Attempts to block journalists from identifying comments and commenters in public forums have been held by the courts as wholly specious. In other words, you have no right to privacy if you speak up in public meetings, either as public official or a member of the public who offers comment. Been there, done that, been through that kind of lawsuit in my career.
Succinctly stated! Sitting thru Thursday's CRC By-laws 2 hour meeting was difficult. The "anonymous" source has posted openly on CCWD many times. So, he has, of his volition, engaged in his right of free speech using electronic media with no fear of "harassment" or "intimidation." The only person who has been unfairly treated and attacked is Jeff. I saw blatant bias of the committee on Thursday. Thank you, Jeff, for being a staunch citizen of free speech!
I normally would respond higher up, but I believe that your response here making light of the chilling effect is why you being a citizen journalist and a member of the CRC concerning. It is one thing to write opinion pieces as a journalist, but it is another entirely to intertwine personal conspiracy theories with your official capacity as a CRC member, especially when you engage with the individual who prompted you on to your ICLEI-Tribe-County-Commissioner-UN-Agenda Era. This behavior compromises the public trust of not only those that elected you but those who did not which I remind you is foundational to your reporting that elected officials are not representing those who elected them or our right ingoring those that did not. It also raises significant concerns about your ability to be impartial in your duties on the Charter Review Committee. So are you acting on personal agenda or public interest?
Now, I do want to point out some inconsistencies - though I never thought you would have chosen me to do this to and lets see if Ixodes is corrrect about you not correct your reporting when Jesus comes.
What the hell was all that? Are you using ChatGPT again?
You were privy to my email in full — an email I submitted as testimony and which Chairwoman Fisch cited in summary. Instead of including the email itself or linking to it, you chose to reduce it to vague, dismissive language: calling it “anonymous,” mischaracterizing its tone, and quoting selectively to deflect from its substance. You framed my email as "evidence" rather than public testimony presented from a concerned citizen and lied about the time of delivery as if it was only a few hours prior to the CRC's meeting when infact it was forwarded by Loni Gores to all committes members at 7:30 am that day. The meeting was at 4 pm.
The email as delivered was anonymous because I chose to hide my identity for fear of my physcial safety that much could be infered without doubt. However, I explicitly stated I would provide my identity if needed. My words were not evidence of censorship, but a challenge to the ethical conflict posed by your dual role as a CRC commissioner and blogger who actively primes readers to distrust fellow commissioners and in this case other commitee members.
You ignored the core issues I raised: the use of inflammatory language, cherry-picked interaction with your readers (especially when racist or hostile comments go unaddressed), and your repeated framing of normal procedural actions as conspiratorial.
You claim to champion transparency, yet omitted my detailed critique while presenting yourself as the target of vague attacks. If you truly believed in informed public dialogue, you would have published the full contents of my email or linked to it — especially when you're willing to paste and headline far less substantial material. Or outright lie - there could be no evidentiary praise of Fisch in my email or comment. This whole exercise was an attempt to discredit my testimony and redirect attention away from critque of your conduct, misleading editorializing, and selective engagment.
Readers deserve to see what was actually said — not what you selectively frame. You are not being silenced. You are being called to a higher standard of integrity. The question is whether you’ll rise to meet it, or continue hiding behind blog posts that distort criticism into victimhood.
Jeff will lie to you if it means he can poop in your mouth. Straight up, head back and down it like a shooter.
In addition I will be also submitting my response here into testimony with Charter Review Commission and the following email with it:
I am writing to express my growing concern regarding how public testimony is being represented — or misrepresented — by one of your fellow members, Jeff Tozzer. In his April 5th blog post on Clallam County Watchdog, Mr. Tozzer refers to the email I submitted to the CRC (and which Chairwoman Fisch referenced during the meeting) but chooses not to include its contents or even accurately summarize them.
My email raised specific concerns about Mr. Tozzer’s dual role as both a commissioner and the author of a political blog. I highlighted how his posts routinely frame procedural actions as conspiratorial, engage in selective coverage, and leave inflammatory or racial comments from subscribers unchallenged. I also offered examples of misleading framing across several blog entries.
In his April 5th article, Mr. Tozzer reduces this testimony to an “anonymous email” and fails to provide any context, let alone the full text — despite having it. I stated clearly in the original email that I was willing to be identified if necessary. The mischaracterization of this testimony appears to be a deliberate omission. And out right fabrication of praising Fisch when reporting to the committe memebers of racial commenters. I believer this blog post was design to distract from his reluctance to assume a higher ethical standard in his own reporting and in any actions he may take while committe member.
This pattern of behavior — selectively shaping public narrative while actively participating in commission decisions — creates a chilling effect on public participation and raises serious concerns about fairness and transparency.
I urge the Commission to consider Mr. Tozzer’s conduct not just in relation to public speech but in how he uses his platform to influence perception while omitting or distorting critical input.
I normally would respond higher up, but I believe that your response here making light of the chilling effect is why you being a citizen journalist and a member of the CRC concerning. It is one thing to write opinion pieces as a journalist, but it is another entirely to intertwine personal conspiracy theories with your official capacity as a CRC member, especially when you engage with the individual who prompted you on to your ICLEI-Tribe-County-Commissioner-UN-Agenda Era. This behavior compromises the public trust of not only those that elected you but those who did not which I remind you is foundational to your reporting that elected officials are not representing those who elected them or our right ingoring those that did not. It also raises significant concerns about your ability to be impartial in your duties on the Charter Review Committee. So are you acting on personal agenda or public interest?
Now, I do want to point out some inconsistencies - though I never thought you would have chosen me to do this to and lets see if Ixodes is corrrect about you not correct your reporting when Jesus comes.
What the hell was all that? Are you using ChatGPT again?
You were privy to my email in full — an email I submitted as testimony and which Chairwoman Fisch cited in summary. Instead of including the email itself or linking to it, you chose to reduce it to vague, dismissive language: calling it “anonymous,” mischaracterizing its tone, and quoting selectively to deflect from its substance. You framed my email as "evidence" rather than public testimony presented from a concerned citizen and lied about the time of delivery as if it was only a few hours prior to the CRC's meeting when infact it was forwarded by Loni Gores to all committes members at 7:30 am that day. The meeting was at 4 pm.
The email as delivered was anonymous because I chose to hide my identity for fear of my physcial safety that much could be infered without doubt. However, I explicitly stated I would provide my identity if needed. My words were not evidence of censorship, but a challenge to the ethical conflict posed by your dual role as a CRC commissioner and blogger who actively primes readers to distrust fellow commissioners and in this case other commitee members.
You ignored the core issues I raised: the use of inflammatory language, cherry-picked interaction with your readers (especially when racist or hostile comments go unaddressed), and your repeated framing of normal procedural actions as conspiratorial.
You claim to champion transparency, yet omitted my detailed critique while presenting yourself as the target of vague attacks. If you truly believed in informed public dialogue, you would have published the full contents of my email or linked to it — especially when you're willing to paste and headline far less substantial material. Or outright lie - there could be no evidentiary praise of Fisch in my email or comment. This whole exercise was an attempt to discredit my testimony and redirect attention away from critque of your conduct, misleading editorializing, and selective engagment.
Readers deserve to see what was actually said — not what you selectively frame. You are not being silenced. You are being called to a higher standard of integrity. The question is whether you’ll rise to meet it, or continue hiding behind blog posts that distort criticism into victimhood.
Jeff will lie to you if it means he can poop in your mouth. Straight up, head back and down it like a shooter.
In addition I will be also submitting my response here into testimony with Charter Review Commission and the following email with it:
I am writing to express my growing concern regarding how public testimony is being represented — or misrepresented — by one of your fellow members, Jeff Tozzer. In his April 5th blog post on Clallam County Watchdog, Mr. Tozzer refers to the email I submitted to the CRC (and which Chairwoman Fisch referenced during the meeting) but chooses not to include its contents or even accurately summarize them.
My email raised specific concerns about Mr. Tozzer’s dual role as both a commissioner and the author of a political blog. I highlighted how his posts routinely frame procedural actions as conspiratorial, engage in selective coverage, and leave inflammatory or racial comments from subscribers unchallenged. I also offered examples of misleading framing across several blog entries.
In his April 5th article, Mr. Tozzer reduces this testimony to an “anonymous email” and fails to provide any context, let alone the full text — despite having it. I stated clearly in the original email that I was willing to be identified if necessary. The mischaracterization of this testimony appears to be a deliberate omission. And out right fabrication of praising Fisch when reporting to the committe memebers of racial commenters. I believer this blog post was design to distract from his reluctance to assume a higher ethical standard in his own reporting and in any actions he may take while committe member.
This pattern of behavior — selectively shaping public narrative while actively participating in commission decisions — creates a chilling effect on public participation and raises serious concerns about fairness and transparency.
I urge the Commission to consider Mr. Tozzer’s conduct not just in relation to public speech but in how he uses his platform to influence perception while omitting or distorting critical input.
Hey. Kevin is here. I definitely post under a pseudonym to protect my identity because Jeff does not directly incite violence, he does not temper or police the comment section for it. As evidence by my few days of posting comments here it is was evident by the action of a few commenters that they were only looking for my name to appear without reading the content of the the other Kevin's comment. I would say thats at the minimum toxic, and at the worst hostile...maybe ignorant.
Anywas this commnt be ignorant as heck. You assume that I posted no fear of harassment or intimidation. Thats the primary reason I do post under a pseudonym. I have witness a few common subscribers who require that dissenting commenters make their identity known or be dismissed as less than Jeff. Your take does underestimate what could happen having one's legal name on display here, given that conspiracies theories involving NGO's, environemntal groups, and municipals officals are the scope of the reporting on this blog. I, having been an intern and volunteer for a few of them certainly makes me concerned for my physically safety if I had made my name googleable. I invite you to search your own name on google and see what is publically available information.
Also, are you Jeff's surrogate mom? Do you pinch his cheeks?
I've watched CRC meetings by video. It's interesting how the panel has had county officials attend to help flush out details, especially when it comes to the coroner matter. The details are important, and also what will take time to move anything to the BOCCC for approval, or to ballot for a vote.
I don't recall a county official giving any color to the Water Steward/Czar position, but for some reason Water Activist sounds more appropriate given the way this is coming about unless someone starts spilling the beans what this person would actually do. I'll take a stab at this. It'll be sent to the BOCC vs going to the voters for a vote to be approved.
The switch from a 3 to 5-person BOCCC will cost the county additional money, that given the tight budget will add financial strain to the citizens, but I support that because it's a cost spread out among all citizens to equally represent all, in a better way. Adding a Water Activist person will cost the county additional money, but not equally serve everyone despite burdening everyone. I'm against the Water Activist position because I'm concerned that it'll be used for agenda driven ideology.
The ranked voting matter is also something I'm against. It is known to be confusing, and disenfranchising to certain segments of society based on information I found online. With an aging population, the last thing we need to do is confuse our voters more, or to inhibit others from voting. I urge people to speak against this measure, and this at a minimum needs to be done in writing, or in person by attending a CRC meeting either remotely or in person.
Soule has taken over the water resource (in her mind) years ago...entitled communists are more dangerous than they appear...We've been put on notice...read between the lines. 🤓
we could simply move to 5, and take the salaries of the 3-commissioners, and divide that by 5. Less work, more hands. What we'd have to ask for is that the County Commissioners salaries be unhooked from the judicial salaries (right now theirs inches up as the judges salaries rise). Five makes more sense in so many ways. And, who cares how our "population" compares to other 5 commissioner counties. Ours is a very LARGE and very diverse county -- you cannot expect someone from Sequim to even understand what someone from Neah Bay needs in the way of representation. It's been a good idea for a long time, and come up in prior Charter Reviews.
We already have a Water Steward... the Irrigation Festival Queen. She's nonpartisan, oversees water usage, and does it all in a beautiful gown. Problem solved!
Thank you Jeff for keeping the public informed on these issues. Most people would never know what is happening with our local leaders, since it isn't covered by other media. It's strange how threatened they feel, by public scrutiny. Although those in power often try to crush dissent, rather than improve themselves. Hang in there.
I'm Kevin. I wrote the email Jeff is but does not include in his reporting. It is a public record and I intended it as such - Frankly I do not care if people email me there, it is a throwaway account. He has had no problem of including such communication prior but has chosen to use journalistic air quotes in my case. It was provided to all members of the CRC, and was previously posted in the comments section of the narrative flipping blog post titles, "We will not be silenced (but you might". I admit I wrote it late at night since I am not retired and take care of my 88 yeard old grandpa.
That said. Here is the email:
Hello,
I am writing to express my wishes that a comment I made on Clallam County Watchdog in reply to Jeff Tozzer the author of said blog, who asked, "Why shouldn't journalist be in government", be entered as testimony. To be clear his is a member of the Charter Review Committee and the author the blog, Clallam County Watchdog. Can you please forward this to all Charter Review Members, please? If my identity need be known I am willing to do so only certain circumstances. I believe that Jeff Tozzer has knowingly bred resentment in his subscribers by never interacting with the most inflammatory, or racial commenters. He prefers to only interact if it is pertinent question to the blog post or a personal compliment.
Here is the comment which I am including in full, and with typos, "
It comes to your position among elected members of the CRC and being the author of a blog that dabbles in sensationalism. It does lately seem that there is degradation of your normal tidy, but performative, reporting. Take for instance your progression in "Balancing Transparency and Soveignty", "The Chilling Effect", and todays blog post which has this odd title appealing to your subscribers suggesting that they might be silenced when the case is that you as CRC member may have to act impartially.
In "Balancing..." you seeming highlighted yourself as the champion of transparency -including playing on the fears of non-tribal citizens being arrested for protesting on tribal land- while Johnston was presumed to be the antagonist going as far as to suggest further allegations of impropriety, regarding the passing of the recent bond measure, as a school board member.
However in "The Chilling Effect" you, as the champion of transparency, were brought to admit in your capacity on the CRC that you had largely omited the contents of the exchange due to Substacks limitation of publishing in only one color (A claim of technical limitations that prevented complete and transparent presentation of the exchange feels flimsy - especially when you were aware of other means to clarify). Then you wade into a common trope of your reporting: using charge language and guided titles to give readers the impression of collusion by alleging that Johnston and others had preplanned the reconvening of the bylaws commitee to censor you and including the bolded header, "a plan unfolds".
You now rail against the idea that you would have to clarifiy if you had to present yourself as private citizen offering commentary on your own blog or doing so as member of the CRC while seeking to reframe your mishap as an attack on free speach.
What is mosty telling fellow subscribers, is that Jeff, the sole source of information on local reporting - which a fair amount of you admit - has regressed from a paragon of public integrity to using the same schema he accuses the multiple muncipal officials, tribal leaders, and executives of NGO's as using. Instead of owning up to selective reporting , he recast himself as an advocate of free speech under threat. It's a classic "when critizied, change the subject". Your strong and boisterous watchdog is now with its tail tucked between its legs. He is choosing to ignore the legitimate concerns of misrepresentation to which Fisch spoke to, that is the chilling effect that puts peoples live in danger.
Honestly a lot of these people need to support free community college. In just a few days it was plain as day that many of these commenters are "true believers" in what you have been publishing. Keeping mind that you are their elected official, and their sole source on local politics because they belive in you integrity. It worrisome and fascinating how many of them will come to rescue when commenters have a differing opinion calling them trolls or telling them to open their eyes. In the four days that I have interacted with this blog it is clear you have let the koolaid brew. I was gone one day and two of you commenters mistook a disabled veterna (Kevin R.) for me, Kevin. You got a dude down here saying that the literal meaning of fired was just that... fire. And another saying that that public officials upkeep a perception of stupidity because its the only thing that keeps them from being strung up by lamposts.
I will being emailing Loni Gores so that this can be submitted into testimony. And by they way, how often would you say that you use ChatGPT in the course of writing your blog?"
Yes, names have been printed, facts have been presented.
Is there transparency? Yes, facts substantiate clarity.
If it is not okay to attack but it is okay to attack back is the attack back okay because it wasn’t done first?
The old “you did it to me first” so there, isn’t this two wrongs don’t make a right? Yes it is.
Perfect example: Ms. Johnston did say, as she quoted attacks people wrote without naming names so it wouldn’t appear be an “attack”. Yet she attacked back naming Jeff as her attacker. Ms. Johnston returned email to Jeff’s questions in her capacity & knowledge of her elected public school board position. Whether using personal email or school board doesn’t matter it is the content & what capacity she writes. Then Ms. Johnston claims Jeff attacked a private citizen by divulging her identity to attack her. Ms. Johnston has made it very clear she is an attorney many times.
Ms. Fisch insists the Charter Review needs a new rule to protect her close personal friend, Ms. Johnston, an elected public school board member and one last minute anonymous email that needs an attorney to interpret its content after reading. Another words the email is ambiguous with unclear unsubstantiated jumbled up writings
designed to confuse & distract any issue.
