foundation trilogy:

Lawsuit papers received by federal district court in Eugene.

From www.usps.com  

“Your item was delivered at 12:00 PM on February 27, 2008 in EUGENE, OR 97401.”

 

Me too:

Lawsuit papers received by federal district court in Eugene.

From www.usps.com

"Your item was delivered to Captain Kirk at 12:00 PM on February 27, 2078 in EUGENE, OR 97401."

Whatever...

I love the way ol' FT makes patently false statements, has them stuffed up his backside, and then motors along as though he wasn't caught in another bald-faced lie... Like this great one a few posts up:

".... The Sheriffs do not “patrol” the forest..."

But the Sheriff DOES patrol the forest, as "Bad to the bone" quickly verified. Of course, the source he cited, the Sheriff, will be contested, depreciated, and discounted by FT. Then FT will make up some more B.S., paste a boatload of benign documents in place, and make some more false allegations.

Whatever...

By the way, any idiot can file a baseless, imaginary lawsuit. Let's see who wins :-!

Halo, any answer from the county officials? Please get Mr. Stewart or the Sheriff/DA to shut this idiot up for good!

The discovery channel

From http://community.kmtr.com/forums/post/1602407.aspx

“Why don't they just tell the truth? They want to finish killing our nearly dead public safety system, I guess. Mr. Pooler apparently thinks two deputies and a sergeant is too much -- too many cops to patrol 4,600 square miles on a shift. Or maybe he likes the fact that our DA can't prosecute thousands of cases and criminals have a get out of free card, because our DA has lost staff year after year while the population and crime rate have soared.”

Now consider that Faye Hill Stewart II is part of a elite group, 20 new members a year, that has access to the best and brightest in Oregon. Bobby Green is also part of their group. So getting into the situation described in the quote above is no accident. Think about that for a moment,, at least 2 of our Lane County Commissioners are part of a group that is pushing an agenda that includes reducing law enforcement to the present condition. They have known exactly how long the “Forest money” would last and under what conditions Title II or III funds could be turned back to the general fund. Could funds that went to “forest projects” have been put into the general fund to help fund law enforcement the last 7 years? Could the “think tank” that Bobby and Faye are members have produced a plan to acquire “grant funds” from their affiliated foundations? Well thanks to Case number 08-6068-tc, Judge Coffin and Discovery (subpoena of documents from County commissioners and their funding agencies) I should be able to get access to documents from the last 4 years.

Spanky, as for your analysis of the situation, that’s just your analysis.  But you claim to have been following the dismantling of Lane County Law enforcement for the last 5 years, care to offer a timeline with names, dates and commission votes of how they did it?

 

The “patrolling” of the forest is paid with Title II or III funds. It would have given them reimbursements for the expenses they incurred. So I still maintain that including the forest land area in the area that the county sheriffs office had to cover, paid for out of the general fund, is a misleading and deceptive tactic. If they had in fact needed more funds for that purpose the funds have been available the last 7 years.

Faye Stewart and the Lane County Board of Commissioners named in $10 million Civil Suit.
Case Number 08-6068-tc was filed February 28, 2008 in Federal District Court,
To be heard in front of Judge Coffin  (541) 431-4101.
Wayne L. Morse U.S. Courthouse 
405 East Eighth Avenue, Room 2100
Eugene, OR 97401
At one time or another we have all been victimized by a bureaucrat, someone who used the power we gave them for their own personal gain. They used the very power we gave them against those that elected them. This was wrong then and it is wrong today. Today Faye Stewart is using his position as Lane County Commissioner to protect his friends from prosecution. That is wrong. Faye Stewart used his position to block an investigation into The Community Sharing Program in Cottage Grove, Oregon concerning their invoicing the federal government for services they did not perform. That was wrong. Today he and his confederates will be brought to federal district court in Eugene, Oregon to answer those charges. A jury off his peers, chosen from the voting public, will examine all the evidence. He will not be able to conceal the parts of the story that point a finger directly at the “not for profit” of which he was a board member. He will not be able to keep the jury from hearing that a member of Community Sharing said that the county would “back-date” federal housing contracts. Community Sharing, executive director Nancy Glines, does lots of good things. It is funded by Lane County and many groups of which Faye Stewart and Nancy Glines are members. No doubt Faye will say that the groups he belongs to are honorable. That is true; but just as any tool can be used for good, it can also be used for evil. Some may say that evil is a too strong of a word. That evil should be reserved for crimes that go against the very spirit of community. What Faye Stewart, Nancy Glines and David Flores did was against the heart and soul of the U. S. Constitution. Our Nation does not deny a person his rights based on personal vendettas. No politician is so above the law that he can escape the law. I look forward to seeing how Faye, Nancy and David defend their actions that culminated in a situation that ends with cars driving by your home in the dead of night shouting curses and racial slurs, being shot at 14 times with a shotgun and other incidents. As was stated by one of the Lane County Sheriffs Deputies after viewing the video tape, “You can plainly hear pellets hitting the roof of the house.”

 

foundation trilogy:

The discovery channel

From http://community.kmtr.com/forums/post/1602407.aspx

“Why don't they just tell the truth? They want to finish killing our nearly dead public safety system, I guess. Mr. Pooler apparently thinks two deputies and a sergeant is too much -- too many cops to patrol 4,600 square miles on a shift. Or maybe he likes the fact that our DA can't prosecute thousands of cases and criminals have a get out of free card, because our DA has lost staff year after year while the population and crime rate have soared.”

