Progressive Government in Cambridge Takes Yet Another Step Backwards
Bob La Trémouille reports:
1. General Analysis.
2. Specific current issues.
A. Civil rights and the right of the handicapped, Kathy Podgers in context.
B. Environmentalism.
C. Election law.
D. Development issues.
3. Comparison to the Walsh law firm.
A. General.
B. The Boston Globe series and the Worcester bankruptcy records.
4. Summary.
5. Disclaimer.
1. General Analysis.
Samuel Seidel was elected to the Cambridge City Council on Tuesday.
This gives the really destructive fake progressive clique, the Cambridge pols, an outrageous 6 to 3 margin. The other 3 are most definitely not good guys. They just do not care and go along with the destructive group.
To give you a feel for just how destructive Seidel is, please look at the following analysis from this blog, http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2007_05_29_archive.html. In this report, Seidel brags about that he and the rest of the Cambridge pols have a secret definition of "environmentalism." The secret definition of "environmentalism" by the Cambridge pols is highly destructive of the environment.
2. Specific current issues.
A. Civil rights and the right of the handicapped, Kathy Podgers in context.
The sort of treatment Kathy Podgers got by people who almost certainly are owned by the Cambridge pols group is just one part of the tactics of the Cambridge pols.
Kathy Podgers has the nerve to expect the City of Cambridge to respect her Civil Rights as a Person With Disabilities under federal law.
The City of Cambridge contends that the City of Cambridge has its own civil rights laws. The City of Cambridge's law does not protect people like Kathy. The City of Cambridge says that their civil rights and disabilities laws are good enough. How dare anybody expect them to respect Federal civil rights and disabilities laws.
Strange, the Cambridge position sounds a lot like the Jim Crow south.
No wonder the friends of the Cambridge pols are running around making personal attacks against Kathy. There is nothing which offends these people more than somebody who meaningfully stands for causes they are lying about.
B. Environmentalism.
Environmentalism is just the most blatantly vile behavior of these people.
Civil rights is another area in which the Cambridge pols have contempt for decency. Their position has the stench of 50's Jim Crow: they have their civil rights laws; how dare anybody expect the Cambridge pols to obey Federal civil rights laws.
C. Election law.
When I first ran for Cambridge City Councilor four years ago, the Cambridge Election Commission tossed out 51 of 100 nominating signatures. 100 signatures is the maximum which can be submitted. 50 is the absolute minimum to get on the ballot.
The 51 were tossed out because the Cambridge Election Commission refuses to obey the 1998 Jack E. Robinson ballot law case. There is nothing complicated about it. The Cambridge Election Commission simply refuses to obey the 1998 Jack E. Robinson election law case. And the 1998 Jack E. Robinson election law case is very clearly controlling. BY VOTE OF AN ELECTION COMMISSION STACKED WITH LAWYERS WHO CLAIM TO BE PROGRESSIVE.
The most illuminating explanation I ever got for the trashing of those 51 signatures in spite of the very clearly applicable Jack E. Robinson ballot law case was "That is the way things are done in Cambridge."
"That is the way things are done in Cambridge" has the stench of 1950's Jim Crow.
"That is the way things are done in Cambridge" has a very clear stench of lawlessness for which many governments in this country have been roundly held in contempt.
"That is the way things are done in Cambridge" exactly fits the current Cambridge city government.
D. Development issues.
Development issues, of course, are a web of lies.
Reality is that the Cambridge pols are living a lie.
There is a very definite and very strong stench about Cambridge City Government.
3. Comparison to the Walsh law firm.
A. General.
The last time I smelled such a stench was when I tried to do legal business with Cambridge's Walsh law firm in the mid to late 80's.
Bill Walsh was, politically, a very good friend, a person whom I respected politically in spite of major political disagreement on one specific issue (in sharp contrast to the current situation), but the Walsh law office had that stench about it when I did legal business with it.
A number of members of that law office went to jail in the early 90's because of lack of respect for laws which people go to jail for violating.
B. The Boston Globe series and the Worcester bankruptcy records.
The Globe did a three part series on the Walsh law office as the case was unfolding. The Globe documented legally questionable maneuverings in specific, limited parts of the state in the first and third parts of the series (Friday and Sunday). They did an excellent job. They provided an incredible amount of detail.
The middle part expanded on the analysis of the problem by providing related instances in other parts of the state, not the massive detail, but very clear facts expanding the analysis.
The middle part was based on a bankruptcy filing in Worcester by a person who never lived more than two blocks or so from Porter Square in Cambridge.
I had been checking out Boston Land Court records concerning the Walsh matter and another person related to Walsh when I was led to the individual who filed this bankruptcy. When I realized he had filed in Worcester, all sorts of bells went off.
The bankruptcy petition said one thing originally. The bankruptcy petition was amended AFTER the Walsh indictment to add the things which were the middle report in the Boston Globe series.
The amendments related to the Walsh indictment. The amendments related to matters for which Walsh was indicted. The "failure" to include these items in the original filing combined with the addition after the indictment said to me that the filer considered the indictment directly related to the filer's "bankruptcy estate." The preceding sentence should be considered an understatement.
When I saw what was in in those amendments after the Walsh indictment, my response disrupted a very quiet courthouse.
4. Summary.
Mr. Seidel by his incredible position on the definition of environmentalism and by his Conservation Commission actions has gone on record as part of the current stench.
5. Disclaimer.
In no way should my current analysis be interpreted as saying that I have legal grounds to think there are valid grounds for anybody currently in Cambridge city government to go to jail.
The reality was that, when I was trying to do legal business with the Walsh law firm in the mid to late 1980's, I saw the same contempt for law and contempt for reality which I see in the current Cambridge city government.
In the Walsh law firm of the 80's as now, I did not see any reason why people should go to jail. In the Walsh law firm of the 80's as now, I just saw contempt for law and for reality.
I see contempt for law and for reality in Cambridge city government now. I saw contempt for law and for reality in the Walsh law firm in the 80's.
The current problem is most definitely much larger than one person added to the Cambridge City Council. The current problem is most definitely much larger than six people plus three on the Cambridge City Council.
The current problem is a package which stinks to high heaven and there are a very large number of people involved.
