Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Close to Home — What it’s like on the street where you live
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Pension Costs Reach 69% of City Payroll, Says DeMaio
No worries folks it just a scare tactic. Johnny already knows truth is an absolute defense to defamation. My posts are linked to solid documentation and the legal opinion, analysis and conclusions of the City Attorney. Nothing more, nothing less. Truth is the great equalizer in any libel or slander suit. It is what the plaintiff's lawyer fears the most; that what his client's accuser says is true. It does not matter that the defendant made the statement out of malice or out of bad faith, so long as the statement is true. Washer v. Bank of America (1948) 87 Cal.App.2d 501, 509; Campanelli v. Regents of Univ. of Calif. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 572, 581; Rest. 2d, Torts § 581A; Francis v. Dun & Bradstreet (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 535, 540 (credit report, even one causing harm, is not defamatory if true); Ellenberger v. Espinosa (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 943, 953. Of course there's also of our 1st amendment rights. All I've asked Don to do is keep it fair when obvious misstatements are made. As for Johnny tactics... Two can play at almost any game my friend. As Johnny stated...[y]ou're two subpoenas away from me, [too]. We will see who has the last laugh...— January 22, 2010 4:54 p.m.
Pension Costs Reach 69% of City Payroll, Says DeMaio
Don, I understand the intent of this blog and the guidelines you use for the free exchange of ideas. However, when posts contain bald-faced lies, ones perpetrated by a person who in many past posts claims to be an attorney, it's over the line. I know you believe the City's pension problems are very real. I agree they are. Nevertheless, allowing outright misstatements of fact to go unchallenged would never passed an Editor's review.— January 22, 2010 11:24 a.m.
Pension Costs Reach 69% of City Payroll, Says DeMaio
Finally Johnny let's go back and read comment #51 above. In part you wrote: "Oh, and lets not forget you said the SPSP ****SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION*** was not supplemental, but the main pension. Guess you got smoked on that whopper too (this in spite of the fact that the SP in "SPSP" stands for "Supplemental Pension" Savings Plan) You're a joke, running around like a little whiner when someone calls you out on your fraud." The only joke of a person here is you Johnny... go to Appendix G, page 49 of Mr. Goldsmith's analysis and opinion. Read the facts my friend, stop posting lies. Page 49, Appendix G of the Goldsmith's opinion reads: “In January 1982, the City Council, with the agreement of City employees, created the Supplemental Pension Savings Plan [SPSP or Plan], as a replacement for Social Security. San Diego Resolution R-255609 (Jan. 4, 1982). SPSP is not a benefit under the retirement system as defined by article IX of the Charter. It is a benefit provided and administered by the City. “ It further states: ”The Plan has been established pursuant to the City of San Diego’s withdrawal form the Federal Social Security System and to the Federal Government’s mandate of a Social Security Medicare tax for all employees not covered by Social Security hired on or after April 1, 1986, with the purpose of providing eligible employees a convenient method of saving and to provide supplemental pension benefits. “— January 22, 2010 11:21 a.m.
Pension Costs Reach 69% of City Payroll, Says DeMaio
No one said Mr. Goldsmith's opinion is the law. Why would jump to such an irrational conclusion? Mr. Goldsmith is the City's Attorney. His opinions will carry the weight of credibility, not your wild claim and phony statements. His advice, as their attorney will be relied upon by the Mayor and Council as they make their decisions going forward. Not your diatribes, my friend, like it or not.— January 22, 2010 9:55 a.m.
Pension Costs Reach 69% of City Payroll, Says DeMaio
If I can paraphrase you from some your nearly 4,000 previous comments as Surf Puppy, Johnny Vegas and the infamous BillyBob Heny...do your own research pal.— January 22, 2010 9:48 a.m.
Pension Costs Reach 69% of City Payroll, Says DeMaio
Hey Johnny instead of spewing your outright lies....how about reading our City Attorney's Legal Opinion and thoughtful analysis. You'll find it at this link: http://docs.sandiego.gov/legalopinions/LO-2010-1.… Take your time, breath, it's more than sixty pages.— January 22, 2010 8:20 a.m.
