KNIGHT **LOST** LAWSUIT !!!

This forum will list the news articles relative to the topic of RSE, directly or indirectly.
User avatar
EMFWebmaster
Site Admin
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 2:28 am
Contact:

KNIGHT **LOST** LAWSUIT !!!

Unread post by EMFWebmaster » Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:46 am

What's going on here ???

The article (see below) claims that Knight won the lawsuit with the developers. THE WORD FROM SOME VERY REPUTABLE SOURCES IS THAT KNIGHT LOST THE LAWSUIT.




JZ Knight wins land-use appeal - South Sound - The Olympian - Olympia, Washington

http://www.theolympian.com/southsound/story/614136.html (DEAD LINK)



OLYMPIA ? Ramtha School of Enlightenment leader JZ Knight won an appeal Thursday in a land-use decision in Thurston County Superior Court.


Judge Chris Wickham overturned a Yelm City Council ruling regarding a Feb. 12 decision to allow five housing developments totaling 568 new homes inside city limits.

Keith Moxon, the Seattle attorney representing Knight, said the judge agreed with Knight and the state Department of Ecology that the city lacked water rights to serve the new developments.

"They use more water than they have already," he said.

"The city's own planning documents say they expect a shortage of water," he said earlier.

In remanding the case to Yelm, Wickham said the city would have to give Knight notice of any plat requests and provide "proof of appropriate provisions," Moxon said.

Seattle attorney Richard Settle, who represents Yelm in the case, argued in January that the city had done extensive studies on water supplies and was prepared for housing growth.

The developments, which include single-family homes, townhouses and condominiums, are Windshadow I and II, Wyndstone, Berry Valley I and Tahoma Terra Phase II.

The proposed homes are within a mile of the Ramtha school, a spiritual-growth center established in Yelm by Knight 20 years ago.

Tree
Posts: 974
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 12:31 am

Unread post by Tree » Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:14 am

so
who are the sources?
and why all the secrecy?

User avatar
David McCarthy
Site Admin
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:09 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Unread post by David McCarthy » Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:47 am

and why all the secrecy?
Tree,
I am sure you will understand that it not always easy to find the facts in these muddy RSE waters.
From what I know from 'reliable sources"...this will be verified ASAP.

The Olympian article apparently came through JZ Knight's lawyer, it was his interpretation of what the judge ruled .
The state now has the final say, and the project can go ahead. JZ Knight lost her law suit appeal.

The question now begs.... how come the Olympian didn't check the facts?
Also, Why did they call RSE
"a spiritual-growth center"?.
Like I said..
as soon as "we" have all have the relevant facts..! we will post them.... and include the sources.

David.
But he has nothing on at all, cried at last the whole people....

User avatar
David McCarthy
Site Admin
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:09 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Unread post by David McCarthy » Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:58 am

From an Email I just received....
Knight did not "win" anything. The parties
agreed between ourselves to a remand the decision to the hearing
examiner to take out the "/or" words of the decision which made it seem
that the City could delay making a determination of appropriate potable
water availability until the building permit application. Everyone
agrees the law requires the determination of adequate potable water
availability at the time of final plat approval. The newspaper article
is wrong and misleading. The quotation attributed to attorney Moxon
that "proof of appropriate provisions" must be made at final plat is
just plain wrong. In fact, the court expressly refused to rule on such
a requirement. The only concession given to the appellant is that the
City must provide her notice of its findings on final plat approval.
Notice of a meeting by the City to approve a final plat is already
required by law. The effect of this decision is to have the hearing
examiner strike the aforementioned "/or" from his decision and reissue
the decision. This exercise should take about two weeks. The courts
decision means nothing in a
practical sense.
But he has nothing on at all, cried at last the whole people....

Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Unread post by Whatchamacallit » Sat Oct 11, 2008 5:12 am

something to think about...

the "sources" may not want their names posted on emf. however, it is legitimate that they exist, and it's not rumor.

secrecy ? perhaps i misunderstand; that has a negative connotation to it.
what might be perceived as secrecy may in fact be protecting people who have proven truthful in a private way. that ought to be respected by everyone.

