Bob La Trémouille reports.
I have posted on YouTube my slightly over five minute analysis of how and why the Cambridge City Manager should be fired for his treatment of Malvina Monteiro. This firing could go a long way toward reversing the environmental destruction and heartless animal abuse on the Charles River.
Please see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeGQtlFSg7k.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Monday, August 23, 2010
Monteiro update — Action in Appeals Court and Supreme Judicial Court, Direct Appeal Requested.
1. General.
2. Appeals Court.
3. Supreme Judicial Court.
Bob La Trémouille reports.
1. General.
I have kept people up to date on the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge. The best details can be found at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.
Succinctly, the City of Cambridge is now facing a judgment slightly in excess of $6 million because judge and jury have found that Cambridge destroyed the life of a black woman department head in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.
The judge’s key opinion is very notable for its use of the word “reprehensible” with regard to the City of Cambridge.
On July 16, Cambridge filed appeal in the Appeals Court. That created a time limit of August 25, 2010 for Cambridge to file its appellate brief explaining why it is appealing.
The case number in Appeals Court is 2010-P-1240.
There has been action in Appeals Court and in the Supreme Judicial Court.
2. Appeals Court.
On August 18, 2010, Cambridge filed a motion that it be allowed to file a principal brief in excess of 50 pages.
That should stay the August 25, 2010 due date for their brief.
3. Supreme Judicial Court.
On August 5, 2010, Cambridge filed an application for Direct Appellate Review with the Supreme Judicial Court.
On August 16, 2010, Ms. Monteiro filed an “OPPOSITION (LIMITED) to DAR application.”
I do not have access to more than the names of the papers.
The case number is DAR-19067.
A filing of this sort by the appealing party (Cambridge) normally would be based on a contention that the case is going to wind up in the SJC anyway, so why waste time at the Appeals Court.
It is interesting that Ms. Monteiro filed a “limited” opposition. My guess as to what that means comes from whole cloth.
If Monteiro’s lawyers think that the case is going to wind up in the SJC no matter, that language would mean that Ms. Monteiro, in order to get her position into the court, has to file a paper called an “opposition,” and that the “limited” nature of the “opposition” probably comes from a situation in which Ms. Monteiro really agrees with Direct Appellate Review, and the paper is filed because there is something that Ms. Monteiro wants to put on record.
Clearly, if the case WILL wind up in front of the SJC, it is to both parties’ benefit to skip the Appeals Court.
However, I am not at all certain that it would be responsible for the City to file yet another appeal. I have real questions as to whether the Appeals Court appeal has value. Under this analysis, it could be the position of Ms. Monteiro that the City of Cambridge is going to chase a silly appeal to the SJC.
We will see. We will see.
2. Appeals Court.
3. Supreme Judicial Court.
Bob La Trémouille reports.
1. General.
I have kept people up to date on the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge. The best details can be found at http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html.
Succinctly, the City of Cambridge is now facing a judgment slightly in excess of $6 million because judge and jury have found that Cambridge destroyed the life of a black woman department head in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.
The judge’s key opinion is very notable for its use of the word “reprehensible” with regard to the City of Cambridge.
On July 16, Cambridge filed appeal in the Appeals Court. That created a time limit of August 25, 2010 for Cambridge to file its appellate brief explaining why it is appealing.
The case number in Appeals Court is 2010-P-1240.
There has been action in Appeals Court and in the Supreme Judicial Court.
2. Appeals Court.
On August 18, 2010, Cambridge filed a motion that it be allowed to file a principal brief in excess of 50 pages.
That should stay the August 25, 2010 due date for their brief.
3. Supreme Judicial Court.
On August 5, 2010, Cambridge filed an application for Direct Appellate Review with the Supreme Judicial Court.
On August 16, 2010, Ms. Monteiro filed an “OPPOSITION (LIMITED) to DAR application.”
I do not have access to more than the names of the papers.
The case number is DAR-19067.
A filing of this sort by the appealing party (Cambridge) normally would be based on a contention that the case is going to wind up in the SJC anyway, so why waste time at the Appeals Court.
It is interesting that Ms. Monteiro filed a “limited” opposition. My guess as to what that means comes from whole cloth.
If Monteiro’s lawyers think that the case is going to wind up in the SJC no matter, that language would mean that Ms. Monteiro, in order to get her position into the court, has to file a paper called an “opposition,” and that the “limited” nature of the “opposition” probably comes from a situation in which Ms. Monteiro really agrees with Direct Appellate Review, and the paper is filed because there is something that Ms. Monteiro wants to put on record.
