Monday, January 28, 2008


Red Lion in the Winter

I wasn't there, and there are some accounts in the thread below. This one was posted by Margaret, and it is somewhat different from another account I heard tonight, though not drastically so. In fact, I think most of the differences are in the nuances.

In any case, I am posting the only first hand account I have in print. I will add some items later after I've sorted them out. I wasn't taking notes in my conversation tonight.

Bob Doran was there and not in disguise. He said he couldn't stay all day but he was there quite late.

The start was rocky, not sure why. Tom's lawyer basically said they still weren't ready due to the scrambled documents and depositions they hadn't gotten. Bragg offered to pay sanctions on the scrambled documents and said the board members in question had been and still were available for deposing, Tom's lawyer decided he didn't need them. There was some mention of the document scrambling being a retaliatory measure since the other side did the same but it was all pretty low key. The judge put a cap on how much time the Mateel would actually pay for.

Tom's lawyer gave a very long and tedious opening statement, even the judge got tired and asked if it would end soon. A break happened and all future witnesses except Carol were asked to leave.

Tom took the stand. It was long and painful like a tooth extraction. He said he'd gone through 2 lawyers and then relied on PB to negotiate for him. The first tooth was the necessity of PP producing. First they went through the background. The 2004, probably a typo, contract in which the MCC is not mentioned. Later contracts which also did not involve the MCC or any guarantees of who would produce, except other large festivals were planned and PP would have first rights of production refusal.

Then the MCC became part of it but he never actually talked to any representatives. First it was because he hated Taunya, in Spring 2005, and wouldn't sit down anywhere with her. Oh, except for their breakfast meeting in fall 2006 where she told him she was concerned about Carol's performance. He continued to sign contracts with the MCC without talking to them because he thought Carol was their representative. Carol was the only person competent to produce Reggae, at least for 6 years, well maybe 5, and if/when she quit he could rely on those staff who had always worked for the MCC. Well, actually the contract says if Carol couldn't/wouldn't do it he needed written notification. There was no provision for his approval of said other producer.

Now Bragg is in the process of extracting the second tooth. Up until they knew how expensive the move would be the MCC was involved in no contracts. Even after they were it was PP who was entrusted with determining the work to be done and the MCC was bumped from that committee. Once again because Carol was representing their interests. And basically Tom was making all decisions based on info from PB. All improvements to be returned to MCC if lease ended. I think we can see where this is going but I don't know that for a fact.

Brief side track by Bragg. There is a clause stating that the MCC is responsible for insuring that the producer does not violate any legal or permit rules.

Dropped for lack of foundation but can be revisited with other witnesses I think.

Tom's lawyer objected to 99% of the questions, the judge sustained 2 but allowed 1 to be reframed.

Okay, now the account I heard suggested that the opening salvos weren't really low key, but maybe it was in the content of the discussions rather than the tone. In any case, my source's understanding was that Tom's attorney had decided that he didn't need the depositions, but that they would actually be taken after hours during the trial.

Why did Bill Bragg waive the opening statement? Well, if trial briefs are filed they are redundant, so unless you have something new to say since you finished the brief, there is really no point. But if the other side doesn't waive opening, I usually opt to at least respond to points of concern. Either Bill sees it differently, or he felt that his brief had adequately addressed everything.

I hear that Boots was very upset about having to wait around and was planning to drive back to the city and come up each day charging Tom for his 22 cents per mile until he's finally called. I don't know if he was just blowing off steam, but I wonder why he had to be called up for today when the Mateel will be calling its witnesses for the next couple of days.

Addendum: Nothing on KMUD news tonight! What's up?

But the first 5 minutes of Politically Correct Week in Review was, very spontaneous and... postmodern? It's listed as "Monday Night Talk."

I'm pretty sure that they are going to finish Taunya's deposition, cut short due to illness. The other board members remain unclear. Bob Stern was accused of being evasive, turned out to be mostly about his activist past.
Since most of Tom's attorney's opening argument was regularly interrupted as being redundant due to future testimony I think B. Bragg's decision to forego it was wise.
Don't know what finally happened with Boots. His subpeona said today but they said he was informed Wednesday would be fine. Some compromise was reached on mileage, etc...
I've now spoken with three people who were present. Accounts of how it went today varies according to sympathies. In other words, both sides think they did well today.

Not uncommon, particularly on a first day.
There were only about three people at the hearing representing TD/PP.
a couple of quick notes:
First, Margaret misunderstood what I said about attending the hearing. I was there all day yesterday and will attend today, but I'm leaving Wednesday morning for an alt. newsy convention in S.F. I'll miss three days. At the rate things are going, I'm guessing it won't be over until next week.
Second, re: her comment "Tom's lawyer gave a very long and tedious opening statement..."
What he did was lay out his case. I wish Bragg had done the same, but as was explained, he did not see the need because he'd told the story to the judge at a prior hearing. I don't have time right now to relate exactly what Knowles said, but it appears someone on the Mateel board turned over all e-mail communications among board members and Taunya. Knowles will attempt to show that the board was working on removing Carol much earlier than anyone has let on. Timing seems to be the key issue on both sides - who wrote what to whom when?
I've always said that Carol had so many moles inside Mateel that it was an unfair fight.
There is no need to give an opening statement to a judge that has been given detailed trial briefs. Tom's lawyer gave that spiel for the audience, not for the judge and you can be sure the judge knew it and was annoyed.
I find Tom's lawyers opening statement funny. If mateel was really just wanting to get rid of Carol and di not believe she really quit, then why didn't it just say ok when she quit at the meeting? That Mateel tried to work with her so long suggests that Tom's lawyer is just aspousing wishful thinking. Besides, Mateel may well have wanted to get rid of an albotross like carol. Its wants and desires are its business. The issue is did Carol repudiate and, of course, we all know she did. Take Tom's letter to Mateel. what carol said at the Mateel and what paul said while she stood there and said nothing, as well as the Mateel's letter to her asking about Tom's letter to which she offered no assurances, and it is undeniable that she repudiated. Tom's lawyer is living in fantasy land.
Oh no. Bob Doran is attending the hearing. That will ensure that Carol and Tom get a nice NCJ article twisting everything possible in their favor. Bob Doran is a lap dog for Carol and Tom.
North Coast Journal November 16,2006.
Mattila says she's looking at this as her last Reggae as People Productions CFO maybe."lets just say I'm retiring if I have to work with the Mateel again" she concluded "If I don't have to work with them, I might stick around."