It appears more and more the CRC is being used for many personal issues instead of the issues the committee has deemed important to serve our County charter. The committee, our elected representatives, determined the line priorities. Yet those priorities mean nothing with Ms. Fisch at the controls & her political cronies, yes there are political cronies (the Soros type) AT THE READY on the committee.
My question as a public person:
Why would anyone want to attend a meeting to observe or speak if this is going to happen? I feel my rights are being attacked & don’t matter. When do the issues of the public matter to the many many 3 minute speakers other than the personal issues of the committee chair?
The last minute email was the equivalent of the BLM porn we saw to take out pictures.
They are masters of the lie.. They have lied to the citizens of this county for 14 years. Getting hopes up to grow but not showing the Soros map of our county where they want "little to no use." Every dime Congress sent to us to help us grow and prosper was intercepted by the Soros gang so there would in fact be "little to no use."
They probably never imagined someone would put it all together for the public. I did. They blocked it from public view. That way the Soros gang can run their little schemes that don't make sense without opposition or what opposition there is can be marginalized.
Kevins off of work now. Its about me now. So here my response.
I normally would respond higher up, but I believe that your response here making light of the chilling effect is why you being a citizen journalist and a member of the CRC concerning. It is one thing to write opinion pieces as a journalist, but it is another entirely to intertwine personal conspiracy theories with your official capacity as a CRC member, especially when you engage with the individual who prompted you on to your ICLEI-Tribe-County-Commissioner-UN-Agenda Era. This behavior compromises the public trust of not only those that elected you but those who did not which I remind you is foundational to your reporting that elected officials are not representing those who elected them or our right ingoring those that did not. It also raises significant concerns about your ability to be impartial in your duties on the Charter Review Committee. So are you acting on personal agenda or public interest?
Now, I do want to point out some inconsistencies - though I never thought you would have chosen me to do this to and lets see if Ixodes is corrrect about you not correct your reporting when Jesus comes.
What the hell was all that? Are you using ChatGPT again?
You were privy to my email in full — an email I submitted as testimony and which Chairwoman Fisch cited in summary. Instead of including the email itself or linking to it, you chose to reduce it to vague, dismissive language: calling it “anonymous,” mischaracterizing its tone, and quoting selectively to deflect from its substance. You framed my email as "evidence" rather than public testimony presented from a concerned citizen and lied about the time of delivery as if it was only a few hours prior to the CRC's meeting when infact it was forwarded by Loni Gores to all committes members at 7:30 am that day. The meeting was at 4 pm.
The email as delivered was anonymous because I chose to hide my identity for fear of my physcial safety that much could be infered without doubt. However, I explicitly stated I would provide my identity if needed. My words were not evidence of censorship, but a challenge to the ethical conflict posed by your dual role as a CRC commissioner and blogger who actively primes readers to distrust fellow commissioners and in this case other commitee members.
You ignored the core issues I raised: the use of inflammatory language, cherry-picked interaction with your readers (especially when racist or hostile comments go unaddressed), and your repeated framing of normal procedural actions as conspiratorial.
You claim to champion transparency, yet omitted my detailed critique while presenting yourself as the target of vague attacks. If you truly believed in informed public dialogue, you would have published the full contents of my email or linked to it — especially when you're willing to paste and headline far less substantial material. Or outright lie - there could be no evidentiary praise of Fisch in my email or comment. This whole exercise was an attempt to discredit my testimony and redirect attention away from critque of your conduct, misleading editorializing, and selective engagment.
Readers deserve to see what was actually said — not what you selectively frame. You are not being silenced. You are being called to a higher standard of integrity. The question is whether you’ll rise to meet it, or continue hiding behind blog posts that distort criticism into victimhood.
Jeff will lie to you if it means he can poop in your mouth. Straight up, head back and down it like a shooter.
In addition I will be also submitting my response here into testimony with Charter Review Commission and the following email with it:
I am writing to express my growing concern regarding how public testimony is being represented — or misrepresented — by one of your fellow members, Jeff Tozzer. In his April 5th blog post on Clallam County Watchdog, Mr. Tozzer refers to the email I submitted to the CRC (and which Chairwoman Fisch referenced during the meeting) but chooses not to include its contents or even accurately summarize them.
My email raised specific concerns about Mr. Tozzer’s dual role as both a commissioner and the author of a political blog. I highlighted how his posts routinely frame procedural actions as conspiratorial, engage in selective coverage, and leave inflammatory or racial comments from subscribers unchallenged. I also offered examples of misleading framing across several blog entries.
In his April 5th article, Mr. Tozzer reduces this testimony to an “anonymous email” and fails to provide any context, let alone the full text — despite having it. I stated clearly in the original email that I was willing to be identified if necessary. The mischaracterization of this testimony appears to be a deliberate omission. And out right fabrication of praising Fisch when reporting to the committe memebers of racial commenters. I believer this blog post was design to distract from his reluctance to assume a higher ethical standard in his own reporting and in any actions he may take while committe member.
This pattern of behavior — selectively shaping public narrative while actively participating in commission decisions — creates a chilling effect on public participation and raises serious concerns about fairness and transparency.
I urge the Commission to consider Mr. Tozzer’s conduct not just in relation to public speech but in how he uses his platform to influence perception while omitting or distorting critical input.
He did not even show the whole email. And you got all that going on now. Not to mention I did not praise Fisch in the comment or the emai. That's him getting high on his own brand.
This is exactly how socialism/communism works...Read the Epoch Times Volumes 1+2 of "How The Specter of Communism Is Ruling Our World" for detailed explanation...Infiltration...gradualism...now they are openly grappling for power...they already have the reins... and are attempting to steer us right of the cliff to Totalitarianism.
We can only prevail by abolishing the form of gov't which has usurped control...there is no re-forming it.
We may not prevail and if not... our lives will be not worth the living.
The Marxist/Leninist trained overseers now running our governments and schools are not going to 'see the light'...they are well compensated in pensions and positions and are self-righteous and arrogant and ignorant beyond normal comprehension.
I wish us well and hope for the best but not super-optimistic if you catch my drift.
Hi it is Kevin. I rewrote the comment that needed an attorney to decipher. Also, community college is still an option for you as we previous discussed.
You asked why a journalist shouldn’t be involved in government. I think the real issue is that you are both a member of the Charter Review Commission (CRC) and the author of a blog that uses dramatic language. Lately, your reporting doesn’t feel as fair or as clear as it used to. For example, in your posts “Balancing Transparency and Sovereignty,” “The Chilling Effect,” and your most recent one, “We Will Not Be Silenced (But You Might),” there’s a clear pattern. You seem to be writing headlines that scare your readers and get them to think you’re being attacked—when really, people just want you to be impartial in your CRC role.
In “Balancing Transparency and Sovereignty,” you made it look like you were fighting for free speech, while making it seem like Johnston was the bad guy. You even hinted that she might have done something wrong in her role on the school board.
In “The Chilling Effect,” you admitted that you left out part of an important exchange, blaming it on Substack’s color limitations. That excuse seems weak. You could’ve found another way to share the full story. Instead, you suggested that Johnston and others were secretly planning to stop you from speaking, with a dramatic headline: “A Plan Unfolds.”
Now, you’re upset that people think you should say whether you're speaking as a CRC member or just a private citizen when you post on your blog. But instead of being clear and honest about your mistake, you’ve made it sound like your free speech is under attack.
That’s the problem. A lot of your readers trust you as their main source for local news. They believe in your honesty. But instead of showing integrity, you're using the same misleading tactics you criticize others for. When someone questions you, you change the subject and say you're being silenced.
Many of your supporters attack people who disagree, calling them trolls or saying they’re blind. I was only away from the blog for a day, and two people confused a disabled veteran named Kevin R. for me. One commenter said “fired” literally meant being set on fire. Another said public officials pretend to be dumb to avoid being lycnhed. That’s extreme and dangerous thinking.
I plan to email Loni Gores so this can be submitted as testimony. Also—how often do you use ChatGPT when you write your blog?
Hi. Its John. I guess there might be a gem in there somewhere but I couldn't find it. Looks like Jeff sure got to you and you overcame the chilling effect just like Johnston did.
What you should be taking away from this blog are better idea's than the ones your preferred leadership has. They have to lie, block video and send out the wives to attack on their behalf..
Rather than confront the actual idea, they first try to send emails amongst themselves to keep their grandiose perception of themselves intact. Then when that does not work they resort to gang stalking and cyber stalking the individual who opposes them..
All the while not ever being able to debate the idea only to follow the bouncing liberal ball that "yawl" get reimbursed for if you obey.. Yours is the Soros way of life. Hiding behind clever stage names and trying to score on personal attacks. Your score here is nil Kev.
Its like asking the God of Sha Ka Ree why he needs a starship.
Only to get zapped like Dr. McCoy by an anonymous discophile who is frustrated he has to wait until he gets off work to zap the doubters of Sha Ka Ree.
They are implementing the Soros plan developed by the world especially for us over at the NODC and SERN which are also funded by Soros thru the "Open Society Foundation.". They will be reimbursed by Soros for holding Nazi signs towards Musk and Trump from 6000 miles away at the corner. Its us against Soros. They work for Soros now and they have nothing to say to us and they don't want to hear from you, because Soros has already told them what to do. They have to make sure the NODC "action plans" not only get developed and implemented, they get maintained. "Clear path" was vital to keep the "action plan" on the rails. It monitors our process locally but purposely avoids the economic footprint of where we get our stuff from, because the world economy they want to build is an environmental formula that will never pass muster.
The world now owns most of our food. Now they come for the water.
I have tried to stop them with the Jimmycomelately science for 4 years now. They want nothing of it. They are not willing to put in the best system developed yet and paid for by the Water Conservation District all over because rechanneling brings power to gain property.
Rechanneling and tributaries takes more water. They eliminated both at Jimmycomelately. What the Soros gang did not plan for or can overcome is the engineering plan at Jimmycomelately. Its where Patton would smack the map. They developed a system with a higher percentage of spawning success to justify building a fixed meandering coil at 3 percent grade. It is protecting the property around it and giving better spawning results. It needs to be implemented from Blyn to the coast to conserve water, and to protect the many bridges and roads. Even the Hoh.
They forget Russell H. Barker so quick and how people died driving into the Bogachiel river after the river took out a bridge.
Soule's presentation at the Sequim CRC meeting is classic Hegelian and Delphi Techniques combined.
There was/is a predetermined agenda presented as "Problem(water)-Reaction(fear)-Solution(control) AND Setting it up as the only responsible course via Soule and League of Women Voters (communists)...not making it up...do your research.
Hegel's methodology gives the 'Problem, Reaction, Solution.'
Delphi Technique 'leads' us to the 'only' acceptable answer ...this is why they don't want dialogue or debate...they DO NOT WANT accountability... but we are to be accountable to them. Good obedient proletariats...that is all! History repeats...too soon old...too late smart!🥸OBEY!😎
Hegel’s Hidden Masterplan? Or Just a Complicated Philosopher?
So apparently, Hegel isn’t just the guy who penned some convoluted ideas—he’s now being accused of masterminding public crises. In reality, his dialectic is about ideas evolving, not about crafting crises to control our every move. If you're going to blame him for a global mind control scheme, at least read the damn book before you start conspiracy theories.
Delphi or Delusional? Exposing the ‘Secret’ Technique
Next up is the Delphi Technique, which some claim is the ultimate tool of mind control. News flash: It’s a respected method for gathering expert opinions—not a Jedi mind trick for brainwashing the masses. If you think structured dialogue is a secret plot, you might want to check if your tinfoil hat is on straight.
League of Women Voters: The Communist Cabal We Never Knew Existed?
And then there’s the crowning absurdity: calling the League of Women Voters communists. For over 100 years, they've been educating voters and promoting democracy. Yet here they are, painted as shadowy communists plotting to overthrow society. If voter education is a communist scheme, then congratulations— everyone is getting a ball gag.
Accountability or Control? How Jeff’s Sensationalism Silences Real Debate
Let's call a spade a spade: Jeff’s constant editorializing isn’t about holding power to account—it’s about creating a spectacle. Instead of fostering genuine debate or exposing the real issues, his sensationalism serves as a smokescreen that distracts from the absence of true accountability. Rather than asking the tough questions, he just asks them as narratives in of themself. Ding dong it's dominos.
Final Word: Stop the Paranoia, Start the Conversation
Before you dive headfirst into the next rabbit hole of conspiracies, remember: facts matter more than fear-fueled narratives. Hegel isn’t plotting our downfall, the Delphi Technique isn’t a government mind-control trick, and the League of Women Voters? They're just trying to keep democracy alive—no secret cabals here, just a whole lot of misplaced paranoia.
Pick me up, Jeff! But he shouldn't have to cuz guaranteed you are all 60+ and still falling for this.
I normally would respond higher up, but I believe that your response here making light of the chilling effect is why you being a citizen journalist and a member of the CRC concerning. It is one thing to write opinion pieces as a journalist, but it is another entirely to intertwine personal conspiracy theories with your official capacity as a CRC member, especially when you engage with the individual who prompted you on to your ICLEI-Tribe-County-Commissioner-UN-Agenda Era. This behavior compromises the public trust of not only those that elected you but those who did not which I remind you is foundational to your reporting that elected officials are not representing those who elected them or our right ingoring those that did not. It also raises significant concerns about your ability to be impartial in your duties on the Charter Review Committee. So are you acting on personal agenda or public interest?
Now, I do want to point out some inconsistencies - though I never thought you would have chosen me to do this to and lets see if Ixodes is corrrect about you not correct your reporting when Jesus comes.
What the hell was all that? Are you using ChatGPT again?
You were privy to my email in full — an email I submitted as testimony and which Chairwoman Fisch cited in summary. Instead of including the email itself or linking to it, you chose to reduce it to vague, dismissive language: calling it “anonymous,” mischaracterizing its tone, and quoting selectively to deflect from its substance. You framed my email as "evidence" rather than public testimony presented from a concerned citizen and lied about the time of delivery as if it was only a few hours prior to the CRC's meeting when infact it was forwarded by Loni Gores to all committes members at 7:30 am that day. The meeting was at 4 pm.
The email as delivered was anonymous because I chose to hide my identity for fear of my physcial safety that much could be infered without doubt. However, I explicitly stated I would provide my identity if needed. My words were not evidence of censorship, but a challenge to the ethical conflict posed by your dual role as a CRC commissioner and blogger who actively primes readers to distrust fellow commissioners and in this case other commitee members.
You ignored the core issues I raised: the use of inflammatory language, cherry-picked interaction with your readers (especially when racist or hostile comments go unaddressed), and your repeated framing of normal procedural actions as conspiratorial.
You claim to champion transparency, yet omitted my detailed critique while presenting yourself as the target of vague attacks. If you truly believed in informed public dialogue, you would have published the full contents of my email or linked to it — especially when you're willing to paste and headline far less substantial material. Or outright lie - there could be no evidentiary praise of Fisch in my email or comment. This whole exercise was an attempt to discredit my testimony and redirect attention away from critque of your conduct, misleading editorializing, and selective engagment.
Readers deserve to see what was actually said — not what you selectively frame. You are not being silenced. You are being called to a higher standard of integrity. The question is whether you’ll rise to meet it, or continue hiding behind blog posts that distort criticism into victimhood.
Jeff will lie to you if it means he can poop in your mouth. Straight up, head back and down it like a shooter.
In addition I will be also submitting my response here into testimony with Charter Review Commission and the following email with it:
I am writing to express my growing concern regarding how public testimony is being represented — or misrepresented — by one of your fellow members, Jeff Tozzer. In his April 5th blog post on Clallam County Watchdog, Mr. Tozzer refers to the email I submitted to the CRC (and which Chairwoman Fisch referenced during the meeting) but chooses not to include its contents or even accurately summarize them.
My email raised specific concerns about Mr. Tozzer’s dual role as both a commissioner and the author of a political blog. I highlighted how his posts routinely frame procedural actions as conspiratorial, engage in selective coverage, and leave inflammatory or racial comments from subscribers unchallenged. I also offered examples of misleading framing across several blog entries.
In his April 5th article, Mr. Tozzer reduces this testimony to an “anonymous email” and fails to provide any context, let alone the full text — despite having it. I stated clearly in the original email that I was willing to be identified if necessary. The mischaracterization of this testimony appears to be a deliberate omission. And out right fabrication of praising Fisch when reporting to the committe memebers of racial commenters. I believer this blog post was design to distract from his reluctance to assume a higher ethical standard in his own reporting and in any actions he may take while committe member.
This pattern of behavior — selectively shaping public narrative while actively participating in commission decisions — creates a chilling effect on public participation and raises serious concerns about fairness and transparency.
I urge the Commission to consider Mr. Tozzer’s conduct not just in relation to public speech but in how he uses his platform to influence perception while omitting or distorting critical input.