Clearly, if the case WILL wind up in front of the SJC, it is to both parties’ benefit to skip the Appeals Court.
However, I am not at all certain that it would be responsible for the City to file yet another appeal. I have real questions as to whether the Appeals Court appeal has value. Under this analysis, it could be the position of Ms. Monteiro that the City of Cambridge is going to chase a silly appeal to the SJC.
We will see. We will see.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Charles River environmental money used for a school garden?
Bob La Trémouille reports.
1. Introduction.
2. Email from Minka vanBeuzekom.
3. My response.
1. Introduction.
The last things one should expect from somebody involved in the Cambridge Machine are environmental comments which resemble common seanse or reality.
It gets worse in Cambridge because the Boston Sierra Club has a number of people very visible in it who sure do look like very visible parts of the Cambridge Machine. Many of these individuals have been very active in zoning petitions which did destruction of zoning protections for the environment while loudly proclaiming exactly the opposite.
It thus comes as no surprise that the Boston Sierra Club has repeatedly endorsed environmentally destructive members of the Cambridge City Council and that non-incumbents endorsed certainly look like they fit the environmentally destructive incumbents.
An email concerning the Charles River has been distributed over the name of a person endorsed by the Sierra Club in the last election. The endorsement made her suspect from my point of view and her subsequent aura confirmed my suspicions.
I have start checking the reality on this nonsense, but the fact of these communications are instructive as to reality in the City of Cambridge.
Please just study what she has put on the record and what I have attempted to put on the record in an attempt to respond.
Looking at the source, I would say it is probably true that the candidate sent out this document.
2. Email from Minka vanBeuzekom.
Remember the 2,500 gallon diesel spill in February of this year in the Charles River ? It occurred at MWRA’s Cottage Farm Facility ( 660 Memorial Drive ) in Cambridge . In June, MWRA was fined $30,187 by the Mass DEP for failing to follow procedure, failing to notify the DEP in a timely way and discharging a pollutant into water body without a permit.
The fine has been converted to a SEP (Supplemental Environmental Project) involving funding a rain garden at the Morse School to mitigate stormwater runoff from the school parking lot. I’d be curious to know if anyone hears more about this rain garden planning and construction. Thanks.
Minka vanBeuzekom
3. My response.
Use of that money would make a lot more sense neutralizing Cambridge and the DCR's deliberate environmental destruction on the Charles. The MWRA was victimized by an irresponsible delivery company. Cambridge and the DCR are deliberately destroying.
Replace the poisons being dumped to keep sickly introduced grass alive with seeds for the grass that was there for most of a century.
Chop down the bizarre introduced vegetation walling off Magazine Beach from the Charles and starving the 30 year native Charles River White Geese.
Undo the massive destruction of ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse.
Fill in the drainage ditches to carry away poisons that should not be dumped next to the Charles in the first place to get Magazine Beach's playing fields back to the size they were until Cambridge and the state destroyed the fields and the environment.
Allow the 30 year native Charles River White Geese to return to their home at Magazine Beach.
1. Introduction.
2. Email from Minka vanBeuzekom.
3. My response.
1. Introduction.
The last things one should expect from somebody involved in the Cambridge Machine are environmental comments which resemble common seanse or reality.
It gets worse in Cambridge because the Boston Sierra Club has a number of people very visible in it who sure do look like very visible parts of the Cambridge Machine. Many of these individuals have been very active in zoning petitions which did destruction of zoning protections for the environment while loudly proclaiming exactly the opposite.
It thus comes as no surprise that the Boston Sierra Club has repeatedly endorsed environmentally destructive members of the Cambridge City Council and that non-incumbents endorsed certainly look like they fit the environmentally destructive incumbents.
An email concerning the Charles River has been distributed over the name of a person endorsed by the Sierra Club in the last election. The endorsement made her suspect from my point of view and her subsequent aura confirmed my suspicions.
I have start checking the reality on this nonsense, but the fact of these communications are instructive as to reality in the City of Cambridge.
Please just study what she has put on the record and what I have attempted to put on the record in an attempt to respond.
Looking at the source, I would say it is probably true that the candidate sent out this document.
2. Email from Minka vanBeuzekom.
Remember the 2,500 gallon diesel spill in February of this year in the Charles River ? It occurred at MWRA’s Cottage Farm Facility ( 660 Memorial Drive ) in Cambridge . In June, MWRA was fined $30,187 by the Mass DEP for failing to follow procedure, failing to notify the DEP in a timely way and discharging a pollutant into water body without a permit.
