It appears that the United States Department of Justice (DoJ), Criminal Division, is working with United Kingdom police to pursue the leaker of the 2009 and 2011 “Climategate” emails.

I have learned that last week DoJ sent a search-and-seizure letter to the host of three “skeptic” blogs. Last night, UK police raided a blogger’s home and removed computers and equipment.

The leaked records derailed domestic “cap-and-trade” legislation in the U.S. and, internationally, talks for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. The emails and computer code were produced with taxpayer funds and held on taxpayer-owned computers both in the US and the UK, and all were subject to the UK Freedom of Information Act, the US FOIA, and state FOI laws.

They also were being unlawfully withheld in both the UK (by the University of East Anglia) and the US (Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, including stonewalling me for two years, and three others for longer).

The hunt involving US and UK law enforcement is now escalating.

Wednesday night, UK time, six detectives with the UK police (Norfolk Police Department) raided the home of at least one blogger, removing his equipment to look for clues to the identity of leaker “FOIA 2011”.

On December 9, DoJ sent a preservation letter under 18 U.S.C 2703(f) to the publication platform (website host) WordPress. This authority authorizes the government to request an ISP to preserve all of the records of a specific account for 90 days while the feds work on a warrant.

Norfolk PD affirmed to the subject of at least one of their raids that this international law enforcement hunt is for the leaker, meaning not for those whose acts the leaker exposed, releasing admissions in their own words.

In the U.S., the academic and other political Left have had fits about the Virginia Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, exercising even more specific, anti-fraud authority to seek further records from University of Virginia, following up on indications from the first Climategate release of possible fraud against the taxpayer.

Apparently, that represented an abuse of the police power. No word yet if they are outraged by DoJ’s current foray or the UK raiding team.

The DoJ attorney sending the preservation letters, as it hapens in this small world, a graduate of the University of Virginia (UVa). UVa is also the subject of litigation a group I am associated with, the American Tradition Institute (ATI), has filed on behalf of Virginia taxpayers seeking Climategate-related emails it holds.

This is a case which, I have it on reliable authority, has the Virginia faculty and establishment beside themselves and demanding an all-out effort to oppose production wear us down (and also Attorney General Cuccinelli).

So far UVa has spent upwards of a million dollars in privately donated money just to fight the AG’s request. They continue to fight us in court every step of the way. Clearly, this is no small matter in the quarters insisting that this taxpayer-financed information ever see the light of day.

Even the criminal legal apparatus of the US and UK must be invoked against this threat, apparently.

So, to review, the UK police and the US Department of Justice, Criminal Division, are pursuing a leaker of public records subject to one ore more freedom of information laws, unlawfully withheld under those laws, which leaks indicate, e.g., apparent civil violations (tortious interference by seeking dismissial of certain “skeptics”), and raising reasonable questions of fraud against taxpayers.

And they are pursuing the leaker.

The content of what your Department of Justice has sent follows:

Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2703(f), this letter is a formal request for the preservation of all stored communications, records, and other evidence in your possession regarding the following domain name(s) pending further legal process: [DELETED] (“the Accounts”) from 00:01 GMT Monday 21 November 2011 to 23:59 GMT Wednesday 23 November 2011.

I request that you not disclose the existence of this request to the subscriber or any other person, other than as necessary to comply with this request. If compliance with this request might result in a permanent or temporary termination of service to the Accounts, or otherwise alert any user of the Accounts as to your actions to preserve the information described below, please contact me as soon as possible and before taking action.

I request that you preserve, for a period of 90 days, the information described below currently in your possession in a form that includes the complete record. This request applies only retrospectively. It does not in any way obligate you to capture and preserve new information that arises after the date of this request. This request applies to the following items, whether in electronic or other form, including information stored on backup media, if available:

1. The contents of any communication or file stored by or for the Accounts and any associated accounts, and any information associated with those communications or files, such as the source and destination email addresses or IP addresses.
2. All records and other information relating to the Accounts and any associated accounts including the following:

a. Names (including subscriber names, user names, and screen names);

b. Addresses (including mailing addresses, residential addresses, business addresses, and e-mail addresses);

c. Local and long distance telephone connection records;

d. Records of session times and durations, and the temporarily assigned network addresses (such as Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses) associated with those sessions, including any log history of when username “FOIA” uploaded posts to the Accounts;

e. Length of service (including start date) and types of service utilized;

f. Telephone or instrument numbers (including MAC addresses);

g. Other subscriber numbers or identities (including the registration Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses); and

h. Means and source of payment for such service (including any credit card or bank account number) and billing records.

If you have questions regarding this request, please call me at 202-XXX-XXXX.

Sincerely,

XXXXXX

Trial Attorney

 

Christopher C. Horner serves as a Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute

An October 17 Daily Progress story trumpets the lawless group’s intentions for the park, if they are granted special permission to camp there:

Occupy Charlottesville protesters asked the City Council on Monday to suspend the 11 p.m. curfew in Lee Park, which they are occupying.

Speakers from the group said that they feel the group is within the spirit, if not the letter, of the law, in that they want to keep the park safe, clean and healthy. [emphasis added]

A November 19 OC Facebook posts again states the group’s objective to maintain the park:

We will be having group park clean-up over the next few days to get the park neat and shiny: Tonight at 6pm, Sunday 10am, and Monday 10am. Feel welcome to stop by and pitch in whenever you can though. The to-do list includes: Trash/recycling/compost disposal, Common tent re-organization, Leaf raking, Sign posting, General pick up, additional seating. Any more needs we can be sure to cover? [emphasis added]

The Special Events Permit issued to Occupy Charlottesville clearly delineates the group’s practical and financial responsibilities upon their departure:

• Any damage to park shrubbery, flower beds and or trees resulting from your organization’s special event will require reimbursement for any repairs or replacement
• Participants will be responsible for cleaning up the park area after the event.