I am absolutely against appointment of a so-called Water Steward or whatever other title they come up with. No one person should have a post like that. We see the city and county approving new home building projects claiming there is enough water to support the projects, then I'm against the push for the rest of us to conserve (control) water usage. Enough already! County leadership is already well down the track of "agenda driven" non-transparent "leadership"..... if we have any chance to correct these problems we must first get under control whatever and whomever is already in place pushing the agenda, namely the county commissioners and those groups aligned with them. When they call out the activists it almost always means the money is already on (or under) the table.
That lady holding the sign hates the Jimmycomelately argument. At the summer show at the nature center, she actually states before she took off her apron and threw it down, that the Jimmycomelately still re-channels. She threw her apron when I showed her consecutive pictures of Jimmycomelatey in 2004 and 2024. It had not moved. She was intentionally trying to create a scene to get me removed from the exhibition.
Other people were listening and even walking over to look at the signs. She threw off her apron to break up the illustration. She was not chilled until the facts came in. Then she tried to get WDFW and USFS officers attention. They talked and pointed but never came over. I started with those guys first so they already saw the signs and got the presentation. They all tried to promote the re-channeling and tributary argument. I beat them all that day. Nobody could overcome the Jimmycomelately presentation.
I normally would respond higher up, but I believe that your response here making light of the chilling effect is why you being a citizen journalist and a member of the CRC concerning. It is one thing to write opinion pieces as a journalist, but it is another entirely to intertwine personal conspiracy theories with your official capacity as a CRC member, especially when you engage with the individual who prompted you on to your ICLEI-Tribe-County-Commissioner-UN-Agenda Era. This behavior compromises the public trust of not only those that elected you but those who did not which I remind you is foundational to your reporting that elected officials are not representing those who elected them or our right ingoring those that did not. It also raises significant concerns about your ability to be impartial in your duties on the Charter Review Committee. So are you acting on personal agenda or public interest?
Now, I do want to point out some inconsistencies - though I never thought you would have chosen me to do this to and lets see if Ixodes is corrrect about you not correct your reporting when Jesus comes.
What the hell was all that? Are you using ChatGPT again?
You were privy to my email in full — an email I submitted as testimony and which Chairwoman Fisch cited in summary. Instead of including the email itself or linking to it, you chose to reduce it to vague, dismissive language: calling it “anonymous,” mischaracterizing its tone, and quoting selectively to deflect from its substance. You framed my email as "evidence" rather than public testimony presented from a concerned citizen and lied about the time of delivery as if it was only a few hours prior to the CRC's meeting when infact it was forwarded by Loni Gores to all committes members at 7:30 am that day. The meeting was at 4 pm.
The email as delivered was anonymous because I chose to hide my identity for fear of my physcial safety that much could be infered without doubt. However, I explicitly stated I would provide my identity if needed. My words were not evidence of censorship, but a challenge to the ethical conflict posed by your dual role as a CRC commissioner and blogger who actively primes readers to distrust fellow commissioners and in this case other commitee members.
You ignored the core issues I raised: the use of inflammatory language, cherry-picked interaction with your readers (especially when racist or hostile comments go unaddressed), and your repeated framing of normal procedural actions as conspiratorial.
You claim to champion transparency, yet omitted my detailed critique while presenting yourself as the target of vague attacks. If you truly believed in informed public dialogue, you would have published the full contents of my email or linked to it — especially when you're willing to paste and headline far less substantial material. Or outright lie - there could be no evidentiary praise of Fisch in my email or comment. This whole exercise was an attempt to discredit my testimony and redirect attention away from critque of your conduct, misleading editorializing, and selective engagment.
Readers deserve to see what was actually said — not what you selectively frame. You are not being silenced. You are being called to a higher standard of integrity. The question is whether you’ll rise to meet it, or continue hiding behind blog posts that distort criticism into victimhood.
Jeff will lie to you if it means he can poop in your mouth. Straight up, head back and down it like a shooter.
In addition I will be also submitting my response here into testimony with Charter Review Commission and the following email with it:
I am writing to express my growing concern regarding how public testimony is being represented — or misrepresented — by one of your fellow members, Jeff Tozzer. In his April 5th blog post on Clallam County Watchdog, Mr. Tozzer refers to the email I submitted to the CRC (and which Chairwoman Fisch referenced during the meeting) but chooses not to include its contents or even accurately summarize them.
My email raised specific concerns about Mr. Tozzer’s dual role as both a commissioner and the author of a political blog. I highlighted how his posts routinely frame procedural actions as conspiratorial, engage in selective coverage, and leave inflammatory or racial comments from subscribers unchallenged. I also offered examples of misleading framing across several blog entries.
In his April 5th article, Mr. Tozzer reduces this testimony to an “anonymous email” and fails to provide any context, let alone the full text — despite having it. I stated clearly in the original email that I was willing to be identified if necessary. The mischaracterization of this testimony appears to be a deliberate omission. And out right fabrication of praising Fisch when reporting to the committe memebers of racial commenters. I believer this blog post was design to distract from his reluctance to assume a higher ethical standard in his own reporting and in any actions he may take while committe member.
This pattern of behavior — selectively shaping public narrative while actively participating in commission decisions — creates a chilling effect on public participation and raises serious concerns about fairness and transparency.
I urge the Commission to consider Mr. Tozzer’s conduct not just in relation to public speech but in how he uses his platform to influence perception while omitting or distorting critical input.
Unfortunately for Clallam County citizens, he who pays the piper calls the tunes. This is not acceptable and the obvious back door move to silence you Jeff is BS! This must not be allowed to stand.
I do hope that the good folks of Clallam County have the common sense to COMPLETELY reject this complete garbage science that the deeply corrupt so-called "scientists" are always hyping about water being scarce and needing to be controlled and even more heavily monitored & restricted by the usual clown show of oppressive big government~! These usual suspects (currently unindicted criminals) within government and their despicable paid stooges who have absolutely no honor or integrity always insist upon foolishly and/or criminally following the "fake science" dogma. These are the same kinds of fake & criminally corrupt scientists who got millions of innocent folks murdered & seriously disabled all over the world with their "safe & effective" fake COVID "vaccines"~! They always have all of their pre-designed pre-planned "fake statistics & studies" that they push to scare the general population, along with their brightly colored "charts" that are really only infantile weak attempts to create a sense of urgency where absolutely none exists. They have ALL been consistently dead wrong about EVERY single major prediction that they have made to scare people for many decades now. That is THE clue as to their evil underhanded intentions, and it could well be their downfall in a future court of justice. Neither nature nor the residents of Clallam County need the government to be further weaponized against the natural world so that the evil hidden agendas of the few can be satisfied. These are VERY serious crimes against nature and humanity itself. I/We monitor the flow of the natural water systems here regularly and we defy anyone to provide a shred of honest repeatable evidence that there is any urgent issue with the regions natural water, that remotely merits the absurd panic that the usual fake science liars are pushing to scare folks about natural water availability~! The truth is that our natural water availability is well within the historically normal range of abundance and the liars & manipulators within and outside of our government are unfortunately also acting within their disgustingly "normal" range of criminality as well~! Our wonderful community would improve 100% overnight if "we" demanded that ALL "scientific reports & studies" be unquestionably supported by a preponderance of facts and NOT flimsy & scientifically unsupportable "crystal ball" predictions that stink of hidden agendas~! Criminalize "fake science" and make the penalties extreme for these wicked social engineering freaks~!
This blatant attack upon free speech, especially by some sort of coward who is attempting to hide behind fake crocodile tears so he/she can safely throw rocks at honest and reputable Individuals who are simply doing their duty as Americans, is absolutely unconstitutional by any stretch of the imagination~! There must be no attention paid to "anonymous claims" of supposed yet suspiciously convenient "fear", especially by a sole individual of obviously dubious character and intent~! I smell the government rat's usual set up to not only control the narrative that they are obviously struggling to maintain, but to also quash free speech itself. You few anti-American anti-Constitutional criminals are well noted and identified by your own behavior and words themselves~! If you have anything to say, be honorable enough to stand up to say it or don't say anything at all~! If the public reaction to what you have to say is SO fearful for you where you need special hiding privileges, that should be a clue that it is wrong headed, probably criminal, and against the vast majority of the public will and public good~! Still, everyone in America has the right to speak their minds, HOWEVER it is "our" American right to peacefully contest your words and counter them with our own words of free speech. The overwhelming majority of good folks in our community will stand by to protect your right of free speech, however that does not afford you any more right to free speech that anyone else, nor does it mean that you can take "pot shots" at those who have the integrity & honor to stand up to public scrutiny in a peaceful public forum~! Enough with the ridiculously childish government games and special privileges for the few, at the expense of the health and well-being of the entire community that deserves FAR better~! Sincerely, Mike
well, we needed some common sense before we blew out the Elwha dam... ever since, PA runs low on water from the deep well, every summer, which allows the city to raise the water rates in an "emergency".
I think the removal of the dam was more in line with the "anti-growth" movements of the 1970s-80s (Growth Management Acts) often referred to as NEPA-like Environmental Planning. (NEPA in WA state is called SEPA --RCW 43.21 C--passed in the 1980's... ) All these restrictions have caused building costs to rise, and has added a thick layer of government oversight. It's in direct conflict with building housing in our area.
Every decade our various government entities do their "comprehensive plan" (now mostly written by over-paid consultants) because the state mandates it under the guise of "growth management". https://www.commerce.wa.gov/growth-management/
The water is just a further cog in this plan.
In the late 1990s a huge topic of government "white papers" was how to keep global corporations (i.e. Nestle) out of owning water, as water was seen as the next big thing to game (this was during the Enron fiasco). The United Nations declared water as a human right, and identified water scarcity, etc. There are various entities like The Global Water Initiative that deems to "address water-related challenges through collaboration and research".
Clearly whom-ever controls the water, controls the people (much like how a small number of secretive families control all the wheat trade in the world. Excellent book by Dan Morgan "Merchants of Grain".).
Thank you for your most honorable and accurate well-informed comment! I have worn a great many hats over the years but one is actually as a real estate analyst (the highest level of the industry most assume is just real estate appraisal work, but a FAR more intense and comprehensive scientific endeavor ;-) Anyway, you sound very sure of yourself, as well you should be, because you have an excellent grasp of what the criminals of humanity are really doing all over the US and beyond (especially regarding the theft of our natural water resource). In fact, the criminals within the Washington state government attacked our sacred natural water rights about 10 years ago when they passed a highly criminal and completely unconstitutional bill that basically made every drop of water in the state the business of the government. You probably know what I am referring to, but I just thought it would be good to again point out that this state power grab of water freedom and rights has been planned and long in the making, not actually related to any drought or scarcity as the government even back then admitted that they "were not going to enforce their illegal act at that time)... Yes, I am aware of the demolition of the Elwa dam and I really like your reading between the lines to discover the true intentions of the government~! I thought that was a highly questionable removal of the Elwa dam when the government first notified folks of their plans (criminal plot), especially when they use the old "fake science" excuse about protecting wildlife. The old "spotted owl" scam in a new wrapper of deceit. The criminals in Ocean Shores cooked up what we call "The precious clam" lies that they paid crooked "scientists" to support, so that horses and no longer allowed on the beach in areas where the horses are safe. The lie was to "protect the clams"! HA! From horses? That kind of fake science has destroyed many rights~! We have not, nor will we ever, visit Ocean Shores again or spend a single penny to support that community, because we are DEEPLY offended by that fake science BS as devoted Naturalists and horsemen~! We are also American Constitutionalists, so we take everyone's rights and freedoms extremely seriously ;-) Anyway, cheers to you for your vigilance and work to push back on the criminals of humanity and their inhumane - anti human agenda~! We will NOT comply~! Sincerely, Mike
Agreed...but I think we need to factor in that they have designated us a 'densification corridor' and water will indeed become a serious issue if they succeed in having, say another 50,000 people relocate to our county. All the low-income housing being built for an economy which has so few living wage jobs is a huge red flag.
Not dissing low incomers, I am one... and through hard work and a little luck I'm doing ok. But I had to leave the OP in the late '70's because the timber and fishing industry was doing a 'controlled implosion' and the real wages have been flat since that time.
We are playing a rigged game and all these socialists who have nice pensions from serving the system for decades have the time and resources to carry out their masters' agendas...all the while believing they are 'doing good'. TRUTH, JUSTICE, LIBERTY AND TOUGH LOVE😊
Hey. Kevin here. I made a reply to Robert's Hegelian mess. Just CTRL+F "Robert" you find it invaluable for late stage dementia.
Anyways Im a real person, I just love my physcial self a lot becuase God really blessed me.
So heres my reponse to Jeff:
I normally would respond higher up, but I believe that your response here making light of the chilling effect is why you being a citizen journalist and a member of the CRC concerning. It is one thing to write opinion pieces as a journalist, but it is another entirely to intertwine personal conspiracy theories with your official capacity as a CRC member, especially when you engage with the individual who prompted you on to your ICLEI-Tribe-County-Commissioner-UN-Agenda Era. This behavior compromises the public trust of not only those that elected you but those who did not which I remind you is foundational to your reporting that elected officials are not representing those who elected them or our right ingoring those that did not. It also raises significant concerns about your ability to be impartial in your duties on the Charter Review Committee. So are you acting on personal agenda or public interest?
Now, I do want to point out some inconsistencies - though I never thought you would have chosen me to do this to and lets see if Ixodes is corrrect about you not correct your reporting when Jesus comes.
What the hell was all that? Are you using ChatGPT again?
You were privy to my email in full — an email I submitted as testimony and which Chairwoman Fisch cited in summary. Instead of including the email itself or linking to it, you chose to reduce it to vague, dismissive language: calling it “anonymous,” mischaracterizing its tone, and quoting selectively to deflect from its substance. You framed my email as "evidence" rather than public testimony presented from a concerned citizen and lied about the time of delivery as if it was only a few hours prior to the CRC's meeting when infact it was forwarded by Loni Gores to all committes members at 7:30 am that day. The meeting was at 4 pm.
The email as delivered was anonymous because I chose to hide my identity for fear of my physcial safety that much could be infered without doubt. However, I explicitly stated I would provide my identity if needed. My words were not evidence of censorship, but a challenge to the ethical conflict posed by your dual role as a CRC commissioner and blogger who actively primes readers to distrust fellow commissioners and in this case other commitee members.
You ignored the core issues I raised: the use of inflammatory language, cherry-picked interaction with your readers (especially when racist or hostile comments go unaddressed), and your repeated framing of normal procedural actions as conspiratorial.
You claim to champion transparency, yet omitted my detailed critique while presenting yourself as the target of vague attacks. If you truly believed in informed public dialogue, you would have published the full contents of my email or linked to it — especially when you're willing to paste and headline far less substantial material. Or outright lie - there could be no evidentiary praise of Fisch in my email or comment. This whole exercise was an attempt to discredit my testimony and redirect attention away from critque of your conduct, misleading editorializing, and selective engagment.
Readers deserve to see what was actually said — not what you selectively frame. You are not being silenced. You are being called to a higher standard of integrity. The question is whether you’ll rise to meet it, or continue hiding behind blog posts that distort criticism into victimhood.
Jeff will lie to you if it means he can poop in your mouth. Straight up, head back and down it like a shooter.
In addition I will be also submitting my response here into testimony with Charter Review Commission and the following email with it:
I am writing to express my growing concern regarding how public testimony is being represented — or misrepresented — by one of your fellow members, Jeff Tozzer. In his April 5th blog post on Clallam County Watchdog, Mr. Tozzer refers to the email I submitted to the CRC (and which Chairwoman Fisch referenced during the meeting) but chooses not to include its contents or even accurately summarize them.
My email raised specific concerns about Mr. Tozzer’s dual role as both a commissioner and the author of a political blog. I highlighted how his posts routinely frame procedural actions as conspiratorial, engage in selective coverage, and leave inflammatory or racial comments from subscribers unchallenged. I also offered examples of misleading framing across several blog entries.
In his April 5th article, Mr. Tozzer reduces this testimony to an “anonymous email” and fails to provide any context, let alone the full text — despite having it. I stated clearly in the original email that I was willing to be identified if necessary. The mischaracterization of this testimony appears to be a deliberate omission. And out right fabrication of praising Fisch when reporting to the committe memebers of racial commenters. I believer this blog post was design to distract from his reluctance to assume a higher ethical standard in his own reporting and in any actions he may take while committe member.
This pattern of behavior — selectively shaping public narrative while actively participating in commission decisions — creates a chilling effect on public participation and raises serious concerns about fairness and transparency.
I urge the Commission to consider Mr. Tozzer’s conduct not just in relation to public speech but in how he uses his platform to influence perception while omitting or distorting critical input.