Now consider that Faye Hill Stewart II is part of a elite group, 20 new members a year, that has access to the best and brightest in Oregon. Bobby Green is also part of their group. So getting into the situation described in the quote above is no accident. Think about that for a moment,, at least 2 of our Lane County Commissioners are part of a group that is pushing an agenda that includes reducing law enforcement to the present condition.

Here, FT is being profoundly deceptive and misleading, again. He objects to county funding through a few non-profits that provide lower cost services on behalf of the county and he objects to commissioners having membership on non-profit boards. He also objects to county commissioner involvement with foundations, organizations or associations which improve buying power, negotiating leverage, or political access. Participating with such groups is the political equivalent of spending money on plow and seeds instead of buying corn. It's part of a successful financial survival strategy, which explains why corporations spend BILLIONS on lobbying politicians. Our commissioners don't do that, of course, but it would be naïve of them not to do whatever is legally permissible to amplify their political voice when 30% of their general fund budget is dependant on congressional largesse. Last year Lane County commissioners and the rest of their political team managed to secure almost $50 million in federal support (general fund/title2&3 and road fund). The small amount they're spending to support such efforts seems well spent, even if it might have been used to provide a very slight, short-term improvement in law enforcement staffing.

The only way FT's statement is accurate is if you subtract the money spent on other matters, but don't credit the value of the massive support it secures.

foundation trilogy:

They have known exactly how long the “Forest money” would last and under what conditions Title II or III funds could be turned back to the general fund. Could funds that went to “forest projects” have been put into the general fund to help fund law enforcement the last 7 years?

You misunderstand again. The funds HAVE been used to support a variety of necessary forest projects, including the Forest Work Camp and forest patrols. The work cap is essential because the jail is so small, AND much of the small space is either closed or rented to other agencies/entities.

foundation trilogy:

Could the “think tank” that Bobby and Faye are members have produced a plan to acquire “grant funds” from their affiliated foundations? Well thanks to Case number 08-6068-tc, Judge Coffin and Discovery (subpoena of documents from County commissioners and their funding agencies) I should be able to get access to documents from the last 4 years.

Yes, thanks to the power of subpoena, you'll get access to essentially the same information you'd already have if you'd been paying attention and you could have obtained without subpoena via a public records request. You get to pay either way -- a great thing given the frivolous nature of the alleged suit.

I'm excited to hear the results of your suit, and delighted that you're spending your own money on this silly goose-chase.

foundation trilogy:

The “patrolling” of the forest is paid with Title II or III funds. It would have given them reimbursements for the expenses they incurred.

Yes, as indicated above, the Title 2/Title 3 money is already used to pay for forest patrol, but that's not what you originally said. YOU said the Sheriff doesn't patrol the forests. That's your habit -- bold, baseless, incorrect assertions that fall to others to correct and document. As I've said, if you've actually filed suit, the truth will out in the end :)

foundation trilogy:

So I still maintain that including the forest land area in the area that the county sheriffs office had to cover, paid for out of the general fund, is a misleading and deceptive tactic. If they had in fact needed more funds for that purpose the funds have been available the last 7 years.

The county isn't getting one without the other. In very rough numbers the county stands to lose almost $50 million annually, approximately $20 million of which is road-fund, $20 million of which is general fund, and @$8 million of which is Title 2/3 money. When losing the federal support is discussed it's the total impact that's relevant.

The Sheriff will be impacted by the loss of Title 2/3 support for forest patrol and Forest Work Camp, the loss of some limited reimbursement for road-fund patrol, and the massive loss to the general fund, as this year 65% of the general fund went to public safety departments. Since that is all disclosed in the written documents the media and public have, and it was discussed in the televised budget hearings, I don't follow your argument that it's deceptive to discuss the reductions in terms of net impact.

The Sheriff, like the rest of the county public safety system, is supported by what the DA calls "an awkward patchwork of federal and state grants supplementing anemic local tax support." If you bothered to read the budget reports and analysis that have been repeatedly provided on these threads you would have seen the Title2/3 money discussed along with all the other funding streams. That money HAS been used to augment patrol support where the law has allowed it, but there are restrictions on how it may be applied, and it's a relative drop in the bucket given the size of the total need.

Furthermore, the commissioners HAVE seen the imminent financial collapse approaching, and they have taken steps to mitigate and improve the county financial outlook, but they are not omnipotent. There a limited number of steps they can take, and they have taken most of them over the years. Here's what I have seen: They have
1) ... authorized and funded successful suit of the PERS board, a move which precipitated a wholesale restructuring of the public employee retirement system and saved the county and other Oregon government agencies millions of dollars annually;
2) ... leaned the county management and supervisor corps to the point where Lane County's line-worker to supervisor ratio is the highest in the the state at over 12 to 1, in contrast to the Oregon government average of approximately 7 to 1, and the City of Eugene ratio of less than 6 to 1;
3) ... attempted to inform the public of the County's grossly inadequate property tax rate, a rate that is a small fraction of the average for all other Oregon counties,
4) ... raised minor fees, a small but significant percentage of county operating cost, and
5) ... repeatedly put the imminent financial crisis in front of the citizens, with all the budget documents available to the public and new tax packages that would have mitigated the funding emergency.