The fine has been converted to a SEP (Supplemental Environmental Project) involving funding a rain garden at the Morse School to mitigate stormwater runoff from the school parking lot. I’d be curious to know if anyone hears more about this rain garden planning and construction. Thanks.
Minka vanBeuzekom
3. My response.
Use of that money would make a lot more sense neutralizing Cambridge and the DCR's deliberate environmental destruction on the Charles. The MWRA was victimized by an irresponsible delivery company. Cambridge and the DCR are deliberately destroying.
Replace the poisons being dumped to keep sickly introduced grass alive with seeds for the grass that was there for most of a century.
Chop down the bizarre introduced vegetation walling off Magazine Beach from the Charles and starving the 30 year native Charles River White Geese.
Undo the massive destruction of ground vegetation between the BU Bridge and the BU Boathouse.
Fill in the drainage ditches to carry away poisons that should not be dumped next to the Charles in the first place to get Magazine Beach's playing fields back to the size they were until Cambridge and the state destroyed the fields and the environment.
Allow the 30 year native Charles River White Geese to return to their home at Magazine Beach.
Monday, August 09, 2010
To Tom’s of Maine on an Environmental Destroyer
Marilyn has forwarded the following concerning her contact with Tom’s of Maine about their considering providing environmental moneys to the environmentally vile Charles River Conservancy:
**********
Sent just now, at their Contact Us:
Your company has established an image of itself as independent of the giant consumer products corporations and environmentally aware.
Unfortunately, by associating the company with the Charles River Conservancy's ongoing wholesale destruction of Amorpha frutescens (a native plant that has been cultivated to control erosion since 1724); iris pseudacorus (it reduces bacterial loads and absorbs heavy metals; the Charles River remains contaminated with chemicals from long-gone tanneries); solidago spp. (much beloved goldenrods); and other plants that provide habitat for resident and migrating birds, you cast that reputation in doubt.
The CRC is a tool of institutions that seek to turn public parkland on the Charles into their own office parks and campuses.
Please do not be misled by the glossy self-presentation of the Charles River Conservancy.
**********
Sent just now, at their Contact Us:
Your company has established an image of itself as independent of the giant consumer products corporations and environmentally aware.
Unfortunately, by associating the company with the Charles River Conservancy's ongoing wholesale destruction of Amorpha frutescens (a native plant that has been cultivated to control erosion since 1724); iris pseudacorus (it reduces bacterial loads and absorbs heavy metals; the Charles River remains contaminated with chemicals from long-gone tanneries); solidago spp. (much beloved goldenrods); and other plants that provide habitat for resident and migrating birds, you cast that reputation in doubt.
The CRC is a tool of institutions that seek to turn public parkland on the Charles into their own office parks and campuses.
Please do not be misled by the glossy self-presentation of the Charles River Conservancy.
Saturday, August 07, 2010
The future of Memorial Drive and the Charles River?
Bob La Trémouille reports:
These photos are of the street behind the Hyatt Regency Hotel. The Hyatt Regency Hotel fronts on Memorial Drive near the eastern end of the desolation which has been inflicted on the Charles River animal habitat. About a block to the west is the ghetto into which the Charles River White Geese have been forced, which now has been three quarters destroyed with no remediation offered or accomplished.
If you look very closely at the left side of the photos, you will see tiny saplings.
If you will look at the right, you will see what looks like trees. The “large trees” are on the grounds of the Hyatt Regency Hotel. Privately owned trees are much less subject to irresponsible destruction in Cambridge and on the Charles River than are publicly owned trees. The street, Vassar Street, ends at the Charles River.
Only a few months ago, the apparently large trees on the right were dwarfed by about twelve magnificent trees on the left. They towered over the buildings to the left. They extended over the street blocking the sun. They were magnificent.
Various nonsensical excuses were given for the destruction. The pieces of nonsense can be summarized by saying that the magnificent 12 trees were in the wrong location. The liars proved themselves liars by planting saplings in the place of the excellent trees they destroyed because the trees were in the wrong location.
The real reason? Cambridge’s “planners” were planting saplings up the length of this street, Vassar Street. They were obviously offended that the magnificent trees would tower over their saplings. So they destroyed the magnificent trees, with the usual fake review.
Cambridge and state “planners” have their minds squarely in the 19th century while fronting themselves with fake environmental groups.
This is the “plan” for hundreds of excellent trees on Memorial Drive between the Longfellow Bridge and Magazine Beach, with the same sick destructiveness.
The environmentally vile Charles River Conservancy praises the forthcoming destruction.