"And I think that pretty much goes for the entire staff here " Bruno said.

Mr. Doran were you lead to believe that Carol Bruno and staff were not going to work for the Mateel on Reggae On The River event at the time/date that you printed this interview? What date did the November 16, 2006 interview actually occur?
Do you find any significance with your quoting Carol Bruno and staff and their intentions of not willing to work with the Mateel and the fact that your interview was conducted and published prior to the Mateel general meeting where Carol quit and had PB reinterait Carol Bruno's intent?
After your interview did you have any doubt's that Carol Bruno, Suzy Mattila and the entire staff at People Productions were Not going to work with the Mateel Community Center?
Oh no. What if the judge reads the NCJ and sees what Bob writes. We will be sunk. Oh me. Oh my. Bob is a legend in his own mind. That is it!
Let's see...3 deals in one day between Tom and the Mateel, Between Tom and PP, and between the Mateel and PP. These facts were all brought out at the hearing yesterday. Leaving one to surmise that everyone was trying to cover their own backsides in this convoluted deal. Mr. Bragg stated that in fact PP had signed a deal with the Mateel that seemed to make it ok for Carol to assign her interest to whomever she wished with out any input from Tom.

Tom looks pretty pained up there trying to justify his belief that ONLY PP was able to pull off this festival due to some special conditions that occur in Cooks Valley and no where else in the world.

I found the document scrambling bothersome. As one who has supported the Mateel throughout this mess it caused me to question the motives of such a move. In the end all the other side got was reimbursement for the time it took to put the papers back in order.

I am not a lawyer but after yesterdays testimony I would be inclined to think Tom may want to settle this sooner rather than later.
All of this talk and all the left out aspects can create a picture that is distorted. Doesn't anyone recall the statements about the made up BOD meeting that didn't occur at all, with the made up minutes and the emails between Taunya and Bob Stern and Erin Snodgrass? What about the facts? Don't they get equal billing with the spin? When will you hear what is actually being said instead of rewriting what you don't like and presenting your version as accurate? See you in the Oak Room.
I do recall those comments in the opening statement. As a Mateel supporter I am of course concerned about them. But that side of the case has not had any testimony yet. When there is I will relate it.
To MR.Doran;
Did Suzy Mattila, Carol Bruno, or any one interviewed in the November 16, 2006 Reggae story ever contact you about the quotes that were attributed to each individual?
Has any one of the interviewees ever formally told you that you misquoted them and/or asked you for a retraction of their quotes?
Do you use recording devices when interviewing persons so that there is no inaccuracies in what is quoted? If so do you retain the copies of those recordings?
If your interviewees have been identified, is there any legal reason that you cannot be subpoenaed to testify as to your impressions and quotes attributed to identified individuals?
Hey Bob!

What he did was lay out his case. I wish Bragg had done the same, but as was explained, he did not see the need because he'd told the story to the judge at a prior hearing.

Well, they both presented briefs which laid out the case. Knowles may have had material to add, or simply wanted to set the stage for the judge one last time. But if the judge has done his job, he's familiar with the case now and probably didn't need another summary. Of course, it could have been for the public's benefit.

I do have a copy of the Mateel's brief and when I have some time I'll read it an post excerpts and commentary - if there's anything we don't already know.

I don't have time right now to relate exactly what Knowles said, but it appears someone on the Mateel board turned over all e-mail communications among board members and Taunya. Knowles will attempt to show that the board was working on removing Carol much earlier than anyone has let on. Timing seems to be the key issue on both sides - who wrote what to whom when?

In order for it to be an issue, TD will have to establish that he knew about this intent and pulled out on the basis of anticipatory breach. Otherwise it's immaterial until the Mateel does something materially in breach. And again, it's ultimately about the motivations of the parties at the point of repudiation. Still, it can be useful to establish a pattern which impacted negotiations and to shed light on actions which might constitute by themselves a breach.

Thing is, I don't remember any of this being referenced in the TD or PP press statements at the time of the repudiation.

I can tell you that there has always been discussion of replacing PP. Months before I was on the Board PP had threatened to quit. Not all the Board members saw it as an empty threat and there were discussions about what to do in case it really happened. Those discussions preceded me, but I do know that when they got back to PP it created an uproar.

But planning a contingency is also a bit different from simply planning to replace somebody. So it could be material. The judge will have the details and decide whether these plans had been made, what the Mateel had done to implement them, what Tom knew about them, and whether that was the basis for his decision to pull out of the agreement.
If your interviewees have been identified, is there any legal reason that you cannot be subpoenaed to testify as to your impressions and quotes attributed to identified individuals?

If the subpoenaing party can get around the hearsay rule, sure. But his impressions may not be material. And first the witnesses would have to deny the accuracy of the comments, which could elude the hearsay rule if they are prior statements against interest, prior inconsistent statements, or statements which go to their state of mind rather than the truth of the matter declared. There are about 70 other exceptions to hearsay, and I could do a whole thread on the hearsay rule and whether the exceptions are overwhelming the rule itself.
Mr. Bragg stated that in fact PP had signed a deal with the Mateel that seemed to make it ok for Carol to assign her interest to whomever she wished with out any input from Tom.