Charlottesville City Public Works crews were on hand at Lee Park shortly after 7:00 this morning, attempting to deterg the site prior to public observation of the Occupiers’ reproach—an aftermath of filthy refuse.

While the fraction is the same, the numbers have been flipped. When it comes to bearing the financial burden for restoring Lee Park to usable condition, 1% made the mess, but 99% will pay to clean it up.

View the Lee Park “trashed” pictures that Charlottesville City doesn’t want you to see:

[Show as slideshow]

[View with PicLens]

Concurrently, Albemarle County Supervisor Dennis Rooker has scoffed at suggestions that United Nations ideology—promoted by homegrown internationalists and foreign agents—is infiltrating local government with a goal of undermining foundational American principles.

Despite being presented with incontrovertible evidence of such, Rooker has kept his head firmly planted beneath the comfortable sands of self-imposed ignorance. But facts affirm the accusation, and now, additional evidence is surfacing that dangerous infiltration is ongoing locally.

Over the objections of Rooker and Board of Supervisors’ chair, Ann Mallek, the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) recently was ejected from Albemarle County. Rooker pleaded for the County to retain ICLEI membership, touting numerous benefits without strings attached:

“It’s not a part of the United Nations. It’s not supported by the U.N. and it’s not governed by the U.N.,” Rooker said. “We have a tool that staff says is helpful, is inexpensive and that cannot be replaced by anything else that’s out there.”

Provably, Rooker was dead wrong about the lack of relationship between the two entities. Perhaps he might have been swayed on the ICLEI/Sustainability threat had he known that Jie Wu (aka Megan Wu)—the former ICLEI representative to Albemarle County—was (or is) a government official of the People’s Republic of (Communist) China. Her online biography lists her service to the PRC in their Ministry of Environmental Protection, and Wu was trained as a linguist at a university subordinate to the PRC’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There is no evidence that Wu has renounced her Communist Chinese citizenship or forsworn her allegiance to the PRC, and yet, through Albemarle County’s ICLEI membership, Wu received carte blanch access to sensitive, local government operational information and data.

Wu and ICLEI may be gone (for now), but Koren Manning remains. Hired by TJPDC Executive Director, Stephen Williams, Manning is a paid employee of the organization, responsible for Livability Partnership website maintenance, social media outreach, and data analysis among other duties.

Manning holds or has held membership in a secretive, subversive group known as Planners Network: The Organization of Progressive Planning. In their mission statement, Planners Network (PN) advocates undermining America’s present political and economic underpinnings:

Planners Network is an association of professionals, activists, academics, and students involved in physical, social, economic, and environmental planning in urban and rural areas, who promote fundamental change in our political and economic systems.

The Network’s stated goals and objectives read like a page from Marx’s Communist Manifesto (or Charlottesville/Albemarle’s 1998 Sustainability Accords):

We believe that planning should be a tool for allocating resources and developing the environment to eliminate the great inequalities of wealth and power in our society, rather than to maintain and justify the status quo. We are committed to opposing racial, economic, and environmental injustice and discrimination by gender and sexual orientation. We believe that planning should be used to assure adequate food, clothing, housing, medical care, jobs, safe working conditions, and a healthful environment. We advocate public responsibility for meeting these needs, because the private market has proven incapable of doing so.

We seek to be an effective political and social force, working with other progressive organizations to inform public opinion and public policy and to provide assistance to those seeking to understand, control, and change the forces which affect their lives. [emphasis added]

But their utopian, socialist aspiration does not end there. The current PN mission statement has been sanitized from the original. The version found in Network newsletters from the 1980s and 1990s includes the following additional self-descriptive language:

We oppose the economic structure of our society, which values profit and property rights over human rights and needs. This system perpetuates the inequalities of class, race, sex and age which distort human relationships and limit the potential for a decent quality of life. We advocate a shift in current national budgetary priorities to favor human services, social production and environmental protection over military and other nonproductive expenditures. [emphasis added]

A Communist Chinese national and a neo-Marxist planning-activist inside Albemarle County Government—each bought and paid for with taxpayer dollars—should raise red flags to even casual observers. But instead, there is deafening silence.

Albemarle County Government, through ICLEI membership and affiliation with the TJPCD has entrusted confidential and sensitive information to a representative of a government hostile to United States’ interests and to a member of a group that seeks to remake America into a socialist gulag. And, Koren Manning and Jie Wu may be just the tip of a melting iceberg.

If Marxists and Communists infiltrate local government establishment and Dennis Rooker doesn’t acknowledge their presence, do the infill-traitors still pose a threat?

Almost worse than the concept of vote-purchasing with “free” government food, is that the monies expended for this boondoggle are siphoned from the city’s Capital Improvements Program, which is described as follows:

The Capital Improvement Program Fund (CIP) provides funding for streets, public buildings, land and other capital assets, which generally have a useful life of 5 years or more and cost more than $50,000. City Council, in their Adopted Budget Guidelines, has set a policy to allocate an amount no less than 3% of the General Fund budget for capital improvements.

The bizarre proposal for misappropriation of public “capital” tax dollars to sponsor neighborhood “celebrations” was brought forward last fall by Neighborhood Development Services Director, Jim Tolbert. In a pitch to City Council, Tolbert described his vision for the program:

Also, included would be funding for neighborhood based events and celebrations and for capacity building initiatives to help increase participation in neighborhoods or to get information out to help citizens become more involved in our government. We would anticipate that most grant requests would be between $250 and $5,000. [emphasis added]

Sensing opportunity to buy—with taxpayer dollars—additional votes for Democrats in upcoming elections as well as to increase general affection towards government, Tolbert’s scheme unanimously was approved by council through the body’s consent agenda.

The bureaucracy involved in gaining grant approval is mindboggling, requiring a convoluted seven-page process explanation and untold staff hours in submission review, evaluation, and scoring.

