Drifting into the unreal realm of seemingly unexplainable pettiness. See Don't call Emilie Boyles's office. But is it ENOUGH to zero in on the "father of 'voter-owned elections'"?

Is it really about the dollar amount?

This DA does not care either about a Gresham/Barlow school district contract that was enacted retroactive nearly 18 months.

This DA does not care either about letting the City Council off the hook for Tram related spending immediately after the February letter by the city attorney's office noting the lack of legal exposure to OHSU to judicially compel completion.

The list goes on and on. The common theme is that if the public pays money then a controversy or ripe claim of criminal official misconduct simply vanishes from the view of this DA.

If the DA takes action against Emily personally in a criminal action, rather than concluding it all with the City's hokey civil fit, then they will give me the "standing" (a judicially cognizable burden in the free speech context) that is indispensable to me obtaining a facial challenge to accompany an as applied attack. And event for which I will use to remove Mr. Blackmer from office, for leaving me off the ballot and thus prohibiting me under the ordinance from collecting 1,000 5s, for his own position, notwithstanding the City Charter provision directing him to place a greater pledge of loyalty to a private Florida located auditor-mill (puppy mill pun intended) contrary to that of the superior demands of the Oregon Statutes, the Oregon Constitution or the US Constitution.

Mr. Blackmer saved the city 150 grand by denying me the opportunity to participate in clean money. Or 300 grand if one assumes that if I got my 1,000 5s that he would task the same pool of donors and tools as Mr. Sten to get 150 grand. Would this "savings" of 300 grand mitigate the harm of releasing money to Ms. Boyles? Would application of the law uniformly and fairly cost money, as if spending itself (and a nice parallel to the posited purpose for the clean money limit based on spending alone) was enough justification all on it's own to dispense with jury trials in criminal cases?

Picture Loren Parks demanding money back from candidate X. Picture The Grand Ronde Tribe demanding money back from their favorite Governor candidate. Each for reasons only they can explain. This is a whole different inquiry than if they were confined to merely withholding "future" donations. The government here is in the role of just another speaker like that of any other private speaker and thus I would insist that a common set of rules be applied. It is impossible to apply a constitutional "individual liberty" case against the government here where the campaign-donor is the government itself -- except via an examination of the burden on the "individual liberty" interests of the private recipient.

If dollars are THE issue -- then I should feel justified in zoning in on potential claims of official misconduct and arguments made by private outside counsel that are contrary to the administration of the justice, that are knowingly designed so as to thwart the public interest for the benefit of private parties, in a set of PERS related cases. Robertson v. Kulongoski is awaiting a decision from the Ninth Circuit (which I suspect is conveniently awaiting the conclusion of the election) that challenges the 2003 PERS modifications and which could cost the public many billions of dollars. Arken v. City of Portland is awaiting a decision in a Multnomah County court, in a class action, that could serve (but not noted in the briefs anywhere) as the single final opportunity for the claimants to hear any and all matters pertaining to the terms of pay for past work and reduction of them all to a single and final order that is not subject to retweaking via the legislature -- in like manner to the of the legislative intrusion into the judicial function in the City of Eugene case (otherwise known as the Lipscomb case) after the fact and after all the components of a final judicial action to offer one final remedy were completely ripe. The Lipscomb case participants insisted that they had settled (asserting some odd power via such private settlement to compel PERB to enact some rule in conformance with the settlement and thus dispense with normal procedures that accompany notice and the opportunity to challenge the legality of new rules) and thereby obtained a "mootness" determination from the Oregon Supreme Court on their case (and thus voluntarily exhausted their claims, at least as to the participants of that case) and yet today insistent on rehashing some the the vary same issue just as if the Lipscomb case had never been heard. In terms of a process freak analysis -- suppose the PERB had originally credited 8 percent on accounts in 1999 and then in 2004 altered the 1999 crediting to be 18 percent. Could they do so? If they can adjust it DOWN then this must imply the power to adjust it UP -- in the future at some time yet unknown.

Is it about the MONEY?

A team comprised of the DA and CoP Auditor that properly display vigor in the public interest could have a field day in this town. Likewise, by abdicating the public interest, they can team up to license theft on a grand scale.