Those are just the highlights, but the county and the commissioners have gotten ZERO credit for doing any of them, and the only one that can really solve the problem is a DRAMATIC increase in revenue. It may be counter-intuitive for you, FT, but most thinking people wouldn't expect Lane County to be able to provide services similar to the larger Oregon metro counties with a property tax rate that's less than 40% of their tax average rate.

Being on charitable boards and foundations does give commissioners access to a considerable brain trust, but it doesn't empower them to turn water into wine or debt into cash. They're still stuck with grossly inadequate county revenue to deliver services. Year after year, the only options have been:
1) Cut costs
2) Increase revenue
3) Cut services

That's what what the county commissioners have done every year I have watched the budget process, as they have had to cope with what the county financial analyst, David Garnick, refers to as the "structural deficit", the built-in 3% funding deficit that is compounded annually. The only difference between the commissioners, who don't appear to like each other much, is that Green and Stewart have consistently applied the county "Strategic Plan" to set funding priorities, while commissioner Sorenson consistently advocates for taking "across the board cuts" from ALL county departments. Sorenson likes that alternative because it doesn't force him to cut programs people like (like parks) in order to fund programs the public doesn't like, like Assessment and Taxation or public safety. The across-the-board cuts also appear equitable until you realize that they multiply the adverse impact by cutting revenue-generating programs along with all the others.

(Sorenson and Dwyer insist on Lane County remaining a "general purpose" government, while others argue that the days of providing general service are long gone and the county must focus on providing just a few services at adequate levels. It doesn't matter anymore, as the county is already at the point of doing nothing well. With the exception of Stewart and Green and to a lesser extent Dwyer, they've already given up on funding public safety. Sorenson was willing to abandon most of public safety years ago, though he feels strongly about funding the dog and cat motel, "LCARA". )

Here's another observation: although the commissioners never miss an opportunity to accuse each other of wrong-doing, Fleenor, Sorenson and Dwyer have never accused Stewart or Green of doing anything wrong by accepting volunteer positions on non-profit boards and the like, probably because they know there is nothing wrong with it :-)

FT, if lightning strikes, the rules of reality are suspended, and you prevail on a lawsuit, you'll be able to make BILLIONS, by packaging similarly frivolous lawsuits against politicians all over the country. You might become the next "Stella" (of "stella award fame.) But probably not :)

Butter your bread on both sides you get buttered fingers

Spanky wrote, “Here, FT is being profoundly deceptive and misleading, again. He objects to county funding through a few non-profits that provide lower cost services on behalf of the county and he objects to commissioners having membership on non-profit boards. He also objects to county commissioner involvement with foundations, organizations or associations which improve buying power, negotiating leverage, or political access. Participating with such groups is the political equivalent of spending money on plow and seeds instead of buying corn. It's part of a successful financial survival strategy, which explains why corporations spend BILLIONS on lobbying politicians. Our commissioners don't do that, of course, but it would be naïve of them not to do whatever is legally permissible to amplify their political voice when 30% of their general fund budget is dependant on congressional largesse…”

As usual Spanky starts off with a big unsupported statement. Does he offer anything to back up Not For Profits (subtle difference between non and not for) are less expensive than county services? What they do offer is no pesky electorate interfering with hiring practices, or proper oversight, or competitive bidding. As the foundation folks will tell you, you can do investment things with “not for profit” money that you can’t do with State money. Take the example of Faye Stewart and the Senior Meals. Faye was under the color of the Lane County Commissioners by using his County email address as his contact method. Someone “donated” a large sum of money to help provide senior meals. A Foundation was set up to accept this money and solicited more money, that foundation was then put under the Community Foundation of Oregon. They said there were “tax reasons” concerning being able to write off donations as the reason for setting up the first layer. The double foundation scheme appears to be just a dodge to hide the Community Foundation of Oregon connection.
Now the reasoning behind pooling the funds in the Community Foundation of Oregon is that it provides “safety in numbers” in their investment strategy. It takes 20 years at 5% to get the donated funds to the organization for which it was intended. The argument is that it will be safe in their investment pool. What if the investments go down, such as when their fund went down 25% a few years back? What is their exposure in the sub-prime market? What is their China exposure? The standard answer for the first question is “oh well, you can’t predict the market.” The second question will involve how much Wells Fargo sub prime was “sold” to the foundation members. The China question will never completely come out, or if they actually had “real” investments there. So how do we lowly citizens find out how the “not for profits” are handling our money. Well you can’t, that is why it is done this way.
 So Spanky, use your buttered fingers to find out how many Wells Fargo sub prime loans were sold to the Community Foundation of Oregon and tell us how that impacts Lane County. Your answer will shout the answer to why we need more independent oversight of this scheme.

Butter your bread on both sides you get buttered fingers, work your fingers to the bone, what do you get, bony fingers.(last part from M. Haggard)

No, FT, you tell us. You're the one making the accusations. Instead of the usual, vague, ten-pound inference of malfeasance, why don't you tell us how we, the taxpayers, have been injured by the practice you describe?

There's no need to paste another two pages of innocuous, meaningless, organization rosters. Just tell us what it cost us and where we can find it. While you're at it, why don't you specify the crime for which you allege the commissioners should be jailed. And while you're at THAT, I'd be interested in how you think the taxpayers are protected differently when the commissioners make any other financial decision which subsequently results in a loss.