In keeping with the city’s Marxist sustainability agenda, brownie points are awarded to applications that promote delineated “Sustainability Values”:

• Project contributes to environmental health or our ability to effectively address climate change.
• Project will have a positive effect on the local economy and minimizes costs to the community, now and over the long term.
• Project supports responsible stewardship of public resources.
• Project contributes to social equity by meeting basic needs, benefiting vulnerable populations, promoting community safety and cultural awareness, or building community relationships and neighborhood cohesion.

Flummery aside, in spite of the stringent application process, profligacy is rampant in the solicitation and awarding of Neighborhood Grant funds. An evaluation of the Greenbrier Neighborhood Association’s (GNA) application to fund an October 9 Neighborhood Social, shows five tubs of ice cream (12.5 gallons) to be purchased at a cost of $300.00, or $24.00 per gallon. Several local grocery stores offer ice cream at less than $5.00 per gallon, a savings of nearly 80% over the city-paid price. And in the spirit of benevolence, Charlottesville City Government agreed to pick up the cost of a “bounce house” in order to enliven the soiree, even though the neighborhood’s application listed that expense as being covered by their association as a grant “match.” All told, this neighborhood’s “free” ice cream social set back Charlottesville taxpayers a cold $716—that’s $237 more than was requested by GNA. Predictably, the grant was approved (and possibly aggrandized) by Tolbert’s Neighborhood Development Services Department.

All of this is taking place concurrent with a Charlottesville School Board discussion on permanently banning ice cream from division grounds in order to combat a childhood “obesity epidemic.” So, while on the one hand, the State (city government) plies youth (and adults) with free ice cream at a neighborhood soiree (ironically held at Greenbrier Elementary), on the other hand, the State (city schools)—under funding governance and supposed oversight of Charlottesville City Hall— is classifying the frozen concoction as a dangerous substance not to be served on school property.

In a city with widespread crumbling infrastructure and millions in unmet capital needs—both exacerbated by years of executive mismanagement—it makes little sense to hand out capital improvement funds as if they were…ice cream. That is, of course, unless the city is Charlottesville, the mayor is Norrishood, and the governing body is totally devoid of common sense.

Recently:

• Vice President Joe Biden reportedly referred to Congressional tea party negotiators as “terrorists.”
• U.S. Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) said the tea party “can go straight to hell.”
• U.S. Representative Andre Carson (D-IN) said some congressional tea party members “would love to see you and me…hanging on a tree.”
• Charlottesville Mayor Dave “Norrishood” Norris characterized the tea party movement as solely interested in promoting personal wealth.
• Albemarle County Supervisor Dennis Rooker demeaned the tea party by accusing them of “infiltrating” local government and celebrating another “notch on the gun” in the tea party’s fight against institutionalized globalism.

And now Delegate David Toscano (D-57 VA) has entered the fray, advising circumstantial interdiction for contrarian tea party speech. The elitist Democrat—certain that climate change science is settled—accused Jefferson Area Tea Party members of “distortions of the truth” in recent statements they offered on the topics of global warming and sustainability.

But, unlike his fellow traducers, Toscano stepped beyond ignominy. Emboldened by a demographically statist district, Delegate Dave contrived a sinister proposition: a government-enforced suspension of First Amendment rights for tea party climate change “deniers.”

From a June 20 “General Assembly Update” on Toscano’s web site:

…Similar claims about the United Nations, property rights, and climate science were made during the Albemarle public hearing on the planning grant. In the view of those who argued against accepting the grant, the threat of climate change, as a human-made and highly threatening phenomenon, is at best an exaggeration and, at worst, an utter hoax. Fortunately, the County Board rejected the climate change deniers and reaffirmed its support for efforts to jointly plan with the City and University, though they voted to withdraw from ICLEI.

Allowing these claims into these local policy debates is counterproductive. There is broad scientific consensus, both in this country and around the world, that climate change is real and is enhanced by human activities. [emphasis added]

And who could disallow such “objectionable” speech? Conceivably, Toscano is asking Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Chair, Ann Mallek, to silence people with whom the Delegate disagrees—a thinly veiled request for prohibition of tea party members’ free expression at public meetings of local governing bodies.

An ardent, political opponent of Fifth Amendment private property rights, Democrat Toscano surreptitiously has found a new Amendment to abridge. But unlike eminent domain abuse, which presumably targets left and right alike, Toscano’s new bullseye is placed squarely on the backs of constitutional patriots with an overtly pro-liberty (and anti-internationalist) political agenda—one which threatens Toscano’s career-long efforts to empower and enlarge government at the expense of individual liberty.

Local media—complicit in advancing Toscano’s brand of statism—predictably has remained silent on this outrageous call to abrogate First Amendment rights of so-called “skeptics” and “conspiracy theorists.”

While Toscano despises conservatives’ use of terms like Marxist and socialist in describing America’s political left, in word and in deed, he is advocating for a ruling class that operates free from inconvenient constraints of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Government subjugation of private property rights and government-imposed speech-limits are derived straight from the totalitarian playbook as embraced by contemporary Marxists and socialists worldwide. Denials of such are without merit. If the muzzle fits, Delegate Toscano, wear it.

At the Wednesday, September 7 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors meeting, a board majority (Ken Boyd, Rodney Thomas, Duane Snow, Lindsay Dorrier) voted to drop the county’s participation in the Cool Counties initiative, with Dennis Rooker and board chair, Ann Mallek, voting to continue the unholy alliance. A visibly rattled Rooker took the outcome as an opportunity to again disparage the local tea party—and the tea party movement in general—as he lashed out against the verdict:

“But, you know, I mean, where we’re going now, is, in my view, is in a direction where we’re afraid to be perceived as environmentally committed because, you know, I guess, the tea party has told us that’s it’s a bad thing and they can put another notch on their gun and send out an e-mail to all of their people saying we got Albemarle County out of ICLEI, and we got Albemarle County out of Cool Counties.

There will be an e-mail that goes out nationally today or tomorrow on that issue because it’s a notch on the gun. And that’s what this is about. A notch on the gun.”