That by itself would certainly undermine his case, though I have to wonder if there isn't more to it.
Anybody who has done business with Td knows that he does NOT do "that was an over-sight on my part". He even says he had 2 lawyers before finally settling on PB.And PB has told many, many, many, people that he is an EXPERT in contract entertainment law.Anything td signs is checked about a million times before hand.
I think it is somewhat ironic that it is snowing on this, the initial week of the court room snow job
Does the hearsay exception work here Eric? I KNOW this poster must have scads of experience in dealing with Tom Dimmick, right? I bet the poster has never met Tom nor done any business with him ever. The smear paint brush wielded by an anon poster.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
My family has done business with td and his father. So I am talking with some personal knowledge. And I will remain anon,thank you.
I didn’t threaten anyone…. I thought it was fair questions. So, the blogging and bloggers are totally not real. As instead of answering real questions… if it offends someone…. Boom you are deleted.
To me that means, censorship of speech. No free speech in Eric’s Blog.
bummer eric...
thought things were different here..
or else i am to be honored to be in the deleted club???
i don't know...
It was a personal attack extraneous to the issues. There was no need to bring up ankle bracelets, and I saw it as a cheap shot. If you want to repost the questions without that reference, I'll let them stand.
thanks eric...

what i meant to say was the Mateel helped said person so long ago.

and when did said person take entertainment Law classes and becomes an expert at said entertainment contracts.?

of course the person who wrote:

"And PB has told many, many, many, people that he is an EXPERT in contract entertainment law."

this is hearsay? right.
thanks again...
I've heard PB say he is an expert in entertainment law. I'm not a friend of his and have hear him say this. It's still hearsay...I suppose. Who cares? I hear a lot of people claim to be experts in things they obviously don't know everything about...
Let's see if I have this right. The alledged "Expert" contract writer is so good that all of us mateelies out here are too dumb to understand the fine points of contract law. It's such a great contract that all three parties have expensive attorneys battling it out in court, so us uneducated members can figure out the truth. Wow! Did he learn to write such good contracts while working off his community service at the Mateel? Good work!
Who cares where he learned about writing contracts? I think your better point is that if it so good why are three high priced attorneys battling it out in court.. although isn't the issue whether or not the contract was breached-which may not be a problem with the contract itself but rather with the behaviour of the individuals involved?

Please stay focused. Bringing in irrelvant issues isn't going to shed light on any of this.
I'd like to stay focused on the issues of the contracts. Unfortunately, they are so complicated and confusing, I'm too dumb to understand them. Perhaps if the three parties were not operating in such secrecy, we could all get educated and stay focused.

Boy, some people are uptight and a little pissed. Lighten up, folks, this is NOT life and death. It's only a little three million a year festival control battle. Must be good for a few laughts, eh? Bring on the humor and clarity, I'm waiting.
I'm all for humor but there may be major repercussions for some parties. Quite a bit is at stake. If Tom loses, isn't he liable for the Mateels's loses of money for last year? And for the Mateel's equipment use? I wouldn't want to be in his shoes if he loses.
losses were right the first time. loses, i know it looks weird..

anyway, the source of PB's training is not irrrelavant or extraneous.

It highlights the common nature of this supposed expert, and debunks the theory that only certain people are capable of carrying out the duties associated with the event.

A regular con off the street makes good in the entertainment business. ANYONE could do this gig. NO one is indespensible.

And regarding definition of cheap shot: If someone might be offended by others bringing up the truth of their past, they should think about these things before they are caught redhanded with gobs of cash and illicit drugs.

Public scrutiny is natural fallout to any crime. So, don't want people to stare at you? Don't wear no clown nose.
One could focus on the contract if they weren't so secret.
How come a public non-profit oranizaton has signed contracts that are allegedly secret?
Will said contracts be available to read once they are presented in court?
Can one read all said alleged contracts dealing with all entities from the Mateel Community Center Office that are with a public non-profit in regards to Reggae on the River? If one can, where does one go to find and read?
Yes, I know, it is about allegedly breaking some point of said contract.
I am not asking to read secret contracts between for-profit businesses.
Are contracts filed in the court house and become available for anyone to read from these hearings?
There is so much to try and figure out. Hope everyone is ok traveling. We are still snowed in and can't get out yet.
"ANYONE could do this gig."

Sure anyone could do this gig if they started producing one day concerts for a few locals for several years and through trial and error, over the course of a few decades grew it to what it is today. There are very few production companies who would even want to attempt doing a festival like this, and the ones that do have started small. The only people who keep saying anyone can do it are the people who don't know the least about what it takes.
Okay 12:33 I can see your point about where the contract expert got his training. It was clear before... So I can see that it may not be so irrelvant. ;-)
opps, I meant it wasn't clear before
wow, 22 cents a mile is cheap for a mileage fee. The state reimburses nearly 50cents a mile now... Tom is getting a bargain for yanking Boots around.
Does anybody know who is testifying tomorrow and Thurs.?
There are very few production companies who would even want to attempt doing a festival
like this one

oh really? Egos gettin' a little big are 10 pages of very few doing a festival like...
Alright 4:04

This argument has been beat to death, and your list of 10 pages of festivals does nothing to bolster your position. Have you been to any of the festivals listed? Well I have been to many of them and none of them compare like Reggae. Very few are overnight festivals, even fewer are in remote areas with limited or no access to municipal water, power, sewage, medical, etc. and ALL of those started smaller as single day events and grew into the camping festivals they are today. Why is it so hard for people to recognize that it is a very difficult job to do well that nobody would pull off successfully without years of trial and error. It has nothing to do with ego. It is a fact.
I once told a girl I had a twelve inch penis, could I get in trouble for heresay, or maybe some girls would think it was a threat. either way, what a person says about themselves is often overly optimistic about their true capabilities or endowments,
Eric or ALP,
I'm curious about contract law. Last year I took the California Real Estate Principals course.
There was a whole chapter on contracts. It advises the real estate licensee not to practice law and to only stick to the contracts approved by the the California Department of Real Estate. It also states that no one can act as an Real Estate agent for another (for compensation) without a law degree, a brokers licence or licensee working under a licensed broker. An agent is described as "one who represents another from who he or she has derived authority". It also states that it is against the law to receive commissions from transactions that involves Real Estate without a Real Estate license or a Law Degree.
When the person who Tom Dimmick identifies as his agent in drafting/writing the lease agreement is not licensed by the California State Bar Association or the California Department of Real Estate, is that person in violation of California State Laws? I ask this especially when that person is receiving compensation/commissions from the Corperate Sponsers that used to belong to the MCC.
It was also mentioned that this person makes claims that he is an expert in Entertainment Law and contracts. Considering that TD identifies that person as acting in his behalf, isn't that person practicing Contract Law without a licence or law degree?
Home from the wars with no desire to be tonight's thread. Both Cristina and Bob were there and have promised to send something. All very depressing and lengthy. Hopefully Tom will do better with his own lawyer and things will pick up at least a little. Then we can move on to Susie and Carol. I don't have the timeline down but it appears from today's testimony that RR was in the works long before most of us imagined. It's also true that Tom informed the MCC that Carol was quitting and that would cause a lease breach on their part. Basically if Carol didn't get whatever she wanted he was terminating the lease. He went on to say that he kept the $33,000 because he'd spent more than he expected to on the infrastructure and he felt 'entitled'. There was a lovely quote from a CB email telling him not to be depressed because how much would the MCC be willing to spend fighting her "the mother of both". And her advice to him to demand the rent advance with a 24 hour deadline when they knew we were broke. I know this is only one side but it's pretty sick-making and one might begin to feel that nearly anything the MCC did, short of violence, was at least understandable.
It is a fact.