How is it that the current Eugene City Council has escaped your wrath? They regularly engage in financial suicide on behalf of the citizens -- like negotiating to pay 150% to 200% of market value for real estate. Show us how the commissioners have lost MORE than other politicians around the state. After all, that will be the standard against which their performance is measured. The question is, did these commissioners engage is practices that were either illegal or so grossly negligent or contrary to accepted financial standards that they unnecessarily put our money at risk.

We're always free to elect different representatives if we don't like the choices being made by the current ones.

What a strange turn-about, FT. Are you now suggesting that these non-profits/not-for-profits, like "lookingglass" or "Relief Nursery" or "Sponsors" do NOT deliver services at a lower cost than a like number of government employees? Weren't you recently on the government-bashing band-wagon complaining about government employee costs? You sure do spend a lot of time jumping back and forth across the position fence...

Spanky, do you even read the words you write?

When you ask, “why don't you tell us how we, the taxpayers, have been injured by the practice you describe?” you answer your own question later.  “They regularly engage in financial suicide on behalf of the citizens -- like negotiating to pay 150% to 200% of market value for real estate.”

 

I’ll say this very simple for you. When our politicos make policy decisions and monetary decisions based on how it affects “their group” then the public is cheated. You mention over paying for real estate. Post some of the names and properties and I could probably show a link to the community foundation or a Rotary type club.

 

Your attempt to inject that we should compare the county commissioners to the city of Eugene is spin. The legal rules determine the standard that they must fulfill. With Faye Stewart he must see that the HUD regulations regarding housing discrimination are followed by the sub grantees he contracts to administer HOME TBA funds. First and foremost everyone is to be treated the same. Holding one type client to a special set of rules is against federal law. Do you understand that? The Lane county commissioners must ensure federal law is followed when they designate a “not for profit” to administer federal housing funds. In my particular case Community Sharing of Cottage Grove had also ran a program about “fair housing”. I’d post the link but I know how much you hate reading facts. Faye Stewart lists Community Sharing board member on his Lane county web site. When community sharing accepts money from the lane county commissioners to administer federal money they are swearing that they will abide by all the HUD rules that apply.   Are you having a problem understanding that? Community Sharing accepted a contract that required them to follow HUD rules, Faye Stewart has to make sure that they follow those rules. When Faye Stewart and every other Lane County Commissioner were notified in writing that one of their sub grantees was breaking federal law, they had a duty to correct the problem. Instead, Fay said, “I just remembered my wife is having a baby tomorrow and I won’t be able to help you on this.” Bobby Green refused to talk to me. Dwyer said to “just sue us.”  Altogether they broke about 25 laws regarding this situation. There is a link between Faye Stewart and Nancy Glines that could be construed as protecting a person engaged in breaking federal housing laws.  The link is the community foundation and it’s system of Not for profits.  That link could make them finically liable for Fay and Nancy’s actions. Lane County is liable by virtue of the contracts they signed when they accepted the federal money.

Why should they be jailed? The federal statutes include federal prison time for violating the laws they broke. When you mention the other politicos in Oregon that are doing questionable deals could you list them so I’ll know who you are talking about?  

 

When Spanky says “What a strange turn-about, FT. Are you now suggesting that these non-profits/not-for-profits, like "lookingglass" or "Relief Nursery" or "Sponsors" do NOT deliver services at a lower cost than a like number of government employees? Weren't you recently on the government-bashing band-wagon complaining about government employee costs? You sure do spend a lot of time jumping back and forth across the position fence...”

 

I am against waste and illegal acts perpetrated by anyone spending public funds. By putting public money into a “not for profit” does not mean they are no longer required to follow the law. Putting the hiring and procurement of goods and services out of public view is not inherently fraudulent, but when it is found that they are breaking the law it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Am I to infer that you believe that the law does not apply to people that agree with you or are member of your group.

Hunter, “In all the copy and post's that you have pasted upon the site I haven't seen one instance where the commissioners have broken the law.”

 

I’m going to say this multiple ways so you can understand what is going on.

The Lane County Board of Commissioners receives federal housing funds.

 

The commissioners sub contract with “not for profits” to administer the federal housing funds.

 

These Federal housing funds must be spent following rules set down in the HUD federal regulations.

 

If the federal housing funds are used improperly there are consequences.

 

These consequences include federal prison time, federal fines, loss of funds and exposure to civil lawsuits.

 

To recap, the Lane County Commissioners accepted federal housing money and signed an agreement to follow the federal HUD housing rules.

 

They sub contracted this job to Community Sharing in Cottage Grove, Oregon. Community Sharing’s executive director is Nancy Glines. The family support case manager was David Flores. One of the Board of Directors was Faye Stewart.

 

Faye Stewart is a board member of an organization that he sub-contracted to.

 

Faye Stewart was aware of the federal rules he was to comply with because of his membership on the Lane County Commissioners and as a member of the Community Sharing of Cottage Grove, Oregon Board of Directors.

 

As a member of the Lane County Commissioners Faye Stewart has appointed Nancy Glines to Lane County positions and funded numerous “not for profits” she has set-up, ran and been associated with.

 

They have a working relationship that spans many years.

 

To recap, Faye Stewart has funded a program that he is intimately involved with. He knows and is fully aware of the federal rules that are in effect.

 

As a Lane County Commissioner, Faye Stewart is charged with making sure that the federal funds are spent according to federal rules. You can not say that the money is being spent on providing a service unless you actually provide that service.

 

This aspect seems to be giving you problems. Let me use a different set-up to illustrate what is going on. Let us say that the county gets federal funds to build a bridge. This bridge is specifically to be designed to have a wheel chair safe passage across it.