Hi Kevin, I appreciate your comment and efforts to communicate. With the huge amount of work that Jeff Tozzer does for the community I am sure that he does not have the time to repost every single word of every (relevant?) single comment, so there are no doubt time constraints involved. Additionally, some folks obviously struggle with their substandard writing skills, which can be problematic in any number of ways, especially when the reader is trying to make a good faith effort to truly understand what the writer is attempting to convey, as opposed to the dysfunctional socialists "politically correct" BS where many have fallen for the trap of automatically assuming what the true intentions are of the writer or speaker. Yes, it was a mistake to decide to be anonymous, because that unfortunately causes a HUGE understandable level of suspicion as to the true intentions and agenda of the writer, especially in America where most Americans are becoming keenly aware of the vast maze of real and absolutely now proven criminal conspiracies. You see, while there are still a few people who claim that "conspiracies" are the fantasies of delusional minds, the VAST majority of what the low Intelligence & low information people used to call "conspiracy theories" have now already been absolutely proven to have been true all along. The JFK, RFK, & MLK government murders, the COVID mass murder fake yet dangerous and deadly "vaccine" (mRNA gene therapy that is really EXTREMELY dangerous in many ways), the "fossil fuel" scams, etc., and just wait until the REAL news cycle, obviously not the mainstream media, gets out to the general public on what the DOGE investigations just discovered~! Ha! Did you know that the term "conspiracy theory" didn't even exist, until the CIA "invented it" to keep good Americans from discussing the governments involvement in the murder of JFK? Guess what government agency was in control of the murder of JFK? Why, it was recently disclosed that it was the CIA all along~! Ha Ha Ha! Yes, Americans have advanced well beyond that MK Ultra mind game brainwashing program crappola now and the few remaining slow ones have already been left behind. We are REAL scientists here Kevin, and in numerous fields of science. My parents worked for or with the deep state, so I have been wide awake for over 50 years~! I had one Hell of a childhood! I am what would be fairly called a "conspiracy analyst" so I have actually been confirming hundreds of criminal conspiracies of the government, big business, and individuals for many decades, because as an American Constitutionalist it is my duty to protect America and Americans from ALL threats regardless of where they come from ;-) Jeff Tozzer is actually doing a great job keeping track of what the local government is doing and if anyone thinks that they are simply conducting business as usual they are severely mistaken and/or "we" local folks need to change the way the local government operates~! Only complete transparency in government will work for the vast majority of the American people everywhere in the country now, but I am sure that there will be those who will need attitudinal adjustments and even prison terms to finally get that message. Hold on tight, because America and the entire world is making a dramatic change for the better, but it will take some time to rid the criminals from our society~! Enjoy the ride~! Sincerely, Mike
It is VERY kind of you to take the time to be so nice...
I am just doing my duty and the best I can to do the right thing ;-)
I am sure that you and the many great folks here understand just how difficult it is to help some of the least intelligent and most emotional people see that their "opinions" (views) are superficial & short sighted (if not completely tragically flawed). Unfortunately, their very lack of Intelligence often makes these Individuals extremely frustrated, and their usual response is to ignore common-sense and allow their own emotions to take control of them because they constantly struggle in life. Oddly, some of these people actually have lives that upon first glance appear to be somewhat functional and even somewhat "normal", however I have worked with many people who would have been called "mental patients" not long ago and they can actually sometimes "fake being normal" in at least some ways... We should have compassion for these few sad people who really do have a VERY serious mental and/or Spiritual disabilities. However, "we" (the vast majority of Americans) can no longer tolerate or allow the minority at the bottom of the intellectual scale inflict their emotional & dysfunctional rantings upon society to dictate their twisted personal agendas upon the majority~! We just can't have the young and future generations constantly victimized by sick dysfunctional people any longer... You probably realize that these same sick Individuals who call other's names like being "unprofessional" and those who also criticize others for not maintaining a "higher level of common social decency" more often than not display COMPLETE unprofessionalism and themselves fail to be anywhere near decent themselves? That is of course the sick Individuals "projection" of their mental problems upon others... This is a VERY sick & twisted game that these people always play, but for me it is particularly upsetting when they invoke God's name and use that in their desperate attempts to inflict harm upon others who are simply doing their best as good American's who care about our beloved country~! Keep the faith my friend because this difficult time in history won't last forever and for most things will greatly improve~! Sincerely, Mike
"especially when you engage with the individual who prompted you on to your ICLEI-Tribe-County-Commissioner-UN-Agenda Era"
Hey Barney guys look.. my pelt just went up 50 bucks. Here is a guy that probably called with the BLM porn to block video showing the ICLEI contracts and all their glory.
Looks like ole Kev doesn't mind working for Soros. He will work for anyone besides Trump Bush, Tree. Have Nazi sign will travel.
One of my favorite quotes of all time: To argue w/ a man who has renounced the use & authority of reason is like trying to administer medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine. It’s comparable to giving in to a child’s tantrum. It only further encourages their bad behavior. “Kevin” re-posts his evidentiary emails repeatedly in lieu of an actual thought out response as it would take him a week to come up with something else that also doesn’t make any sense. Let’s be honest, he can’t spell & neither can his computer! The only dumbing down he’s accomplished is placing the dunce cap on his head every time he copy/pastes himself into the comments. Point being, sometimes it says a lot more to say nothing at all. Let’s not encourage this child’s bad behavior 😉
Kirsten, you are correct that we shouldn't encourage Kevin(s) childish behavior, but sometimes it's hard to resist and maybe just a little bit fun to wander into the sandbox. I try though ; )
This is a strange time in American & world history~!
Well, there will be some "growing pains" but those who survive will live to see an amazing America and world that they never thought could be possible. You are right, that MANY criminal rats and treasonous bad actors are being exposed for what they truly are. On the other hand, the great and Patriotic folks are also being exposed for what they truly are as well~! This is in fact THE fight between Good VS evil and the rotten apples have already run completely out of time~! The proof of that is literally everywhere, as they are in full panic as they now see their corrupt agendas crashing and burning~! Have a great day and keep the faith~! Sincerely, Mike
Thanks for providing these inside images of our government so we know what's REALLY going on.
You said it all, Jeff, with the following comment:
"the CRC should be serving as a conduit for the public’s will, not as a platform for advancing personal or political agendas. "
And, to circumvent the muzzle they put on you, how can they possibly object of you include snippets FROM THE PUBLIC RECORD that include the names they want to hide. Given that is is public information, I don't think they can legally stifle you, can they? And taking the information directly from the public record-- perhaps even an actual screenshot-- cannot be barred, I wouldn't think.
And, of course, this RCV is a non-starter with me.
They can and are however doing this control UNLAWFULLY...Anything can be made 'legal', but LAWFUL carries a higher connotation based on morals and ethics of a Higher Order.
The Charter Review Committee cannot muzzle one member's activity outside of the Charter Review Meetings. PERIOD. The Supreme Court has held that restrictions on speech because of its content—that is, when the government targets the speaker’s message—generally violate the First Amendment. The only restrictions are: defamation, threats, obscenity, child pornography, commercial advertising. Defamation has a high bar -- engaging in damaging someone's reputation is clear if you call someone a thief, rapist, or murderer (although it isn't like our current President hasn't been called that, and worse). Which is where the definition of defamation is further limited by if they are a "public figure". Then, you have to prove "actual malice" and knowingly act with reckless disregard for the "truth". A public figure is different than a private figure.
If you run for public office --- you cease to be a private figure, you become a public one. Once you thrust yourself into the public eye ..oh well, you can't suddenly claim to be private for some instances, and public for others. (There is a grey area "limited-purpose public figures" which is where speaking at the podium, identifying yourself, allowing yourself to be recorded, to try and influence the outcome of a controversy -- you might not be an official 'celebrity" but you're on record, in a public forum.) If it's public record -- anything you say can be used, without your permission.
As for "social media", just last year a Supreme Court Ruling underscored the importance of free speech online. The court recognized that government attempts to control the editorial decisions of social media companies violates the First Amendment. (Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and NetChoice v. Paxton, Lindke v. Freed and Garnier v. O'Connor-Ratcliffe, Murthy v. Missouri).
Many of these were only sent back to lower courts to reconsider. The intent of the Supreme Court was that social media is free speech based upon our First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances....
The court recognized online content curation should receive at least as much First Amendment protection as print newspapers, parades, and signs held at political rallies. It made clear that social media platforms, in combining multifarious voices, exercise their First Amendment rights while also creating the space for the free expression of their users.
And, remember: Even entertainment, vulgarity, “hate speech” (bigoted speech about particular races, religions, sexual orientations, and the like), blasphemy (speech that offends people’s religious sensibilities), and violent video games are protected by the First Amendment.
You are probably 100 percent right. Now if they made it about conduct or make it pertain to the function of the commiitee and its deliberation then he'd me f'd.
Anywyas since thise blog really was about me today HEre is my response to Jeff:
I normally would respond higher up, but I believe that your response here making light of the chilling effect is why you being a citizen journalist and a member of the CRC concerning. It is one thing to write opinion pieces as a journalist, but it is another entirely to intertwine personal conspiracy theories with your official capacity as a CRC member, especially when you engage with the individual who prompted you on to your ICLEI-Tribe-County-Commissioner-UN-Agenda Era. This behavior compromises the public trust of not only those that elected you but those who did not which I remind you is foundational to your reporting that elected officials are not representing those who elected them or our right ingoring those that did not. It also raises significant concerns about your ability to be impartial in your duties on the Charter Review Committee. So are you acting on personal agenda or public interest?
Now, I do want to point out some inconsistencies - though I never thought you would have chosen me to do this to and lets see if Ixodes is corrrect about you not correct your reporting when Jesus comes.
What the hell was all that? Are you using ChatGPT again?
You were privy to my email in full — an email I submitted as testimony and which Chairwoman Fisch cited in summary. Instead of including the email itself or linking to it, you chose to reduce it to vague, dismissive language: calling it “anonymous,” mischaracterizing its tone, and quoting selectively to deflect from its substance. You framed my email as "evidence" rather than public testimony presented from a concerned citizen and lied about the time of delivery as if it was only a few hours prior to the CRC's meeting when infact it was forwarded by Loni Gores to all committes members at 7:30 am that day. The meeting was at 4 pm.
The email as delivered was anonymous because I chose to hide my identity for fear of my physcial safety that much could be infered without doubt. However, I explicitly stated I would provide my identity if needed. My words were not evidence of censorship, but a challenge to the ethical conflict posed by your dual role as a CRC commissioner and blogger who actively primes readers to distrust fellow commissioners and in this case other commitee members.
You ignored the core issues I raised: the use of inflammatory language, cherry-picked interaction with your readers (especially when racist or hostile comments go unaddressed), and your repeated framing of normal procedural actions as conspiratorial.
You claim to champion transparency, yet omitted my detailed critique while presenting yourself as the target of vague attacks. If you truly believed in informed public dialogue, you would have published the full contents of my email or linked to it — especially when you're willing to paste and headline far less substantial material. Or outright lie - there could be no evidentiary praise of Fisch in my email or comment. This whole exercise was an attempt to discredit my testimony and redirect attention away from critque of your conduct, misleading editorializing, and selective engagment.
Readers deserve to see what was actually said — not what you selectively frame. You are not being silenced. You are being called to a higher standard of integrity. The question is whether you’ll rise to meet it, or continue hiding behind blog posts that distort criticism into victimhood.
Jeff will lie to you if it means he can poop in your mouth. Straight up, head back and down it like a shooter.
In addition I will be also submitting my response here into testimony with Charter Review Commission and the following email with it:
I am writing to express my growing concern regarding how public testimony is being represented — or misrepresented — by one of your fellow members, Jeff Tozzer. In his April 5th blog post on Clallam County Watchdog, Mr. Tozzer refers to the email I submitted to the CRC (and which Chairwoman Fisch referenced during the meeting) but chooses not to include its contents or even accurately summarize them.
My email raised specific concerns about Mr. Tozzer’s dual role as both a commissioner and the author of a political blog. I highlighted how his posts routinely frame procedural actions as conspiratorial, engage in selective coverage, and leave inflammatory or racial comments from subscribers unchallenged. I also offered examples of misleading framing across several blog entries.
In his April 5th article, Mr. Tozzer reduces this testimony to an “anonymous email” and fails to provide any context, let alone the full text — despite having it. I stated clearly in the original email that I was willing to be identified if necessary. The mischaracterization of this testimony appears to be a deliberate omission. And out right fabrication of praising Fisch when reporting to the committe memebers of racial commenters. I believer this blog post was design to distract from his reluctance to assume a higher ethical standard in his own reporting and in any actions he may take while committe member.
This pattern of behavior — selectively shaping public narrative while actively participating in commission decisions — creates a chilling effect on public participation and raises serious concerns about fairness and transparency.
I urge the Commission to consider Mr. Tozzer’s conduct not just in relation to public speech but in how he uses his platform to influence perception while omitting or distorting critical input.
there are SEVERAL members on the Charter Review who have "personal agendas".
When you send email to a journalist you give up your moral-rights, and copyright. Just as if you sent it to a newspaper's letters to the editor. They are allowed to edit it as they see fit (all newspapers, everywhere) but not ADD to it.
The role of Charter Review is to review our county charter and bring initiatives to the public on the next ballot. WE elect who we want to represent us. (I ran, I've run several times in the past.) The entire process is a giant committee (imperfect) and special interest groups usually get a few on the ballot that are a bit 'wing-nutty' and pushed through by a minority. But that is the imperfect process we have. (I urge you to learn more about the process, and what has occurred in the past.) There have been some amazing kerfuffles in the past -- and this is in that dust bin.
One out of 15 is a reporter. So?
How would that make you not comment? You cannot be that sensitive and fragile.
Kevin "heart", you seem to be protesting too much. It's what happens when people have been ignorant to the real world and engage in "it shouldn't be that way" and come out of the shadows with "feelings" not facts.
Start your own Substack column. You certainly have a lot to say.
I see NOTHING WRONG with the people electing the author of a blog (which doesn't seem all that political to me, but I read a lot of real "political" articles), knowingly, and then having him continue to write his opinions. That is the very definition of "transparency".
Do you have worms for brains, Dear Mimi? Because I don't think you do otherwise you wouldn't have decoded the political process so succinctly for me.
I was already aware of the email being entered into the public record which you did read about. To clarify, the email was not sent to a journalist. It was sent to the clerk of the committee on which Jeff serves. Then, Jeff, the blogger took the editorial liberty of misrepresenting the content of the email and adding the fabrication of praise for Fisch. Not to mention lying about the time of receipt. You may be familiar with journalistic integrity which your husband could provide a run down of. A competent journalist would not truncate quotes to alter the subject's intent. That's poor journalism or bad blogging. Look up using partial quotes when something needs to be referenced when it is a grammatically embedded phrase.
And, girl, this is the best part. It's irony. You're the big girl, someone who has been there and done that, letting no feelings get to her on the block tossing her power and authority to the woe of us emotional outsiders, but only offering emotional appeal - like what's with the all the words between quote shit? are you trademarking "politics" and "transparency"? Ask your husband for me too- and give us zero facts in order to dismiss valid procedural concerns.
You're right that personal agendas exist on every committee. That’s exactly why transparency and ethics are so important—not in a vague “sunlight is the best disinfectant” sense, but in the structural, functional sense: How do we make sure officials don’t use public roles to launder personal influence under the guise of process?
To infer that blogging while serving is transparent is a neat inversion, but it ignores the power dynamic at issue. When Jeff - Lack of journalistic standards aside - simultaneously moderates a political blog that shapes local public opinion and serves in an official role, they’re not just sharing ideas. They’re shaping the narrative and the process. The issue isn’t whether people knew he blogged—it’s whether he's using the platform to selectively elevate allies and discredit critics while hiding behind First Amendment cover. That is the Chilling Effect we be talkin about, yo.
A fun but indirect example: Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is often criticized for her activist work and for receiving payments from organizations that have a direct stake in the kinds of cases her husband rules on. It would be similarly troubling if the wife of a popular political podcast wins a local election to reshape county level policy and uses his platform to boost her message, misquote critics, misrepresent or fabricate statements. So are, Mimi, are you really a fiercely independent woman or do you have a particular agenda yourself?
If a voter sees a pattern of selective comment moderation, targeted ridicule, and questionable framing from someone who now wields institutional power, it’s not fragility to question that. It’s civic engagement.
I will continue to interact in the comments exclusively. I have witnessed many of the subscribers dismiss counter perspectives or facts because ignorance is fun? idk. So why write a whole ass blog no one will read when the cuppa here is so addicting? As it is, subscribers here will not put the cup of kool aid down long enough to see past the cup.
Did you ever wonder why you can't win an election?
I never wanted to win an election. I was never in it "to win" I was in it to experience the "process". In the first election, I liked the opponent so much that I openly said "elect him". The second time, I was able to witness dirty politics up close, and first hand.
I wanted the experience.
I think you are looking at all this way too emotionally.
p.s. I am not my husband, and would prefer that you respect that. He has nothing to do with what I do. I do not hide behind him, nor do I promote our relationship. (Try being an enlightened male here.)
I don't exploit your spouse (whatever that may be). Respect my relationship.