Pension Costs Reach 69% of City Payroll, Says DeMaio
Funny...Mr. Goldsmith said the "Country". You know Johnny the entire United States of America....You know where bankruptcy jurisdiction is resides in the Federal Courts.... But you knew that too... cause you're a lawyer, a realtor, a teacher, a butcher, a baker and a candlestick maker. Additionally we can read and see your grammar skills are as poor as your lawyering skills! In post #45 above you said, "Time to shoot down another one of the welfare queens lies." Since you say you were responding to the statement about bankruptcy lawyers' potential fees. You must have been referring to A LAWYER, who once lead of his own firm; a former mayor; a former state legislator; a law professor; a judge and now City Attorney Jan Goldsmith. So he's the Welfare Queen? Many will vehemently disagree with your flawed analysis. Have anymore troll-like comments to add?— January 21, 2010 5:38 p.m.
Pension Costs Reach 69% of City Payroll, Says DeMaio
As usual Johnny can't or just won't read and understand. Johnny, those are Goldsmith's, you know a professional peer of yours, words, not mine. http://voiceofsandiego.org/government/thehall/art… But you already knew that. Once again your incendiary comments are designed for one purpose alone. Don Internet trolls like Johnny a.k.a. Surf Puppy are a discredit to this blog.— January 21, 2010 2:31 p.m.
Pension Costs Reach 69% of City Payroll, Says DeMaio
That's correct between 100 and 300 million in Attorney's fees. So Lawyers get rich off the City's years of mismanagement. The most telling line from Goldsmith's speech. "I haven't found a case in the history of this country in which a municipality has been allowed to void or dissolve pension benefits in a bankruptcy." $300 Million to lawyers... I'd take my chances on our economy recovering and let SDCERS do its work over the next 30 to 40 year time horizon.— January 21, 2010 11:18 a.m.
Pension Costs Reach 69% of City Payroll, Says DeMaio
The City's defined benefit plan has been in place for a long, long, time. It was only in 1981 when then City Manager Ray Blair, and Mayor Pete Wilson, cooked up the idea of leaving the Social Security System and Medicare to save the city millions in matching contributions. They offered the employees SPSP as an enticement to vote for their plan. You see, instead of paying 7% to social security and another 1.5% to Medicare the City offered SPSP where it would only pay 3.05%. Additionally, the city, through its Retirement System, would have "access" to hundreds of millions of dollars. If they stayed in Social Security they lost control of the money immediately. To eliminate fears about losing retiree health care and enticing a yes vote for the proposal, the City promised retiree health care in lieu of Medicare. Then, instead of funding it via the general fund, the city illegally used so-called "investment profits" from its own Retirement System to fund it. They even gave it a special name..."the waterfall". We know there is no such thing as investment profits, investment returns from good years are designed to smooth out investment returns from bad years. So today the funding ratio has dropped and the the bill is due. Those reckless management decisions over the past 30-40 years are back. It's ironic, those decisions were made so long ago but are nearly the exact time horizon, 30-40 years, that retirement system use for their planing. Sadly not a single manager, nor politician who made those or initiated those decisions or actions is held accountable. But everyone is screaming for their pound of flesh, all from the backsides of hard working employees who were doing their jobs 30 and 40 years ago. I find it very difficult to stomach the revisionist histories whether they are from Carl DeMaio or our prolific poster, Surf Puppy. A.k.a. Billy Bob Henry and Johnny Vegas, especially when those posts that are purported as truth. Today, proof of such claims are easily found and verified using the very tool he uses to spread fabrications . So Don, as I have stated before, and as you defined in previous threads, Surf Puppy is an Internet Troll. A person looking for attention who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages, with the primary intent of provoking others into an emotional response.— January 21, 2010 7:49 a.m.