Mary Man you must be a member of the COH by your tone of reprisel against Robie Olson.  Your leader specifically said he needed a couple of weeks which worked into a couple of months concerning the Pacana/City/Church deal .  I asked for a real appraisal and justification of 50,000 plus profit for signing a piece of paper.  Again not doing what you say you will do , doesn't go very far with me.  I hope Robbie continues to take on the syndicate of Maricopa any way he sees necessary.  He exposed the way the church and city were trying to sweep everything under the radar, but it still is unknown as too the exact use and cost the city achieved .  What happened to Tony Smith's open clear view approach to city affairs?

Smoking  Gun :  I am real what are you?  Since you want to divulge identities I am ok, so expose yourself.  

Defamation is an injury to the reputation or character of someone resulting from the false statements or actions of another. Defamation is a false attack on your good name. Your good name is regarded as a proprietary interest, not a personal interest. Defamation is an improper and unlawful attack against your proprietary right to your good name, your reputation.

Defamation is a general term for the false attack on your character or reputation through either libel or slander. Libel is a term describing visual defamation, usually in the form of lies in print, or misleading or deceptive photographs.

Libel exposes or subjects you to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or disgrace, or causes you to be shunned or avoided, or injures you in your occupation.

Slander is a term describing defamation that you hear, not see, usually in the form of someone talking trash about you or spreading or repeating lies and unfounded rumor.

Slander is an oral statement that tends to injur you in respect to your office, profession, trade or business. The statement or statements generally suggest that you lack integrity, honesty, incompetence, or that you possess other reprehensible personal characteristics.

A legal claim based on defamation entitles the victim to recover against the defamer for his or her emotional damages. In addition, the victim will be entitled to sue for punitive, or punishment, damages.

There are other critical differences which make defamation important to be aware of. You can prove defamation on your word alone, even though it is always better to have some confirming evidence. ( a letter, a memo, an e-mail, statements from others confirming the defamatory remarks about you, etc.) You can testify in court as to statements made by others about you. This means that the "hearsay" rule does not apply to the testimony in court which repeats defamatory statements.made out of court.

The defamer may have an absolute privilege for statements made in judicial proceedings, and a limited privilege for defamatory statements made.

Well Mary Man I guess we need to get out the rubber stamps for city checking accounts and forget about accountibility.  I guess you are very happy with the one million dollar Peed deal that just sits accruing no return on your(city) investment.  Let's see 1 million at 5-7 % per annum, gee 150,000.00/200,000.00 in revenue gone unregainable since the deal was done by the city.  No definitive plan is in the works available to the taxpaying members of the city.  You make statements concerning availability of city documents access.  I will be more than happy to sit down with you as a witness and request all of the mentioned items and see how many appear.  Deal or no deal?   Who has lied to who?  City staff and certain council members have very short memories, so you need to condem all who have or you think have done this horrible thing "lie in your face".   I hope you now understand what could and probably will occur in the near future, something that will not set happily with the taxpayers of Maricopa City.

That sounds pretty shady. I'm glad I don't go there.  

That is exactly how Scientology goes about recruiting.  Look for the high profile and influential people.

azcarcarrier, you are the man's version of a drama queen for sure.  You don't represent our manhood very well at all.  Always whining and making drama over nothing.

This is a great example of how much crap will you believe?

First, CMA is a seed for church plants.  They give money to church plants.

Second, they don't have membership.  It's not a membership organization.

Third, I want to see the link to the 'manifesto', I don't believe it.  I think 'cleanupthecopa' is making this up.  Please provide us with a link.  Otherwise you are just like gilbertglcn, a liar, who makes things up.  PROVIDE THE LINK.  I don't believe there is a link that would discuss 3 way land deals.  Hogwash!

Fourth, enough has been reported, if you were a well informed resident reading the media, to know that El Dorado holdings would NOT sell the city the land next to Pacana.  The only offer El Dorado holdings has ever made to buy the land to anyone in Maricopa is COH.  Once the city found out that COH was buying the land, they asked to talk with COH about buying some of it.  Two totally different deals and processes, unrelated.  Whoever El Dorado had offered the land to, the city would have wanted part of it.  Get a grip on your scandles, people.  It had nothing to do with who goes to COH.

I can tell you this, the devil sure must know of something awesome that is going to happen at COH, cause he sure has a hold on some folks to give COH a bad name.  OHHHHHH, how God is going to work in Maricopa!  I love it!

azcarcarrier, for thinking you are such a well informed person, you probably have some more educating of yourself needed.

For your information, the COH/Pacana park deal was discussed opening, in public, at 2 PR&L meetings, prior to Olson writing his article.  TWICE!  Did you get that, TWICE, IN PUBLIC, IN AN OPEN MEETING.  Oh, a meeting of which 85239 manager, Scott Bartle, is an advisory member.  Scott didn't even think it interesting enough to report on after he was in both meetings.  Why?  Cause it wasn't interesting, I guess.

BUT, Scott did see fit to post Robbie's article after the public meetings.  WHY?  because it was juicy!  Do you see a problem here?  I do!