FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASESaturday, April 23, 2012
Candidacy of Richard Warne to become Twentynine Palms City Manager
Civil liberties activists Fritz Koenig
TWENTYNINE PALMS, CA — Civil liberties activist Fritz Koenig, who coordinated the local 2008 Civil Marriage for All rallies in opposition to anti-gay Proposition 8, has issued the following statement about the candidacy of Richard Warne to become Twentynine Palms City Manager.
“Richard Warne contributed $1,000 to deny civil rights as recognized by existing laws which affirmed the right of benefits and responsibilities of civil marriage for all to include same sex couples. His candidacy to become the new City Manager of Twentynine Palms, CA challenges the city’s efforts as a promoter and protector of American values.
At the Twentynine Palms City Council meeting Tuesday, April 26, beginning at 6 p.m. at City Hall, 6136 Adobe Road, Councilmembers, staff, and citizens can renounce theocra-fascism and explain how they intend to protect minority civil rights from the instincts of a manager who needlessly helped inflict damage upon 100,000′s of California citizens, and has yet to show redemption as a credential in his resume.”
I find it funny how many people that scream about “civil rights” never seem to care about the unborns “right” to pursue life.
Disclaimer: I make no inference about Mr. Koenig’s stance on the right to life of the unborn, one way or the other, as I do not know it.
Vae. Branson has already posted up your hit piece! It’s obvious who you are and what you are trying to accomplish thru your veiled facade of a malicious thug like attacks on Richard Warne. Where was your outcry when gay activist physically attacked peaceful supporters and religious institutions that were in favor of the majority of Californians view on prop 8? Your post is redundant! Your side lost on the ballot.
Woe unto the conquered ones. Vae Victis! Your like a dog that returns to devour his vomit.
ABOUT RICHARD WARNE – candidate for Twentynine Palms City Manager
Those wishing to discuss candidate Warne’s potential performance as city manager may read many historical records such as the Federal Case of Creighton v. City of Livingston, Dist. Court, ED California 2009. An excerpt follows. Caution: as has been noted by both the far right and far left wings of our nation’s political and social body politic, court opinions can be absolutely and totally wrong. In part, this is so because laws and courts are not created to find truth, but merely document the thoughts and collective will of a specific group of people at a specific time and place. Once outside that highly insulated context, court opinions should always be augmented with additional available information and critical review. In common language, Judges and Justices are often “full of it”, such as was local Judge J. David Mazurek’s Fatal Judgement that enabled the sociopathic Stephen Garcia to murder his 9 month old baby boy. All court rulings, judges, and yes, candidates for Twentynine Palms City Manager can only be understood and valued after First Amendment protected response and critical review widely published by Press, Pamphlet, or a single person at the soapbox in front of courthouses, and city council podiums.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=670963640175551765&q=Creighton+v.+City+of+Livingston+(2009&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_vis=1
ABOUT RICHARD WARNE
Creighton v. City of Livingston, Dist. Court, ED California 2009
Plaintiff continued to request that Warne submit the study for approval due to the public health and safety risks. (Compl. ¶ 18.) Warne continued to refuse, telling Creighton that the study would not be submitted until local elections occurred and that he should not concern himself with the study. (Id.) In May 2008, which is peak water season, the polluted water well again tested positive for Coliform bacteria. (Comp. ¶ 19.) Plaintiff informed Warne about the positive test results, telling him about the potential need for a well shut-down and the associated health risks. (Compl. ¶ 20.) Plaintiff believed serious health problems would result if the polluted well was shut down without first adding a new well. (Compl. ¶ 19.) Warne became angry and warned Plaintiff to keep quiet about the situation. (Compl. ¶ 20.) Plaintiff contends that Warne again refused to submit the water rate study until after local elections despite knowing about the polluted well. (Compl. ¶ 18.) Plaintiff was unable to shut down the well because it was now peak water season. (Compl. ¶ 19.)
Plaintiff believed that Warne “was ignoring, and exacerbating, a serious potential health hazard.” (Compl. ¶ 21.) Acting on this belief, Plaintiff raised the issues of the polluted well problem, the health risks it posed, and Warne’s plan to delay submission of the water rate study with the City’s Mayor Pro Tem and Councilmember William Ingram and Councilmember Rodrigo Espinoza. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that these discussions “occurred at non-Livingston owned property, during off-duty time and were not part of [Plaintiff's] Public Works Director duties.” (Id.) Plaintiff also alleges that Warne learned of these discussions, summoned Plaintiff to his office without prior notice, and fired Plaintiff without any explanation. (Compl. ¶ 23.) When Plaintiff asked for a reason, Warne said he was “taking the City in a different direction.” (Id.)
RE: The Creighton Case. A “Stipulation for Dismissal and Order” was prepared by Mr. Creighton’s OWN LAWYER in early March, 2010
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/caedce/1:2008cv01507/182544/39/0.pdf
The last post was particularly vile, representing those who only want civil rights for “a chosen few”.