And what is the source and meaning of Rooker’s violent “gun” rhetoric? From Answers.com, “notch on the gun” is described as follows:

In westerns, the phrase is commonly used metaphorically with each notch on the gun representing one person the gunfighter owning it has killed.

When invited onto The Schilling Show to appear with JATP chair, Carole Thorpe in discussion of his disparaging remarks, the previously always-available supervisor suddenly busied himself for the next several weeks:

From: Dennis Rooker dsrooker@earthlink.net
Date: September 12, 2011 01:11:51 PM EDT
To: Rob Schilling, Carole Thorpe
Subject: Re: Cool Counties on The Schilling Show

Rob,

Thank you for your offer.  Unfortunately, I would not have the time in my schedule over the next couple of weeks to be on your show.

Dennis

Rooker’s assiduous schedule miraculously opened up three days later, when he appeared as a guest on WINA’s Morning News with Rick and Jane to discuss his shifting position on supervisor-appointed “committees” for the proposed 29 Western Bypass.

Cowardice, violent rhetoric, and passive aggression aside, Dennis Rooker is in desperate need of a reality check and perhaps, anger management coursework. The supervisor’s passionate embrace of the leftist-internationalist climate change agenda has upended his usual sense of decorum, resulting in multiple incidents of verbal incontinence and discommodious public lid-flipping.

Unfortunately, the left’s ongoing high profile condemnations of incivility in public discourse are a one-way street. Locally and nationally, liberal attacks on conservatives are met with stony silence from the typically hypersensitive, self-deputized “civility police” as well as from the Marxist mainstream media. Dennis Rooker’s anti-tea-party diatribe highlights not only his own lack of self-control but also America’s pandemic progressive political hypocrisy.

See Dennis Rooker delivering his attack on the tea party (video courtesy of Audrey Welborn):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zYzt1WXW3Y

Kathy Galvin is a perfect reinstatement of the retiring David Brown whose pedantic bromides from the council dais will be sorely missed by the public and by his colleagues, alike. Galvin’s proven ability to bring tedium will ensure council meetings span ample time, and thus, do not end abruptly.  Like Brown, Kathy has demonstrated willingness to receive guidance and direction from experienced party elders, well versed in the manipulation of Charlottesville’s political, economic, and social currents.

Kathy Galvin’s savvy prioritization of time and astute selectivity in discussion venue follow a long-standing tradition of her Democrat council predecessors: elected Charlottesville Democrats can ill afford to engage or even respond to those embracing competing political ideologies. Such individuals represent an insignificant, fractional minority of the city’s general population and are a distraction to the public’s business.  Kathy knows that in a true democracy, time is more efficiently spent on issues of importance to the politically like-minded citizen-majority.

Kathy Galvin’s zeal for direct and overt confrontation of political opponents will be advantageous for council service. Often notoriously contentious, Charlottesville’s City Council meetings routinely require citizen reprimand for those who cross the civility line with unwelcome or unnecessarily challenging remarks, inappropriate laughter, and/or public whispering.

Kathy Galvin will fit well in a five-member council. Her recent proposal to reduce the number of Charlottesville School Board members from seven to five, demonstrates Kathy’s quest to serve in a more powerful, consolidated governing body. Like former Mayor Maurice Cox, Kathy knows that good governance thrives in an environment wherein both discussion and representation are limited to a reasonable, digestible quantity.

Kathy Galvin’s intellectual superiority renders her smarter than any one of her competition. Kathy Galvin’s blunt force of personality renders her stronger than any one of her competition. Kathy Galvin’s willingness to sacrifice human interests for those of plants and animals renders her greener than any one of her competition. And most importantly, Kathy Galvin’s open embrace of top-down, central-planning governance shows that by design she will perpetuate Charlottesville’s single-party status quo. There is no reason to consider any other candidate in the August 20 Charlottesville Democratic Firehouse Primary. Kathy Galvin possesses in abundance, every conceivable trait of the archetypical Charlottesville City Councilor.

In letters obtained by The Schilling Show, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has asked the U.S Army Corps of Engineers to rescind the previously issued permit, and the Corps has complied, leaving the project in limbo.

You heard it first on The Schilling Show Blog and News!

Read the VDOT letters and the Army Corps of Engineers response:

McIntire Termination Letter

VDOT Notification Letter

Corps Response Letter

In a June 30, 2011 email to supporters (copied in full below), the Sierra Club touted the “obvious benefits” of ICLEI membership:

• Reduced energy consumption
• Budgetary savings
• Decreased greenhouse gas emissions

While making the case for resumption of intimacy with ICLEI, PGSC attempted to portray pro-liberty citizen-activists as paranoid over possible loss of sovereignty—mocking the concept of United Nations / ICLEI interconnectivity.

Hyperbole aside, ICLEI (in their own words) is an adjunct to the UN’s globalist agenda, as stated clearly on their web site:

International Goals

Our programs, and projects promote participatory, long-term, strategic planning process that address local sustainability while protecting global common goods. This approach links local action to internationally agreed-upon goals and targets [sic]

And which United Nations goals does ICLEI wish to implement? Again, from their web site:

• Agenda 21

• The Rio Conventions:
  • The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
  • The UN Convention on Biological Diversity
  • The UN Convention to Combat Desertification

• The Habitat Agenda
• The Millennium Development Goals
• The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation

But acknowledgment of the ICLEI/UN liaison is confirmed also by the UN itself. In a June 28, 2011 address to the National Press Club, Sha Zukang, Under-Secretary-General For Economic And Social Affairs Secretary-General Of The 2012 UN Conference On Sustainable Development, cemented the relationship in his opening remarks:

It is a great pleasure to be here. I am delighted to speak to you today about the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development – or Rio+20 – as it is known.

At the outset, let me thank my hosts:

• ICLEI [International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives], or Local Governments for Sustainability. You are a long-time partner of the United Nations, going back to Rio 1992 [Emphasis added.]