There are extra funds provided for the wheel chair feature. The sub-contract goes to a group that has one of the county commissioners on its board. When the bridge is built it does not contain the wheel chair feature and in fact has a 15 foot gap between the north side and the south side. It can not function as a bridge because it does not connect the two sides. Plato would say, “It does not participate in the reality of being a bridge.”  

 

A person in a wheel chair contacts the county commissioner/sub-contractor, which is Faye Stewart in his double role, and asks for an investigation as to why the bridge is incomplete. The person is ignored, and retaliated against by the sub-contractor. The person demands to be heard by the whole county board. They hold a limited hearing that will only look at the north ramp. They refuse to allow testimony about the 15 foot gap in the middle. The say they have a signed report that states that the wheel chair provision is present and complete. When asked to produce that document, they fax a BOGUS FAKE document. They then provide a fake document to an agent of the sub-contractor who attempts to use it against the complaining person. When this does not scare the complaint away, one of their agents start shooting at the person who complained.

 

To recap, Faye Stewarts “not for profit” was using federal funds improperly. He was caught. He attempted to cover up this with a sham hearing. A known fake document was used in the sham hearing. A fake document sent from the county was used in an attempted fake eviction. When this did not work, fire arms were used 14 times. Think about that for a minute. Under what circumstances is shooting at a person 14 times over a 2 week period ever legal. There is video tape in evidence with the sheriffs office, and an e-mail from the attorney stating, my client shot at you but didn’t think the pellets would reach you.

 

I welcome any intelligent debate about the facts or circumstances. Quote what you dispute and offer a rebuttal and provide links to support your argument.

 

  

 

Next post I will go into the reasoning why the funders of Community Sharing of Cottage Grove, Oregon are financially responsible for their actions in this case.

 

As members of or by virtue of having relatives working for multiple groups that fund Community Sharing they have created a situation that is more than a contractor / sub-contractor relationship. This will come into play when fines and settlement costs are assessed. For example, Nancy Glines and a few other board members of Community sharing are also voting members of the funding agencies: City of Cottage Grove, Cottage Grove Community Foundation, Local Rotary, and The Community Foundation of Oregon.

All of these groups have funded Community Sharing and some of Faye Stewarts’ family foundations. This system of cross funding and reciprocal funding is more akin to a company with different divisions, than a group of non related companies.

Such drama.

Now Faye Stewart, the guy with the reputation for being the mildest mannered politician in the county, is responsible for somebody else shooting at you? C'mon.

I wouldn't wish that kind of trauma on anybody, no matter how irritating the false accusing drama queen may be, as every person has a right to be safe in his home, even in Lane County.

Of course, there's obviously no evidence Mr. Stewart had ANYTHING to do with anybody trying to cause ol'FT harm.

Let's see how long it takes for this lawsuit to get pitched out of court. I put the chance that ol' FT will get ten really big ones at ZERO, even here in the land of OZ.

Spanky, such big insults from such a small person. From reading your post of 03-07-2008 I see that you find it hard to believe ol’ Faye wouldn’t be involved in the shooting aspect of this case but you think that with his reputation being involved in an ongoing criminal enterprise is not beyond him.

 

A bit about the shooting. We had lived at this place for 3 years. In that period of time Alvin Johnson had not shot a firearm while we were there. Because of health reasons, we spent 90% of the time at the house. We had a three hour talk with the Johnson’s about our need for peace and quiet. On the day in question we were sitting in lawn chairs in front of our place. The only other house on the dead end road was the Johnson’s. We were waiting for the sheriff to show up to take a statement concerning Terry Smith, driver for South Lane Wheels, groping my wife on two of her rides on the South Lane Wheels van. This “not for profit” is located in the same complex as Community Sharing and has a long association with Community Sharing and Faye Stewart. At the time the South Lane Wheels van was our only way to get to our medical appointments and Community Sharing meetings. We asked LTD to look into the two incidents, they did nothing. We asked the sheriff to look into it. As we waited Alvin Johnson started shooting at us. He was about 200 yards away. The shotgun pellets rained down on our heads. He fired three times. 30 seconds later the patrol car pulled up. I advised the officer about the shooting. She went to the Johnson residence. 2 minuets later we could hear them laughing. As we took care of paperwork we found that she also had a “not for profit” connection with Nancy Glines of Community Sharing. Alvin Johnson would shoot at us 14 times over a 2 week period. The Last times we were able to get it on video tape and on the 911 call. The sheriff sent out the same deputy and 2 others. They were stand offish until we played the tape for them, which is now in their evidence room. One officer said, “You can plainly hear the pellets hitting the house.”  They talked to Alvin Johnson the next day. They advised him to not shoot at us any more. When we moved from the house he blocked our exit and threatened to kill us. For a year we had cars sitting at the end of our drive in the dark that had came down from the Johnson’s house. We had people shouting curses at us as they drove past our drive as they came or left the Johnson house. In any other civilized part of the United States this would be seen as something to condemn and put an immediate end to this type of behavior. Because of the involvement of Faye Stewart and Nancy Glines an attempt to cover it up has occurred. We were illegally removed from a federal housing program and forced out of the county at gun point. Out of the hundred or so people following this thread, 3 seem to support Faye Stewart, Nancy Glines, David Flores, Nancy Waggoner (Lane County Human Services Commission program services coordinator) and the Johnson’s in this illegal behavior.