Fact check! Fact check! Who's got the facts?
You got it right Margaret. Any sympathy I had for Tom and Carol evaporated today. Tom basically admitted that he and Carol knew the community center was in dire financial straits and that he and Carol were trying to force it to give up Reggae on the River. He sounded like he thought he could take advantage and had Mateel over a barrell because he thought that if Carol quit that he could just cancel the lease.
Margaret, I'm sure you're tired but would you clarify who was in breach of the contract if "Carol was quitting and that would cause a breach on their part". Whose part? Carol and Tom's?
About the lease contract;
Do not forget what the judge said in the summary judgment ruling. Eric posted it here. One thing the judge said was; “Third, and perhaps most significant in the context of this motion, MCC argues that its letter to Bruno/PP of November 4, 2007 constituted the required notice of breach and notice to cure. If this is so, MCC urges, then the 30 (sic) "cure" period pass without Bruno/PP providing any assurances that it would live up to its contractual obligations.”
I liked this comment by Eric; “The Referee suggests that Tom is going to have to bolster his case prior to trial, but you'd think he threw everything he had into the motion.”
And Bob had the whole judgment posted here. It is not very long and it is interesting.
5:27 PM
You keep saying that it took years to learn how to do ROTR. What you fail to mention is that these people learned how to put this show together on the Mateel’s dime. The Mateel paid for PP and PB to learn their craft and now these same “people” want to throw the Mateel out of the equation like the Mateel are nothing and do not deserve the festival because these jokers (PP, PB and even TD) are the only ones who know how to do it. That is one of the reasons this community are so pissed off at these scoundrels.
6:02 PM
OH MY GOD!!!!!! I am so glad this has gone to trial!
The hubris. The hubris!!!
Margaret, if you are clarifying the above statement for 06:43:00 PM.. help me get this one too: Hopefully Tom will do better with his own lawyer and things will pick up at least a little.

And what about Carol's "Mother of Both" ?? WTF! ...that i get. No explanation needed.
Take your blinders off folks. Look at the big picture. Don't always pick and choose what you absorb in order to justify your own vision.

Margaret's little teaser today is once again inaccurate. Having been there both days I wonder if she and I were in the same room.
What did YOU hear? Do tell.
7:11 I have thought that exact thought two days in a row. How is what I hear so different than that she recounts?
none of them compare like Reggae

u r trying to say what?
Because anon 7:11 and 7:18 you must have your heads up Tom's rear because I was there and Margaret has it dead right.
So, what is your story that is so different from Margaret's?
okay 7:11 and 7:18... instead of merely saying what Margaret reports is not what you heard, please give your version... otherwise, shut up.
nothing compares to reggae on the river?then this person must have gone around the world.there are festivals all over..get off of the ego trip
As to Rex White saying he liked the sound of reggae rising way back when??Does anybody remember on a Thank Jah program when people first started saying that pp and pb had the name rr bought for a few years, and pb said no, it was a domain name that was given up, that they then took over. And then many months later, the name thing came up again, and a woman called Thank Jah again, with a story of a coordinators "circle" where someone told of a dream they had, and the name rr came from that?? so which is it pp/pb/td??
Tue Jan 29, 07:49:00 PM I think you are on drugs, my dear.
07:58:00 PM Don't call me dear. I will never be your dear.
Anonymous said...

07:58:00 PM Don't call me dear. I will never be your dear.

Tue Jan 29, 07:59:00 PM

Okay, I'll call you dumb ass instead.

You can do a simple "whois" search, and learn the history of any domain name.

Reggae Rising previously belonged to someone else, and that "owner" let the name lapse. That is the only reason PP could obtain that domain name.

Does that make you happy?
Who was that "someone else" buddyboy? That is the question. Did PP/PB tell "somebody else" that the name sucked so "sombody else" let the name lapse and then PP/PB/TD swooped.
Interesting, very interesting indeed.
Can somebody please help me. With so much spin, I can not get a "wrrd" in edgewise.
for crying out loud...

when the heck did Rex say he liked the name RR? I never heard him say that he liked the name until around the time of last years show.

this states People Productions owns this domain.

TD owns trademark.

i don't get it. very interesting site... though i couldn't seem to get some things to open.

thanks for info. every bit helps us dummies out here.
Tue Jan 29, 08:19:00 PM you are even dumber than the dumb ass.

Tue Jan 29, 08:26:00 PM when you said:
for crying out loud...

when the heck did Rex say he liked the name RR? I never heard him say that he liked the name until around the time of last years show."

you are right on. Someone is grasping for straws here.
A gentle person points out the admirable qualities of all and does not point out bad qualities. A petty one does just the opposite.
Margaret's version is right on. In fact she was too nice. TD got caught lying twice. His testimony was impeached. He squirmed in his chair like any good liar. He took at least a half a minute per question because he had to remember what lie he hold told them before. Never any "yes" and "no" answers. I think the judge is hip to what came down. The crime scene is ugly and bloody and these people are not honest.
Okay. The letter from Tom to the Mateel said that Carol was going to quit, that was Oct. 17, 2005. Paragraph 2 said that if Carol quit the Mateel was in breach of their lease with him. Therefore we were obligated to get rid of Taunya, unnamed cranky board members, and anything else making Carol's life unbearably frustrating.
Second clarification. At least half of the last 2 days was spent listening to Tom think about the answers to questions,even the one's he had already answered. It was tedious and painful. Most of the time the questions were harmless. I'm hoping with his own lawyer he'll be well rehearsed and it will go faster. I understand establishing foundation but this really drags.
Rex said in an email to Carol on or around the day her contract was terminated that he liked RR.
Ok anon 7:52. You said "A gentle person points out the admirable qualities of all and does not point out bad qualities. A petty one does just the opposite."

