"CAA respects the democratic process and strongly condemns any actions taken to undermine it,"
Anyone believe that?

Posted by Steve C, a resident of Shoreline West: ' "CAA respects the democratic process and strongly condemns any actions taken to undermine it" Anyone believe that?'

Do you have any *evidence* against it, besides offhand opinion?

Don't assert, demonstrate.

So will those two guys be out of custody in time to move to a (free) Mountain View apartment and work collecting signatures on the landlirds' petition in MV?

So will those two guys be out of custody in time to move to a (free) Mountain View apartment and work collecting signatures on the landlirds' petition
here? Last time I looked it up, only persons eligible to be registered to vote in the jurisdiction could be signature collecters (aka circulators). Maybe "The Business Man" will look it up anew.

This Coalition for Housing Equality sounds really suspicious. Does anyone know who they are? They sound like one of those secret money groups that i hear about on the news. The fact that they didnt even comment for this article says a lot.

In response to Reader you said:

“Posted by Steve C, a resident of Shoreline West: ' "CAA respects the democratic process and strongly condemns any actions taken to undermine it" Anyone believe that?'

Do you have any *evidence* against it, besides offhand opinion?

Don't assert, demonstrate.”

Please understand that the false logic you used here?

We deserve demonstration of proof of evidence that our political situation is NOT being manipulated by a corporate alliance designed to cheat via false signatures for the current ballot.

In other words, there must be complete disclosure of all activities involved with the process. You cannot expect the citizens to give the “benefit” of the doubt, when it comes to the actions of the CAA, SAMCAR or any other actor in this process.

What is most ugly is that Tom Means has yet to be held accountable for participating in this conspiracy regarding Pacifica.

You simply cannot hide behind the idea that “We” have to prove that unethical, immoral, or illegal actions may be occurring right now in Mountain View by those we put faith in to represent us.

Living in Pacifica includes living with a corrupt police department and Michelle MK the city attorney (who’s letter of recommendation supported rent control Measure C) is the corrupt person/politician who protects the city’s corrupt everything.

Safe bet = The Jaspersons are the pawns but the arrests will almost certainly stop here. Much higher profile people should be going to jail in Pacifica, but won’t.

The argument can be made that Brad and Jentry Jasperson, a married couple from Utah, were acting as “agents” of the CAA and SAMCAR. This would provide a legal basis to hold the CAA and SAMCAR as defendants as well given the situation.

If the CAA and SAMCAR want to avoid criminal liability regarding their contractors, they must provide the public a verified accurate contract, authenticated by a disinterested body that declares that first the working conditions and methods were NOT defined in the contract and second they provided NO incentive to violate criminal laws.

Why, because proof of no subject of control regarding the CAA and SAMCAR is critical to provide protection from Criminal Liability. At the same time the same applies to no incentive for criminal activity is required to provide protection from criminal activities by a contractor.

The issue is defined by the following text:

“An Agency relationship is:

[T]he fiduciary relation which results from the manifestation of consent by one person to another that the other person shall act in his behalf and is subject to his control; and consent by the other so to act.

In other words, one person (the agent) agrees to do something for another party (the principal), subject to the control of the other party, and the other party (the principal) also agrees to the agreement.

It simultaneously means the principal is bound (normally) by what the agent does, since the agent is acts as if the principal were there him/herself.”

Simply stated, the agent acts for the principal as if it were the principal acting and with the same authority- as if it were the principal. “(Web Link

This would mean that the CAA and SAMCAR could be also guilty of violation of the Election Laws. But it depends on the language used regarding the Contract written and agreed to by the CAA and SAMCAR. Why, because if the contract defines the following situation, “One who does work for, and receives payment from, an employer, but whose working conditions and methods are not controlled by the employer, and for whose acts and omissions the employer is not liable.”

Without independently authenticated proof the contractors working for the CAA and SAMCAR were NOT directly authorized to take any methods that could be construed as criminal, the CAA and SAMCAR are in fact liable for the works performed by their “Agents”.

What is an employee? It is defined as:

“Principal/Agent: Agent works for the benefit of the principal and under its control. Agent has right to represent the principal and make contracts with 3rd parties on behalf of principal. HUGE responsibility and duty! More on this later…

Employee: One who works for, and receives payment from, an employer, whose working conditions and methods are controlled by the employer, and for whose acts and omissions occurring in the scope of employment the employer is liable. A classic agency relationship!”

What is the definition of a contractor?

“Independent Contractor: One who does work for, and receives payment from, an employer, but whose working conditions and methods are not controlled by the employer, and for whose acts and omissions the employer is not liable. For example, a CPA is paid by a client whom the CPA audits, but the CPA is free to review the records in any fashion they wish. Also, the CPA would be liable to 3rd parties relying on the CPA’s work (but paid by the audited client!).”

(1) How much direction and control the employer exercises over the details of the person's work; (2) Whether the person is engaged in an occupation or business distinct from that of the employer; (3) Who supplies tools used at the place of work; (4) What degree of skill is required of the worker; and (5) the Duration of employment and method of payment.”

The IRS will define that a Contractor is an Employee where the Contractor has provided direction and control the employer exercises over the details of the person's work, whether the Contractor is performing actions completely distinct from the Contractee, the Contractor uses no tools being provided by the Contractee, and that the skills of work are so special as to make their work necessary to achieve the goals of the contract cannot be performed by unskilled workers.

If any of these factors are proven to be in effect, the Contractor will be defined as an Employee under the IRS, thus the same would apply to criminal liability. This would mean that the CAA and SAMCAR are conspirators and violated the election laws.