Wakeup-Call
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:20 am
Location: Washington

Unread post by Wakeup-Call » Sat Oct 11, 2008 7:30 pm

The online version of the article in the Olympian provides the opportunity to comment...which several of us have.

http://www.theolympian.com/southsound/story/614136.html

Click on "Comments" beneath the byline

Tree
Posts: 974
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 12:31 am

Unread post by Tree » Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:28 pm

making such posts before one can cite their sources either publcily or privately does not necessarily
make the stories credible. Kind of like JZ making "scientific claims" that "ramtha" is real.

User avatar
David McCarthy
Site Admin
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:09 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Unread post by David McCarthy » Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:58 pm

Tree,
making such posts before one can cite their sources........
Tree,
The moderators are doing their very best to bring credible information to EMF.
This is voluntary and time consuming....how about a little support here?
Your concerns of credibility has been already been proved on this thread.
Or...are you still asking for names? If so... you are welcome to PM the moderators or call me personally.
lets discuss the real issues and questions that have been raised regarding the Olympian article,
and Keri Brenner?s continuing lack of journalistic integrity.


David


8)
But he has nothing on at all, cried at last the whole people....

Tree
Posts: 974
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 12:31 am

Unread post by Tree » Sun Oct 12, 2008 10:53 pm

was not attacking you or the mods.
It is just that several times on EMF people have quoted "credible sources", which coming from
the moderators, I understand.
From purely a nuts and bolts point of view (or journalistic for that matter)
it is only "he said, or she said".
That's all.
I meant no offense to your hard work.

User avatar
David McCarthy
Site Admin
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:09 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Unread post by David McCarthy » Sun Oct 12, 2008 11:15 pm

OK Tree....

Thanks for clarifying...

:idea:

I have court judgment records in PDF format,
I will post them ASAP.

David
But he has nothing on at all, cried at last the whole people....

User avatar
David McCarthy
Site Admin
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:09 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

J Z Knight v City of Yelm Courts Decision 10-07-08

Unread post by David McCarthy » Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:18 am

Superior Court of the State of Washington
For Thurston County
Paula Casey, Judge
Christine Schaller
Department No. 1
Court Commissioner
Richard A. Strophy, Judge
709-3201
Department No. 2
Indu Thomas
Wm. Thomas McPhee, Judge
OCT 0 7 2008
Court Commissioner
Department No. 3
709-3201
OCT 9 2008
Richard D. Ricks, Judge
Department No. 4
Marti Maxwell
Christine A. Pomeroy, Judge

SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT
Superior Court Administrator
Department No. 5
PETTY
Gary Carlyle
GaryR. Taw, Judge
. .
Assistant Superior
Department No. 6
Court Administrator
Chris Wickham, Judge
2000 LAKERIDGE DRIVE S.W. ? OLYMPIA, WA 98502
TELEPHONE (360) 786-5560 ? FAX (360) 754-4060
Ellen Goodman
Department No. 7
Drug Court Program
Anne Hirsch, Judge
Administrator
Department No. 8
357-2482
October 7, 2008
Allison Moss
Attorney at Law
2183 Sunset Ave SW
Seattle, WA 98116
Keith Moxon
Attorney at Law
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98121-3140
Richard L. Settle -
Attorney at Law
1111 Third Ave. Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101-3299
Curtis Smelser
Attorney at Law
1420 5th Ave., Suite 3010 Seattle, WA 98101
?
J Z Knight v City of Yelm et al
Thurston County Superior Court No. 08-2-00489-6

Re:

LETTER OPINION
Dear Counsel:

A hearing in this action on Petitioner J Z Knight's Land Use Petition was held on October -42008..

The decision of the court follows.

At the time of argument, Petitioner had reduced the issues requiring adjudication to the following: (1)
may the City of Yelm delay until issuance of building permits

All Counsel
October 7, 2008
Page 2 of 5
proof of a potable water supply to support the development being permitted; and what level of proof of adequate potable water must be shown to allow the development?
This petition is brought under the Land Use Petition Act ("LUPA"), RCW 36.70. Standards for granting relief are set forth in RCW 36.70C.130. Petitioner claims that the decision in this case by Respondent City of Yelm ("the City") should be reversed because (1) it is an erroneous interpretation of the law; (2) the City's determination of water availability is not supported by substantial evidence; and the City's determination of water availability is a clearly erroneous application of the law to the facts.
The hearing examiner in this case had granted preliminary approval to five proposed subdivisions with the following condition:
The applicant must provide a potable water supply adequate to serve the development at final plat approval and/or prior to the issuance of any building permit except as model homes as set forth in Section 16.04.150 YMC [Yelm Municipal Code].
At hearing, the City agreed to amend the language of this condition to remove "/or" to make clear that proof of adequate potable water must be made at the time of final plat approval and not as late as issuance of a building permit.

