It turns out the unnamed lawyer works for the Sacramento firm of Olson, Hagel & Fishburn.

And the reason Save Menlo does not worry about complying with FPPC disclosure requirements is that the Executive Director of the FPPC is Erin Peth who was an attorney with the Sacramento firm of Olson, Hagel & Fishburn from 2003 to 2007.

Boy oh Boy! Peter Carpenter, the Atherton resident, now accusing the FPPC of not doing its duty, because an ex-director of the FPPC, (many years ago), is with the same firm which employes the lawyer that drew up the Initiative.

Sorry Peter, pretty sad... your objections don't hold water, and the FPPC has told you to buzz off.

PS Peter: Why don't you complain about the fact the consultant firm used to draw up the Specific Plan, was at the same time employed by Stanford University on another project. Now here is a real conflict, [portion removed.]

========

Realtor MaryGillis, who appears regularly in support of the DuBoc, Winkler, Boyle, Jellins, etc. crowd (the pro development crowd at any price), writes [portion removed.] above here. Mary [portion removed], the initiative process is part of the State constitution, and the issue involved here is a perfect use of this form of Voter rebellion.

Please vote yes for Measure M.

Why won't Save Menlo identify their lawyer? Who are the lawyer's and the lawyer's firm other clients?

What is Save Menlo hiding?

The Atherton resident, Peter Carpenter, again and again writes:

Why won't Save Menlo identify their lawyer? Who are the lawyer's and the lawyer's firm other clients?

What is Save Menlo hiding?

Peter: Please see this letter as posted on the Menlo Park Council email log:

Link:

http://ccin.menlopark.org:81/att-8507/C001c_-_SENT_Ltr_to_City_Council_re_Measure_M_conflicts.pdf


SaveMenlo has not been hiding this information. Does this satisfy you?

If Keith Wagner from Davis wrote Measure M then what is Save Menlo paying thousands of dollars to the Sacramento firm of Olson, Hagel & Fishburn for?

Keith Wagner's letter is exactly what we'd expect. Before the election, Wagner will take the stand that, "the city isn’t doing anything wrong yet", but after the election, Wagner describes a situation that is, “ripe for more litigation."

“Until something happens, the process is moving forward,” Wagner said. “The city attorney has a view that something should happen but nothing adverse has happened. So far, the city isn’t doing anything wrong yet.” Web Link

Wagner, though, acknowledged that the conflicting legalities would create a situation that’s “ripe for more litigation." Web Link

Why would anyone think that a group of residents would NOT engage an attorney to write their initiative? Did the pension reform crowd really write their own initiative a couple of years ago, without any legal support?

Gilles rhetoric is out of line. "admission" is not at all the same as "stated", a term that would be more appropriate. As Brown stated, Save Menlo has not hidden the name of its attorney

Why would anyone think that a group of residents would NOT engage an attorney to write their initiative? Did the pension reform crowd really write their own initiative a couple of years ago, without any legal support?

Gilles rhetoric is out of line. "admission" is not at all the same as "stated", a term that would be more appropriate. As Brown stated, Save Menlo has not hidden the name of its attorney

The headline is a telling one -- who paid for Menlo Park's zoning rules. With all the money flowing to council candidates from development interests (more than 50% EACH), one can only wonder.

fraud sayer says: "Why would anyone think that a group of residents would NOT engage an attorney to write their initiative?"

No one. But, why would those same people who make a huge issue about "outsiders" commenting on measure m, hire an outsider as an attorney.? Let alone complain about outsiders, all the while taking money from Atherton residents to fund their initiative? Why indeed.