The local Sierra Club is not alone in denial of the tryst; Albemarle County Supervisor, Dennis Rooker, has jumped into the same bed. At a June 8 Board of Supervisors meeting—against an onslaught of public criticism—Rooker disavowed the Albemarle/ICLEI/UN ménage a trois:

“[ICLEI] is not a part of the United Nations. It’s not supported by the U.N. and it’s not governed by the U.N.,”

Those who value national sovereignty rightfully are alarmed. The dangerous ICLEI / United Nations “control” agenda has been codified locally in the 1998 Sustainability Accords— now being implemented by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission through provision of a million-dollar federal grant.

Embracing ICLEI is an individual choice, but denying their conjunction with the United Nations and its malignant intentions is unequivocally deceptive. In multiple, desperate attempts to sunder the two, and by focusing on benign aspects of the seduction, the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club (and their Board of Supervisors emissary, Dennis Rooker), have displayed inexcusable ignorance of fact. Now publicly informed, will they dare beguile again?

Read the Sierra Club’s June 30 email to supporters:

From: Thomas Olivier <cruz.olivier@GMAIL.COM>
To: VIRGINIA-PIEDMONT-NEWS@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG
Sent: Thu, June 30, 2011 11:17:36 PM
Subject: GIVE ALBEMARLE’S SUPERVISORS A PIECE OF YOUR MIND!!

June 30, 2011

Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club

GIVE ALBEMARLE’S SUPERVISORS A PIECE OF YOUR MIND!!

At their June 8 meeting Albemarle County supervisors voted 4-2 to withdraw from the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI).  Use of ICLEI software helped the County reduce energy consumption, save money and decrease greenhouse gas emissions.  Most audience members and speakers urged the County to stay in ICLEI and take advantage of its obvious benefits.  A minority of speakers urged the County to withdraw from ICLEI, on the grounds that it amounted to outside control of local government and threatened our freedoms.  Some opponents claimed that ICLEI was part of a United Nations mind control program.

Also at the June 8 meeting, in an unannounced, late-night move, Albemarle’s supervisors suspended their rules and voted 4-2 to change their position on the U.S. 29 Western Bypass to one of support for construction.  Albemarle County has opposed construction of this bypass for years.  The bypass will do little to reduce traffic congestion, presents environmental hazards and will cost hundreds of millions of dollars.  With this reversal of Albemarle’s position, the door now is open for approval of bypass construction at meetings of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (14 and 27 July) and Commonwealth Transportation Board ( 20 July ).

If you are as mad as we are about these votes, you have two opportunities to sound off at Albemarle Supervisor meetings in the first half of July.

-  Wednesday, July 6  9:00 a.m.  Supervisors will take comments from the public on matters not on the agenda early in the meeting.  This is an opportunity to speak about the Bypass and/or ICLEI.

- Wednesday, July 13  6:00 p.m.  Early in the meeting they will take comments from the public on matters not on the agenda.  This is a good time to speak about ICLEI.    They will also have a public hearing on the Western Bypass later in the meeting.  This is the time to speak on this issue.

We urge members and friends to let the Albemarle supervisors know that you have problems with their votes against ICLEI and for the bypass.  A sufficient show of public disgust regarding supervisor support for bypass construction, conceivably could lead the supervisors to reverse course and drop support for the project.

If you can speak only once, please come to the 13 July evening meeting and speak against the bypass at the public hearing.  If you really can’t speak at any meetings, please email the supervisors (bos@albemarle.org ) and let them know your displeasure at their actions the evening of June 8.

For more information, contact Tom Olivier ( tel. 434-831-2408; email cruz.olivier@gmail.com )

In the first part of its June 8 work session, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (BOS) heard reports and comments from Staff and County Executive Thomas Foley. The BOS then followed by asking questions and, on a few occasions, TJPDC Executive Director Stephen Williams rose to offer answers. The BOS asked for clarification regarding the status of the 1998 Sustainability Accords—specifically, its relation to the HUD Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant application and the Livable Communities Planning Project. In his answer, Mr. Williams called the Accords merely a “historic document” (echoing a phrase previously coined by Supervisor Dennis Rooker), and added that the Accords was submitted to HUD only as an “advisory” piece. I interpreted this statement to imply that, in current function and relevance, the Accords was an antiquated document bearing little to no consequence on current or future comprehensive plans.

I disagreed with this characterization because it is incongruous with the documentation of the grant application posted on the “Many Plans, One Community” web site (the informational hub for the Livable Communities Planning Project operated by the TJPDC itself). There, the Accords are NOT simply a “historic document” but identified on the first page of the application in the Application Abstract as follows:

“The existing Regional Plan for Sustainable Development in the Charlottesville/Albemarle metro area is the Sustainability Accords.” (http://1-community.org/PDF/application/1-Applicant%20Abstract.pdf)

The existing Regional Plan IS the Sustainability Accords.

Furthermore, as reported in an article written by Sean Tubbs in the November 24, 2010 edition of Charlottesville Tomorrow:

“Stephen Williams, the TJPDC’s executive director, said the money will be used to implement the Sustainability Accords which were developed by the Thomas Jefferson Sustainability Council and signed by regional governments in 1998.” (http://cvilletomorrow.typepad.com/charlottesville_tomorrow_/2010/11/mpo-november2010.html)

Stephen Williams said the money will be used to implement the Sustainability Accords.

So during the first break, I walked up to Mr. Williams in a cordial manner and extended my hand to shake his while introducing myself. We exchanged pleasantries—I told him I regretted not meeting him in person until now, and that I had heard him speak at a few of the BOS meetings I attended in the last few months. He acknowledged seeing me and listening to me there as well.

