Saturday, June 28, 2008

Will Nine City Councilors Fire the Cambridge City Manager for Cause?

Bob La Trémouille reports:

I have reported to you concerning the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge.

In this case, the former head of the City of Cambridge’s Police Review Board filed a complaint alleging discrimination in the work place. She further complained that she had been fired in retaliation for filing the complaint.

The juries which heard the complaint found (1) that the original complaint was not proven; and (2) that the City of Cambridge had fired her in retaliation for filing the original complaint.

The jury found that Cambridge should pay Ms. Monteiro over a million dollars for harm done to her and $3.5 million as a penal judgment. The jury displayed very strong contempt for the actions of the City of Cambridge.

Yesterday, I traveled to the new location of the Middlesex Superior Court in Woburn to review the file. The file was still on the judge’s desk. I was able to obtain the docket, which lists formal actions taken in the case.

On June 16, the Cambridge City Council went into executive session to discuss this matter.

The docket indicates that:

1. On May 23, 2008, the jury entered its verdict for the plaintiff.

2. On May 29, 2008, Cambridge filed an emergency motion for prompt hearing on post-trial motions.

3. On June 12, 2008, the following papers were filed:

a. Motion of the plaintiff for entry of Final Judgment, and Cambridge’s opposition.
b. Cambridge’s motion for Judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and the plaintiff’s opposition thereto.
c. Plaintiff’s response to the Emergency motion for prompt hearing.
d. Cambridge’s motion for a New Trial or in the alternative for a Remittitur and plaintiff’s opposition.

4. A hearing was held on June 19, 2008 with regard to the June 12, 2008 items.

Obviously, the judge is still considering the matter.

It will take quite a bit to convince the judge to overturn the jury’s quite strong verdict.

The most likely decision of the judge will be to reject Cambridge’s applications in whole, or, possibly, to order a reduction in damages.

If the most likely decision of the judge comes through, the Cambridge City Council will have a jury verdict that the Cambridge City Manager has indulged in severe misconduct in office.

The Cambridge City Council might decide to appeal.

The Cambridge City Council might decide to fire the Cambridge City Manager for cause.

Firing a department head in retaliation for the department head’s discrimination complaint, at minimum, is severe misconduct in office.

Without this jury verdict, I can think of plenty of reasons to fire the Cambridge City Manager.

This jury verdict would provide ironclad reason to fire the Cambridge City Manager.

BUT Cambridge has nine really bad City Councilors.

We will see what happens.

Monday, June 16, 2008

Environmental Sickos Destroy More Vegetation

1. Bob La Trémouille reports.
a. Use of agents by the Department of Conservation and Recreation.
b. Nature heals, DCR / agents destroy.
c. Sidewalk work.
2. Marilyn responds.

1. Bob La Trémouille reports.

a. Use of agents by the Department of Conservation and Recreation.

Over the years, the Department of Conservation and Recreation has educated us on the many very varied techniques in lying.

One of their biggest techniques is environmental destruction through their agents. The most destructive agent in the last six years would appear to be the environmentally reprehensible Charles River Conservancy.

These people, on behalf of the DCR, have poisoned the eggs of as much waterfowl as they can get away with over the period. These bastard, on behalf of the DCR, have routinely destroyed protective ground vegetation through the lower part of the Charles River. Twice a year, they proudly destroy the ground vegetation used as cover by migrating birds.

The DCR's explanation: they are not doing that, it is their agent who is doing that. Naturally, they neglect to mention the agency angle.

In October 1999, Boston University, acting as the DCR's agent, destroyed all the vegetation in the Nesting Area of the Charles River White Geese and replaced it with grass, along with a stupid path that promptly washed into the Charles.

b. Nature heals, DCR / agents destroy.

Since then, nature regained its own and a beautiful natural habitat returned.

However, during the sick reign of the CRC, ground vegetatation has been steadily destroyed and, inasmuch as the ground cover quite consistently has not returned, rather clearly, poisons have been applied to the ground.

Vegetation was first destroyed under the trees toward the railroad.

Vegetation has been destroyed under the trees toward the river.

Massive amounts of vegetation have been destroyed under the trees on the other side of the railroad track.

All this is animal habitat, DESTROYED.

c. Sidewalk work.

The plans for the sidewalk "improvements" showed destruction of the half of the nesting area toward the on ramp to Memorial Drive.

During the fall and winter, vehicles tramped down vegetation toward the BU Bridge and toward the off ramp.

That vegetation formerly was brambles.

This spring it was replaced with dirt by removing the brambles and replacing them, as usual, with nothing.

The DCR, as usual, promises all sorts of lovely things while they are destroying.

It looks like the destroyed brambles toward the BU Bridge are used for parking to access a barge in the Charles which is part of the sidewalk project.

Really sick people. Really sick liars.

Really, really destructive.

2. Marilyn responds.

In general the retreat of the plants is alarming and horrible. It's in contrast to the true wall of plants that block access to and from the water at Magazine Beach. The DCR has been so sanctimonious about the need for uninterrupted access to the river and here, at MBeach, it is happy to eliminate it.

I remembered the DCR's consultant for the Charles River Master Plan saying several years ago that at Herter West the plants were so thick you didn't know you were by the water. This was a patent lie, as any walk along the riverside path there will show.

