill the messenger' situation." But why would they do a thing like that? Perhaps because Smart Mobility prepared a report for the Save San Onofre group which, in Gibson's words, "demonstrated that there were alternatives more effective than the toll road."

And the twisted legal wranglings of the toll road agency actually start to make sense! Had the TCA taken legal action against Smart Mobility to slap the group for criticizing the efforts to extend the 241 toll road, the case sounds like classic SLAPP material - a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. You may remember how Dr. Fitzgibbons prevailed over the wicked Integrated Healthcare Holdings in a like manner - his case is already being taught in law schools as an example of this. If the TCA's claims are meritless as Gibson alleges, their case would fall victim to an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike, revealing the agencies' efforts to be little more than an attempt to stifle the Constitutional rights of those at Smart Mobility to speak out on an issue of public concern. Maybe those TCA lawyers aren't as unforgivably thoughtless and stupid as everything they've ever done would lead any reasonably decent person to believe.

Sorry. Sometimes I black out and when I come to there's legal crap on the screen. Long story short, Smart Mobility says the TCA is full of crap. End of story.

Comments (1)

Debby Bodkin says:
February 2, 2008 18:47

SOON TO BE FAXED:

February 2, 2008
Via Facsimile

California Coastal Commission
Chairman Patrick Kruer
45 Fremont Street, Ste. 2000
San Francisco, CA 94105
Fax: (415) 904-5400

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Fax: (916) 445-4633

Senator Dianne Feinstein
750 B Street, Suite 1030
San Diego, CA 92101
Fax: (202) 228-3954

Re: TCA/California Coastal Commission Hearing
February 6, 2008

Dear Chairman Kruer, Governor Schwarzenegger and Sentator Feinstein:

This statement is submitted by Debby and Mike Bodkin, residents of Orange County, California, with intent that it is incorporated into the formal public record scheduled for February 6, 2008, in Del Mar, California, regarding the above matter. Documentation to support this statement is available for review, upon request.

Based on personal, business, judicial and family experiences since our public support of clergy sex abuse victims, their families and those who protect them as mandated reporters since the eruption of the clergy sex abuse crisis in 2002, our lives have been turned upside down. It is our belief that individuals speaking in opposition to the TCA expansion efforts on February 6, 2008, will soon be targets of political adversaries and have the right to be fully informed of potential conflicts of interest within TCA.

We continue to believe that the TCA has the ability to retaliate on behalf of itself or any of its private/public investment partners, against anyone who exercises freedoms of speech, press or opinion that is not in accordance with TCA’s financial development plan. In fact, the TCA entered a fraudulent judgment against us in March 2005, in the amount of $24,000, without due process in a court of law, based on fraudulent representations. Our efforts to reclaim our guaranteed day in court have been denied by TCA’s attorneys to date, despite the fact that the TCA never issued a citation pursuant to 23302(b) VC, when the toll charges were cleared in January 2004.

The TCA is a powerful political machine possessing undisclosed conflicts of interest. The TCA’s political influence in California should not compromise the rights of citizens to participate in matters of interest in accordance with federal and state anti-SLAPP statutes. Please review the potential conflict of interest concerns included herewith.

History has revealed that political influences and conflicts of interest, similar to the TCA’s fine-tuned business plan, have enabled sex crimes to continue against innocent children, committed by employees of religious institutions, based on freedom of religion privilege. The TCA claims government agency status to enter hundreds of thousands of dollars in civil judgments against unsuspecting individuals, without due process in a court of law.

It is imperative that the individuals speaking in opposition to the TCA’s expansion efforts on February 6, 2008, have full knowledge that the TCA is not solely operated as a government agency, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the land. Without this information, many adversaries of the TCA’s expansion may face the same type of “coincidental” and life-changing acts of retaliations, similar to those committed against us and our children since 2002.

The “Potential Conflicts” information is provided for your reference. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Debby Bodkin
Michael R. Bodkin
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
bodkind@hotmail.com

cc: letters@ocweekly.com; letters@latimes.com; letters@ocregister.com;letters@uniontrib.com; sunpostnews@ocregister.com; letters@nctimes.com

******************************
POTENTIAL CONFLICTS

1. According to the TCA’s public website, the 241 is part of Southern California's regional transportation plans. It has been on the books since 1981 and is one of the most precisely planned roads in history. The route was unanimously selected by a group of agencies that included the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Caltrans (http://www.thetollroads.com/home/home.htm)).

2. The website represents the TCA possesses “successful public/private partnerships.” However, the website does not disclose the names of the public and private partnerships and whether mandated conflict of interest statutes are strictly enforced. Who provides the funding for TCA’s years of transportation development -- the government, public/ private investors and/or all of the above? Does the public have the right to know the names of TCA’s public, government and private partners?

3. The TCA operates as a government agency. Based on this authority, the TCA has the ability to enter civil judgments against individuals pursuant to 23302(b)VC, for evading electronic toll charge, without guaranteed due process the a court of law. In sum, whether the toll charges are legitimate, fraudulent, in error or a piece of a political machine used for retaliation against adversaries, we will never know. How can the TCA represent itself as a government agency, enforce civil judgments for evading toll charges, without issuing citations or allowing an accused his/her day in court?

4. Elected public officials, law enforcement officials and agencies, public school districts, developers, corporate and religious leaders may be one of the success private partners of the TCA. Unfortunately, the TCA shares the same attorneys and law firms that also represent the private/public partners of the TCA. For many years, appearances of bias and conflicts of interest have continued in the courts, without resources for corrective or government intervention, in the event of wrongdoing and/or abuses of public officials and authority. Who is monitoring the TCA’ business, employment, legal and investment policies and practices for legality purposes?

OC Weekly Insiders

Local food, music and news blasts
Free Stuff

Free Classifieds Los Angeles, CA

Personal of the Day

More Personals >>