So the whole board of commissioners should be held accountable for what is spoken or written by an individual commissioner . Besides as I recall you cannot submit an article to the newspaper without verifying who you are…. The lack of decorum, self control and maturity is amazing!
Have President Trump declare an emergency for blue states by Executive order and order the U.S. Department of Defense to open the PX facilities across the state to provide cheaper food and gas. Fort Lewis, Everett, McCord, Bremerton, Whidbey Island, Yakima and Spokane should be opened to verified non-military personnel. Please write President Trump. They could easily set up new distribution centers at the Coast Guard bases. The Romans in Washington State have gone too far.
I ask President Trump declare an emergency for blue states by Executive order and order the U.S. Department of Defense to open the PX facilities across the state to provide cheaper food and gas. Fort Lewis, Everett, McCord, Bremerton, Whidbey Island, Yakima and Spokane should be opened to verified non-military personnel. Please write President Trump. They could easily set up new distribution centers at the Coast Guard bases. The Romans in Washington State have gone too far.
I also ask President Trump to investigate the Bureau of Indian Affairs taking land off tax roles by transferring to tax exempt Tribal land. This is causing a hardship for property owners throughout the country, especially rural counties such as Clallam County, Washington.
Because the BIA gives the ability for our county commissioners to block the movement of land to tax-free, the feds have no control. It's basically, you can't ask for a larger agency to do what our commissioners won't do. Focus on that.
Attempts to block journalists from identifying comments and commenters in public forums have been held by the courts as wholly specious. In other words, you have no right to privacy if you speak up in public meetings, either as public official or a member of the public who offers comment. Been there, done that, been through that kind of lawsuit in my career.
Succinctly stated! Sitting thru Thursday's CRC By-laws 2 hour meeting was difficult. The "anonymous" source has posted openly on CCWD many times. So, he has, of his volition, engaged in his right of free speech using electronic media with no fear of "harassment" or "intimidation." The only person who has been unfairly treated and attacked is Jeff. I saw blatant bias of the committee on Thursday. Thank you, Jeff, for being a staunch citizen of free speech!
You're welcome. The true test of my stance on Free Speech will come when the first person criticizes my hair :)
what hair is it of which you speak?
I took that picture before it fell out (which happened after I was elected to the CRC).
Oh my! <blush>
Im spamming this:
I normally would respond higher up, but I believe that your response here making light of the chilling effect is why you being a citizen journalist and a member of the CRC concerning. It is one thing to write opinion pieces as a journalist, but it is another entirely to intertwine personal conspiracy theories with your official capacity as a CRC member, especially when you engage with the individual who prompted you on to your ICLEI-Tribe-County-Commissioner-UN-Agenda Era. This behavior compromises the public trust of not only those that elected you but those who did not which I remind you is foundational to your reporting that elected officials are not representing those who elected them or our right ingoring those that did not. It also raises significant concerns about your ability to be impartial in your duties on the Charter Review Committee. So are you acting on personal agenda or public interest?
Now, I do want to point out some inconsistencies - though I never thought you would have chosen me to do this to and lets see if Ixodes is corrrect about you not correct your reporting when Jesus comes.
What the hell was all that? Are you using ChatGPT again?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Jeff,
You were privy to my email in full — an email I submitted as testimony and which Chairwoman Fisch cited in summary. Instead of including the email itself or linking to it, you chose to reduce it to vague, dismissive language: calling it “anonymous,” mischaracterizing its tone, and quoting selectively to deflect from its substance. You framed my email as "evidence" rather than public testimony presented from a concerned citizen and lied about the time of delivery as if it was only a few hours prior to the CRC's meeting when infact it was forwarded by Loni Gores to all committes members at 7:30 am that day. The meeting was at 4 pm.
The email as delivered was anonymous because I chose to hide my identity for fear of my physcial safety that much could be infered without doubt. However, I explicitly stated I would provide my identity if needed. My words were not evidence of censorship, but a challenge to the ethical conflict posed by your dual role as a CRC commissioner and blogger who actively primes readers to distrust fellow commissioners and in this case other commitee members.
You ignored the core issues I raised: the use of inflammatory language, cherry-picked interaction with your readers (especially when racist or hostile comments go unaddressed), and your repeated framing of normal procedural actions as conspiratorial.
You claim to champion transparency, yet omitted my detailed critique while presenting yourself as the target of vague attacks. If you truly believed in informed public dialogue, you would have published the full contents of my email or linked to it — especially when you're willing to paste and headline far less substantial material. Or outright lie - there could be no evidentiary praise of Fisch in my email or comment. This whole exercise was an attempt to discredit my testimony and redirect attention away from critque of your conduct, misleading editorializing, and selective engagment.
Readers deserve to see what was actually said — not what you selectively frame. You are not being silenced. You are being called to a higher standard of integrity. The question is whether you’ll rise to meet it, or continue hiding behind blog posts that distort criticism into victimhood.
Jeff will lie to you if it means he can poop in your mouth. Straight up, head back and down it like a shooter.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
In addition I will be also submitting my response here into testimony with Charter Review Commission and the following email with it:
I am writing to express my growing concern regarding how public testimony is being represented — or misrepresented — by one of your fellow members, Jeff Tozzer. In his April 5th blog post on Clallam County Watchdog, Mr. Tozzer refers to the email I submitted to the CRC (and which Chairwoman Fisch referenced during the meeting) but chooses not to include its contents or even accurately summarize them.
My email raised specific concerns about Mr. Tozzer’s dual role as both a commissioner and the author of a political blog. I highlighted how his posts routinely frame procedural actions as conspiratorial, engage in selective coverage, and leave inflammatory or racial comments from subscribers unchallenged. I also offered examples of misleading framing across several blog entries.
In his April 5th article, Mr. Tozzer reduces this testimony to an “anonymous email” and fails to provide any context, let alone the full text — despite having it. I stated clearly in the original email that I was willing to be identified if necessary. The mischaracterization of this testimony appears to be a deliberate omission. And out right fabrication of praising Fisch when reporting to the committe memebers of racial commenters. I believer this blog post was design to distract from his reluctance to assume a higher ethical standard in his own reporting and in any actions he may take while committe member.
This pattern of behavior — selectively shaping public narrative while actively participating in commission decisions — creates a chilling effect on public participation and raises serious concerns about fairness and transparency.
I urge the Commission to consider Mr. Tozzer’s conduct not just in relation to public speech but in how he uses his platform to influence perception while omitting or distorting critical input.
- KEVIN <3
Gimme Head With Hair
Long Beautiful Hair
Shining, Gleaming, Streaming, Flaxen, Waxen
If "waxen" includes "turtle waxen," I'm there.
I think you've already gotten a free "turtle waxen" by some CRC members.
Kevin is back:
I normally would respond higher up, but I believe that your response here making light of the chilling effect is why you being a citizen journalist and a member of the CRC concerning. It is one thing to write opinion pieces as a journalist, but it is another entirely to intertwine personal conspiracy theories with your official capacity as a CRC member, especially when you engage with the individual who prompted you on to your ICLEI-Tribe-County-Commissioner-UN-Agenda Era. This behavior compromises the public trust of not only those that elected you but those who did not which I remind you is foundational to your reporting that elected officials are not representing those who elected them or our right ingoring those that did not. It also raises significant concerns about your ability to be impartial in your duties on the Charter Review Committee. So are you acting on personal agenda or public interest?
Now, I do want to point out some inconsistencies - though I never thought you would have chosen me to do this to and lets see if Ixodes is corrrect about you not correct your reporting when Jesus comes.
What the hell was all that? Are you using ChatGPT again?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Jeff,
You were privy to my email in full — an email I submitted as testimony and which Chairwoman Fisch cited in summary. Instead of including the email itself or linking to it, you chose to reduce it to vague, dismissive language: calling it “anonymous,” mischaracterizing its tone, and quoting selectively to deflect from its substance. You framed my email as "evidence" rather than public testimony presented from a concerned citizen and lied about the time of delivery as if it was only a few hours prior to the CRC's meeting when infact it was forwarded by Loni Gores to all committes members at 7:30 am that day. The meeting was at 4 pm.
The email as delivered was anonymous because I chose to hide my identity for fear of my physcial safety that much could be infered without doubt. However, I explicitly stated I would provide my identity if needed. My words were not evidence of censorship, but a challenge to the ethical conflict posed by your dual role as a CRC commissioner and blogger who actively primes readers to distrust fellow commissioners and in this case other commitee members.
You ignored the core issues I raised: the use of inflammatory language, cherry-picked interaction with your readers (especially when racist or hostile comments go unaddressed), and your repeated framing of normal procedural actions as conspiratorial.
You claim to champion transparency, yet omitted my detailed critique while presenting yourself as the target of vague attacks. If you truly believed in informed public dialogue, you would have published the full contents of my email or linked to it — especially when you're willing to paste and headline far less substantial material. Or outright lie - there could be no evidentiary praise of Fisch in my email or comment. This whole exercise was an attempt to discredit my testimony and redirect attention away from critque of your conduct, misleading editorializing, and selective engagment.
Readers deserve to see what was actually said — not what you selectively frame. You are not being silenced. You are being called to a higher standard of integrity. The question is whether you’ll rise to meet it, or continue hiding behind blog posts that distort criticism into victimhood.
Jeff will lie to you if it means he can poop in your mouth. Straight up, head back and down it like a shooter.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
In addition I will be also submitting my response here into testimony with Charter Review Commission and the following email with it:
I am writing to express my growing concern regarding how public testimony is being represented — or misrepresented — by one of your fellow members, Jeff Tozzer. In his April 5th blog post on Clallam County Watchdog, Mr. Tozzer refers to the email I submitted to the CRC (and which Chairwoman Fisch referenced during the meeting) but chooses not to include its contents or even accurately summarize them.
My email raised specific concerns about Mr. Tozzer’s dual role as both a commissioner and the author of a political blog. I highlighted how his posts routinely frame procedural actions as conspiratorial, engage in selective coverage, and leave inflammatory or racial comments from subscribers unchallenged. I also offered examples of misleading framing across several blog entries.
In his April 5th article, Mr. Tozzer reduces this testimony to an “anonymous email” and fails to provide any context, let alone the full text — despite having it. I stated clearly in the original email that I was willing to be identified if necessary. The mischaracterization of this testimony appears to be a deliberate omission. And out right fabrication of praising Fisch when reporting to the committe memebers of racial commenters. I believer this blog post was design to distract from his reluctance to assume a higher ethical standard in his own reporting and in any actions he may take while committe member.
This pattern of behavior — selectively shaping public narrative while actively participating in commission decisions — creates a chilling effect on public participation and raises serious concerns about fairness and transparency.
I urge the Commission to consider Mr. Tozzer’s conduct not just in relation to public speech but in how he uses his platform to influence perception while omitting or distorting critical input.
- KEVIN <3
As above, so below!?😆
Oh gawd!
Hey. Kevin is here. I definitely post under a pseudonym to protect my identity because Jeff does not directly incite violence, he does not temper or police the comment section for it. As evidence by my few days of posting comments here it is was evident by the action of a few commenters that they were only looking for my name to appear without reading the content of the the other Kevin's comment. I would say thats at the minimum toxic, and at the worst hostile...maybe ignorant.
Anywas this commnt be ignorant as heck. You assume that I posted no fear of harassment or intimidation. Thats the primary reason I do post under a pseudonym. I have witness a few common subscribers who require that dissenting commenters make their identity known or be dismissed as less than Jeff. Your take does underestimate what could happen having one's legal name on display here, given that conspiracies theories involving NGO's, environemntal groups, and municipals officals are the scope of the reporting on this blog. I, having been an intern and volunteer for a few of them certainly makes me concerned for my physically safety if I had made my name googleable. I invite you to search your own name on google and see what is publically available information.
Also, are you Jeff's surrogate mom? Do you pinch his cheeks?
Let’s talk about why they hate Jeff so much. Why do they hate Jeff so much?
If you don’t want to be identified as having spoken at a public gathering, don’t speak at public gatherings.
Let's not take "his beauty is intimidating" off the table.
Let's talk about law, and how Jeff was tangled up in it: https://ixodes.substack.com/p/trains-brains-and-megadeals
I've watched CRC meetings by video. It's interesting how the panel has had county officials attend to help flush out details, especially when it comes to the coroner matter. The details are important, and also what will take time to move anything to the BOCCC for approval, or to ballot for a vote.
I don't recall a county official giving any color to the Water Steward/Czar position, but for some reason Water Activist sounds more appropriate given the way this is coming about unless someone starts spilling the beans what this person would actually do. I'll take a stab at this. It'll be sent to the BOCC vs going to the voters for a vote to be approved.
The switch from a 3 to 5-person BOCCC will cost the county additional money, that given the tight budget will add financial strain to the citizens, but I support that because it's a cost spread out among all citizens to equally represent all, in a better way. Adding a Water Activist person will cost the county additional money, but not equally serve everyone despite burdening everyone. I'm against the Water Activist position because I'm concerned that it'll be used for agenda driven ideology.
The ranked voting matter is also something I'm against. It is known to be confusing, and disenfranchising to certain segments of society based on information I found online. With an aging population, the last thing we need to do is confuse our voters more, or to inhibit others from voting. I urge people to speak against this measure, and this at a minimum needs to be done in writing, or in person by attending a CRC meeting either remotely or in person.
Soule has taken over the water resource (in her mind) years ago...entitled communists are more dangerous than they appear...We've been put on notice...read between the lines. 🤓
we could simply move to 5, and take the salaries of the 3-commissioners, and divide that by 5. Less work, more hands. What we'd have to ask for is that the County Commissioners salaries be unhooked from the judicial salaries (right now theirs inches up as the judges salaries rise). Five makes more sense in so many ways. And, who cares how our "population" compares to other 5 commissioner counties. Ours is a very LARGE and very diverse county -- you cannot expect someone from Sequim to even understand what someone from Neah Bay needs in the way of representation. It's been a good idea for a long time, and come up in prior Charter Reviews.
You're absolutely correct. I can't imagine those west of the Elwha appreciate their lack of representation.
"Water Witch"? But, alas, that has a different connotation.
We already have a Water Steward... the Irrigation Festival Queen. She's nonpartisan, oversees water usage, and does it all in a beautiful gown. Problem solved!
This guys is thinking today. Not bad.
Thank you Jeff for keeping the public informed on these issues. Most people would never know what is happening with our local leaders, since it isn't covered by other media. It's strange how threatened they feel, by public scrutiny. Although those in power often try to crush dissent, rather than improve themselves. Hang in there.
Thanks Jacks for having our backs during all the attacks so we can relax.
I'm Kevin. I wrote the email Jeff is but does not include in his reporting. It is a public record and I intended it as such - Frankly I do not care if people email me there, it is a throwaway account. He has had no problem of including such communication prior but has chosen to use journalistic air quotes in my case. It was provided to all members of the CRC, and was previously posted in the comments section of the narrative flipping blog post titles, "We will not be silenced (but you might". I admit I wrote it late at night since I am not retired and take care of my 88 yeard old grandpa.
That said. Here is the email:
Hello,
I am writing to express my wishes that a comment I made on Clallam County Watchdog in reply to Jeff Tozzer the author of said blog, who asked, "Why shouldn't journalist be in government", be entered as testimony. To be clear his is a member of the Charter Review Committee and the author the blog, Clallam County Watchdog. Can you please forward this to all Charter Review Members, please? If my identity need be known I am willing to do so only certain circumstances. I believe that Jeff Tozzer has knowingly bred resentment in his subscribers by never interacting with the most inflammatory, or racial commenters. He prefers to only interact if it is pertinent question to the blog post or a personal compliment.
Here is the comment which I am including in full, and with typos, "
It comes to your position among elected members of the CRC and being the author of a blog that dabbles in sensationalism. It does lately seem that there is degradation of your normal tidy, but performative, reporting. Take for instance your progression in "Balancing Transparency and Soveignty", "The Chilling Effect", and todays blog post which has this odd title appealing to your subscribers suggesting that they might be silenced when the case is that you as CRC member may have to act impartially.
In "Balancing..." you seeming highlighted yourself as the champion of transparency -including playing on the fears of non-tribal citizens being arrested for protesting on tribal land- while Johnston was presumed to be the antagonist going as far as to suggest further allegations of impropriety, regarding the passing of the recent bond measure, as a school board member.
However in "The Chilling Effect" you, as the champion of transparency, were brought to admit in your capacity on the CRC that you had largely omited the contents of the exchange due to Substacks limitation of publishing in only one color (A claim of technical limitations that prevented complete and transparent presentation of the exchange feels flimsy - especially when you were aware of other means to clarify). Then you wade into a common trope of your reporting: using charge language and guided titles to give readers the impression of collusion by alleging that Johnston and others had preplanned the reconvening of the bylaws commitee to censor you and including the bolded header, "a plan unfolds".
You now rail against the idea that you would have to clarifiy if you had to present yourself as private citizen offering commentary on your own blog or doing so as member of the CRC while seeking to reframe your mishap as an attack on free speach.
