- Home
- News
- Opinion
- Letters
- Sports
- Prospecting
- Essentials
- Obituaries
- Real Estate
- Comics
- Gallery
- Classifieds
- Advertisers
- Coupons
- Contact Us
Share Article
438
987438987
EDITOR:
I must question the credibility of Judge candidate Stracener. Here is a man running for a judge’s seat and yet it appears to me that he is violating sign placement rules all over the county. I am particularly offended as I drive west on Highway 50 from Cambridge Road to see three signs all within about 15 feet of one another, on the right side of the highway approximately across from the entry to Holy Trinity Church. At least one, if not all of them, appears to be within the roadway rights of way where I believe it is not legal to place signs.
I have had the same questions from several friends as well. How is it that a man running for a position that is all about honesty and dealing out punishment to lawbreakers, feels he can just break laws throughout the county by placing signs on property that surely requires either landowner permission or county or State approval? Not to mention the eyesores created by the same signs in every darn direction. What blight on our beautiful roadsides!
I cannot recall Judges Wagoner, Phimister or Proud using such tactics. I am not an attorney and do not know the specific laws governing such sign placement but if they are placed in areas where permission is needed and it was not obtained, is that a crime? If yes, is that whom we want as a judge? I certainly do not. Sure wish this paper would have someone look into this.
JIM RIORDAN
Cameron Park
The Mountain Democrat does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy
I've Got A QuestonSeptember 10, 2012 - 3:48 pm
Jim wrote, "At least one, if not all of them, appears to be within the roadway rights of way where I believe it is not legal to place signs." Do you have something more than assumptons, your beliefs, like a citaton to whatever rule about sign placement that is in your mind?
Riordan's answer?September 11, 2012 - 10:29 pm
Is the reason JIM RIORDAN did not answer the question about the source for his allegations against an incumbent judge because he has none? Riordan’s letter looks like the typical sleazy ganging up against judge Stracener with slimy, wild, unsupported allegations. His suggestion that three named judges would not do what Riordan thinks was done here is laughable. Where was Riordan when Judge Wagnor was recently sanctioned for misconduct? The apparent answer: Riordan was silent. His moral compass seems broken.
connieSeptember 12, 2012 - 5:47 am
The broken moral compass would be Curtis Stracener's. I urge anyone who would consider voting for him to first read his divorce papers. They are available through the Sacramento Courts off Power Inn Rd.
Chuck HollandSeptember 12, 2012 - 8:27 am
Jims moral compass works very well. I would describe Stracener as morally bankrupt.
Jim RiordanSeptember 12, 2012 - 9:39 am
The "sources" for my comments are on practically every bare spot in our county . . .and no matter which way YOUR "moral" compass points, you will find, yup, another one of "them there signs".
Jesus H ChristSeptember 12, 2012 - 10:09 am
Parking a plane on a freeway off ramp is also an eyesore among other things.
Jim RiordanSeptember 12, 2012 - 12:44 pm
To the one using Jesus's name in vain, (about the only thing worse than using a cowardly fake name), I laugh in your face. . what you think is a slap at me is actually hysterically funny to me . . . Think you could land a 16ft long plane with an engine out, in a 20 foot long space between two moving cars without hurting a single soul? try it sometime motormouth . . . I can still do it again if I have to. But then there will always be those who are skilled and those who are just cowardly motormouths. I prefer to hang with the skilled group.
EldoradoSeptember 12, 2012 - 3:19 pm
Hold on a minute there Jim. In the Diamond Springs area the ONLY signs in the right of way are Hoffman's. In fact there are two big ones very near the corner of Highway 49 and Pleasant Valley Road that could cause traffic issues. Stracener's signs went up first and from their appearance are all on private property. Then Hoffman's went up right on the edge of the roads.
Answer the questionSeptember 12, 2012 - 7:55 pm
Jim RiordanS: "The 'sources' for my comments are on practically every bare spot in our county . . ." Don’t be an idiot. What is the source or authority for your fuzzy claim that the signs are in the public right of way and that their placement is against the law? What is the citation for the specific law you are alluding to, if any, or are you just going to keep spitting out more sleazy speculation?
jay WilliamsSeptember 13, 2012 - 12:17 am
Telling Jim Riordan "don't be an idiot" is like telling a skunk "don't be stinky".
Chuck HollandSeptember 13, 2012 - 5:58 am
I see a few words above "skunk" and "sleazy", both remind me of the Stracener campaign. Several weeks back the Mt. Demo reported my success encouraging Stracener to make his ballot statement (through the threat of litigation) more truthful. The mis-truths stunk like a skunk. Just this morning I check his website to see he's still espousing the lie that he "appeared" before the US Supreme Court. How sleazy!
Jerry ThomasSeptember 13, 2012 - 6:34 pm
Guy builds a kit airplane, does not understand the fuel system, accidentally starves the engine of fuel, has to put it down on the freeway, and brags about it. What a putz.
Check The RulesSeptember 13, 2012 - 7:02 pm
Chuck Holland: "....Just this morning I check his website to see he's still espousing the lie that he "appeared" before the US Supreme Court." The judge's statement was correct. The court rules state that filing a pleading on behalf of a client is entering your appearance, a term used in every court in this country. It does NOT mean that the lawyer engaged in oral argument; most cases are resolved on the papers without argument. Changing the language in his campaign statment is not as you suggest an admission of a lie, it was not, but rather supports an old rule -- Avoid getting into a spitting contest with a skunk.
Chuck HollandSeptember 14, 2012 - 1:53 pm
Thank you "Check the Rules" perhaps I need to contact my lawyers and proceed with the next spitting match to clean up more of Starceners lies. Glad you came along to plant the idea.
Check The RulesSeptember 14, 2012 - 7:04 pm
Chuck Holland, please provide us with a citation to any rule that supports your view that "appearance" means an attorney physically was present for oral argument? Hint: You can’t do it because you were the one who lied. You earlier wrote that the controversy concerned an “appearance” before the United States Supreme Court, falsely suggesting that term means to physically appear. The judge was right, you were wrong. You are the one who keeps telling lies. See Rule 9 [http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_9 ].
Stephen ValentineSeptember 18, 2012 - 11:13 am
Sign Citations:Section 5405.3 State Outdoor Advertising Act states "Temporary Political Signs shall not be placed within the right of way of any Highway, or be visible within 660 feet from the edge of the right of way of a classified "landscaped freeway". Highway includes any road or path maintained by the public, as in any road, street, highway , freeway etc. Business and Professions Code Sectin 5460 states "It is unlawful for an person to place or cause to be placed, or to maintain, or cause to be maintained any advertising display without lawful permission ot the owner of the property upon which the advertising display is located. In addition a sign placed so as to block the line of sight from any cross street or public or private drive creates a hazard and subject the sign owner to civil liablity for any accident. Cal-Trans has removed a number of signs, unfortunately I do not know whether they sent a bill to the sign owner as is authorized by the codes.