Although Petitioner had earlier argued for proof at time of preliminary plat approval, she had withdrawn this request at hearing. The other parties appear to be in agreement with the City's position on this issue.
This resolution is consistent with the law. Preliminary plat approval can be conditioned on the applicant resolving identified issues before final plat approval. 17 Stoebuck and Weaver; Real Estate: Property. Law, Washington Practice series, p. 282 (2004). However, all requirements must be met and confirmed in written findings before final approval. RCW 58.17.110.

It is of course possible for the applicant to provide a bond or other assurance of meeting the final conditions. RCW 58.17.130. The law is clear that these conditions must be met before the building permit stage.
The condition as written is an erroneous interpretation of the law. RCW 36.70C.130. The Court, therefore, will sign an order reversing the City on this issue and remanding it to the City to amend the condition accordingly.

The second issue, however, is still in dispute. Petitioner has presented evidence in the hearing below to support its position that the City has been issuing building permits since 2001 that committed it to the supply of water in excess of its water
All Counsel
October 7, 2008 Page 3 of 5
rights. Amicus Department of Ecology indicates that at the time of the hearing in this case, the City held primary (additive) water rights authorizing use of a total of 719.66 ac-ft/yr. Ecology agrees with Petitioner that the City's usage records show that the amount of water used by the City in recent years exceeds its 719.66 ac?ft./yr primary water right allocation.
After the record was closed, the City acquired and Ecology approved for municipal supply 77 ac-ft/yr of additional primary water rights. This brings the City's total primary water rights to 796.66 ac-ft/yr.
Ecology calculates the resulting demand on the City following final approval of the subdivisions at issue in this case would be 910.53 ac-ft/yr. At present, therefore, the City does not have "a potable water supply adequate to serve the development
"
...
The question, then, is what should the applicant-Respondents need to show at final plat approval regarding supply of potable water? The City asserts that it has a good record of developing additional water rights in time to service new
customers. It also notes that many approved subdivisions have not been fully built and therefore are not drawing on the City's supply. Given the length of time necessary to plan, permit, approve, and build homes, the City argues it is unreasonable to require proof of available water rights for all approved (built and unbuilt) subdivisions at time of final approval. Petitioner, who holds her own water rights, argues that to allow the City to continue to provide final approval without committed water rights will lead to diminution of her own water rights.

Ecology, though not a party in this case, is the administrator of water resources in the State of Washington, RCW 43.21A, RCW 90.03, RCW 90.14, RCW 90.44, and RCW 90.54. The Washington Water Code requires that Ecology determine whether water sought is physically and legally available for use. The Nisqually River Basin is the subject of rules and restrictions regarding water appropriation because "of the importance of stream flow in the basin. The City is in that watershed.

Respondent TTPH 3-8 (Tahoma Terra) has obtained water rights for transfer to the City to assist the City in meeting its obligation to ensure adequate potable water. Tahoma Terra argues that those transfers should be considered in determining whether the condition in the preliminary plat approval has been met in its case. The City argues that un built subdivisions should not be considered in calculating the ability of the City to deliver potable water. In addition, the City argues it has a good record in developing additional capacity for potable water and it should not be subject to a limitation because of its present level of water rights when it will most likely have sufficient potable water when these subdivisions go online.