I think it is admirable that Tom is a lousy liar. I would think even less of him if he were good at it.

Thanks for the advice.
I've known PB for years and have NEVER once heard him claim himself to be an expert of entertainment law contracts....

If watching Tom was tedious and painful, go one asked you to come and you certainly don't have to be there...

Why don't you all just stop speculating and spewing your own emotional uniformed crap and listen to what is being said...Are you even capable.

Does Anyone, ANYONE of you Tanya, Bob and Garth supporters, find it at all shady that Bragg hired Stapp and had her on his payroll to deal with getting paperwork and important information to the other side a bit shaddy...Talk about snow job!!!! She is the wait, let me capitalize that, THE key witness in this case and she is preparing the discovery documents for the other side while on payroll and purposely scrambling the documents that are required by law to be delivered in good order to the other side....We're not talking eggs and cheese, we're talking scrambled documents, missing pages, retracted statements.....I assume though from most of your point of view, this is all ok....because it was your side...I can only imagine the outcry if it were the other side doing something like that...Where is the common sense...It's time you all put your emotions aside, get totally informed by listening to whats being said and not speculating about issues that haven't even been discussed yet.

And for those pointing their finger at Bob Doran for leaning towards Carol and TD, please...It's amazing at what hypocrites you all are....If he was saying what you wanted him to say, like the redwood times and the independent do (talk about being in someones back pocket) he would be totally acceptable. At least he listens to the information and tries to present it in an unbiased way. Not something either southern humboldt paper can claim.

Back to Bragg and Stapp....I am real interested as to what you Bob Garth and Tanya supporters think of that...Notice I am not referring to you as mateel supporters because we have all lost sight of the fact that we all support the mateel....It's as tom apparently put it, the cranky miserable board members.......Tanya, Garth, Bob...Go away.........

The truth is coming and when it does, then what...will you go away???
"Does Anyone...find it at all shady that Bragg hired Stapp and had her on his payroll to deal with getting paperwork and important information to the other side a bit shaddy"

Lame and a little stupid, yes; but illegal like violating contract law, no.
I'm sure the MCC will not come out of this untarnished. But I know all the board members and they are good people doing the best they can. Taunya may be a little unstable, or not, but she has also taken a lot of hits for this community with almost no support. Most of us have long standing friendships to see us through this.I can deal with the truth about the MCC. Just because I support them doesn't mean I always agree with them. Just ask them. You can't support something only as long as it does what you want and try to destroy it if it doesn't.
The reason the board members were a bit "cranky" may have been because the Mateel hadn't been paid for two years? Tom was caught with lying in his testimony. That cannot be spun any way but bad.
In answer to the questions in this thread, I went down to Redway to interview Carol and Taunya the week before the story came out, maybe Nov. 8 or 9, I'm not totally sure.

"Do you use recording devices when interviewing persons so that there is no inaccuracies in what is quoted?"

I tape-recorded my conversation with Carol -- Suzie and Katy came in the room during the interview so they were on tape too. I did not misquote anyone, so no, no one has called me to retract their quotes. I also recorded a long interview with Taunya that same day.

"If so do you retain the copies of those recordings?"

I still have them somewhere, but I'd be hard-pressed to find them. I have done hundreds of interviews since and my filing system is not great.

"If your interviewees have been identified, is there any legal reason that you cannot be subpoenaed to testify as to your impressions and quotes attributed to identified individuals?"

I don't really know the law around that issue. Eric? At any rate, no one subpoenaed me and I'm not on the witness list. I might point out that I've also published interviews on the marijuana trade with folks who laid out their criminal activities, and no one asked for those either.

"Do you find any significance with your quoting Carol Bruno and staff and their intentions of not willing to work with the Mateel and the fact that your interview was conducted and published prior to the Mateel general meeting..."

Did I think what they said was significant? Yes. That's why I put it in the story.

To those who are suggesting that I'm working on some spun version of events, I'd say go back and read what I've written. Do you really see the Nov. 16, Reggae Clash story as spin for one camp or the other? I just reported the facts as I heard them. That's my job as a reporter. Take a look at the blog I've maintained for over a year specific to this topic. You'll find documents and opinions from both sides of the issue. As it's been said many times, don't shoot the messenger.

I have a couple of legal pads full of notes on the testimony from yesterday and today and I was going to try and type some of them up tonight, but you know what, after reading this thread, I'm thinking, why bother. Anything that does not fit the narrow confines of "the truth" as seen by trolls on this blog would just make me the subject of insults since I'm a real person, not anon identified only by the time of their post. At any rate, it's late, I'm tired and I have a long drive to make tomorrow so it'll have to wait...

- the "legendary" Bob Doran
Is there any merit in
5:58 pm's questions?
Mr. Doran,
Thank you for your response.
I'm sure that you understood what I was trying to establish.
I hope you were not insulted, for that was not my intent.
Your honest answers were appreciated.
Once again Thank You and safe travels.
10:03 PM
THE key witness???? Now that is funny. It’s looking like Tom and then Carol and maybe PB will be THE witness’.
So you got rid of Taunya after months and months of insults and lies. You said if she was gone everything would be rosy. But wait!!! Now Garth and Bob must go. Then you say “we all support the Mateel”. No we all do not seem to support the Mateel. From testimony it appears that some of you don’t support the Mateel at all, Mr. Spin doctor.
Mr. Doran,
Do not worry. Nobody would shoot you as a messenger. Maybe kick you in the knee (Should it be “on” the knee?) but not shoot you.
Keep messenging.
The last time Carol negotiated a contract for ROTR we also lost 3 board members and an ED. So those of us supporting this Mateel board also are supporting Kathryn, John, Michael, and Eric. Or maybe we just don't think any one person should be allowed to rearrange the board to get what they want.
I notice that no one has come forward to describe how Margaret's analysis of yesterday was wrong, in detail. Oh yes, people say it was spin, but still no one tells us what happened that was different.
What did Tom lie about?
For months it has been said that Dim Dimmick as not paid the Mateel the $33,000 that I think he owes because of a technicality in the lease contract. On the KMUD news last night and this morning the reporter said that Dimmick SAID IN COURT UNDER OATH that he did not return the money because he thought he deserved it because the infrastructure was a little more expensive than projected. This guy is getting on my nerves. The word “scum” comes to mind when I hear his name.
the infrastructure was a little more expensive than projected.

