Mr./Ms. Flannery, I read the explanation at sandiegans4opengov.wordpress.com. You have to scroll down through a couple newer posts to get to the explanation. It was within the last 4 or 5 days that I saw it. I found it very interesting that it was posted several days before the latest inewsource story but was never mentioned in it, like inewsource was intentionally not wanting to report the real reasons for dismissal. — June 4, 2015 9:39 p.m.
A mugshot is what they seek
Mr./Ms. Flannery, I read the explanation at sandiegans4opengov.wordpress.com. You have to scroll down through a couple newer posts to get to the explanation. It was within the last 4 or 5 days that I saw it. I found it very interesting that it was posted several days before the latest inewsource story but was never mentioned in it, like inewsource was intentionally not wanting to report the real reasons for dismissal.— June 4, 2015 9:39 p.m.
A mugshot is what they seek
I read that the dropped law suit is being added to a new law suit that deals with the same issues plus some recent new bad stuff. If you read the hearing transcript, it appears the judge saw Mr. Briggs being criminally accused by the prosecutor abusing his power in a civil proceeding and was protecting Mr. Briggs. The judge complimented Mr. Briggs a few times even.— June 4, 2015 11:56 a.m.
A mugshot is what they seek
Mr. Flannery's confusion is understandable. Judging by the harsh criticism Mr. Racino got in comments, most of us regular people were confused by his post last Thursday. You have to click on the attorney general's website and go to the bottom link to see her office had the registration since 2011. I wonder why Mr. Racino didnt ask the general why she was still asking in 2013/2014 for something she had since 2011 on her website no less. If he did he should have explained the results in his story. To me Mr. Hargrove, it looks like the general's office was mistaken about its paperwork, finally figured it out (with or without Mr. Briggs help), then Briggs turned in everything within a few days of things getting fixed. That's not much of a story. Maybe Mr. Racino is so defensive about his reporting because he doesn't want to admit he made a mistake despite all the time he had to spend. He seems to have a lot riding on taking down Briggs. Since Mr. Racino also works for KPBS, is his pay public information? Does he get a bonus if he takes down Mr. Briggs?— June 2, 2015 8:06 p.m.
A mugshot is what they seek
Mr. Hargrove: Thank you for looking at the attorney general's documents. Your post does not have an active link I could find, but I found the website on my own. Sure enough it looks like the document the general wanted was there back in 2011. My takeaway from your timeline is that the group submitted everything it was asked for within a couple weeks of the general's office finally figuring out what it already had and what it still needed. Am I reading it right?— June 2, 2015 1:53 p.m.
Two lawyers walk into a swamp...
Mr. Hargrove: Something about Racino's attempt to bully you on twitter over this story really bothered me. He seemed to be accusing you of being duped by Briggs and his wife, linking to some rule that doesn't allow nonlawyers to be officers in a law firm. But when I read the rule, it began with an exception. I think Racino didn't read it or, as I am strongly believing, purposefully ignored it. The rule in the exception says a nonprofessional can be an officer if the corporation has only one owner. Isn't that the situation with Briggs? I think I saw that somewhere. I'm no lawyer but the rules look pretty simple. Again, Racino keeps making crazy accusations that don't hold up. He must get paid well to be the spokesman for the hotel and convention special interests.— May 1, 2015 8:09 a.m.
Two lawyers walk into a swamp...
Antisthenes, his wife did say "I don't know" immediately before guessing at the length of time. Mr. Hargrove reported that. The draft transcript that Goldsmith gave to Inewsource probably says the same thing. Should be easy enough to check if Inwsource posted it along with all the other "public records" it manages to unearth.— April 25, 2015 7:35 p.m.
Two lawyers walk into a swamp...
monaghan: Looks like you were right. Inewsource has been taking big money and other support from the people Briggs has been fighting lately, the hotel owners and the convention center expansion lovers. They have an ex convention center chair on the board, an ex tourism authority head honcho on the board, and they have been taking big bucks from these folks and from a current convention center board memberand a major hotel owner. They also claim to be a memberof INN, which rewuires the website to post the policy on keeping fundraising and editorial decisions separate. But I do not see that policy posted. I'm guessing that is not an oversight.— April 25, 2015 8:16 a.m.
Two lawyers walk into a swamp...
The term "confidential" marriage is a misnomer. I just read about it, and apparently the fact of marriage is public but the wedding date is not. So it is really no secret that Briggs and his wife got married this year. Not sure why the actual date this year is anyone's business.— April 25, 2015 12:50 a.m.
Two lawyers walk into a swamp...
Inewsource looks incompetent at best. They have a lawyer on their board and hired a bunch of "experts." None of them realized they were looking at an uncorrected, unsigned transcript from Briggs' wife? Didn't that same transcript show her being told she could make corrections to it? If Inewsource read the whole thing, how could they miss that? Seems like they wanted to rely on an unfinished transcript to suit their agenda. I wonder if they ever asked Briggs or his wife if the transcript was final. The marriage issue makes Inewsource look even dumber. Their lawyer and their "experts" didn't know about confidential marriages? I just did a google search and found a California health department website explaining what it is. You actually have to consider yourselves to be spouses and say you are not married to get a confidential marriage license. Wasn't that the situation with Briggs and his wife saying they were "husband and wife" but not married? The website says that is legal. With all the "investigation" and "research" Inewsource did, how do they not check google about marriage laws? Or did they? Cancel my membership to KPBS.— April 24, 2015 1:39 p.m.