All Counsel
October 7, 2008
Page 4 of 5
The City also argues that the question of what proof of ability to provide a potable water supply adequate to serve the development at final plat approval is not ripe for adjudication. Petitioner counters that it is not entitled to notice of final plat approval and that there may not be another clear opportunity for this issue to be considered by a court.
RCW 58.17.110 provides, inter alia, that
(2) A proposed subdivision
shall not be approved unless the city,
...
town, or county legislative body makes written findings that: (a) Appropriate provisions are made for
and potable water supplies ...;
...
(b) the public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication.
The Yelm Municipal Code (YMC) provides:
A proposed subdivision and any dedication shall not be approved unless
the decision-maker makes written findings that:
A. Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for
potable water supplies.
...
D. Public facilities impacted by the proposed subdivision will be adequate and available to serve the subdivision concurrently with the development
or a plan to finance needed public facilities in time to assure retention of an adequate level of service.
So it is clear that the City must make findings of "appropriate provisions" for potable water supplies in this case by the time of final plat approval.
The question of whether such a finding must be based on water rights held by the City at the time of final plat approval is apparently a case of first impression. Since final plat approval is expected at some time in the future and since a reviewing city or other governmental agency might be faced with a situation different than the apparent present circumstances of the City in this case, it seems appropriate to defer the determination of "appropriate provision" until the time of final plat approval. If the determination were to be made today on this record, this Court would conclude the City would have to require a showing of approved and available water right sufficient to serve all currently approved and to-be approved subdivisions. The "reasonable expectation" based on historical City's suggested finding potable water would be considered insufficient to satisfy this condition.

4

All Counsel
October 7, 2008
Page 5 of 5
This Court will remand the case to the City of Yelm for the amendment of the condition as described above, deleting the "/or" to make clear that the finding of adequacy must be made no later than final plat approval; and for further consideration of the applications consistent with this decision.
Petitioner is entitled to notice of the entry of findings by the City on the issue of "appropriate provisions
for potable water supplies" at such time as they are made on each application and may then seek appropriate court review,
if necessary. Counsel may present a revised proposed order consistent with this decision with notice to opposing parties on any civil motion calendar.


Chris Wickham
Superior Court Judge
CC
Clerk, for filing
Maia Bellon, Assistant Attorney General, Amicus Department of Ecology
But he has nothing on at all, cried at last the whole people....

User avatar
David McCarthy
Site Admin
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:09 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Letters to the Editor... NV News today.

Unread post by David McCarthy » Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:23 am

Thank you to Chamberlain & Bloom for your letter to the NV News Editor...
You are telling it like it is, and not bowing to the muck and the mire thrown at you by JZ Knight and her cohorts.
Judith has a certain gift for getting others to do her dirty work,
She may even feel untouchable hiding behind her razor walls and self righteousness.
But the cracks in her mind... and her dirty hands are clearly visible now.


Judith?.
Is it is not enough for you to have dominion over your ?Ramtha? followers?
your insatiable greed now beckons you beyond your capacity to deceive ...
and you have stepped outside your Ramtha domain to hunt more innocent prey,
But your prey is more powerful than you can ever imagine?
It will turn around and seek you out? within your own lair.

What I hear from your followers is that I hate you, or wish harm to you,
nothing could be further from the truth.
Give up your destructive madness before it's too late for you to realize ..
this is such beautiful world... and life a precious gift.


David.



**************************



Letters to the Editor
Yelm Nisqually Valley News
10-17-08

Knight should come out from behind the walls.