NOT only that..he attributed those increased costs to; are you ready? are you sitting down because you will fall over when you hear this; HURRICANE KATRINA, WAR IN IRAQ and of course RISING FUEL COSTS!!

i am LMAO.
Remeber that the only evidence you are recounting is the Bill Bragg side if it. Will the word scum still come to mind when the evidence which points to gross misconduct on the part of certain members of the MCC BOD and ED is brought out by Knowles?
I am with Bob Doran. This blog will attack anyone who doesn't agree with the interprative spin put out by rabid MCC supporters. I support the Mateel. I do not support the actions of the BOD, now, or as we will have shown to us, then. Keep your minds open because as the evidence is introduced you will be shocked.
Jesus H. Christ in a pickup truck. Katrina? War in Iraq? Fuel prices? Who is this guy? Is this some kind of farce? No wonder……
Remeber that the only evidence you are recounting is the Bill Bragg side if it
Should have read Remember and side of it.
Shouldn't the title of the thread be
Red Lyin' in Winter?
What did Dimmick lie about?
i just want to thank everyone for taking this to court.
we have a big mess.
the people who blog still defending someone who stole money for a lease because of Katrina, etc costs, vs someone mistyped, filed a piece of paper...
you will be so defending of your position you can't see anything else.
yes, let all the witnesses speak before judging ... only we aren't judging... the Judge will make those decisions.... that is what this is all about.
you who say you are a member... and cut down the bod of any organizaition must have lost something while growing up that has to do with voting and honoring your votes. one doesn't just bounce the bod or ed on whatever whim or plan for taking over said organization.
when you say we don't get it...
i am getting it.
yes, there are errors here and there. keep wearing your blinders. keep spinning whatever bad thoughts... or just let the trial proceed. let the judge do what he was hired for.
those of you out there that keep saying we don't know what we are talking about... well, we have been here a long time and saw this coming from one direction didn't expect two or three or 62 directions. that is what is so complicated about this. too many cooks ruin the dinner or something like that.
everyone... except MCC... took a piece of the pie.
MCC is not just the bod and ed..
it is us. there are thousands of volunteers who worked for nothing in total support of MCC until the takeover years ago of pp or rr or td or pb. we are watching. we told you it was happening and now... here it is. it is not uncommon. i have seen it happen over and over again. the founder of an organization... gets kicked out and starts over.
the MCC.,. the people here we built MCC and Reggae on the River.
not Mother Carol... or Sister Carol.. because she is NOT my Mother or Sister..
the Mateel existed before Carol.
we all built the Mateel, we all built Reggae on the River.
we all will get over this. it is sad it had to go to trial. Yet I think it is good.
and boots was doing shows in sf b4 carol was even thinking about rotr, talk about learning from experience/compitencey
north beach photographic art fair
family fog
tribal stomp
family dog
cinco de mayo
i think that means more experience right?
Let's not forget that the MCC burned Boots. So much so that in his deposition he stated he would never work with the MCC again.
What Boots experienced was the fallout from getting hired by the MCC, on the hush hush behind the scenes. He is the victim of bad faith negotiations on the part of some of the MCC BOD and maybe even of his own greed. He may be the best at what he does. I have no idea. He jumped at the opportunity to be able to produce the show. He jumped in with his money. Let me ask a question. If Boots wasn't in the wings with his $300,000 would the Mateel have gotten into any agreements with him?
Anon 11;51 Mateel did not burn Boots and he has not said he would not work for Mateel. Quit lying!
So, there are at least two producers who have stated that they would never work with the MCC again. Wonderful track record. I am actually surprised that PP tolerated working with MCC as long as they did. Few have had the patience necessary to have dealt with their incompetence for so long.
From what I recall, Tom changed his testimony at the trial from the testimony he gave at his Dec. 17th deposition. His testimony was then impeached. I believe, but I am not certain, that this has happened twice so far with him. Not a good thing from what I hear. A body language expert would have a field day with him on the witness stand. Heck, anybody with common sense can see he is not being honest up there. And when Ton said he was "entitled" to keep the Mateel's $33,000 deposit, you can see the judge was a little taken back by his response. Just my opinion.
I can see that working with a non-profit might be frustrating, and Carol didn't have to work with the Mateel. She could have refused to sign the last contract, gotten her own permits and used her own money to start Reggae Rising.That would have been the right way to do it. She chose the wrong way.
12:16 In his deposition that is exactly what Boots Hughston said. Do your homwork. Take off your Margaret colored glasses.
boots has never stated he will not work with mateel.
please stop lying,
dusty hughston
2b1 multimedia, inc
12:46 here Dusty. Yes, he did.
I feel another MFOC moment comming on.
Maybe there is another "WRRD" for it.
Anon 12:46 and 56 if you are so sure of your " facts" then why don't you sign your name . Where did you read a copy of the depositions? I'd like to see them too.
What is an MFOC moment?
Dusty I guess you're not that close with your dad because both attorney's: Bill Bragg and John Vriez have said just that.

That in Boot's deposition when asked if he would ever produce Reggae on the River or work with the MCC he clearly and emphatically said No
A MFOC moment is;
Much to doo doo about nothing.
If I were Mr. Hughston I'd be pissed too.
But just like the MFOC issue, Boots' feelings have much to do about nothing in the alleged conspericy issues that TD, PB, & CB have perpetrated upon this whole community, not just the MCC members.
There is a time line relating to the relevant issues, you know.
Please come up with something relevant to the issues of alleged breach of contract and alleged conspericy.
Or go .......
Let's remember that before the board you mentioned, Margaret, there were other boards back to '95 that had the same insulting experience and quit because working with PP was impossible back then as well. Many good folks are strewn in the wake of the PP drive for control. Many of them responsible for starting RoR with Carol. It takes a team to build something like RoR and ,sadly, we're seeing the results of attempted empire building.
Let's learn how to spell conspiracy, and then we can move on to reiterate.

