Comments on: California Documentary Filmmaker Faces Censorship Challange from California Coastal Commission

By: Brian Ginna

Brian Ginna — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:04:41 +0000

Mr. Drouillard,

Get ahold of yourself. The self-important, “I know what the people of California want” act is very tiresome.

Then face it - you have no grasp of the facts (speaking of delusional - you are even arguing with Dan over facts in Dan’s case) and, as a result, your opinion has no discernable foundation. You keep pointing back to a Coastal Act that everyone here believes in. Just that most of us believe that the people who are carrying it out are doing it by resorting to illegal methods (which you deny, even though you have no proof) and attacking families, not the big, bad “evil developers” that the CCC, Sierra Club, et al would have us believe are the problem.

You are left with empty, baseless rhetoric - not a good place to be. Maybe you can rise above that and be the “big” person you think you are. Can you?

By: Francis Drouillard

Francis Drouillard — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:45:10 +0000

TruthTeller — You’re delusional, but it’s what I’d expect from coward that posts anonymously so he or she can make outrageous assertions about those with whom they disagree. Very small of you.

By: TruthTeller

TruthTeller — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:54:48 +0000

Ah. Now it makes sense. Looking back I see. Mr. Drouillard works at the Commission. Enough said. Since Peter Douglas hangs himself every time he opens his mouth, he’s assigned people like Mr. Drouillard to evangelize the message and defend their paganistic doctrine of “community rights” over “individual rights.”

It figures. Just as I said… all roads lead back to Douglas. I’d love to hear ANYONE defend the idea of an unelected position being held by the same individual for more than a generation. Douglas is mad with power. And bad science.

By: TruthTeller

TruthTeller — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:51:48 +0000

Mr. Douillard. You’re being intellectually dishonest on two accounts. 1. You refuse to address the issue of whether the CCC engages in immoral behavior. You insist on sticking only with the legalities. The “mob” can make legal or illegal anything it wants. That doesn’t make it right. Under the United States Constitution human beings have rights. Nature does not. Nature has whatever rights we grant it, all of which are strictly SECONDARY to the rights of human beings. The earth belongs to humanity. Humanity does not belong to the earth. We are not a pagan society. We are a society of liberty and laws. Read your United States Constitution. Your love of using other people’s property does not justify anything. 2. The subpoena is patently illegal. Educate yourself on the rights of artists, journalists and other filmmakers. It takes unfathomable hubris for a state agency to demand to see a movie made specifically about them. Even a lawsuit doesn’t justify this. Would you have approved the Bush Administration issuing Michael Moore a subpoena to show them a rough cut of “Fahrenheit 9/11″? I think not. The fact that thousands of average Californians live in fear of the Coastal Commission should trouble you. But it doesn’t. And that troubles me. No citizen of this country should live in fear of a government agency. If land use planning were turned back over to the people who live on the coast, to their communities… what harm would that do? Do you think people who live on the coast really want to destroy the environment that lured them there? Then what do you fear? And answer this… are you on someone’s payroll?

By: Francis Drouillard

Francis Drouillard — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:49:38 +0000

Benjamin Wood — Yes, depositions are used to obtain testimony and evidence. Subpoenas are used to compel individuals to appear at depositions to provide testimony or evidence or both. Hope that clears things up. The point is, they aren’t used to “silence” someone. Quite the opposite, really.

By: Benjamin Wood

Benjamin Wood — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 04:36:52 +0000

Obtaining evidence? Isn’t that depositions are for? It is the CCC clouding the issue. Its so simple from where I sit - the commission wants the film and they are using “evidence” as a buzz-word for the judge. That is what the commission does it “takes” things . I am astounded they convinced a judge in the film trailer to issue a search warrant to prohibit video taping on private property a clear violation of civil rights and - in clear violation of the US constitution. Did you notice the ass’t AG had a slip of tongue and told the truth it right before she covered it up- How the commission got away with that is just as scary. The judge should be disbarred. Where is the attorney general when the people need him?

By: Francis Drouillard

Francis Drouillard — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:28:03 +0000

TruthTeller — You sound like “anonymous” who posts at my blog. You’re just as shrill a coward here as you are there. And so incapable of staying on topic or making a cogent argument. It just goes to show that ignorance breeds frustration. Geez.

It also seems that you and the defenders of Mr. Oshen’s spin machine are the ones obfuscating. The facts are simple. The subpoena was issued to obtain evidence Mr. Oshen provided to plaintiffs in a suit brought against the California Coastal Commission. If you want the truth to come out in the trial, then the Commission needs an opportunity to see the evidence against them. Do you fear the truth?

Justice defender — Is it a habit of yours to make unsubstantiated claims?

By: Justice defender

Justice defender — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:35:28 +0000

FRANCIS DROUILLARD WORKS AT THE COMMISSION

By: TruthTeller

TruthTeller — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 02:45:38 +0000

Mr. Drouillard - let’s help everyone here know just who you are. You’re a shill for the Coastal Commission, quite likely on some affiliated group’s payroll, who seems to have endless time to spend surfing the internet for any discussion or forum where the Coastal Commission could be attacked and, like a good Aparatchik, you jump in there to make sure the party line is represented. This is how Eastern European propaganda machines work. Congrats. As for the Coastal Act being “not that difficult,” you can stop with the obfuscation. The question isn’t whether it’s difficult or not. It’s whether it’s moral or not. Whether it’s right or not. Whether it’s legal or not, Constitutional or not. You could just as easily tell women in Saudi Arabia, “Obeying the modesty law isn’t that difficult,” but that overlooks the fact that it’s wrong. What’s not difficult is the word “PROPERTY.” You either own it or you don’t. ESHA is ridiculous. There should be no such thing. And you know it. It’s just an excuse to tell people that what they own they really don’t own because it’s just too “environmentally sensitive.” It’s a back door to eradicate property rights. Peter Douglas’ staff is on public record questioning how they can backdoor the 5th Amendment’s takings clause. This is public record. It’s a disgrace. Imagine someone going on record about how to circumvent “free speech” or “freedom of religion.” That you defend this is indicative of a fanatical mindset. To suggest in such a condescending way that it’s just about learning how to obey the Coastal Act essentially suggests that it’s all the fault of these stupid, disobedient people who choose to live in the Coastal Zone without appreciating that they have highest values to answer to. This is from a San Diego CityBeat article of some years ago:

“Socialist is not a nasty word in my dictionary,” he said. “We have governed in this country from fear for so long that words like ‘liberal,’ ‘socialist’ or ‘community interest’ have been made into derogatory terms, when in fact the community interest is what really started this country.”

This is the man you defend. You must love using other people’s property.

By: admin

admin — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 04:36:51 +0000

Hello folks Richard here…

Thank you all very much for your thoughts.

It is vitally important everyone feels safe to express themselves and respects everyone else.

My intention with this space is for people to dialog freely, openly and from the heart. One thing is very clear, we all love California.

Let that be the guiding spirit of every post. I often count to one hundred before hitting “send”. Sometimes I count to three hundred or more - I know you know what I mean.

If it gets to vitriolic here I would have to consider disabling the blog post feature. I really don’t want to because I know no other space to bring together different minds on this subject on an informal basis. .. but let it be free of rancor.

I believe all Americans can reason together. We may not agree but understanding is key to healing and growing beyond.

Good night.

Richard