To the Editor:
I write in response to Mark Webb’s Sept. 19, 2018, letter to the editor titled "I (conditionally) offer to withdraw my legal challenges."
Jan. 9, Judge Cramer issued his decision on Mr. Webb’s legal challenges, finding in favor of the county for dismissal. I will discuss one of Mr. Webb’s issues, since he chose to call out myself, Judy Kerr and Jim Sproul in his letter. Mr. Webb alluded that Jim, Judy and I were “people who regularly peddle misinformation to manipulate county residents and local government that verges on criminal”, a statement taken from Mr. Powell’s previous letter to the editor about Mr. Webb.
If Mr. Webb can show where I’ve “peddled misinformation,” I would be glad to own it. Judge Cramer's decision speaks volumes to the veracity of Mr. Webb’s legal challenges and information he shares throughout the community when deciding Mr. Webb’s legal challenge — “(b) Failure to state ultimate facts sufficient to constitute a claim.”
So, I would ask, who is not presenting sufficient facts to the public?
I have not called into question the validity of road closure based on the County Ordinance 2013-1. I have called into question the closure of roads protected under RS 2477 as public rights of way.
Ordinance 2013-01 (known as the "roads ordinance") is clear. The county called for entities planning to close roads to present and gain support by the county before extinguishing a public right of way. Mr. Webb takes issue with outside groups and individuals having a say in such things. By outside, I mean outside the Blue Mountains Forest Partners, but that’s what elected officials are there for, whether it’s to Mr. Webb’s liking or not.
So, no need for a "conditional" withdrawal.
John D. George