Here's a tip to everybody, use Mozilla Firefox for a browser, it has a built in spell checker that is sorely needed on this blog, unless y'all's proud o' spellin' like bumpkinz...
"Bill Bragg and John Vriez have said just that."
First of all it's John Vrieze and secondly if both attorneys "have said just that" it would be hearsay.
I think the "WRRDs" you should be looking for should be related to the "relevance" of the alleged breach of contract and alleged acts of conspericy and not some sentiments of late by a producer that has been financially put out by the alleged acts perpetrated by TD, PB,& CB.

The MCC members want to make sure that Boots and family know that their efforts and investment in the MCC were and still are sincerly appreciated. Please do not give up on The MCC. If there is such a thing as Karma, your efforts will be rewarded tenfold.
Thank You BOOTS!!!!!!
Eye knead sum thin to help mi spell two. Kin ewe dew me a favor and si if they're is any weigh too help? Eye wood sheer lick that.
I'm sure that they need volunteer teachers at the High School. Typos are what makes you important. You should be happy that you are needed as the person of wisdom. I think you have found your calling.
Them spilling ades our grate!

You are such a legal whizz-hard who need schooling.
Both attorneys quoted from Boots' deposition. That is not hearsay.
Wasn't the MFOC about $20,000 being invested and subsequently lost producing the event that was supposed to now be the "intellectual property of the Mateel" which could be moved anywhere the Mateel wanted it to be moved as told to the membership by Ms. Director? Hardly a "nothing" but plenty of doodoo. This is the same person who told Tom Dimmick the MCC was moving the SAF to the community park and the MCC was considering replacing PP and moving the ROTR festival to the same community park. She wanted the MCC staff to produce the event in-house. This conversation happened in early October at Debs Restaurant in Redway. This was presented in evidence at the Red Lion. Remember the power point financial presentation? Sounds like a lot of papers getting shuffles to me. Wait! That is what the judge just fined the MCC for having done for it again by you guessed it, the same ex MS.Director. When will people realize that the poor leadership really can be attributed to some one person? The ex ED just did something the membership has to pay for. The MFOC event did the same thing. You choose to see it as nothing. Some of us don't, but it is over. The MCC needs to focus on its current situation. I see that the Mateel is now a for hire production company. At tip for the MCC. Work with someone else's money. The music production business is filled with snakes and scoundrels. Big fish who eat little fish. My advice is don't get into the aquarium with the membership monies. My advice to the person who keeps bringing up the MCC failure MFOC is to give it a rest.
Cookie, I used the Google spell check. I tried it five times. Three times it allowed my spelling and twice it corrected my spelling. Then I looked it up in Webster's. You were obviously right. I think my computer and Google are "conspiring" against me. Thank you for the heads up and lesson.
Let's see, 20 grand plus what? 5 grand? then what else? lets just tack on a couple more for drill. Maybe 30 grand down the toilet, compared with 180,000 X 2 ...or 3??

Too bad, the MCC can't measure up in the failure department either.
Let me ask all of you a question you'll be able to relate too:

You plant your crop. It looks really good. You estimate you're going to get at least 8lbs, maybe more, from your 4 lights. You harvest, clean, dry and to your amazement and disappointment there's only 4.75lbs. How could this be??? It looked like our best crop yet.

You get a new strain from your friend. They swear by it. Best producer they ever grew. You plant only it. When finished and done you got less than half of what you're used to getting.
2:57 PM
Wt least the Mateel didn’t use the price of gas or Hurricane Katrina or the Iraq war as an excuse. And if you think about it the MFOC could have worked out IF the Mateel was not ripped off by a production company using the Mateel’s money. And maybe, just maybe the ED was talking to TD at Deb’s about moving TOTR because TD was telling the ED that the Mateel had to come up with the $33,000 in 24 hours or lose the lease.
The Spin Doctor is about as competent as the Entertainment Contract Expert guy.
03:07:00 PM
What does all that mean? Lights, pounds, crop????? What am I missing?

That is a statement not a question. Did you mean analogy?
That was a question. See the "?" at the end? See, another question. They are sometimes hard to recognize.
If those 2 conversations didn't happen on documented different days I might entertain your line of thinkng. But you are wrong 2:57.
It seems to be a habit of yours. MFOC was produced using money Ms. Director borrowed against the building. Make that leveraged against the building.
That last was addressed to 3:57 not 2:57 as the typo says.
Boots did something Carol and PB stopped doing a long time ago - put up the $$. The building is paid off again thanks to him! TS was human. Can we accept that sometimes people screw up? There was no malicious intent in the aquisition (?) of the FOC, or in its ultimate money losing outcome. Unlike some other People who... grumble.. flame.. rename BS.. grumble .. flame..

FYI Boots is my hero and his assistance in creating and developing ROTR in the first place has not been forgotten.So there.
The building is paid off and we owe him $150,000. The building is not really paid off then is it?
I am sure everybody at the Mateel and everybody who REALLY cares about the Mateel give thanks and praise to Boots every time they hear his name. I can understand how he could feel bad about how things turned out but I know he knows the Mateel is more, much more than grateful. I’m sure the Mateel will do everything they can to pay him back. Thank you boots, THANK YOU! You will not be forgotten.
I don’t know that Taunya and the BOD borrowed money against the building to acquire MFOC but if they did borrow the money for that reason it was because they were assured that the Mateel would be receiving more than $200,000 for the 2006 Reggae on the River®. In fact the Mateel were told over and over again that the money would be there. All the way up to the day they were told that it was all a flim flam. “Here is your $1.98. Be happy or we will take the event away from you.”
I'm taking your advice. Can you say "ELEVEN THOUSAND" missing wristbands that the audit clearly shows are missing. Where is X,XXX,XXX amount of missing dollars that must have just plain old disappeared and can not be found. Must have been in one of those shoe boxes full of cash that there are pictures of floating about. Guess who's faces are in them?
At least no one has hidden the "Fact" that without the additional missing monies, the Mateel has been forced to abandon some of the future projects that could have brought more independence to the Mateel membership.
I think TD's excuse for using the Mateel's
$33,000.00 deposit is what you meant by using someone else's money. Right?
11,000 wristbands X $100.00,a low ball ticket value, comes to $1,100,000.00. I bet that would have paid off The Mateel's debts.
Lincoln? Washington? Jefferson?
I bet that would have paid off The Mateel's debts.