Then I proceeded to tell him what prompted me to approach him was the characterization of the Accords he gave to the BOS. I explained how the Accords is not just an “historic document” because it was clearly presented to HUD in the grant application as the existing plan…that the Accords along with the Charlottesville Regional Sustainability Implementation Plan (which employs ICLEI’s “Five Milestone Process”) were the foundational documents submitted to HUD as criteria to be judged in consideration for the grant request…and that HUD has every reason to expect that its $999,000.00 grant will be spent by the consortium to build upon and implement what was depicted in the foundational documents.

I said that many of the Jefferson Area Tea Party’s concerns for the Livable Communities Planning Project are rooted in the language in the Accords—especially regarding, but not limited to, human population—and what it commits our community to implementing per HUD’s expectations. In conclusion, I asked that if I prompted his recollection of the description of the Accords as the existing plan in the Application Abstract, would he please amend his previous statement to the BOS about its status after the break.

At this point, he conceded that I may be correct about the status of the Accords as stated in the Application Abstract (as referenced in the first sentence of the audio file transcript below)—but then he abruptly switched his argument in an effort to trump my contention by other means.

[Unbeknownst to me, a recording device belonging to a WCHV radio reporter picked up the next part of our conversation (see below for full audio clip). The following is a transcript of that audio file.  Italics and underlines are added in an effort to depict vocal emphasis]:

Williams: ….that may also be true, Ms. Thorpe.

Thorpe: Good.

Williams: But there is no legal standing for a Sustainability Plan because there is no legal requirement for one.

Thorpe: Perhaps not, sir,

Thorpe: but when you submitted that to the Federal government

Williams: It is simply advisory to these folks…

Thorpe: and said this is our current plan, this is what we want to implement or build on -

Williams: …advisory document

Thorpe:—that’s what you said to the Federal government.

Williams: …advisory document, Ms. Thorpe

Thorpe: Well, that’s your interpretation.

Williams: …advisory document only, it’s not my interpretation, that’s the LAW.

Thorpe: I know word for word what TG (a “G” that I incorrectly spoke for a “J” in TJPDC as I became flustered by his tone)—

Williams: I’m sorry that you don’t understand the law, Ms. Thorpe,

Thorpe: I’m reading the document that’s on your web site, sir.

Williams: and that’s been demonstrated on a number of the other things you’ve said (then unintelligible)

Thorpe: Well, I’m—no, I’m, I’m speaking about one specific item. It says it on your web site—that was sent to HUD. Folks, “this document is our current plan”, so HUD looks at it and says this is the current plan—very good, I guess this is what you’re wanting money to implement and build on…that’s why they, that’s why they’re cutting the million dollar check. Anyway…

Williams: No, I’m afraid that’s not true.

Thorpe: No, I’m afraid it is. I’m afraid it is. We can agree to disagree -

Williams: I’m afraid that’s YOUR interpretation, Ms. Thorpe

Thorpe: We can agree to disagree, and I’m looking at the documentation on your web site.

Williams: — and I’ve got to say, I understand this quite a bit better than you do.

Thorpe: Oh, really?

Williams: Yes.

Thorpe: Very good. Then why is it you said that ICLEI, you didn’t know anything about ICLEI, and yet this six—you know, these ”Products”—have you compared it to the “Five Milestone Plan” in ICLEI, sir?

Williams: Ah, you know, I looked at the “Five Milestones”

Thorpe: You don’t know where the language comes from, you don’t even know what you’re talking about, you don’t know where the language comes from. You keep (saying) – ICLEI never went to TJPDC

Williams: No.

Thorpe: But it’s language -

Williams: No.

Thorpe:—and the implementation of it’s “Five Milestone Process” is in the County document which has seeped into your grant application.

Williams: You know why that is, Ms. Thorpe? Because those are basic planning principles, any grad student in planning at any school from the country could tell you that stuff, that’s in the basic curriculum.

Thorpe: You can — sir, you can speak, you can try to demean and speak that way if you like. All I can tell you is what I see

Williams: Ms. Thorpe…

Thorpe: on your web site, what’s in those documents.

Williams: You…

[End of audio file]

Unfortunately, the audio file ends here because the WCHV reporter took the recording device away for the impending resumption of the meeting. During this exchange, Mr. Williams stepped in toward me, stood intrusively close (I estimate there were no more than eight inches of space between our torsos), and used his significant height advantage to bend over the top of me then lower his face only four or five inches from mine, positioning us nose to nose.

By anyone’s definition of physically “getting in one’s face”, that’s exactly what he did. It made me, as it would make anyone, extremely uncomfortable. But I held my ground there for quite a while, not wanting to concede to him the satisfaction of intimidating me.

However, as he continued speaking I eventually lifted my right hand up in between our faces with my palm facing (but not touching) him. I looked into his eyes over the tops of my fingertips and when he finished speaking, I told him he was making me uncomfortable and invading my personal space. I asked him to please step back, but he didn’t budge from his position and asked “Why?” in an intense, snide tone. I told him again he was invading my space and I asked him a second time to please step back. Mockingly, he said, ”Why should I do that? I like talking to you this way!” To break the physical stalemate, I took a big step backward then we resumed verbal sparring about the Accords as we backed away from each other towards our seats.

When I returned to my seat, I told some of the people sitting around me about the unprovoked, physical imposition I had just received from Mr. Williams. I then quieted down as the meeting resumed. During the next break, I told Supervisor Ken Boyd about the incident—and I was also prompted by one of my friends to tell it to Supervisor Rodney Thomas when he came over to speak to a group of us at the end of the meeting.

After 9:00 a.m. the next morning (Thursday), I received an e-mail from a member of the JATP steering committee who had left the meeting shortly following the end of the first break. She wrote to tell me her attention was drawn to Mr. Williams’ confrontation of me and she walked over to stand behind me about halfway through the incident and witnessed it from then to the end. While the confrontation was going on, I didn’t realize anyone I knew had come over to observe because in the heat of the moment, the only thing that had my attention was his face in mine. Later that afternoon, I called her to elaborate on what she witnessed without my input and she recounted the incident to me just as it happened.

