September 8, 2008 - 4:54pm | akwapsc

duh

although i didn't support Stephanie she is s good friend.

you are a meanspirited person to insist that she is a mutt and rapes things like bank account.

nice to see the whackjobs are out for the full moon.

bobbyt

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  August 28, 2008 - 11:43am | cantkeepquiet

You are SO misinformed

If you would like to go back to the blog about Larry Cotter's Letter to the Editor from the Juneau Empire where he supports Stephanie you will note that Bobby stated VERY CLEARLY "I'm supporting Cathy Munoz...."

But hey, if you've got nothing better to do than bash Bobby T. knock yourself out.

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  August 28, 2008 - 2:23pm | dkshoreline

Nope - you should keep quiet when you are WRONG

http://community.adn.com/adn/node/118227

It was in that thread, but the lack of decorum resulted in deleted posts.

It was later that Cathy Munoz declared.

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  August 28, 2008 - 1:54am | Gus_Davis

Unfortunately..

They will probably both be back. But for now she's a LOOSER like Bobby t.

Somehow I get the Idea he's got some political aspirations himself that will never amount to much.

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  August 28, 2008 - 2:04pm | Observermp

Gus

Please go on and share a little more of your personal understanding and experience of never amounting to much.

Forgive me, but it's pretty small minded to criticize others and offer nothing else. The least you do is share what you've amounted to so we can see what your baseline is.

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  August 28, 2008 - 9:40pm | Gus_Davis

Here's some..

Here's a Dockett report and a list of filings in Eugene Oregon Federal Court. As you can see SOA is the defendant.(imagine that!) This was a lot of work, too.

I was extremely reasonable at one point five years ago. I now hope that by continued contact with congress I and the courts I can save the Feds Billions with the 'Alaska Problem' and put a few more in Prison.

Just what needs to be done.

So there. I removed my name and put in Plaintiff Whistleblower where it was. Any more questions? Was that 'open and transparent?'

And if you have a Federal Court 'PACER' account you can find more Oregon District 04-6114 or 05-35694 in th Appeals. I think the writ was issued but I guess it's a sceret as to who else is under investigation.

Date Filed # Docket Text
04/15/2004 1 Application for Leave to Proceed IFP. Filed by Plaintiff Whistleblower. (ljb, ) (Entered: 04/16/2004)
04/15/2004 2 Complaint.Filed by Plaintiff Whistleblower. against State of
Alaska, Alaska Department of Administration, Alaska Department of Fish
and Game, Alaska Department of Law, Alaska Human Rights Commission,
Alaska State Troopers.(ljb, ) (Entered: 04/16/2004)
04/15/2004 3 Notice of Case Assignment: This case is assigned to Judge
Thomas M. Coffin. (ljb, ) (Entered: 04/16/2004)
04/29/2004 4 "Petition for Writ of Mandamus".Filed by Plaintiff Whistleblower. against all defendants.(ljb, ) (Entered: 04/29/2004)
05/11/2004 5 ORDER: Signed on 5/11/04 by Judge Thomas M. Coffin.
Granting Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Paupers 1. Amended
Complaint due 6/11/2004. (ljb, ) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
06/15/2004 6 "Petition for Writ of Mandamus".Filed by Plaintiff Whistleblower. against State of Alaska, Alaska Department of
Administration, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Alaska Department
of Law, Alaska Human Rights Commission.(ljb, ) (Entered: 06/15/2004)
07/28/2004 7 "Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus".Plaintiff Whistleblower. against State of Alaska, Alaska Department of
Administration, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Alaska Department
of Law, Alaska Human Rights Commission.(ljb, ) (Entered: 07/28/2004)
08/12/2004 8 Motion to Access Pacer Court Case Tracking Without Fees.
Filed by Plaintiff Whistleblower. (ljb, ) (Entered: 08/12/2004)
08/12/2004 9 Motion to Amend/Correct Prayer for Relief. Filed by Plaintiff Whistleblower. (ljb, ) (Entered: 08/12/2004)
08/16/2004 10 Motion for Injunction to Prevent Sale of Property. Filed
by Plaintiff Whistleblower. (ljb, ) (Entered: 08/17/2004)
10/15/2004 11 Findings & Recommendation & Order: Signed on 10/15/04 by
Judge Thomas M. Coffin. Ordered Motion 8 to Access Pacer Court Case
Tracking Without Fees is denied. Ordered Motion to Amend/Correct 9
Prayer for Relief is allowed. The Court finds that Plaintiff's Motion
for Injunction 10 to Prevent Sale of Property should be denied.
Objections to the Findings and Recommendation due by 10/25/2004.
Signed on 10/15/04 by Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (ljb, ) (Entered:
10/15/2004)
10/27/2004 12 Order referring Findings & Recommendation, 11, Motion8,
Motion to Amend/Correct9, Motion for Preliminary Injunction10 to Judge
Hogan for review. Ordered by Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (cw, ) (Entered:
10/27/2004)
10/27/2004 13 ORDER: Signed on 10/27/04 by Judge Michael R
Hogan.Adopting Findings and Recommendation 11. Denying Motion 8,
Granting Motion to Amend/Correct 9, Denying Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction 10). (ljb, ) (Entered: 10/27/2004)
03/29/2005 14 Order to Show Cause: Plaintiff ordered to Show Cause in
Writing by 4/18/2005 why this action should not be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to serve summons and complaint on all named
defendants. Signed on 3/29/05 by Judge Thomas M. Coffin. (ljb, )
(Entered: 03/29/2005)
04/11/2005 15 Motion for Statutory Injunction. Filed by Plaintiff Whistleblower. (ljb, ) (Entered: 04/11/2005)
04/26/2005 16 Findings & Recommendation: Motion15 for Statutory
Injunction should be denied. This action should be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to serve defendants. Objections to the Findings
and Recommendation due by 5/6/2005. Signed on 4/26/05 by Judge Thomas
M. Coffin. (ljb, ) (Entered: 04/26/2005)
05/03/2005 17 Motion for Extension of Time to Show Cause. Filed by
Plaintiff Whistleblower (ljb, ) (Entered: 05/03/2005)
05/03/2005 18 Objections to Findings & Recommendation, 16. Filed by
Plaintiff Whistleblower(ljb, ) (Entered: 05/03/2005)
05/05/2005 19 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (no original
signature) Filed by Plaintiff Whistleblower. (ljb, ) (Entered:
05/06/2005)
05/06/2005 20 Objection(s)to Denial of Statutory Injunction. Filed by Plaintiff Whistleblower.
(ljb, ) (Entered: 05/06/2005)
05/09/2005 21 Motion to Allow Exhibits. Filed by Plaintiff Whistleblower. Jr. (ljb, ) (Entered: 05/09/2005)
05/09/2005 22 Motion for Exparte Order. Filed by Plaintiff Whistleblower.Jr. (ljb, ) (Entered: 05/09/2005)