Actually, I find your criminal conspiracy theory equally absurd and unbelievable. Frankly, you strike me as another paranoid crazy with an ax to grind -- like one of the people who goes off the deep end when the dump fees are raised a dollar.

Your explanation (above) provides absolutely no substantive connection to Faye Stewart whatsoever. None. It couldn't be a more kooky and improbable case for conspiracy, theft, fraud, attempted murder, or whatever you're allegation-du-jour is.

So this is the logical nexus which establishes guilt on the part of Stewart?
- A "South Lane Wheels" driver "groped" your wife, and that enterprise is located in the same building as "Community Sharing".
- Faye Stewart is one of many prominent people who volunteers with "Community Sharing". (He also volunteers with many other community charities and is "associated with" the United Way, a charitable organization which is "associated with hundreds of other organizations and thousands of other people.)
- Your neighbor was repeatedly "shooting at you" with a shotgun from "200 yards" and he subsequently threatened to kill you.
- The female deputy who responded to investigate "the shooting" also volunteers with "Community Sharing". (She's involved in charity work? Oh, the horror of it all!)
- Cars mysteriously drive down from your neighbor's house and park at the bottom of your driveway at night. (There are no threats from them, and no indication they mean you harm. For all you know they were teenage kids smoking dope down there, but you assumed, what, hit-men sent by Stewart? )

* Without ANY evidence of his involvement, you attribute all of the above difficulties to Faye Stewart. That's just plain nuts.

Here's the more likely explanation: Your neighbor lives in the country and likes to shoot squirrels/birds/clay-targets with a shotgun from time to time. On this particular occasion you happened to be home. Several pellets fell on your house. You complained to the police instead of speaking to your neighbor, because you're paranoid, you're convinced everybody is out to get you, and you've already alienated your neighbor by being a grumpy jerk. The deputy comes out, talks to the neighbor, Mr. Johnson, and discovers that Johnson was in fact not shooting "at" you. The deputy checks Mr. Johnson and discovers that he is a nice man who has never been in any kind of trouble with the law. She also knows that shotguns loaded with pellets are not effective at ranges anywhere near 200 yards. In fact, she knows that bird-shot isn't dangerous at even one-third of that range, so she knows that Johnson intended you no harm, and she and Johnson enjoy a chuckle that this silliness has become so over-blown. To save the deputy further unnecessary trips to your home, Johnson promises not to shoot anywhere near your property line. He acknowledges that you're a paranoid shut-in who bristles easily. They both have another good laugh at how an innocent error can be blown into a grand conspiracy involving corrupt politicians and hit-men -- and then the deputy is on her way.

And the recap of your series of misfortunes plays like this:
[1] your wife has been groped by criminal #1(sex abuse?), but hyper-sensitive and risk-adverse LTD refused to investigate. (There is no way they refuse to investigate a claim that has ANY basis in fact, and no way the media refuses to report it.)

[2] Your neighbor, Mr. Johnson, (criminal #2) is trying to shoot you (attempted murder) and threatening to kill you (menacing), and the police have evidence of Johnson shooting "at" you on tape, but NOTHING has been done for more than a year. (The agencies are short on staff, but they still investigate serious crimes like intentional shooting/menacing/attempted murder.)

[3] The well-liked local commissioner, Faye Stewart (criminal #3) and a woman named Nancy Glines (criminal #4) are conspiring to cover up the illegal, forcible removal of you from your property at gun-point (kidnapping), by another as-yet-unidentified criminal (criminal #5?). (So you're kidnapped -- forcible, illegal, removal at gun-point and NOBODY will do anything?)

To date, in spite of evidence you find conclusive, you can't get ANYBODY to take you seriously -- not LTD, or the Sheriff, or the Oregon State Police, or the DA, or the DOJ, or the FBI, or ATF, or the media. Why is nobody taking you seriously? It's because this is complete hogwash, just like your complaints about the "conspiracies" involving standard government accounting practices that are transparently explained in the budget documents and regularly audited :)

I'm delighted that you're finally under the gun to put-up-or-shut-up via the federal lawsuit. I trust that when your loose, baseless conspiracy theories are thoroughly scrutinized and pitched out of court we'll be done with this nonsense.

Thereafter, Mr. Stewart may turn the other cheek, but you should anticipate a lawsuit for libel/slander for all the false accusations you've been making against him and the many other fine people who participate on the same boards and charitable organizations.

Public officials are destined to get a fair amount of this sort of abuse from crackpots, but there are limits beyond which the libelous, slanderous conduct becomes actionable. I have to assume you're over the line with the accusations you've been making here, but I guess we'll see.

Halo, where is that information you promised?!

"Out of the hundred or so people following this thread, 3 seem to support Faye Stewart, Nancy Glines, David Flores, Nancy Waggoner (Lane County Human Services Commission program services coordinator) and the Johnson’s in this illegal behavior. "

I must be one of the 3, as I actually have replied to some of this.

So, FT...   As you are so quick to ask in this manner, where do you get the number "hundred or so people following this thread" ?   Are you spouting off more numbers and allegations that you can't (and never seem to) back up?  Is there a link to some magical number that can support this statement?  The 3 (or so) that are actually replying to this thread are merely pointing out that they feel your allegations have no basis, no connectivity, and seem to be simply conspiracy theory that supports your need to carry on your personal vendetta.  If the behavior is indeed illegal, I would not support it.  But that doesn't make for good fodder, or support any theory that the entire government structure in the County is out to get you.  Don't go by the # of views of this thread, as I come back several times and re-read some of this stuff, thinking that somehow, someway, this will all make sense, and isn't just coming across as some person spouting off every conspiracy theory they can think of in order to try to get some of it to stick to the wall.