The environmentally vile CRC has been the most important front entity for the state in the destruction on the Charles. The environmentally vile CRC praises the environmental planners of the 19th Century.
Before the destruction next to the BU Bridge, all ground vegetation was destroyed, between Memorial Drive and the Charles River from the BU Boathouse near the foot of Vassar Street to the BU Bridge, except for vegetation in and near the construction zone.
The quality of the ground vegetation destroyed by these people can be appreciated by looking at the area on Google Maps, satellite view. There still is EXCELLENT vegetation undestroyed next to the construction, 50% too large, in the ghetto of the Charles River White Geese. Most of the ghetto and all the area from there to the BU Boathouse has been denuded of ground vegetation.
The CRC brags of what it calls “vegetation management.”
The CRC is seeking money from Tom’s of Maine for “vegetation management.”
The sick destruction of these trees falls into their euphemism of “vegetation management.”
The sick destruction of all ground vegetation near the Charles between BU Boathouse and the BU Bridge falls into their definition of “vegetation management.”
What sort of destruction will the CRC fund with the money from Tom’s of Maine?
These photos are of the street behind the Hyatt Regency Hotel. The Hyatt Regency Hotel fronts on Memorial Drive near the eastern end of the desolation which has been inflicted on the Charles River animal habitat. About a block to the west is the ghetto into which the Charles River White Geese have been forced, which now has been three quarters destroyed with no remediation offered or accomplished.
If you look very closely at the left side of the photos, you will see tiny saplings.
If you will look at the right, you will see what looks like trees. The “large trees” are on the grounds of the Hyatt Regency Hotel. Privately owned trees are much less subject to irresponsible destruction in Cambridge and on the Charles River than are publicly owned trees. The street, Vassar Street, ends at the Charles River.
Only a few months ago, the apparently large trees on the right were dwarfed by about twelve magnificent trees on the left. They towered over the buildings to the left. They extended over the street blocking the sun. They were magnificent.
Various nonsensical excuses were given for the destruction. The pieces of nonsense can be summarized by saying that the magnificent 12 trees were in the wrong location. The liars proved themselves liars by planting saplings in the place of the excellent trees they destroyed because the trees were in the wrong location.
The real reason? Cambridge’s “planners” were planting saplings up the length of this street, Vassar Street. They were obviously offended that the magnificent trees would tower over their saplings. So they destroyed the magnificent trees, with the usual fake review.
Cambridge and state “planners” have their minds squarely in the 19th century while fronting themselves with fake environmental groups.
This is the “plan” for hundreds of excellent trees on Memorial Drive between the Longfellow Bridge and Magazine Beach, with the same sick destructiveness.
The environmentally vile Charles River Conservancy praises the forthcoming destruction.
The environmentally vile CRC has been the most important front entity for the state in the destruction on the Charles. The environmentally vile CRC praises the environmental planners of the 19th Century.
Before the destruction next to the BU Bridge, all ground vegetation was destroyed, between Memorial Drive and the Charles River from the BU Boathouse near the foot of Vassar Street to the BU Bridge, except for vegetation in and near the construction zone.
The quality of the ground vegetation destroyed by these people can be appreciated by looking at the area on Google Maps, satellite view. There still is EXCELLENT vegetation undestroyed next to the construction, 50% too large, in the ghetto of the Charles River White Geese. Most of the ghetto and all the area from there to the BU Boathouse has been denuded of ground vegetation.
The CRC brags of what it calls “vegetation management.”
The CRC is seeking money from Tom’s of Maine for “vegetation management.”
The sick destruction of these trees falls into their euphemism of “vegetation management.”
The sick destruction of all ground vegetation near the Charles between BU Boathouse and the BU Bridge falls into their definition of “vegetation management.”
What sort of destruction will the CRC fund with the money from Tom’s of Maine?
Friday, August 06, 2010
Environmental Destroyer seeks money from Tom’s of Maine
Bob reports:
1. General.
2. Posting to Tom’s of Maine.
3. Leaflets.
4. Add on.
1. General.
The environmentally destructive Charles River Conservancy is seeking money from Tom's of Maine under the lie, it would appear, that they are pro-environment.
Please defend the animals, the trees and the water of the Charles from this group. Please tell Tom's not to assist their destructive cause. Tom's may be contacted at https://tomsofmaine.custhelp.com/app/ask/session/L3NpZC9jYkI5eTUyaw%3D%3D
2. Posting to Tom’s of Maine.
I have posted the following comment on Tom’s email card:
*******
Enclosed are two documents concerning the environmental nightmare on the Charles River and in Cambridge, MA.