What is mosty telling fellow subscribers, is that Jeff, the sole source of information on local reporting - which a fair amount of you admit - has regressed from a paragon of public integrity to using the same schema he accuses the multiple muncipal officials, tribal leaders, and executives of NGO's as using. Instead of owning up to selective reporting , he recast himself as an advocate of free speech under threat. It's a classic "when critizied, change the subject". Your strong and boisterous watchdog is now with its tail tucked between its legs. He is choosing to ignore the legitimate concerns of misrepresentation to which Fisch spoke to, that is the chilling effect that puts peoples live in danger.
Honestly a lot of these people need to support free community college. In just a few days it was plain as day that many of these commenters are "true believers" in what you have been publishing. Keeping mind that you are their elected official, and their sole source on local politics because they belive in you integrity. It worrisome and fascinating how many of them will come to rescue when commenters have a differing opinion calling them trolls or telling them to open their eyes. In the four days that I have interacted with this blog it is clear you have let the koolaid brew. I was gone one day and two of you commenters mistook a disabled veterna (Kevin R.) for me, Kevin. You got a dude down here saying that the literal meaning of fired was just that... fire. And another saying that that public officials upkeep a perception of stupidity because its the only thing that keeps them from being strung up by lamposts.
I will being emailing Loni Gores so that this can be submitted into testimony. And by they way, how often would you say that you use ChatGPT in the course of writing your blog?"
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Jeff can confirm this with you. He is the sole provider of written media.
My comment that I chose to submit as testimony focused on:
Holding Jeff accountable for selective engagement and framing
Highlighting contradictions in his reporting
Pointing out that his subscriber base is primed by sensationalism
Calling out harmful or unchecked rhetoric in his comment section
Is todays article another attack by Jeff?
Yes, names have been printed, facts have been presented.
Is there transparency? Yes, facts substantiate clarity.
If it is not okay to attack but it is okay to attack back is the attack back okay because it wasn’t done first?
The old “you did it to me first” so there, isn’t this two wrongs don’t make a right? Yes it is.
Perfect example: Ms. Johnston did say, as she quoted attacks people wrote without naming names so it wouldn’t appear be an “attack”. Yet she attacked back naming Jeff as her attacker. Ms. Johnston returned email to Jeff’s questions in her capacity & knowledge of her elected public school board position. Whether using personal email or school board doesn’t matter it is the content & what capacity she writes. Then Ms. Johnston claims Jeff attacked a private citizen by divulging her identity to attack her. Ms. Johnston has made it very clear she is an attorney many times.
Ms. Fisch insists the Charter Review needs a new rule to protect her close personal friend, Ms. Johnston, an elected public school board member and one last minute anonymous email that needs an attorney to interpret its content after reading. Another words the email is ambiguous with unclear unsubstantiated jumbled up writings
designed to confuse & distract any issue.
It appears more and more the CRC is being used for many personal issues instead of the issues the committee has deemed important to serve our County charter. The committee, our elected representatives, determined the line priorities. Yet those priorities mean nothing with Ms. Fisch at the controls & her political cronies, yes there are political cronies (the Soros type) AT THE READY on the committee.
My question as a public person:
Why would anyone want to attend a meeting to observe or speak if this is going to happen? I feel my rights are being attacked & don’t matter. When do the issues of the public matter to the many many 3 minute speakers other than the personal issues of the committee chair?
The last minute email was the equivalent of the BLM porn we saw to take out pictures.
They are masters of the lie.. They have lied to the citizens of this county for 14 years. Getting hopes up to grow but not showing the Soros map of our county where they want "little to no use." Every dime Congress sent to us to help us grow and prosper was intercepted by the Soros gang so there would in fact be "little to no use."
They probably never imagined someone would put it all together for the public. I did. They blocked it from public view. That way the Soros gang can run their little schemes that don't make sense without opposition or what opposition there is can be marginalized.
Speaking of which, I think there was a commie rally at the Sequim Civic center today...
Last minute a group from the non-commie side got together and joined them, I'm sure they were real happy about that :)
Kevins off of work now. Its about me now. So here my response.
I normally would respond higher up, but I believe that your response here making light of the chilling effect is why you being a citizen journalist and a member of the CRC concerning. It is one thing to write opinion pieces as a journalist, but it is another entirely to intertwine personal conspiracy theories with your official capacity as a CRC member, especially when you engage with the individual who prompted you on to your ICLEI-Tribe-County-Commissioner-UN-Agenda Era. This behavior compromises the public trust of not only those that elected you but those who did not which I remind you is foundational to your reporting that elected officials are not representing those who elected them or our right ingoring those that did not. It also raises significant concerns about your ability to be impartial in your duties on the Charter Review Committee. So are you acting on personal agenda or public interest?
Now, I do want to point out some inconsistencies - though I never thought you would have chosen me to do this to and lets see if Ixodes is corrrect about you not correct your reporting when Jesus comes.
What the hell was all that? Are you using ChatGPT again?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Jeff,
You were privy to my email in full — an email I submitted as testimony and which Chairwoman Fisch cited in summary. Instead of including the email itself or linking to it, you chose to reduce it to vague, dismissive language: calling it “anonymous,” mischaracterizing its tone, and quoting selectively to deflect from its substance. You framed my email as "evidence" rather than public testimony presented from a concerned citizen and lied about the time of delivery as if it was only a few hours prior to the CRC's meeting when infact it was forwarded by Loni Gores to all committes members at 7:30 am that day. The meeting was at 4 pm.
The email as delivered was anonymous because I chose to hide my identity for fear of my physcial safety that much could be infered without doubt. However, I explicitly stated I would provide my identity if needed. My words were not evidence of censorship, but a challenge to the ethical conflict posed by your dual role as a CRC commissioner and blogger who actively primes readers to distrust fellow commissioners and in this case other commitee members.
You ignored the core issues I raised: the use of inflammatory language, cherry-picked interaction with your readers (especially when racist or hostile comments go unaddressed), and your repeated framing of normal procedural actions as conspiratorial.
You claim to champion transparency, yet omitted my detailed critique while presenting yourself as the target of vague attacks. If you truly believed in informed public dialogue, you would have published the full contents of my email or linked to it — especially when you're willing to paste and headline far less substantial material. Or outright lie - there could be no evidentiary praise of Fisch in my email or comment. This whole exercise was an attempt to discredit my testimony and redirect attention away from critque of your conduct, misleading editorializing, and selective engagment.
Readers deserve to see what was actually said — not what you selectively frame. You are not being silenced. You are being called to a higher standard of integrity. The question is whether you’ll rise to meet it, or continue hiding behind blog posts that distort criticism into victimhood.
Jeff will lie to you if it means he can poop in your mouth. Straight up, head back and down it like a shooter.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
In addition I will be also submitting my response here into testimony with Charter Review Commission and the following email with it:
I am writing to express my growing concern regarding how public testimony is being represented — or misrepresented — by one of your fellow members, Jeff Tozzer. In his April 5th blog post on Clallam County Watchdog, Mr. Tozzer refers to the email I submitted to the CRC (and which Chairwoman Fisch referenced during the meeting) but chooses not to include its contents or even accurately summarize them.
My email raised specific concerns about Mr. Tozzer’s dual role as both a commissioner and the author of a political blog. I highlighted how his posts routinely frame procedural actions as conspiratorial, engage in selective coverage, and leave inflammatory or racial comments from subscribers unchallenged. I also offered examples of misleading framing across several blog entries.
In his April 5th article, Mr. Tozzer reduces this testimony to an “anonymous email” and fails to provide any context, let alone the full text — despite having it. I stated clearly in the original email that I was willing to be identified if necessary. The mischaracterization of this testimony appears to be a deliberate omission. And out right fabrication of praising Fisch when reporting to the committe memebers of racial commenters. I believer this blog post was design to distract from his reluctance to assume a higher ethical standard in his own reporting and in any actions he may take while committe member.
This pattern of behavior — selectively shaping public narrative while actively participating in commission decisions — creates a chilling effect on public participation and raises serious concerns about fairness and transparency.
I urge the Commission to consider Mr. Tozzer’s conduct not just in relation to public speech but in how he uses his platform to influence perception while omitting or distorting critical input.
- KEVIN <3
He did not even show the whole email. And you got all that going on now. Not to mention I did not praise Fisch in the comment or the emai. That's him getting high on his own brand.
What is the sound of one person attacking?
If an attack occurs in the forest and no one cares, was it really an attack?
:-)
I just smacked my forehead for not thinking of this sooner (and yes, it made a sound.)
This is exactly how socialism/communism works...Read the Epoch Times Volumes 1+2 of "How The Specter of Communism Is Ruling Our World" for detailed explanation...Infiltration...gradualism...now they are openly grappling for power...they already have the reins... and are attempting to steer us right of the cliff to Totalitarianism.
We can only prevail by abolishing the form of gov't which has usurped control...there is no re-forming it.
We may not prevail and if not... our lives will be not worth the living.
The Marxist/Leninist trained overseers now running our governments and schools are not going to 'see the light'...they are well compensated in pensions and positions and are self-righteous and arrogant and ignorant beyond normal comprehension.
I wish us well and hope for the best but not super-optimistic if you catch my drift.
TRUTH, JUSTICE, LIBERTY AND TOUGH LOVE!😎
Hi it is Kevin. I rewrote the comment that needed an attorney to decipher. Also, community college is still an option for you as we previous discussed.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
You asked why a journalist shouldn’t be involved in government. I think the real issue is that you are both a member of the Charter Review Commission (CRC) and the author of a blog that uses dramatic language. Lately, your reporting doesn’t feel as fair or as clear as it used to. For example, in your posts “Balancing Transparency and Sovereignty,” “The Chilling Effect,” and your most recent one, “We Will Not Be Silenced (But You Might),” there’s a clear pattern. You seem to be writing headlines that scare your readers and get them to think you’re being attacked—when really, people just want you to be impartial in your CRC role.
In “Balancing Transparency and Sovereignty,” you made it look like you were fighting for free speech, while making it seem like Johnston was the bad guy. You even hinted that she might have done something wrong in her role on the school board.
In “The Chilling Effect,” you admitted that you left out part of an important exchange, blaming it on Substack’s color limitations. That excuse seems weak. You could’ve found another way to share the full story. Instead, you suggested that Johnston and others were secretly planning to stop you from speaking, with a dramatic headline: “A Plan Unfolds.”
Now, you’re upset that people think you should say whether you're speaking as a CRC member or just a private citizen when you post on your blog. But instead of being clear and honest about your mistake, you’ve made it sound like your free speech is under attack.
That’s the problem. A lot of your readers trust you as their main source for local news. They believe in your honesty. But instead of showing integrity, you're using the same misleading tactics you criticize others for. When someone questions you, you change the subject and say you're being silenced.
Many of your supporters attack people who disagree, calling them trolls or saying they’re blind. I was only away from the blog for a day, and two people confused a disabled veteran named Kevin R. for me. One commenter said “fired” literally meant being set on fire. Another said public officials pretend to be dumb to avoid being lycnhed. That’s extreme and dangerous thinking.
I plan to email Loni Gores so this can be submitted as testimony. Also—how often do you use ChatGPT when you write your blog?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Hi. Its John. I guess there might be a gem in there somewhere but I couldn't find it. Looks like Jeff sure got to you and you overcame the chilling effect just like Johnston did.
If there is anything I can take away from this blog it is: ignorance as way of life.
What you should be taking away from this blog are better idea's than the ones your preferred leadership has. They have to lie, block video and send out the wives to attack on their behalf..
Rather than confront the actual idea, they first try to send emails amongst themselves to keep their grandiose perception of themselves intact. Then when that does not work they resort to gang stalking and cyber stalking the individual who opposes them..
All the while not ever being able to debate the idea only to follow the bouncing liberal ball that "yawl" get reimbursed for if you obey.. Yours is the Soros way of life. Hiding behind clever stage names and trying to score on personal attacks. Your score here is nil Kev.
Its like asking the God of Sha Ka Ree why he needs a starship.
Only to get zapped like Dr. McCoy by an anonymous discophile who is frustrated he has to wait until he gets off work to zap the doubters of Sha Ka Ree.
"doesn't feel as fair"... <eye roll> Stop with the feelings already.
Well that was the dumbed down version...
indeed.
They are implementing the Soros plan developed by the world especially for us over at the NODC and SERN which are also funded by Soros thru the "Open Society Foundation.". They will be reimbursed by Soros for holding Nazi signs towards Musk and Trump from 6000 miles away at the corner. Its us against Soros. They work for Soros now and they have nothing to say to us and they don't want to hear from you, because Soros has already told them what to do. They have to make sure the NODC "action plans" not only get developed and implemented, they get maintained. "Clear path" was vital to keep the "action plan" on the rails. It monitors our process locally but purposely avoids the economic footprint of where we get our stuff from, because the world economy they want to build is an environmental formula that will never pass muster.
The world now owns most of our food. Now they come for the water.
I have tried to stop them with the Jimmycomelately science for 4 years now. They want nothing of it. They are not willing to put in the best system developed yet and paid for by the Water Conservation District all over because rechanneling brings power to gain property.
Rechanneling and tributaries takes more water. They eliminated both at Jimmycomelately. What the Soros gang did not plan for or can overcome is the engineering plan at Jimmycomelately. Its where Patton would smack the map. They developed a system with a higher percentage of spawning success to justify building a fixed meandering coil at 3 percent grade. It is protecting the property around it and giving better spawning results. It needs to be implemented from Blyn to the coast to conserve water, and to protect the many bridges and roads. Even the Hoh.
They forget Russell H. Barker so quick and how people died driving into the Bogachiel river after the river took out a bridge.
God rest Russell! One of the stranger things that ever happened in The West End.
My Dad worked with Russell's Dad, Ernie in the 50', 60's, 70's...lotta whiskey involved!
Fork's 'Survivor Syndromer' here!
50 year class reunion this Summer!🤓😱
If it ever gets out of hand, remember that we outnumber them. Bring your pitchforks, tar, and feathers, or more. :-)
And tridents! The Water Steward definitely carries a trident.
We can't use sharp objects or pinch rumpuses.
$2,000 a week?
Soule's presentation at the Sequim CRC meeting is classic Hegelian and Delphi Techniques combined.
There was/is a predetermined agenda presented as "Problem(water)-Reaction(fear)-Solution(control) AND Setting it up as the only responsible course via Soule and League of Women Voters (communists)...not making it up...do your research.
Hegel's methodology gives the 'Problem, Reaction, Solution.'
Delphi Technique 'leads' us to the 'only' acceptable answer ...this is why they don't want dialogue or debate...they DO NOT WANT accountability... but we are to be accountable to them. Good obedient proletariats...that is all! History repeats...too soon old...too late smart!🥸OBEY!😎
I brung't the Koolaid.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Hegel’s Hidden Masterplan? Or Just a Complicated Philosopher?
So apparently, Hegel isn’t just the guy who penned some convoluted ideas—he’s now being accused of masterminding public crises. In reality, his dialectic is about ideas evolving, not about crafting crises to control our every move. If you're going to blame him for a global mind control scheme, at least read the damn book before you start conspiracy theories.
Delphi or Delusional? Exposing the ‘Secret’ Technique
Next up is the Delphi Technique, which some claim is the ultimate tool of mind control. News flash: It’s a respected method for gathering expert opinions—not a Jedi mind trick for brainwashing the masses. If you think structured dialogue is a secret plot, you might want to check if your tinfoil hat is on straight.
League of Women Voters: The Communist Cabal We Never Knew Existed?
And then there’s the crowning absurdity: calling the League of Women Voters communists. For over 100 years, they've been educating voters and promoting democracy. Yet here they are, painted as shadowy communists plotting to overthrow society. If voter education is a communist scheme, then congratulations— everyone is getting a ball gag.
Accountability or Control? How Jeff’s Sensationalism Silences Real Debate
Let's call a spade a spade: Jeff’s constant editorializing isn’t about holding power to account—it’s about creating a spectacle. Instead of fostering genuine debate or exposing the real issues, his sensationalism serves as a smokescreen that distracts from the absence of true accountability. Rather than asking the tough questions, he just asks them as narratives in of themself. Ding dong it's dominos.
Final Word: Stop the Paranoia, Start the Conversation
Before you dive headfirst into the next rabbit hole of conspiracies, remember: facts matter more than fear-fueled narratives. Hegel isn’t plotting our downfall, the Delphi Technique isn’t a government mind-control trick, and the League of Women Voters? They're just trying to keep democracy alive—no secret cabals here, just a whole lot of misplaced paranoia.
Pick me up, Jeff! But he shouldn't have to cuz guaranteed you are all 60+ and still falling for this.
Sorry I gave you the benefit of the doubt, Kevin...you are a system apologist and you flip-flop like a fish out of water.
No more dialogue with you my wiggly friend!
Buh-bye!