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  August 29, 2008 - 1:41am | Gus_Davis

Well Geez-

I made a complaint in Federal Court in Oregon that was immediately dismissed. There were underlying state laws and Federal violations including International Treaty Violations. After the first dismissal, ( who knew you can't sue a state in Federal Court?) I read the Magistrates info and proceded to have it back on his desk within 30 days. I was put on a federal docket against the SOA, which is something you just can't do.

I did it. Other than money I asked for investigation of criminal and administrative impropriety. As I moved up in the court , other things were happening, and went straight to the court as what I described as an "Ethics Crisis."

And most of the stuff (including VECO and Ted and Ben) now under investigation was eventually in my pleadings in the Ninth Circuit almost a year before any raids. I will re-file and there will be about ten more people under investigation.

Other than that my education is in zoology and Art, and I was most qualified for the job I was terminated from for whistleblowing in SOA.

You must be someone who took over a family business (probably an old wood boat) and never really had any challenges in your life, nor any want of post secondary education.

See we can both play project our assumptions. Am I correct about you?

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  August 29, 2008 - 5:30pm | Observermp

Gus

Honestly your two posts above are difficult to follow, but you appear sincere.

Your original post was personalized, shallow, and mean spirited.

Good luck catching the bad guys.

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  August 30, 2008 - 1:46pm | nscrabber

Details please

I'd be very interested in seeing what were the issues in these actions. I can't tell from what you have posted so far and came up empty handed when I tried to google on it.

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  August 31, 2008 - 12:09am | Kodiakman

Gus

In the 10th line of Gus's post he has reference to a "writ of Mandamus" on wikipedia it shows.
"A writ of mandamus or simply mandamus, which means "we command" in Latin, is the name of one of the prerogative writs in the common law, and is issued by a superior court (appellate court) to compel a lower court or a government officer to perform mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly.[1]

Mandamus is a judicial remedy which is in the form of an order from a superior court to any government, subordinate court, corporation or public authority to do or forbear from doing some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do or refrain from doing, as the case may be, and which is in the nature of public duty and in certain cases of a statutory duty.[2] It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision.

Mandamus may be a command to do something or not to do a particular thing. Mandamus is supplemented by legal rights. It must be a judicially enforceable and legally protected right before one suffering a grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when he is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something and abstains from doing it."

Not sure of this helps, but here you go.

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  September 2, 2008 - 1:47am | drdrmann

Jeff if you want to know more about a writ of Mandamus

Call my fathers house and ask for Taufen. Steph filed one with John Ashcroft in 2004, or was it 2005. All it is, is a command for a court to do it jobs and follow the law. Even uniformed commercial fishermen like me understand the writ.

How are your buddies Ted and Ben doing? Ready to serve the next term with them?

Stephanie is the last person we need in the AK Legislature. Remember Jay Hammond questioned how Ben Stevens could be a Lobbyist and a Legislator at the same time. She sure has hell can't do it with out a conflict of interest.

SD

login or register to post comments | flag this »