Editor,

We have tried to stay out of the nasty written and verbal rhetoric going on between the RSE camp and the rest of the Yelm community. However, it has now risen to a level that is neither appropriate nor healthy for any of us to remain silent. The time for change is now!
For the record we too have lived and worked in the Yelm area for almost three decades. We employ people whose families go back generations in Yelm. We too have invested and spent millions in the local economy, established and run several local businesses, built hundreds of family homes, provided many local jobs, supported numerous local charities, bought millions of dollars in local goods, provided scholarships and supported all the school levies in this time frame.
The last few years alone we have given tens of thousands to local charities. In short we too have put our money, heart and soul into this community. It is now very sad to see the negative energy and money being spent by RSE to pit one part of the community against other. Most recently, we have had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of our own hard earned money in attorney and consultant fees defending our livelihood. Other local developers/builders and the city too have spent an equivalent amount and for what? Arguing with JZ and her people over adopted land use and water issues, most of which have had little or no impact on her business and could have been better resolved by an honest and open dialogue between reasonable adults.
We have made several attempts over the last two years to meet directly with JZ as neighbors and community leaders in hopes of having a friendly, open discussion to hear her concerns. Instead, we were either directed to talk with James Flick, her spokesperson, her attorneys or ignored all together.
In our first and only encounter with Flick, it was clear that they had no interest in finding solutions, but rather gathering information for litigation. As anticipated shortly thereafter we and the city were in court with her. What a waste! The monies spent here could have been put to better use in the community. Sadly too is the recent Daily O article that incorrectly reports JZ as a winner of a land use appeal by court decision. She won nothing! Her attorney should be reprimanded for falsely reporting such, as should the misguided reporter for printing this. I hear JZ is a great communicator, but litigation and fighting with her neighbors seems to be JZ?s preferred method of communication.
How great is that? At the end of the day, don?t we all have the same goals? To live in a free country where we can practice our own beliefs, raise and educate our children, run a business or work for an employer of our own choosing, earn a good living, own our own homes, feed and care for our families, support our community and help those of lesser means without being attacked by some paranoid neighbors.
The recent articles to the editors by Flick and Klein and the full page ads are totally contrary to those community goals.
We have no personal experience to say what goes on behind those RSE walls. Nor have we really cared until now. No one is preventing JZ from earning a living. Most of her teachings appear to be common sense stuff, positive thinking that a lot of people can benefit from. If the enlightenment stuff is what she says, then why all the effort to convince us it is?
It makes one curious though when JZ continues to hide behind the likes of Flick and others, has armed guards at the gate and charges a lot of money for sharing Ramtha?s enlightenments. Does he really need the money? Why aren?t these teachings free to all? Maybe, it?s time to remove the walls and get rid of the hired guns.
One thing?s for sure, it certainly appears that this enlightenment gig makes JZ a lot of money. Common sense would say that if you are going to be in this kind of controversial biz, you are going to have some unhappy customers who complain about being enlightened of their money.
Surely with over 35,000 years of experience, Ramtha would understand and JZ would just accept this? When intimidation and threats of retribution no longer keep the disenchanted people from going public and sharing their perspective, as in the recent case of Mr. Cunningham, how do RSE people respond? Flick calls him a liar, others call him old and small minded. Is that what Ramtha really teaches? Even an old warrior should understand certain principles in life.
As in the animal world, if you crap in your nest long enough it is going to stink, so you either continue to live in it and accept the smell, clean it out so it doesn?t stink, or simply find another nest.
If you live in the Yelm community, RSE student or not, you are still part of the whole community and held to community standards! If as Flick suggests, all NON RSE people and business owners should post notices, then let?s ask RSE business owners to post similar notices discouraging patronage by NON RSE customers. How childish and ridiculous is that! Is this the kind of community standards we could have anticipated had Klein been elected Mayor in the last election? Come on guys!
The time is now for JZ, herself, to come out from behind the guarded walls and deal with these matters directly. She needs to act like a good neighbor.
Instead of litigating, act like the leader she proclaims to be. Instead of printing propaganda in the local newspapers to convince us she is good, show us. Let?s put an end to this foolish bickering among ramsters and non ramsters and get on with more important matters in life. Let?s support the efforts of our community leaders and all business owners, not fight to disrupt them. Let?s show our children that his type of community bickering has no place in our town.
JZ, we live in a very scary world as it is, let?s stop going out of our way to make it worse in Yelm.

Chamberlain & Bloom Tahoma Terra
But he has nothing on at all, cried at last the whole people....

California Dreamin'
Posts: 338
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 5:15 pm

Unread post by California Dreamin' » Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:36 pm

There is a comment on Steve Klein's blog today. In this comment, the Court's Decision is repeated, but the poster's (Jillian's) lead comment is just the type of remark that may soon be conveniently deleted from the website.

"Jillian said:

uh...she lost, dude."

Jillian then goes on to reprint the Court's Decision.


Oooh. She dared to post on Steve Klein's site showing such disrespect, calling him a "dude?":o

If you want to view actual posting (quickly before it disappears), it's on www.yelm.com.