Heres some more:
I normally would respond higher up, but I believe that your response here making light of the chilling effect is why you being a citizen journalist and a member of the CRC concerning. It is one thing to write opinion pieces as a journalist, but it is another entirely to intertwine personal conspiracy theories with your official capacity as a CRC member, especially when you engage with the individual who prompted you on to your ICLEI-Tribe-County-Commissioner-UN-Agenda Era. This behavior compromises the public trust of not only those that elected you but those who did not which I remind you is foundational to your reporting that elected officials are not representing those who elected them or our right ingoring those that did not. It also raises significant concerns about your ability to be impartial in your duties on the Charter Review Committee. So are you acting on personal agenda or public interest?
Now, I do want to point out some inconsistencies - though I never thought you would have chosen me to do this to and lets see if Ixodes is corrrect about you not correct your reporting when Jesus comes.
What the hell was all that? Are you using ChatGPT again?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Jeff,
You were privy to my email in full — an email I submitted as testimony and which Chairwoman Fisch cited in summary. Instead of including the email itself or linking to it, you chose to reduce it to vague, dismissive language: calling it “anonymous,” mischaracterizing its tone, and quoting selectively to deflect from its substance. You framed my email as "evidence" rather than public testimony presented from a concerned citizen and lied about the time of delivery as if it was only a few hours prior to the CRC's meeting when infact it was forwarded by Loni Gores to all committes members at 7:30 am that day. The meeting was at 4 pm.
The email as delivered was anonymous because I chose to hide my identity for fear of my physcial safety that much could be infered without doubt. However, I explicitly stated I would provide my identity if needed. My words were not evidence of censorship, but a challenge to the ethical conflict posed by your dual role as a CRC commissioner and blogger who actively primes readers to distrust fellow commissioners and in this case other commitee members.
You ignored the core issues I raised: the use of inflammatory language, cherry-picked interaction with your readers (especially when racist or hostile comments go unaddressed), and your repeated framing of normal procedural actions as conspiratorial.
You claim to champion transparency, yet omitted my detailed critique while presenting yourself as the target of vague attacks. If you truly believed in informed public dialogue, you would have published the full contents of my email or linked to it — especially when you're willing to paste and headline far less substantial material. Or outright lie - there could be no evidentiary praise of Fisch in my email or comment. This whole exercise was an attempt to discredit my testimony and redirect attention away from critque of your conduct, misleading editorializing, and selective engagment.
Readers deserve to see what was actually said — not what you selectively frame. You are not being silenced. You are being called to a higher standard of integrity. The question is whether you’ll rise to meet it, or continue hiding behind blog posts that distort criticism into victimhood.
Jeff will lie to you if it means he can poop in your mouth. Straight up, head back and down it like a shooter.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
In addition I will be also submitting my response here into testimony with Charter Review Commission and the following email with it:
I am writing to express my growing concern regarding how public testimony is being represented — or misrepresented — by one of your fellow members, Jeff Tozzer. In his April 5th blog post on Clallam County Watchdog, Mr. Tozzer refers to the email I submitted to the CRC (and which Chairwoman Fisch referenced during the meeting) but chooses not to include its contents or even accurately summarize them.
My email raised specific concerns about Mr. Tozzer’s dual role as both a commissioner and the author of a political blog. I highlighted how his posts routinely frame procedural actions as conspiratorial, engage in selective coverage, and leave inflammatory or racial comments from subscribers unchallenged. I also offered examples of misleading framing across several blog entries.
In his April 5th article, Mr. Tozzer reduces this testimony to an “anonymous email” and fails to provide any context, let alone the full text — despite having it. I stated clearly in the original email that I was willing to be identified if necessary. The mischaracterization of this testimony appears to be a deliberate omission. And out right fabrication of praising Fisch when reporting to the committe memebers of racial commenters. I believer this blog post was design to distract from his reluctance to assume a higher ethical standard in his own reporting and in any actions he may take while committe member.
This pattern of behavior — selectively shaping public narrative while actively participating in commission decisions — creates a chilling effect on public participation and raises serious concerns about fairness and transparency.
I urge the Commission to consider Mr. Tozzer’s conduct not just in relation to public speech but in how he uses his platform to influence perception while omitting or distorting critical input.
- KEVIN <3
I am absolutely against appointment of a so-called Water Steward or whatever other title they come up with. No one person should have a post like that. We see the city and county approving new home building projects claiming there is enough water to support the projects, then I'm against the push for the rest of us to conserve (control) water usage. Enough already! County leadership is already well down the track of "agenda driven" non-transparent "leadership"..... if we have any chance to correct these problems we must first get under control whatever and whomever is already in place pushing the agenda, namely the county commissioners and those groups aligned with them. When they call out the activists it almost always means the money is already on (or under) the table.
Water Oligarch
That lady holding the sign hates the Jimmycomelately argument. At the summer show at the nature center, she actually states before she took off her apron and threw it down, that the Jimmycomelately still re-channels. She threw her apron when I showed her consecutive pictures of Jimmycomelatey in 2004 and 2024. It had not moved. She was intentionally trying to create a scene to get me removed from the exhibition.
Were you attacking, harassing, and intimidating her with facts? That's called "the chilling effect."
Other people were listening and even walking over to look at the signs. She threw off her apron to break up the illustration. She was not chilled until the facts came in. Then she tried to get WDFW and USFS officers attention. They talked and pointed but never came over. I started with those guys first so they already saw the signs and got the presentation. They all tried to promote the re-channeling and tributary argument. I beat them all that day. Nobody could overcome the Jimmycomelately presentation.
Thank you, John!
Yup! Truth has a chilling effect on liars and miscreants.
OR IN THIS CASE AN INCENDIARY EFFECT!😱
Throwing temper tantrums is the best way to get what you want, isn't it?
Along with lying, cheating , stealing and other leftist-liberal extremisms.🤔
I normally would respond higher up, but I believe that your response here making light of the chilling effect is why you being a citizen journalist and a member of the CRC concerning. It is one thing to write opinion pieces as a journalist, but it is another entirely to intertwine personal conspiracy theories with your official capacity as a CRC member, especially when you engage with the individual who prompted you on to your ICLEI-Tribe-County-Commissioner-UN-Agenda Era. This behavior compromises the public trust of not only those that elected you but those who did not which I remind you is foundational to your reporting that elected officials are not representing those who elected them or our right ingoring those that did not. It also raises significant concerns about your ability to be impartial in your duties on the Charter Review Committee. So are you acting on personal agenda or public interest?
Now, I do want to point out some inconsistencies - though I never thought you would have chosen me to do this to and lets see if Ixodes is corrrect about you not correct your reporting when Jesus comes.
What the hell was all that? Are you using ChatGPT again?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Jeff,
You were privy to my email in full — an email I submitted as testimony and which Chairwoman Fisch cited in summary. Instead of including the email itself or linking to it, you chose to reduce it to vague, dismissive language: calling it “anonymous,” mischaracterizing its tone, and quoting selectively to deflect from its substance. You framed my email as "evidence" rather than public testimony presented from a concerned citizen and lied about the time of delivery as if it was only a few hours prior to the CRC's meeting when infact it was forwarded by Loni Gores to all committes members at 7:30 am that day. The meeting was at 4 pm.
The email as delivered was anonymous because I chose to hide my identity for fear of my physcial safety that much could be infered without doubt. However, I explicitly stated I would provide my identity if needed. My words were not evidence of censorship, but a challenge to the ethical conflict posed by your dual role as a CRC commissioner and blogger who actively primes readers to distrust fellow commissioners and in this case other commitee members.
You ignored the core issues I raised: the use of inflammatory language, cherry-picked interaction with your readers (especially when racist or hostile comments go unaddressed), and your repeated framing of normal procedural actions as conspiratorial.
You claim to champion transparency, yet omitted my detailed critique while presenting yourself as the target of vague attacks. If you truly believed in informed public dialogue, you would have published the full contents of my email or linked to it — especially when you're willing to paste and headline far less substantial material. Or outright lie - there could be no evidentiary praise of Fisch in my email or comment. This whole exercise was an attempt to discredit my testimony and redirect attention away from critque of your conduct, misleading editorializing, and selective engagment.
Readers deserve to see what was actually said — not what you selectively frame. You are not being silenced. You are being called to a higher standard of integrity. The question is whether you’ll rise to meet it, or continue hiding behind blog posts that distort criticism into victimhood.
Jeff will lie to you if it means he can poop in your mouth. Straight up, head back and down it like a shooter.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
In addition I will be also submitting my response here into testimony with Charter Review Commission and the following email with it:
I am writing to express my growing concern regarding how public testimony is being represented — or misrepresented — by one of your fellow members, Jeff Tozzer. In his April 5th blog post on Clallam County Watchdog, Mr. Tozzer refers to the email I submitted to the CRC (and which Chairwoman Fisch referenced during the meeting) but chooses not to include its contents or even accurately summarize them.
My email raised specific concerns about Mr. Tozzer’s dual role as both a commissioner and the author of a political blog. I highlighted how his posts routinely frame procedural actions as conspiratorial, engage in selective coverage, and leave inflammatory or racial comments from subscribers unchallenged. I also offered examples of misleading framing across several blog entries.
In his April 5th article, Mr. Tozzer reduces this testimony to an “anonymous email” and fails to provide any context, let alone the full text — despite having it. I stated clearly in the original email that I was willing to be identified if necessary. The mischaracterization of this testimony appears to be a deliberate omission. And out right fabrication of praising Fisch when reporting to the committe memebers of racial commenters. I believer this blog post was design to distract from his reluctance to assume a higher ethical standard in his own reporting and in any actions he may take while committe member.
This pattern of behavior — selectively shaping public narrative while actively participating in commission decisions — creates a chilling effect on public participation and raises serious concerns about fairness and transparency.
I urge the Commission to consider Mr. Tozzer’s conduct not just in relation to public speech but in how he uses his platform to influence perception while omitting or distorting critical input.
- KEVIN <3
Unfortunately for Clallam County citizens, he who pays the piper calls the tunes. This is not acceptable and the obvious back door move to silence you Jeff is BS! This must not be allowed to stand.
I do hope that the good folks of Clallam County have the common sense to COMPLETELY reject this complete garbage science that the deeply corrupt so-called "scientists" are always hyping about water being scarce and needing to be controlled and even more heavily monitored & restricted by the usual clown show of oppressive big government~! These usual suspects (currently unindicted criminals) within government and their despicable paid stooges who have absolutely no honor or integrity always insist upon foolishly and/or criminally following the "fake science" dogma. These are the same kinds of fake & criminally corrupt scientists who got millions of innocent folks murdered & seriously disabled all over the world with their "safe & effective" fake COVID "vaccines"~! They always have all of their pre-designed pre-planned "fake statistics & studies" that they push to scare the general population, along with their brightly colored "charts" that are really only infantile weak attempts to create a sense of urgency where absolutely none exists. They have ALL been consistently dead wrong about EVERY single major prediction that they have made to scare people for many decades now. That is THE clue as to their evil underhanded intentions, and it could well be their downfall in a future court of justice. Neither nature nor the residents of Clallam County need the government to be further weaponized against the natural world so that the evil hidden agendas of the few can be satisfied. These are VERY serious crimes against nature and humanity itself. I/We monitor the flow of the natural water systems here regularly and we defy anyone to provide a shred of honest repeatable evidence that there is any urgent issue with the regions natural water, that remotely merits the absurd panic that the usual fake science liars are pushing to scare folks about natural water availability~! The truth is that our natural water availability is well within the historically normal range of abundance and the liars & manipulators within and outside of our government are unfortunately also acting within their disgustingly "normal" range of criminality as well~! Our wonderful community would improve 100% overnight if "we" demanded that ALL "scientific reports & studies" be unquestionably supported by a preponderance of facts and NOT flimsy & scientifically unsupportable "crystal ball" predictions that stink of hidden agendas~! Criminalize "fake science" and make the penalties extreme for these wicked social engineering freaks~!
This blatant attack upon free speech, especially by some sort of coward who is attempting to hide behind fake crocodile tears so he/she can safely throw rocks at honest and reputable Individuals who are simply doing their duty as Americans, is absolutely unconstitutional by any stretch of the imagination~! There must be no attention paid to "anonymous claims" of supposed yet suspiciously convenient "fear", especially by a sole individual of obviously dubious character and intent~! I smell the government rat's usual set up to not only control the narrative that they are obviously struggling to maintain, but to also quash free speech itself. You few anti-American anti-Constitutional criminals are well noted and identified by your own behavior and words themselves~! If you have anything to say, be honorable enough to stand up to say it or don't say anything at all~! If the public reaction to what you have to say is SO fearful for you where you need special hiding privileges, that should be a clue that it is wrong headed, probably criminal, and against the vast majority of the public will and public good~! Still, everyone in America has the right to speak their minds, HOWEVER it is "our" American right to peacefully contest your words and counter them with our own words of free speech. The overwhelming majority of good folks in our community will stand by to protect your right of free speech, however that does not afford you any more right to free speech that anyone else, nor does it mean that you can take "pot shots" at those who have the integrity & honor to stand up to public scrutiny in a peaceful public forum~! Enough with the ridiculously childish government games and special privileges for the few, at the expense of the health and well-being of the entire community that deserves FAR better~! Sincerely, Mike
well, we needed some common sense before we blew out the Elwha dam... ever since, PA runs low on water from the deep well, every summer, which allows the city to raise the water rates in an "emergency".
I think the removal of the dam was more in line with the "anti-growth" movements of the 1970s-80s (Growth Management Acts) often referred to as NEPA-like Environmental Planning. (NEPA in WA state is called SEPA --RCW 43.21 C--passed in the 1980's... ) All these restrictions have caused building costs to rise, and has added a thick layer of government oversight. It's in direct conflict with building housing in our area.
Every decade our various government entities do their "comprehensive plan" (now mostly written by over-paid consultants) because the state mandates it under the guise of "growth management". https://www.commerce.wa.gov/growth-management/
The water is just a further cog in this plan.
In the late 1990s a huge topic of government "white papers" was how to keep global corporations (i.e. Nestle) out of owning water, as water was seen as the next big thing to game (this was during the Enron fiasco). The United Nations declared water as a human right, and identified water scarcity, etc. There are various entities like The Global Water Initiative that deems to "address water-related challenges through collaboration and research".
Clearly whom-ever controls the water, controls the people (much like how a small number of secretive families control all the wheat trade in the world. Excellent book by Dan Morgan "Merchants of Grain".).
I find that this article by Pal Donahue (august 2005) sums up the situation well. http://www.pauldonahue.net/who_owns_earths_water.html
There is an excellent list of "suggested reading" at the bottom (MOST of these articles can still be located online.)
Hello Mimi Smith-Dvorak~!
Thank you for your most honorable and accurate well-informed comment! I have worn a great many hats over the years but one is actually as a real estate analyst (the highest level of the industry most assume is just real estate appraisal work, but a FAR more intense and comprehensive scientific endeavor ;-) Anyway, you sound very sure of yourself, as well you should be, because you have an excellent grasp of what the criminals of humanity are really doing all over the US and beyond (especially regarding the theft of our natural water resource). In fact, the criminals within the Washington state government attacked our sacred natural water rights about 10 years ago when they passed a highly criminal and completely unconstitutional bill that basically made every drop of water in the state the business of the government. You probably know what I am referring to, but I just thought it would be good to again point out that this state power grab of water freedom and rights has been planned and long in the making, not actually related to any drought or scarcity as the government even back then admitted that they "were not going to enforce their illegal act at that time)... Yes, I am aware of the demolition of the Elwa dam and I really like your reading between the lines to discover the true intentions of the government~! I thought that was a highly questionable removal of the Elwa dam when the government first notified folks of their plans (criminal plot), especially when they use the old "fake science" excuse about protecting wildlife. The old "spotted owl" scam in a new wrapper of deceit. The criminals in Ocean Shores cooked up what we call "The precious clam" lies that they paid crooked "scientists" to support, so that horses and no longer allowed on the beach in areas where the horses are safe. The lie was to "protect the clams"! HA! From horses? That kind of fake science has destroyed many rights~! We have not, nor will we ever, visit Ocean Shores again or spend a single penny to support that community, because we are DEEPLY offended by that fake science BS as devoted Naturalists and horsemen~! We are also American Constitutionalists, so we take everyone's rights and freedoms extremely seriously ;-) Anyway, cheers to you for your vigilance and work to push back on the criminals of humanity and their inhumane - anti human agenda~! We will NOT comply~! Sincerely, Mike
Agreed...but I think we need to factor in that they have designated us a 'densification corridor' and water will indeed become a serious issue if they succeed in having, say another 50,000 people relocate to our county. All the low-income housing being built for an economy which has so few living wage jobs is a huge red flag.
Not dissing low incomers, I am one... and through hard work and a little luck I'm doing ok. But I had to leave the OP in the late '70's because the timber and fishing industry was doing a 'controlled implosion' and the real wages have been flat since that time.