The Charles River Conservancy is uniformly on the wrong side.
Cambridge and Massachusetts are destroying all resident animals on the first 10 miles of the Charles River because they are offended by the presence of water related animals near a river.
The CRC runs around poisoning the eggs of Canada Geese every year.
The CRC twice a year destroys all protective vegetation on both side of the Charles River.
The State has been punished by the City of Boston for the environmental destructiveness of their agent, the Charles River Conservancy.
If you want to do something positive on the Charles River, I would request that you fund the people defending the river against these destructive people, Friends of the White Geese, address on the fliers.
Please also note our blog, website and facebook page, all on the fliers.
3. Leaflets.
Please contact me at boblat@yahoo.com. I would be pleased to provide you the files (opposite sides of leaflet) I provided to Tom’s of Maine.
The situation on the Charles River and in Cambridge is bad enough without the destroyers fooling more good people to fund their cause.
4. Add on.
I realized that the above posting was not completely correct. So I added the following:
*********
I just made a posting which states that the Charles River Conservancy destroys all protective vegetation on the lower Charles River twice a year.
That is not completely true. They destroy all protective native vegetation.
The state with CRC’s support has introduced a bizarre wall of vegetation which has no business on the Charles River at the Magazine Beach playing fields. This replaces an animal habitat in existence for the better part of a century and starves the Charles River White Geese from keeping them from their primary source of food for most of the last 30 years: the grass on the playing fields.
This bizarre stuff is allowed to grow without limit which the CRC destroys the valuable native vegetation everywhere else.
The grass, 7 acres which survived the better part of a century, has been dug up and replaced with sickly stuff that requires poisons to survive.
They have introduced a massive drainage system supposedly to keep these poisons out of the Charles River, poisons that would not be necessary if they returned to the healthy grass which has been native to this area for the better part of the last century.
The CRC, of course, is on the destructive side.
It gets worse.
1. General.
2. Posting to Tom’s of Maine.
3. Leaflets.
4. Add on.
1. General.
The environmentally destructive Charles River Conservancy is seeking money from Tom's of Maine under the lie, it would appear, that they are pro-environment.
Please defend the animals, the trees and the water of the Charles from this group. Please tell Tom's not to assist their destructive cause. Tom's may be contacted at https://tomsofmaine.custhelp.com/app/ask/session/L3NpZC9jYkI5eTUyaw%3D%3D
2. Posting to Tom’s of Maine.
I have posted the following comment on Tom’s email card:
*******
Enclosed are two documents concerning the environmental nightmare on the Charles River and in Cambridge, MA.
The Charles River Conservancy is uniformly on the wrong side.
Cambridge and Massachusetts are destroying all resident animals on the first 10 miles of the Charles River because they are offended by the presence of water related animals near a river.
The CRC runs around poisoning the eggs of Canada Geese every year.
The CRC twice a year destroys all protective vegetation on both side of the Charles River.
The State has been punished by the City of Boston for the environmental destructiveness of their agent, the Charles River Conservancy.
If you want to do something positive on the Charles River, I would request that you fund the people defending the river against these destructive people, Friends of the White Geese, address on the fliers.
Please also note our blog, website and facebook page, all on the fliers.
3. Leaflets.
Please contact me at boblat@yahoo.com. I would be pleased to provide you the files (opposite sides of leaflet) I provided to Tom’s of Maine.
The situation on the Charles River and in Cambridge is bad enough without the destroyers fooling more good people to fund their cause.
4. Add on.
I realized that the above posting was not completely correct. So I added the following:
*********
I just made a posting which states that the Charles River Conservancy destroys all protective vegetation on the lower Charles River twice a year.
That is not completely true. They destroy all protective native vegetation.
The state with CRC’s support has introduced a bizarre wall of vegetation which has no business on the Charles River at the Magazine Beach playing fields. This replaces an animal habitat in existence for the better part of a century and starves the Charles River White Geese from keeping them from their primary source of food for most of the last 30 years: the grass on the playing fields.
This bizarre stuff is allowed to grow without limit which the CRC destroys the valuable native vegetation everywhere else.
The grass, 7 acres which survived the better part of a century, has been dug up and replaced with sickly stuff that requires poisons to survive.
They have introduced a massive drainage system supposedly to keep these poisons out of the Charles River, poisons that would not be necessary if they returned to the healthy grass which has been native to this area for the better part of the last century.
The CRC, of course, is on the destructive side.
It gets worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)