Sunday, September 12, 2010

Patrick administration brags about environment destruction, neglects to mention the environmental destruction.

Bob La Trémouille reports:

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation publishes a weekly on line newsletter. It very prominently features a photo of Governor Patrick.

Featured this week is a report on the pedestrian bridge between the north and south sides of Memorial Drive in Cambridge at Magazine Beach.

Earlier this blog published Phil Barber’s photo report on all the trees destroyed for this project.

Somehow, the destruction of trees failed to make the Governor’s report.

The newsletter is at:

This links a more detailed report at:

Nobody mentions the destruction. Odd is it not.

Globe supports Patrick’s environmental destruction?

Archie reports, on September 12:

Today's Globe in its Starts & Stops section (page B2) features the GJRL [ed.: Grand Junction Railroad, the track that runs by the Destroyed Nesting Area and under the BU Bridge.] through Cambridge, ending with the reporter's "humorous" comments as the trip approached the BU Bridge. What might a restored, revitalized GJRL do for (or to) Cambridge?

Ed: The following is the on line link:

Monteiro Update, City files its brief in Appeals Court, why this blog follows Monteiro

Bob La Trémouille reports.

1. On line dockets.
2. Analysis of more recent filings.
3. Why report this civil rights case on the Charles River White Geese Blog?

1. On line dockets.

I have been keeping up on the case of Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge primarily from on line dockets. These on line dockets list, at minimum, the title of the action which is the subject of the docket entry.

The Superior Court docket is only available to attorneys who have requested access. This docket frequently has posted full text of actions by the judge.

The Appeals Court and Supreme Judicial Court dockets are available to the public on line.

To give you a feel for the situation, the following are the appellate entries. I have tried to put this data in table form, but have not been successful because of limitations of the blog software.

The docket at the Supreme Judicial Court consists of three entries:

Date Paper # Entry Text

08/05/2010 Docket opened.
08/05/2010 #1 DAR [Ed: Request for Direct Appellate Review] APPLICATION of City of Cambridge filed by Joan A. Lukey, Esquire, Dan Krockmalnic, Esquire, Jacob Scott, Esquire.
08/17/2010 #2 OPPOSITION (LIMITED) to DAR application filed for Malvina Monteiro by Ellen J. Zucker, Esquire.

I have previously given my analysis of these papers.

The docket at the Appeals Court consists of the following entries.

Date Paper # Entry Text

7/16/10 #1 Entered.
07/16/2010 Notice of entry sent.
08/05/2010 Copy of DAR application of City of Cambridge.
08/18/2010 #2 Motion for leave to file principal brief in excess of fifty pages filed by City of Cambridge.
08/19/2010 #3 Notice of withdrawal as counsel for City of Cambridge, filed by Jennifer L. Carpenter.
08/19/2010 #4 Notice of appearance of Jacob Scott for City of Cambridge.
08/25/2010 #5 Contingent Motion for leave, if necessary, to re-file principal brief after original filing deadline, filed by City of Cambridge.
08/30/2010 RE#2: Denied. The appellant is to file and serve a brief not exceeding fifty pages on or before September 13, 2010. (Vuono, J.) *Notice.
08/30/2010 RE#5: See court's action on paper #2 dated
8/30/10. Due to their size, the record appendix volumes are deemed accepted on 8/30/10 pending filing of the brief. (Vuono, J.) *Notice.
09/01/2010 #6 Service of appendix (13 vols) filed by City of Cambridge.
09/10/2010 #7 SERVICE of brief & appendix for Defendant/Appellant City of Cambridge.

The brief of Ms. Monteiro in response to the city’s brief is due on October 12.

2. Analysis of more recent filings.

The filing of Cambridge on 8/18/10, permission to file longer brief, looked like a holding action intended to delay appeals court action until a response was obtained by the SJC on the request for direct appellate review. The Appeals Court Scotched this tactic on August 30, by denying the motion and ordering brief filing by September 13.

The August 25 motion is hard to fully understand without the papers. It was denied along with the motion for a larger brief.

The appendix, mentioned on August 30 and formally logged on September 1, would be the record from the Superior Court action. This record is the basis for everything occurring in Appeals Court.

Cambridge filed its brief on Friday. If anybody wants to go through the bother of checking the papers and copying it, I would be pleased to have access to the copies. The Cambridge Chronicle, for example, posted one key judge’s order on line when the full order was not made available in the on line docket.

In any case, the Monteiro response brief is due October 12.

3. Why report this civil rights case on the Charles River White Geese Blog?

I have posted two links to YouTube videos in which I analyze the “reprehensible” (quoting the judge) situation in the City of Cambridge.

I consider it all one mess.

A. A bad city manager.

B. A bad city council.

C. Massive organizations running around spouting lies to the contrary, lies which are necessary to keep that bad city council from being thrown out of office.

The lies are not usually direct lies. The lies are mostly con games, but pretty much nonstop con games.

Cambridge takes initiatives on the “good” side which are meaningless or next to meaningless when compared to the reprehensible behavior which is so common.

So they run around bragging about supposed good behavior which amounts to trash and suppress the meaningful, rotten behavior. I call that a con game. I call that continuing lies.

The state, on the other hand, has indulged in blatant, key lying.

I think the environmental situation would go a long way toward being resolved if the supposedly pro civil rights city council changed sides to the side they claim to be on.

The city council should accept the decision of judge and jury in Monteiro and fire the city manager without pension and without golden parachute to the extent the superior court judge will bless such action.

That would go some distance to reversing the environmental destruction on the Charles since the city manager’s people have their hands in who know how much, but it looks like pretty much everything.

Cleansing the city of the current city manager would give the city government a chance to resemble the lovely and very false claims of the Cambridge City Council in the environmental front.

The state’s behavior is so closely coordinated with Cambridge that it is silly to think that firing the City Manager would be other than a possible reversal of the destructiveness of the state.