The vote for Prop 8 was 50 / 50, heavily influenced by outsiders (LDS) and religious organizations.
Mr. Warne is a member of that outside group that attempts to influence public institutions in this state.
So apparently only when bringing people in from the outside benefits your side it’s OK.
It isn’t like LDS bused people in to vote. The left is better at that anyway.
The Vote was 50/50, apparently not must have been more votes on yes side for the prop to pass.
Mr. Warne is a member of an outside group, listen to the pot calling the kettle black.
Sad for California: Well let me start of by calling you a liar. It was not 50/50 it was 52/48. Your second lie is that Mr Warne is a member of an outside group, fact is he is part of the majority. Also insinuating that the majority of voters,52 PERCENT are guilty theocra-fascism is vile on your part. Just because someone doesn’t agree does not give them the right to castigate them in this demeaning manner. But if the only way you can present your argument is to demean your opponent by slanderous comments and not logic then your argument must have no substance to begin with.
Vae Victis, Woe to the Conquered ones! Slang = losers!
If you think my post was vile……….. ………. ………. ………… …………. …………. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……… ……. ……..
I’m on the Right Track Baby And I Was Born This Way!
Hear, hear… huzzah, huzzah
Besides the guy is only an over-paid city manager, not a representative, senator, congressman, governor or president.
He can’t make any laws that affect lovers of any gender from doing anything.
Concilium Plebis: Where is your tolerance? Where is the mounting opposition? Got an army in your pocket?
In this day and time it is bizarre that the government is even in the marriage business, I would think it should be ones church not some government regulation or social engineering tax codes to determine ones status. People we need to get the government out of our bedrooms. I have to wonder about those that look to the government to control their neighbor’s personal life, it just seems un-American.
“I have to wonder about those that look to the government to control their neighbor’s personal life, it just seems un-American.”
And the left/democrats have been controlling more and more of our personal life day by day,via ordinance,law,regulation and tax.
It’s all fine until someone questions one of their pet issues, then all of a sudden we are told and scolded by the most intolerant we should be tolerant.
August 1790 – George Washington: “The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent national gifts. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”
August 1790 – Martha Washington: “Shut up George and eat your pudding.”
If opposition is mounting at the Council Meeting I’m bringing Video Equipment. We’re going to Youtube this!!!
If this is captured on video during the council meeting Tuesday with a large and raunchy crowd speaking on the town’s disregard for a minority group and put on Youtube, the world could be looking at 29 palms politics through a tainted lens. It may be very terrible public relations.
I recall Mayor Jim Harris saying many times during his election campaign ending five months ago, “I’m going to represent all the people.” How about that Mayor Harris: Do you still represent “all the people“, or exclude a minority group’s fundamental concerns in the community by hiring a city manager who undermines upstanding residents in our community?
Is this the same Fritz Koenig that was harassing his neighbors and their children like some stalker? Staring at them, following them to church, video taping them, taunting them. I’m going for the long shot. Probably is, same type of behavior as the Fritz I read about witness intimidation, restraining order etc. I don’t know but maybe it is. Does Hoot Owl Trail ring a bell? Sounds like it could be.
Here is an interesting account. I’ll call it the twisted tail of Fritz.
http://www.fearnotlaw.com/articles/article40203.html
Regarding the The Link that was attached to the foregoing comment:
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Well I’m not sure if it’s the same guy but it’s kind of like wikileaks. That was even classified information. Once it is out in the public domain the info is not protected anymore.
If it was the same guy then this is a very disturbing report regarding Fritz Koenig. The Fritz I’m familiar with on this site had the same predilection for religious bigotry expressed by the report.
Here is something he said referring to himself on Cactus Thorns.
“I associated Catholic rectories, cub scout campgrounds and family rooms with child molestations.”
This seems similar to the complaints raised in the linked report.
{Begin Quote}
Rule 8.1115. Citation of opinions
(a) Unpublished opinion
Except as provided in (b), an opinion of a California Court of Appeal or superior court appellate division that is not certified for publication or ordered published must not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action.
(b) Exceptions
An unpublished opinion may be cited or relied on:
(1)When the opinion is relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or
(2)When the opinion is relevant to a criminal or disciplinary action because it states reasons for a decision affecting the same defendant or respondent in another such action.
{End Quote}
Source
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules/index.cfm?title=eight&linkid=rule8_1115
Now..I’m no lawyer, but it seems to me that in “legaleese”, the term “unpublished” or “not to be published” means the ruling in an “unpublished case” is specific to THAT case and that case alone. In other words, it cannot be cited as back up for a legal argument in similar cases in other jurisdictions.
It doesn’t mean the case can’t be in the “public domain”. It just means other lawyers in other cases can’t use it to justify a particular position or legal arguement.
It does not mean “unpublished” or “not to be published” in the LITERARY sense of being put in writing as part of a permanent record.
So you can read it, even “publish” it in a blog or Research Paper (with proper citations) you just can’t use it to back up a “legal arguement” in another Court Case…except for those “exceptions” as listed in “The Rule”.