He would also have you believe that my wife & I are in violation of the Coastal Act.

He would further have you believe that I would go so far as to distort sworn testimony, testimony that is readily available to him, readily available to all of you, in the public record.

But, please, let’s try to gain a clear perspective here: when we performed a Public Records Act request on the Coastal Commission’s Ventura office, we were informed that we could pay the CCC 27 cents per page to copy the documents we sought. Even public records, it seems, carry a price.

At an estimated 16,000 pages, we decided to use a professional copy service, one that charged us only 20 cents per page.

And what did we get from our loyal public servants in Ventura? Among the many redundant copies of what we did ask for, we received, at a copying cost to ourselves of nearly $600 extra, not one, but SEVEN copies of a comatose young woman’s medical records.

Legally protected medical records, nearly 3000 pages of them.

And, because the purpose of the PRA request was to research (read!) the documents, I now know the frequency, the consistency and the intensity of every bodily function that this poor comatose soul experienced over an extended period of time, and a haunting knowledge it is.

I know her name. I know her husband’s name. I know their attorney’s name.

And I know, from the clear warning on the cover page, that California law makes it not only highly illegal to provide me these copies (never mind being forced to pay for them), but highly illegal for the Ventura CCC staff to have them in their possession in the first place.

So.

The Attorney General’s office is defending this same Ventura CCC staff in our suit against them, and we, the public, get to foot that bill. Why? If this were a case of police corruption or brutality, they would at the very least be suspended from duty pending a thorough investigation, possibly without pay. Have these people been suspended?

No. They are still there, writing staff reports, which will be used by people like Mr. Drouillard as though they were credible evidence; he stoops to conquer.

If I’ve offered anything, Mr. Drouillard, it’s the opportunity to drop your ideological rhetoric and bring sworn testimony to bear in your diatribe, for example, the sworn testimony of the CCC’s Patrick Veesart and Tom Sinclair. Is that so inconvenient a truth, Mr. Drouillard? To say it plainly, sir, put up or shut up.

As for learning lessons the hard way, Mr. Drouillard, the only thing we’re anxious to do is to force the Coastal Commission and its staff to comply with the laws of the land, ALL OF THEM, and cease their brutal racketeering ways.

As President Jefferson stated, when faced with the peril of the pirates of Tripoli:

“Millions in defense; not a PENNY in tribute.”

We couldn’t agree more.

No matter what you say about me, your friend Richard Oshen or the Coastal Commission, you remain in violation of the Coastal Act. What’s sad is that you’re so anxious to learn that lesson the hard way.

SWORN testimony, Mr.Drouillard, by those neighbors you mention, and by Coastal staff, all confessing to criminal activity against us and our property.

Mr. Drouillard, I’ve observed your harpings on my friend, Richard Oshen, and his film, Sins of Commission, for many months now, both at the HMB Review, here, and elsewhere. The only ‘proof’ you have yet offered for your accusations comes directly from the CCC staff reports, an extremely subjective perspective at best, and certainly laughable when pitted against the actual sworn testimony of the perpetrators of said reports.

If you’d care to put your money where your mouth is, so to speak, then why don’t you purchase copies of our court papers and bring an objective perspective to your rants? Unless and until you do, yours can only be considered the ravings of an agent provocateur and Coastal Commission propagandist.

A toady, Mr. Drouillard. A shill. Shame on you, and upon those criminals you serve.

Mr. Ginna’s problem is that he needs people to stay ignorant of the relevant facts, and prefers to attack those that offer them. It’s a tactic he uses repeatedly here and elsewhere. Follow any thread at the HMBreview.com and observe how fast the discussion enters the toilet as soon as he starts participating.

The Coastal Commission is not solely responsible for California wildfires. Kathleen Kenney was not “shaken” down by the Coastal Commission, nor did she win a RICO suit against them as Mr. Oshen would have you believe. Trish and Milos Doudas tried to overdevelop their property and fill a blue-line stream, and refused to implement any of the changes suggested by commission staff that would have made their project consistent with the Coastal Act. Peg Gilder and Dan Norris performed extensive grading and vegetation removal without permits. (As a civil engineer, I can state with certainty that that is a very bad idea in a mountainous region.) They performed the work over a holiday weekend and were busted by their neighbors. Presented with clear photographic evidence of violations, the Commission had to act. Peg and Dan initially agreed to correct the violations, but then changed their minds. Commission staff initially agreed to Peg and Dan videotaping the site inspection (guess who did the videotaping), provided that the Commission also be allowed to videotape the inspection. Peg and Dan refused. Why? They won’t say. Now Peg and Dan are suing the Commission, essentially claiming the Coastal Act does not apply to them. The Coastal Commission asked for a copy of the tape as part of their defense. It has nothing to do with “silencing” Mr. Oshen. Quite the opposite, really.

Care to refute any of those facts, Mr. Ginna? I suspect not, and anticipate further criticism of me instead. That, or another flurry of irrelevant facts. That seems to be the tactic of knee-jerk anti-environmentalists like you and others that champion misinformation campaigns.

Why does he persist in lying?