Also early that morning, Rob Schilling called me in response to a mass E-mail I sent out a few hours earlier announcing the JATP victory in getting ICLEI kicked out of Albemarle County. He wanted more information about the meeting, knowing that I stated in my letter I had stayed there from beginning to end. Among everything else, I told him what happened with Mr. Williams. Rob offered to contact him to ask for his side of the story with an invitation to appear on his radio show with or without me to discuss it. I told Rob that I did not object to his inquiry.

Roughly an hour later, Rob advised me that Mr. Williams wrote him to deny my allegations. By doing so, Mr. Williams unfairly impugned my integrity by suggesting I was a liar. And as someone who is honest and has demonstrated her seriousness for responsible leadership of the JATP, I decided was not going to allow him to do this without my response.

On Friday, I proceeded to report this incident to the TJPDC Planning Commission Board. I left phone messages with Supervisors Ann Mallek and Dennis Rooker to call me because I could not locate contact information for the Chairman of the Board (they are both the BOS representatives on the Planning Commission Board). Supervisor Rooker called me back first and I told him what happened. He gave me the name and phone number of the TJPDC Board Chairman, with whom I spoke later that evening.

So why should all of this matter to anyone?

Of course, this incident is yet another example of the rude behavior displayed by Sustainability advocates towards Sustainability opponents at the BOS work session as I described in Part I of my Guest Editorial. And in honesty, I want to defend my honor and get the apology from Mr. Williams that I feel I deserve. But it is about substantially more than this. Mr. Williams’ position and responsibility as a public official elevates this incident to being one of potential interest and concern to the public and the TJPDC.

After consideration, I decided that both should be made aware of the disturbing behavior I experienced from Mr. Williams. I know that he does not have a positive opinion of me and the JATP because he told me so. We are a source of frustration for him because our continuing opposition to the Livable Communities Planning Project has not made his job any easier. That is understandable.

But during his disagreement with me, Mr. Williams went well beyond the standard voice raising and benign changes in posture (such as hands placed on hip or pointed fingers) that usually occurs when two people are engaged in a dispute. In my opinion, he grossly crossed the line of typical response when he deliberately and menacingly imposed his physical stature in a posture intended to demean, intimidate, and bully a woman. This is reprehensible and inexcusable behavior, which not only oversteps the bounds of civil discourse and common courtesy, but unforgivably breaches the professionalism we should all expect from a public official. While Mr. Williams may not have liked the information I brought to discuss with him, I brought it to him in a respectful manner and I did nothing to instigate nor merit what I consider his unconscionable treatment of me.

I am completely confident in my interpretation of his actions and his intent behind them. I cannot abide a bully and I believe the best way to discourage bullying behavior is to confront it and seek proper punishment for the offender. It is my intention to file a formal complaint with the Planning District Commission and bring this matter before the TJPDC at their next Board meeting in August. I will be seeking a public apology from Mr. Williams and ask the Planning Commission Board to take disciplinary action against Mr. Williams commensurate with the seriousness of his actions.

Listen to Carole Thorpe’s interaction with TJPDC Executive Director, Stephen Williams:

On June 8, roughly 300 people packed Lane Auditorium for a work session held during the regularly scheduled Albemarle County Board of Supervisors meeting to discuss several items relating to Sustainable Development in our community. This work session was called directly as a result concerns raised by the Jefferson Area Tea Party during its five-month fight to end County membership in ICLEI – International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. While hiding behind a façade of benign environmentalism, ICLEI promotes the implementation of a radical political agenda called U.N. Agenda 21 that seeks to establish big central planning in local governments, effect behavior change through local Codes and Ordinances, eradicate individual liberty, and destroy private property rights.

In conjunction with its battle against ICLEI, the JATP also encouraged the County to rescind its participation in the Cool Counties initiative and reject its partnership in a County/City/UVA consortium under the administration of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC). The TJPDC applied for and was selected to receive a $999,000.00 federal grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to fund a three-year joint implementation plan of the recently re-branded “Livable Communities Planning Project” in our region.

Needless to say, the JATP stirred up a hornet’s nest in this community with its first foray into local politics – and the tone for many Sustainability proponents was set in the weeks and days preceding the work session.

Several weeks ago, Supervisor Dennis Rooker openly snickered at the JATP during more than one BOS meeting at which its members presented their concerns with supporting evidence to the Supervisors in a respectful, responsible manner. He referred to the JATP (which has many members who are taxpaying, home-owning County residents) as an “outside group”. Mr. Rooker hypothesized and warned that the real agenda of the Tea Party might be to infiltrate local government. And he repeatedly pronounced our assessment of ICLEI and its goals as “ridiculous”.

Jack Marshall (President of ASAP – Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population) stood before the Charlottesville City Council on June 6 to ridicule and demean the JATP with a pompous presentation rich in political rhetoric, but poor in meaningful factual information. Amazingly, he did not repudiate or challenge one iota of what I said to the Councilors just moments before he spoke but instead unwisely chose to adhere to his prepared hit-piece, which resulted in making him sound rather foolish.

Later in the same meeting, Mayor Dave Norris took an opportunistic swipe at the JATP, saying he was “very disappointed in its embrace of some pretty extreme conspiracy theories regarding organizations like ICLEI…” and he hoped ”…that the Tea Party will return talking about some very legitimate issues regarding spending and overspending and debt.”

I have a message for Mayor Norris. He should resign himself to being perpetually “disappointed” by the JATP since we will continue to focus on more than just fiscal matters, especially whenever our founding principles of limited government and individual liberty are under attack by organizations such as ICLEI. I recommend that he and his fellow City Councilors remove their own ”ideological blinders” (a term he used towards the JATP during the same statement) to seriously examine the true agenda of ICLEI and kick it out of the City of Charlottesville.

But back to the County work session, where the noticeably high turnout of Liberal-Progressives could be reasonably attributed to the call for non-County residents to descend on Lane Auditorium to protect City and UVA consortium interests. Together with a veritable Who’s Who from seemingly every Sustainability or Progressively minded organization in our area, the typically more conservative County residents were outnumbered roughly three or four to one.