You're hundred or so followers should post their support accordingly.   I'm sure there are some who do not want to post, and be the subject of your accusations and requests that THEY supply information that you won't go look up yourself.  Spanky, Halo, and the others who DO post here must have thick skin.  Or feel a need to control the mis-information you post here in large copy-and-paste postings.  I suspect the latter, as they always try to provide you information that you demand, then you discount as either not being what you wanted, or irrelevant.  When you want it to be irrelevant, you invariably copy and paste a new allegation or direction to attempt to make it (and you?) look bigger that it really is.  It continues to come across as smoke and mirrors without any substance.

I say give it a rest until your lawsuit bears fruit.  If you have any links to the actual information about the lawsuit (shouldn't it be out there somewhere for us uninformed to view?), please provide them.  Actual links, FT.  Not just copy and paste information.  Unless it is all imaginary or not worth anyone's time, we should see a media blitz unlike anything we have seen in the local politics before.

 

From Spunky “Thereafter, Mr. Stewart may turn the other cheek, but you should anticipate a lawsuit for libel/slander for all the false accusations you've been making against him and the many other fine people who participate on the same boards and charitable organizations.”

 

I too find it strange that Faye and his group would be totally silent about the possibility of filing a lawsuit for libel/slander, but they would have been told that the truth is not libel/slander.  So if you think that Faye is in fact completely innocent you should call him on the phone and tell him that to preserve is fake reputation he should file a lawsuit for libel/slander. His friend Van Vactor, now in private practice would most likely do it as a donation to poor ol’ Faye.

 

 

Anatomy of spin.

 “Actually, I find your criminal conspiracy theory equally absurd and unbelievable. Frankly, you strike me as another paranoid crazy with an ax to grind”

 

Start by insulting the accuser.

 “-- like one of the people who goes off the deep end when the dump fees are raised a dollar.”

 

Make the incident seem small by comparing it to something absurd and trivial.

”Your explanation (above) provides absolutely no substantive connection to Faye Stewart whatsoever. None. It couldn't be a more kooky and improbable case for conspiracy, theft, fraud, attempted murder, or whatever you're allegation-du-jour is.”

 

Deny any wrong doing in extreme terms, remembering that people have been trained to accept that the important part is in the first paragraph.

”So this is the logical nexus which establishes guilt on the part of Stewart? “

 

Restate the accusation to control what people think is being alleged.

”- A "South Lane Wheels" driver "groped" your wife, and that enterprise is located in the same building as "Community Sharing".”

 

This is minimizing the connection between the two groups. South Lane Wheels and Community Sharing both claim credit for securing the funds to purchase the “old Cottage Grove Hospital” from Peace Health. They both have shared the same addresses as they have moved around Cottage Grove, Oregon. They both share common board members and funders, notably the Stewart foundations, City of Cottage Grove, Rotary and Cottage Grove Community Foundation. All of these groups share common board members. In the past they called this practice “interlocking directorships” and in the Standard oil anti-trust cases this was found to constitute a single entity instead of a group of non-related organizations. Faye lists South Lane Wheels as one of his affiliated groups.

”- Faye Stewart is one of many prominent people who volunteers with "Community Sharing". (He also volunteers with many other community charities and is "associated with" the United Way, a charitable organization which is "associated with hundreds of other organizations and thousands of other people.)”

 

Faye is “prominent” because a distant relative made money in the timber industry. His political career appears to start when he was chosen by a leadership group, with a name that could confuse it with a larger Ford foundation, that had Faye and some other locals come up with the “plan” to do a “community park”. This is because a park is totally non partisan and everyone can agree that fixing a park is worthwhile. The actual project is to locate local people as funding sources. If you have money, you get a target on your back. They will have surveys to find local interest points to set up “not for profits” to address these “needs” It is a fund raising scheme. Read Faye’s bio for a hint to see who set up the “not for profits”.   For a comparison see www.theworldlink.com/articles/2008/03/03/news/doc47cc497c9ae20349893926.prt

Compare this with Faye’s leadership project of fixing up a park in Cottage Grove.  If you check who is helping decide who gets “united way” funds you will see Faye Stewart and Nancy Glines. By controlling the funds you can control the “not for profit”

”- Your neighbor was repeatedly "shooting at you" with a shotgun from "200 yards" and he subsequently threatened to kill you.”

 

This is the paper tiger ploy, state a valid accusation that will “be knocked down like a paper tiger” later. Yes, our landlord was shooting at us. Pointing a firearm in the direction of a person is illegal. Shooting at a person is illegal. The question of, if the specific ammo would kill would dictate how severe the penalty would be. The act of pointing a weapon is sufficient to be a criminal act. Shooting in the direction of people is an escalation of that crime, even if they claim that they didn’t know they were in the line of fire or that they “were just trying to scare them”.

”- The female deputy who responded to investigate "the shooting" also volunteers with "Community Sharing". (She's involved in charity work? Oh, the horror of it all!)”

 

This is the spin of just making up a statement so that you can make the statement in ()    Her statement was I have worked with Nancy Glines and she is a friend of mine.