What would he say about the DCR and Cambridge's handiwork at Magazine Beach, where you literally cannot see the water for almost the entire the length of the riverside walk? Maybe someone 6'1" or 6' 2" could see over the plants, but I certainly couldn't.

Friday, June 06, 2008

Damn good jury!!!

Bob La Trémouille reports:

I have submitted the following letter to the Cambridge Chronicle. The preceding report goes into more detail.


Cambridge Chronicle

You recently reported a jury decision in a civil rights action against the City of Cambridge.

The jury found that the Cambridge had harmed the plaintiff in an amount of slightly over a million dollars and the jury awarded additional damages as punitive damages in the amount of $3.5 million to be paid by Cambridge.

I hope that you and your readers understand what happened here.

The plaintiff filed a civil rights action. The action first alleged that she had been mistreated in her workplace. The action had a second allegation. The second allegation said that she had been harmed by the city because she had filed the original civil rights complaint. This technical term for this second complaint is "retaliation."

The combined jury verdicts said (1) that the plaintiff’s original complaint had not been proven, but (2) that the city’s retaliation against the plaintiff was flatly and simply outrageous.

So the juries (1) awarded nothing on the original complaint, (2) awarded $1 million plus as actual damages on the retaliation complaint and (3) awarded $3.5 million to show its contempt for the city in the city’’s retaliation against the plaintiff, in addition to and above real damages.

We have a really bad city government. Cambridge’s city government routinely does outrageously nasty things and then sits back and says nothing.

The most we have gotten out of the heartless animal abuse being inflicted on the Charles River White Geese has been one statement from one councilor which translates as:

"How dare you object to my heartless abuse of the Charles River White Geese. This is the little guy. I have an absolute right to abuse the little guy."

Kathy Podgers has now gotten two findings of probable cause of discrimination against the city from the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. The responses from city pols have included a response which translates as:

"How dare you object to our treatment of Kathy Podgers. She is the little guy. We have an absolute right to abuse the little guy."

This appears to be a normal mentality from the City.

The jury has responded to this mentality. The jury has responded $3.5 million worth. Above and beyond real harm.

The jury is a heck of a lot more normal than the government of the City of Cambridge.

$3.5 million dollars in penalties to express contempt for heartless behavior by the government of the City of Cambridge!!!

Damn good jury.

Tuesday, June 03, 2008


1. Context.
2. Jury Order.
3. Reality.
4. The Cambridge Pols and Reality.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Context.

The City of Cambridge has a massive internal lobby which runs around making all sorts of lovely but ultimately false generalizations about the government and its City Councilors.

The most outrageous statements claim that these people are pro-environment and pro-civil rights.

They indulge in frequently reprehensible behavior.

They take the outrageous action and then refuse to discuss it, while making loud and very general proclamations about themselves which are the opposite of the behavior.

The heartless treatment of the Charles River White Geese, to the extent they will allow any discussion, is dismissed in ways which translate as:


How dare you mention my treatment of these animals. These are the little guy. How dare you object to my mistreatment of the little guys.


Similarly, the treatment of Kathy Podgers get a related explanation:


That is just one person. How dare you expect me to treat one person’s civil rights with respect.


Kathy Podgers has now obtained two findings of probable cause of discrimination against these bastards at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.

They brag about treatment of Blacks and gays, but Blacks and gays are well-organized powerful lobbies in Cambridge, MA.

Civil rights is about respecting the rights of the little guy.

2. Jury Order.

Last week’s Cambridge Chronicle (May 29, 2008) headlined a jury award against Cambridge, MA for civil rights violations.

The plaintiff, a former department head, complained that she was singled out for mistreatment for grounds that constituted violation of state and federal civil rights .

The first jury trial found no basis for this claim.

The second jury trial found violation of her civil rights because of RETALIATION against the plaintiff for filing the basic claim.

The jury award slightly over $ 1 million in damages, and added an additional $ 3.5 million in punitive damages.

That $ 3.5 million in punitive damages is simply the jury’s way of communicating to the City of Cambridge that the City of Cambridge is a very reprehensible entity.

This is not surprising.

Cambridge keeps itself going internally by its massive internal lobbying arm, the Cambridge Pols, who run around saying lovely false things about this very destructive city government. The governmental and elected people do not want to know reality. All they want to know is what the Cambridge Pols are saying.

The jury very clearly hopes that the $ 3.5 million will communicate reality to the nine members of the Cambridge City Council.

3. Reality.

My feeling based on years of observation is that there is too often a feeling that if you want me to obey the clear requirements of law, sue me.

If you want me to be environmentally responsible, sue me.

One clear example of this mentality is the flat out refusal of the Cambridge Election Commission to obey the recent Jack E. Robinson decision based on the “opinion” of the Cambridge City Solicitor.

Another excellent example is the outrageous environmental destruction which is normal when the City of Cambridge does public works projects. Altogether too often, the first thing they do is destroy healthy trees.

Another excellent example is the “opinion” supposedly given by the Cambridge City Solicitor informing of legal requirements needed to be satisfied to protect the pittance of undestroyed open space in the Public Library area. I have gone into this extensively.

4. The Cambridge Pols and Reality.

The Cambridge Pols are not at all concerned about reality. They will just run around singing the praises of these bastards.