California Dreamin'
Posts: 338
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 5:15 pm

October 17, 2008 NVN Article "Business as Usual"

Unread post by California Dreamin' » Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:06 pm

http://www.yelmonline.com/storynews.php ... om=&ucat=1


Lawsuit ruling: ?Business as usual?
Channeler JZ Knight?s appeal of five area subdivisions came down to a single word.
Posted Oct 17, 2008. E-mail this article to a friend.
By Megan Hansen 
Nisqually Valley News
Channeler JZ Knight?s appeal of five area subdivisions came down to a single word.
The appeal, which made it to Thurston County Superior Court under the Land Use Petition Act, was remanded back to the City of Yelm.
The city will amend the Hearing Examiner?s decision to delete the word ?/or? to make clear that the city must have water available no later than final plat approval.
The Hearing Examiner granted preliminary approval of five proposed subdivisions with the condition that ?the applicant must provide a potable water supply adequate to serve the development at final plat approval and/or prior to the issuance of any building permit ??
Both sides of the argument said they are pleased with the decision.
?It?s what we asked for,? said Knight?s attorney, Keith Moxon. ?To make them have water before final plats.?
Initially, however, Knight wanted to require proof of water at the preliminary plat approval, according to the City of Yelm.
?The record before the court was created when JZ Knight was making a far different argument -- that proof of sufficient water rights to serve eventual development is required before preliminary subdivision approval,? said Richard Settle, attorney for the city.
In the judge?s decision it was noted Knight withdrew that request at the hearing.
Moxon said that is ?simply not true.?
Knight never requested proof at the preliminary stage, Moxon said.
?To set aside water rights at a time other than building permit does not make sense,? Yelm Mayor Ron Harding said in a prepared press release. ?In essence, the city would have to set aside water for lots that might not ever be developed.?
Harding said taking the ?/or? out of the hearing examiner?s decision was a housekeeping issue and was something they had already agreed to take out.
?This is exactly the process we would use anyway,? Harding said.
?I don?t see anything that has changed.?
Moxon said he doesn?t agree, and claims the city has waited until the issuance of a building permit to prove the city has the necessary water.
?(They think) they can wait until building to prove water.? Moxon said. ?Proof is what the city?s done the last eight months.?
In his decision, the judge noted the resolution is consistent with the law.
?As long as they obey the orders of the judge.? Moxon said. ?If we have to, we?ll go back to court.?
?You can?t be selling (building) lots without water.?
Also noted in the judge?s decision was that the city must notify Knight when it issues water to building applications.
Harding said this is something the city already does.
To date, the city has spent $145,000 on legal fees responding to Knight?s lawsuit.
That amount does not include staff hours.
?In light of the vast time and money dedicated to this case,? said City Administrator Shelly Badger in a press release, ?it is ironic that the decision equates to Yelm doing business as usual.?
?The permitting process isn?t changed.?

By Megan Hansen 
Nisqually Valley News

Another Dimension60
Posts: 291
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:28 pm

Unread post by Another Dimension60 » Fri Oct 17, 2008 11:33 pm

Blaming the current Yelm city govt. for today's development leads me to believe that the accusers are under 6 yrs old or have always lived in established cities. I learned at age 6 about the (apparently) unstoppable tidal wave of development as my playing fields and woods were bulldozed and made into housing lots. I've also lived in rural areas most of my adult life. What I know is that once McDonalds comes to town, development is a given. It's more than likely that even though the Feds only announced the arrival of 10000 troops to Ft Lewis a few years ago, that fact has been know for 15-20 years...... In 1993 a friend from the east coast was visiting - went to QFC - and simply based on the foods being sold (and an interesting intuition) - and told me that this area was going to boom. Why didn't Ramtha know that -- And if he was so concerned, why didn't he stop it?
The best the current or future city govt.'s can do is work with the developers.... To blame them is somewhat like blaming those who died in the tsunami for dying.

Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Chamberlain & Bloom Tahoma Terra

Unread post by Whatchamacallit » Sat Oct 18, 2008 3:29 am

Chamberlain & Bloom Tahoma Terra
Chamberlain & Bloom Tahoma Terra
Chamberlain & Bloom Tahoma Terra

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU for writing that letter !!! What a ray of hope.

Glen spoke out after carrying the burden he had for years, now these people are speaking back-atcha to Knight. Folks on EMF have talked about exactly what they have also said. Especially the issue of JZ hiding behind the likes of Flick or Klein or Wright. It makes me wonder just how far THEY would go, to "protect" her ?

Post Reply

Return to “News Articles”