”- Cars mysteriously drive down from your neighbor's house and park at the bottom of your driveway at night. (There are no threats from them, and no indication they mean you harm. For all you know they were teenage kids smoking dope down there, but you assumed, what, hit-men sent by Stewart? ) “

This is the ploy of giving an unsupported absurd explanation to an accusation. There were threats. They were regular visitors to the Johnson home. Sometimes it was Alvin Johnson parking in front of the drive at 4 in the morning. He would sit and drink whiskey from the bottle he keeps under the driver’s seat of his red Toyota pick-up.

”* Without ANY evidence of his involvement, you attribute all of the above difficulties to Faye Stewart. That's just plain nuts.”

 

This is the conclusion that comes from your series of misrepresented statements. According to recent research the average human can retain 5 to 10 ideas at any one time to form an opinion.  Now that the “short term memory” is loaded with the “spin “ it is time to plant the grand spin that is based on nothing. It is just made up.  

”Here's the more likely explanation: Your neighbor lives in the country and likes to shoot squirrels/birds/clay-targets with a shotgun from time to time.”

 

False assumption. The landlord had not shot weapon in the three years that we lived at the location until this incident. Alvin Johnson did not have a valid hunting license at the time. 

 

“ On this particular occasion you happened to be home. Several pellets fell on your house.”

 

Minimize the effect of the incident. We were shot at and pellets hit us. If Alvin Johnson had put a deer slug into the weapon it would have had the ability to kill a full grown Buck at that distance.

 

 “You complained to the police instead of speaking to your neighbor,”

 

Made up statement on your part. I attempted to speak to Alvin at the time of the first incident. He turned toward me as I walked up the drive and leveled the weapon at me. I am aware of the range of a shotgun loaded with pellets and decided that seeking cover behind our van and waited for the anticipated arrival of the sheriff.

 

“...because you're paranoid, you're convinced everybody is out to get you, and you've already alienated your neighbor by being a grumpy jerk.”

 

More unsupported insults.

 

 “The deputy comes out, talks to the neighbor, Mr. Johnson, and discovers that Johnson was in fact not shooting "at" you.”

 

Unsupported and made up. Pellets hitting us indicates that the weapon was fired in our direction.

 

 “The deputy checks Mr. Johnson and discovers that he is a nice man who has never been in any kind of trouble with the law.”

 

Made up again. Alvin has had a relationship with the local law because of his having ran an “auto salvage yard” and in the recent past for being cited numerous times for infractions of local laws.

 

 “She also knows that shotguns loaded with pellets are not effective at ranges anywhere near 200 yards.”

 

Pointing a weapon is a criminal violation. Discharging a weapon in the direction is a bigger violation.

 

 “In fact, she knows that bird-shot isn't dangerous at even one-third of that range, so she knows that Johnson intended you no harm,”

 

False premise leads to a false conclusion. Bad logic.

 

 “and she and Johnson enjoy a chuckle that this silliness has become so over-blown.”

 

Shooting at a person with a firearm is not “silliness”, it is a crime.

 

 “To save the deputy further unnecessary trips to your home, Johnson promises not to shoot anywhere near your property line.”

 

Made up statement, because Alvin Johnson continued to shoot at us for the next 2 weeks.

 

 “He acknowledges that you're a paranoid shut-in who bristles easily.”

 

Another insult.

 

 “They both have another good laugh at how an innocent error can be blown into a grand conspiracy involving corrupt politicians and hit-men -- and then the deputy is on her way.”

 

 

When a deputy is involved in a situation that involves someone shooting at their tenant it is not a cause for a good chuckle. At about the same time in Eugene they called out the SWAT squad to subdue a man with an air gun. BB gun = SWAT, Shotgun = chuckle.

 

My conclusion, you have been pushing the proposition that the sheriffs need more money and less oversight. You then take the position that in the field it is considered a joke to shoot at your neighbors if you have common “connections”. This situation is one of the reasons that more oversight is needed.  

”And the recap of your series of misfortunes plays like this:
[1] your wife has been groped by criminal #1(sex abuse?), but hyper-sensitive and risk-adverse LTD refused to investigate. (There is no way they refuse to investigate a claim that has ANY basis in fact, and no way the media refuses to report it.)”

 

 

The assumption that if an entity does not investigate itself then it must not be doing anything wrong is absurd. The media is not the judge of what should be considered criminal acts, which is why we use juries.

”[2] Your neighbor, Mr. Johnson, (criminal #2) is trying to shoot you (attempted murder) and threatening to kill you (menacing), and the police have evidence of Johnson shooting "at" you on tape, but NOTHING has been done for more than a year. (The agencies are short on staff, but they still investigate serious crimes like intentional shooting/menacing/attempted murder.)”

 

When you have a person shooting at you on tape as you are on the phone with 911 and their lawyer emails you telling you his client was in fact shooting at you, the questions becomes why has this not been prosecuted?  

”[3] The well-liked local commissioner, Faye Stewart (criminal #3)”

 

Faye was a local rich kid who was groomed for public office.

 

 “and a woman named Nancy Glines (criminal #4)”

 

Nancy infiltrates local “not for profits” and gets grants for them by getting grants from her affiliated foundations. She is “buying” charities with fake grants then taking over the boards. Watch how the funding grants of the united way of Lane County change while Nancy Glines has sway over the process. 

 

 “are conspiring to cover up the illegal, forcible removal of you from your property at gun-point (kidnapping), by another as-yet-unidentified criminal (criminal #5?).”

 </