The behavior of this majority in the auditorium was appalling. They regularly joined together to mock, jeer, and demean those who thought differently from them. The hypocrisy of those who often presume to exalt themselves as the standard bearers of civil discourse—especially above those in the Tea Party movement— was on public display in disgusting and revealing fashion.

Chairwoman Ann Mallek, presiding over what she announced would be a safe zone for free expression, did precious little to intervene throughout the evening to shield the twenty-one citizens who spoke in opposition to the Sustainability agenda from ridicule. Laughs, hisses, and other noises underscored the statements of nearly every citizen who came to share their concerns. Incredibly, a number of Sustainability advocates actually turned their backs on these citizens as they spoke—many of them also added snide prefaces when they themselves spoke, identifying themselves as being from the U.N. and making other tea-party-mocking allusions—without even a hint of reprimand from the Chair. I’m not suggesting that anyone’s freedom of speech should have been violated, but clear rules for etiquette were established and announced prior to the first speaker’s comment. These rules along with the instruction for every speaker to identify his or her local area of residence disappeared quickly.

Throughout the evening and continuing for several days after the meeting, members of the JATP have related to me their individual accounts of being called names or receiving offensive gestures in the auditorium and lobby. During a break, I witnessed two women approach two JATP ladies seated in the row in front of me, demanding that they put down a sign that had an innocuous saying on it. And unbelievably, one man speaking at the podium spun 180 degrees around to extend a firm arm and pointed finger directly at me in the center third row, yelling something to the effect of ”THERE’S the problem!” I had to chuckle because despite over thirty years of theatre experience and having “seen everything,” I still can’t abide to watch an overacting ham.

On a night during which many conservatives endured unwarranted, unprovoked, childish, offensive, and intrusive incidences, I, personally would not be immune to being a target. However, my incident was unique in that it occurred at the hands of prominent public official. Details to follow in Sustainablists Behaving Badly, Part II.

Socialists, Marxists, Progressives, and Democrats were present in force at the board meeting and were loud proponents of the Internationalist organization’s agenda—but common sense prevailed. With the Supervisors’ vote, Albemarle County joins a growing number of American localities withdrawing from the International Council for Local Environment.

The Jefferson Area Tea Party spearheaded the effort to disentangle Albemarle County from ICLEI. Following is a statement from Tea Party Chair, Carole Thorpe:

Fellow Patriots:

This is a GREAT day in Albemarle County!  Last night, the Board of Supervisors voted 4-2 to cancel its membership in ICLEI – International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives.  ICLEI’s primary goal is to promote and help implement radical U.N. Agenda 21 in local governments in America and throughout the world.

The JATP sincerely thanks Ken Boyd, Lindsay Dorrier, Duane Snow, and Rodney Thomas for seeing through the benign facade of ICLEI and demonstrating strong leadership in the face of a sizable and mocking opposition from Sustainability advocates.

Congratulations and thanks to Dr. Charles Battig who relentlessly led our fight against ICLEI since February with multiple speeches at monthly BOS meetings, countless hours of research and documentation to build our case, and for his presentation at our March 17 forum, “The Deceptive Agenda of Sustainability in Local Government”.

We also extend special thanks to Rob Schilling of WINA’s “The Schilling Show” for numerous radio hours and SchillingShow blog posts devoted to this topic; to Tom DeWeese of The American Policy Center for his presentation at our March 17 forum; to Commissioner Richard Rothschild of the Carroll County, Maryland Board of County Commissioners for his valuable advice and action; to the ad-hoc Sustainability Committee of Dr. Charles Battig, Steve Peters, Carole Thorpe, Audrey Welborn, Clara Belle Wheeler, and Charles Winkler; to John Munchmeyer (Jefferson Area Libertarians) and members of the ACRC Executive Committee for their statements of support; to EVERYONE who attended/spoke at last night’s meeting, wrote letters to the BOS, and in any other way contributed in some way towards this victory.

The vote to determine the fate of “Cool Counties” was postponed due to open questions about its link to a relationship between Albemarle County and some environmental organizations.  Some sort of related report is due out in 30-45 days and the BOS decided to wait for that.

The “Livable Communities Planning Project”/HUD grant vote passed unanimously – but only after a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ was reached by which the BOS will monitor and review individual projects as they develop AND can approve or deny a portion of its $161,000.00 in-kind leverage contribution to be spent to fund it.  Ken Boyd also raised concerns that the majority of people who sit on “input committees” always seem to be on the Left Side of the ideological fence.  He inquired if there may be some way by which at least one JATP person could sit on such a committee to represent our organization, and TJPDC’s Stephen Williams explained there could be a way by which that could happen.  Stay tuned.

In summary – while there is MUCH work to be done in our ongoing fight against the radical political agenda of Sustainability, this was a victorious night for the JATP!  We succeeded in our primary goal of the last five months to get ICLEI kicked out of Albemarle County.  It was unlikely that we could overcome the more recent battle over the HUD grant but an important point was made and heard.  “Cool Counties” is still a work-in-progress and could still go the way of ICLEI.

Clearly, to anyone who was listening last night, there is a LOT of education to be done on the oft-repeated claim of “Free Money” from the Federal government…for the disconnect in understanding the difference between the actual United Nations and the policy that is U.N. Agenda 21…for the assertion that we “hate the government”…and the motives and agenda of the JATP (though most of that is something made up for our opposition’s convenience).

But for today, CONGRATULATIONS to everyone in the JATP!  If anyone doubted my statement at the beginning of the year that we would turn our focus to and impact local government, they believe us now.

Carole Thorpe

See video of Albemarle County’s historic vote to eject ICLEI (courtesy of Audrey Welborn):

6-8-11 – Board of Supervisors – ICLEI from Audrianne Welborn on Vimeo.