It would have paid them off nearly 10x's. We are talking about a lot of money here. Money that failed to flow to the rightful recipient.

Sad, it is all just very sad.
anonymous said...
the infrastructure was a little more expensive than projected.

NOT only that..he attributed those increased costs to; are you ready? are you sitting down because you will fall over when you hear this; HURRICANE KATRINA, WAR IN IRAQ and of course RISING FUEL COSTS!!

i am LMAO.

Wed Jan 30, 09:34:00 AM

What I think is so funny about this is that he figured he should keep the Mateel's money even though it wasn't them in charge of the site prep and the cost overruns...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Nope Franklin.

The best thing to come of all this for the Mateel is getting out from under Carol's control. A very close second best thing to come of all this is getting rid of Taunya.

Personally I think they both made enormously arrogant mistakes that have created this giant mess.
Eric, post 5:05 is a pile of blogsnot and must be wiped away.

Sheesh. Please pay attention 5:05, Charity Green, yes, another of the co-creaters of the event known as Reggae on the River, addressed these oft misrepresented and hurtful allegations months ago. Charity closed her post which explained this whole BS saga, by saying something like, 'is this the best you've got? ' Think you better try again. Maybe rub your lami for good luck.
Get your "Facts" straight.
That issue has long ago been asked and answered.
And she signed her name.....
What a chicken shit way to accuse someone, ANONMOYSLY.

It just confirms what type of person you really are.
You are a JOKE, except you are not funny.
LMAO Charity Green co-creator of ROTR? With Boots Hughston and Doug Green. She will not be forgotten. The weather must be getting to you.
ROTR or whatever has always had too large an influence on our community.

When I gave my $$ towards buying the community park, I did so only after being assured that the property would NEVER be used for ROTR.

YEAH YEAH the non profits. Did I forget love and unity---please. ROTR was and is a corrupting influence on life in this place.
Keep the park safe.

If you would like to witness some of the corruption, go to the Red Lion.

We are all disappointed, but this is no surprise.
i will never foget those origial soldiers that were the 1st to stand up to the PP machine

and have much respect for all the og staff
people like
plus the 10 or so others that were there b4 rotr
can anyone say rock n reggae on the river
i have the 1st poster with boots' rock band on it
Enough with the mean posts. Thank you Eric, for deleting the BS post about Charity.

How about some new posts from people who were actually at the hearing today?
That thing in your hands is computer, with built in word processing capabilities that will correct your spelling errors so you don't seem so stupid.
The first concert held at French's Camp was not ROTR. Boots did play at the first concert held by Family Dog at that site. Once again I have to say check your facts.
The first ROTR poster was created by Shelby and it certainly doesn't have Boots listed as a performer.
"If he was saying what you wanted him to say, like the redwood times and the independent do (talk about being in someones back pocket) he would be totally acceptable. At least he listens to the information and tries to present it in an unbiased way. Not something either southern humboldt paper can claim."

Whoever you are, you are WRONG. We're not getting paid to say what anyone wants us to say, and I profoundly resent that implication.

We do our job, as best we can, in the time allotted to us... which is in between all the other meetings, stories, community events, etc. that we write about.

Someone, somewhere, tears my head off every time I file a report. If it's not one side, it's the other. And I'm pretty sure at least some of the other reporters have had the same experience.

Give it a rest with the media conspiracy crap.
Hi Cristina, Thank you for your excellent reporting. You didn't happen to be at the trial today?
You're welcome!

No, I wasn't there again. I'm out of town on a trip that was planned MONTHS ago. Yesterday was the only day I was able to attend. I'll be making phone calls & sending e-mail to the principals in the next couple of days.
Cristina I happen to think you are by far the best of our local lot. Your reports are always accurate. You don't embellish them with your opinions or views. For me reading your stories, especially if I was there, is like reliving the event. I love your reporting. I wish I could sign my name but, it would probably only cause you problems. Next time I see you I'll be sure to tell you, again, how valued you are.
Thank you for the advice. I guess in your world you are perfect.
I'm sure that you take great pride in impressing yourself.
I am happy for you.
Thank you very much. It does mean a lot to me.
Christina I whole heartedly agree. Your reports are accurate and unbiased like a relay of the actual event you are reporting. I suggest you crack open a bottle of Daveau and toast your integrity.
Yes Cristina! You are a true gem. Always a delight to read, or listen to on the MUD.
Can we get past the love fest and get some more nuts and bolts?

By the way, I like your reporting too, Cristina.
Cristina, you are a very good journalist. We are lucky to have you in our community.
Cristina's a good reporter, but can she type?

Nevermind. Bad joke. I should go to bed.
old joke too...yeah get some sleep...
I miss Estelle. She was always good for the people productions view of things. You could kind of get an insight into their thinking by listening to Estelle's reporting. Estelle for supervisor is just code for Carol for supervisor.
Before Estelle starts shopping for new nauga to replace 8 years of Roger's fart stains on the superchair, I hope somebody asks her directly how many untaxable and untracable comp wristbands she received over the years for her undying loyalty to PP.
It's a simple question.
What those wristbands were untraceable and untaxable? I feel so silly for reporting it to the IRS. GOD you are and idiot 07:49:00 AM. I hope you realize that, because everyone else now does.
I forgot. All the minimum wage Mother Teresa's of the world have banded together at People Production. But is it because they love Carol or the community more?
Tough choice.
4:20 here. Let's not forget all the DJs, producers, fans and radio shows in the San Francisco area that created the seeds and supplied most of the Reggae On The River massive.
Bring back Doug Wendt.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Free Website Counter
Free Web Site Counter

Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
To see more details, click here.
Click for