We are playing a rigged game and all these socialists who have nice pensions from serving the system for decades have the time and resources to carry out their masters' agendas...all the while believing they are 'doing good'. TRUTH, JUSTICE, LIBERTY AND TOUGH LOVE😊
Hey. Kevin here. I made a reply to Robert's Hegelian mess. Just CTRL+F "Robert" you find it invaluable for late stage dementia.
Anyways Im a real person, I just love my physcial self a lot becuase God really blessed me.
So heres my reponse to Jeff:
I normally would respond higher up, but I believe that your response here making light of the chilling effect is why you being a citizen journalist and a member of the CRC concerning. It is one thing to write opinion pieces as a journalist, but it is another entirely to intertwine personal conspiracy theories with your official capacity as a CRC member, especially when you engage with the individual who prompted you on to your ICLEI-Tribe-County-Commissioner-UN-Agenda Era. This behavior compromises the public trust of not only those that elected you but those who did not which I remind you is foundational to your reporting that elected officials are not representing those who elected them or our right ingoring those that did not. It also raises significant concerns about your ability to be impartial in your duties on the Charter Review Committee. So are you acting on personal agenda or public interest?
Now, I do want to point out some inconsistencies - though I never thought you would have chosen me to do this to and lets see if Ixodes is corrrect about you not correct your reporting when Jesus comes.
What the hell was all that? Are you using ChatGPT again?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Jeff,
You were privy to my email in full — an email I submitted as testimony and which Chairwoman Fisch cited in summary. Instead of including the email itself or linking to it, you chose to reduce it to vague, dismissive language: calling it “anonymous,” mischaracterizing its tone, and quoting selectively to deflect from its substance. You framed my email as "evidence" rather than public testimony presented from a concerned citizen and lied about the time of delivery as if it was only a few hours prior to the CRC's meeting when infact it was forwarded by Loni Gores to all committes members at 7:30 am that day. The meeting was at 4 pm.
The email as delivered was anonymous because I chose to hide my identity for fear of my physcial safety that much could be infered without doubt. However, I explicitly stated I would provide my identity if needed. My words were not evidence of censorship, but a challenge to the ethical conflict posed by your dual role as a CRC commissioner and blogger who actively primes readers to distrust fellow commissioners and in this case other commitee members.
You ignored the core issues I raised: the use of inflammatory language, cherry-picked interaction with your readers (especially when racist or hostile comments go unaddressed), and your repeated framing of normal procedural actions as conspiratorial.
You claim to champion transparency, yet omitted my detailed critique while presenting yourself as the target of vague attacks. If you truly believed in informed public dialogue, you would have published the full contents of my email or linked to it — especially when you're willing to paste and headline far less substantial material. Or outright lie - there could be no evidentiary praise of Fisch in my email or comment. This whole exercise was an attempt to discredit my testimony and redirect attention away from critque of your conduct, misleading editorializing, and selective engagment.
Readers deserve to see what was actually said — not what you selectively frame. You are not being silenced. You are being called to a higher standard of integrity. The question is whether you’ll rise to meet it, or continue hiding behind blog posts that distort criticism into victimhood.
Jeff will lie to you if it means he can poop in your mouth. Straight up, head back and down it like a shooter.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
In addition I will be also submitting my response here into testimony with Charter Review Commission and the following email with it:
I am writing to express my growing concern regarding how public testimony is being represented — or misrepresented — by one of your fellow members, Jeff Tozzer. In his April 5th blog post on Clallam County Watchdog, Mr. Tozzer refers to the email I submitted to the CRC (and which Chairwoman Fisch referenced during the meeting) but chooses not to include its contents or even accurately summarize them.
My email raised specific concerns about Mr. Tozzer’s dual role as both a commissioner and the author of a political blog. I highlighted how his posts routinely frame procedural actions as conspiratorial, engage in selective coverage, and leave inflammatory or racial comments from subscribers unchallenged. I also offered examples of misleading framing across several blog entries.
In his April 5th article, Mr. Tozzer reduces this testimony to an “anonymous email” and fails to provide any context, let alone the full text — despite having it. I stated clearly in the original email that I was willing to be identified if necessary. The mischaracterization of this testimony appears to be a deliberate omission. And out right fabrication of praising Fisch when reporting to the committe memebers of racial commenters. I believer this blog post was design to distract from his reluctance to assume a higher ethical standard in his own reporting and in any actions he may take while committe member.
This pattern of behavior — selectively shaping public narrative while actively participating in commission decisions — creates a chilling effect on public participation and raises serious concerns about fairness and transparency.
I urge the Commission to consider Mr. Tozzer’s conduct not just in relation to public speech but in how he uses his platform to influence perception while omitting or distorting critical input.
- KEVIN <3
Hi Kevin, I appreciate your comment and efforts to communicate. With the huge amount of work that Jeff Tozzer does for the community I am sure that he does not have the time to repost every single word of every (relevant?) single comment, so there are no doubt time constraints involved. Additionally, some folks obviously struggle with their substandard writing skills, which can be problematic in any number of ways, especially when the reader is trying to make a good faith effort to truly understand what the writer is attempting to convey, as opposed to the dysfunctional socialists "politically correct" BS where many have fallen for the trap of automatically assuming what the true intentions are of the writer or speaker. Yes, it was a mistake to decide to be anonymous, because that unfortunately causes a HUGE understandable level of suspicion as to the true intentions and agenda of the writer, especially in America where most Americans are becoming keenly aware of the vast maze of real and absolutely now proven criminal conspiracies. You see, while there are still a few people who claim that "conspiracies" are the fantasies of delusional minds, the VAST majority of what the low Intelligence & low information people used to call "conspiracy theories" have now already been absolutely proven to have been true all along. The JFK, RFK, & MLK government murders, the COVID mass murder fake yet dangerous and deadly "vaccine" (mRNA gene therapy that is really EXTREMELY dangerous in many ways), the "fossil fuel" scams, etc., and just wait until the REAL news cycle, obviously not the mainstream media, gets out to the general public on what the DOGE investigations just discovered~! Ha! Did you know that the term "conspiracy theory" didn't even exist, until the CIA "invented it" to keep good Americans from discussing the governments involvement in the murder of JFK? Guess what government agency was in control of the murder of JFK? Why, it was recently disclosed that it was the CIA all along~! Ha Ha Ha! Yes, Americans have advanced well beyond that MK Ultra mind game brainwashing program crappola now and the few remaining slow ones have already been left behind. We are REAL scientists here Kevin, and in numerous fields of science. My parents worked for or with the deep state, so I have been wide awake for over 50 years~! I had one Hell of a childhood! I am what would be fairly called a "conspiracy analyst" so I have actually been confirming hundreds of criminal conspiracies of the government, big business, and individuals for many decades, because as an American Constitutionalist it is my duty to protect America and Americans from ALL threats regardless of where they come from ;-) Jeff Tozzer is actually doing a great job keeping track of what the local government is doing and if anyone thinks that they are simply conducting business as usual they are severely mistaken and/or "we" local folks need to change the way the local government operates~! Only complete transparency in government will work for the vast majority of the American people everywhere in the country now, but I am sure that there will be those who will need attitudinal adjustments and even prison terms to finally get that message. Hold on tight, because America and the entire world is making a dramatic change for the better, but it will take some time to rid the criminals from our society~! Enjoy the ride~! Sincerely, Mike
Michael, thank you for your post. Informative and I hope Kevin or the Kevin(s) can digest your information with a level mind.
You are so very welcome Jennifer~!
It is VERY kind of you to take the time to be so nice...
I am just doing my duty and the best I can to do the right thing ;-)
I am sure that you and the many great folks here understand just how difficult it is to help some of the least intelligent and most emotional people see that their "opinions" (views) are superficial & short sighted (if not completely tragically flawed). Unfortunately, their very lack of Intelligence often makes these Individuals extremely frustrated, and their usual response is to ignore common-sense and allow their own emotions to take control of them because they constantly struggle in life. Oddly, some of these people actually have lives that upon first glance appear to be somewhat functional and even somewhat "normal", however I have worked with many people who would have been called "mental patients" not long ago and they can actually sometimes "fake being normal" in at least some ways... We should have compassion for these few sad people who really do have a VERY serious mental and/or Spiritual disabilities. However, "we" (the vast majority of Americans) can no longer tolerate or allow the minority at the bottom of the intellectual scale inflict their emotional & dysfunctional rantings upon society to dictate their twisted personal agendas upon the majority~! We just can't have the young and future generations constantly victimized by sick dysfunctional people any longer... You probably realize that these same sick Individuals who call other's names like being "unprofessional" and those who also criticize others for not maintaining a "higher level of common social decency" more often than not display COMPLETE unprofessionalism and themselves fail to be anywhere near decent themselves? That is of course the sick Individuals "projection" of their mental problems upon others... This is a VERY sick & twisted game that these people always play, but for me it is particularly upsetting when they invoke God's name and use that in their desperate attempts to inflict harm upon others who are simply doing their best as good American's who care about our beloved country~! Keep the faith my friend because this difficult time in history won't last forever and for most things will greatly improve~! Sincerely, Mike
Holy bananas.
"especially when you engage with the individual who prompted you on to your ICLEI-Tribe-County-Commissioner-UN-Agenda Era"
Hey Barney guys look.. my pelt just went up 50 bucks. Here is a guy that probably called with the BLM porn to block video showing the ICLEI contracts and all their glory.
Looks like ole Kev doesn't mind working for Soros. He will work for anyone besides Trump Bush, Tree. Have Nazi sign will travel.
One of my favorite quotes of all time: To argue w/ a man who has renounced the use & authority of reason is like trying to administer medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine. It’s comparable to giving in to a child’s tantrum. It only further encourages their bad behavior. “Kevin” re-posts his evidentiary emails repeatedly in lieu of an actual thought out response as it would take him a week to come up with something else that also doesn’t make any sense. Let’s be honest, he can’t spell & neither can his computer! The only dumbing down he’s accomplished is placing the dunce cap on his head every time he copy/pastes himself into the comments. Point being, sometimes it says a lot more to say nothing at all. Let’s not encourage this child’s bad behavior 😉
Kirsten, you are correct that we shouldn't encourage Kevin(s) childish behavior, but sometimes it's hard to resist and maybe just a little bit fun to wander into the sandbox. I try though ; )
Ha Ha Ha!
This is a strange time in American & world history~!
Well, there will be some "growing pains" but those who survive will live to see an amazing America and world that they never thought could be possible. You are right, that MANY criminal rats and treasonous bad actors are being exposed for what they truly are. On the other hand, the great and Patriotic folks are also being exposed for what they truly are as well~! This is in fact THE fight between Good VS evil and the rotten apples have already run completely out of time~! The proof of that is literally everywhere, as they are in full panic as they now see their corrupt agendas crashing and burning~! Have a great day and keep the faith~! Sincerely, Mike
Thanks for providing these inside images of our government so we know what's REALLY going on.
You said it all, Jeff, with the following comment:
"the CRC should be serving as a conduit for the public’s will, not as a platform for advancing personal or political agendas. "
And, to circumvent the muzzle they put on you, how can they possibly object of you include snippets FROM THE PUBLIC RECORD that include the names they want to hide. Given that is is public information, I don't think they can legally stifle you, can they? And taking the information directly from the public record-- perhaps even an actual screenshot-- cannot be barred, I wouldn't think.
And, of course, this RCV is a non-starter with me.
The CRC is illustrating why we are called "Clown County." There's the proper way to conduct business, and then there's the way we do things here.
They can and are however doing this control UNLAWFULLY...Anything can be made 'legal', but LAWFUL carries a higher connotation based on morals and ethics of a Higher Order.
Bring them down!😊
If a "water master" is needed to decide, what do we need the Clallam Conservation District for?
Heil master.
Should she be "baptized" for a half hour or so, LOL.
The Charter Review Committee cannot muzzle one member's activity outside of the Charter Review Meetings. PERIOD. The Supreme Court has held that restrictions on speech because of its content—that is, when the government targets the speaker’s message—generally violate the First Amendment. The only restrictions are: defamation, threats, obscenity, child pornography, commercial advertising. Defamation has a high bar -- engaging in damaging someone's reputation is clear if you call someone a thief, rapist, or murderer (although it isn't like our current President hasn't been called that, and worse). Which is where the definition of defamation is further limited by if they are a "public figure". Then, you have to prove "actual malice" and knowingly act with reckless disregard for the "truth". A public figure is different than a private figure.
If you run for public office --- you cease to be a private figure, you become a public one. Once you thrust yourself into the public eye ..oh well, you can't suddenly claim to be private for some instances, and public for others. (There is a grey area "limited-purpose public figures" which is where speaking at the podium, identifying yourself, allowing yourself to be recorded, to try and influence the outcome of a controversy -- you might not be an official 'celebrity" but you're on record, in a public forum.) If it's public record -- anything you say can be used, without your permission.
As for "social media", just last year a Supreme Court Ruling underscored the importance of free speech online. The court recognized that government attempts to control the editorial decisions of social media companies violates the First Amendment. (Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and NetChoice v. Paxton, Lindke v. Freed and Garnier v. O'Connor-Ratcliffe, Murthy v. Missouri).
Many of these were only sent back to lower courts to reconsider. The intent of the Supreme Court was that social media is free speech based upon our First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances....
The court recognized online content curation should receive at least as much First Amendment protection as print newspapers, parades, and signs held at political rallies. It made clear that social media platforms, in combining multifarious voices, exercise their First Amendment rights while also creating the space for the free expression of their users.
And, remember: Even entertainment, vulgarity, “hate speech” (bigoted speech about particular races, religions, sexual orientations, and the like), blasphemy (speech that offends people’s religious sensibilities), and violent video games are protected by the First Amendment.
This is one discussion of all of these cases, and they identify the common themes: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/08/through-line-suprme-courts-social-media-cases-same-first-amendment-rules-apply
(I generally have mixed feelings about EFF, just as I do the ACLU. But read, both regularly.)
You are probably 100 percent right. Now if they made it about conduct or make it pertain to the function of the commiitee and its deliberation then he'd me f'd.
Anywyas since thise blog really was about me today HEre is my response to Jeff:
I normally would respond higher up, but I believe that your response here making light of the chilling effect is why you being a citizen journalist and a member of the CRC concerning. It is one thing to write opinion pieces as a journalist, but it is another entirely to intertwine personal conspiracy theories with your official capacity as a CRC member, especially when you engage with the individual who prompted you on to your ICLEI-Tribe-County-Commissioner-UN-Agenda Era. This behavior compromises the public trust of not only those that elected you but those who did not which I remind you is foundational to your reporting that elected officials are not representing those who elected them or our right ingoring those that did not. It also raises significant concerns about your ability to be impartial in your duties on the Charter Review Committee. So are you acting on personal agenda or public interest?
Now, I do want to point out some inconsistencies - though I never thought you would have chosen me to do this to and lets see if Ixodes is corrrect about you not correct your reporting when Jesus comes.
What the hell was all that? Are you using ChatGPT again?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Jeff,
You were privy to my email in full — an email I submitted as testimony and which Chairwoman Fisch cited in summary. Instead of including the email itself or linking to it, you chose to reduce it to vague, dismissive language: calling it “anonymous,” mischaracterizing its tone, and quoting selectively to deflect from its substance. You framed my email as "evidence" rather than public testimony presented from a concerned citizen and lied about the time of delivery as if it was only a few hours prior to the CRC's meeting when infact it was forwarded by Loni Gores to all committes members at 7:30 am that day. The meeting was at 4 pm.
The email as delivered was anonymous because I chose to hide my identity for fear of my physcial safety that much could be infered without doubt. However, I explicitly stated I would provide my identity if needed. My words were not evidence of censorship, but a challenge to the ethical conflict posed by your dual role as a CRC commissioner and blogger who actively primes readers to distrust fellow commissioners and in this case other commitee members.
You ignored the core issues I raised: the use of inflammatory language, cherry-picked interaction with your readers (especially when racist or hostile comments go unaddressed), and your repeated framing of normal procedural actions as conspiratorial.
You claim to champion transparency, yet omitted my detailed critique while presenting yourself as the target of vague attacks. If you truly believed in informed public dialogue, you would have published the full contents of my email or linked to it — especially when you're willing to paste and headline far less substantial material. Or outright lie - there could be no evidentiary praise of Fisch in my email or comment. This whole exercise was an attempt to discredit my testimony and redirect attention away from critque of your conduct, misleading editorializing, and selective engagment.
Readers deserve to see what was actually said — not what you selectively frame. You are not being silenced. You are being called to a higher standard of integrity. The question is whether you’ll rise to meet it, or continue hiding behind blog posts that distort criticism into victimhood.
Jeff will lie to you if it means he can poop in your mouth. Straight up, head back and down it like a shooter.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
In addition I will be also submitting my response here into testimony with Charter Review Commission and the following email with it:
I am writing to express my growing concern regarding how public testimony is being represented — or misrepresented — by one of your fellow members, Jeff Tozzer. In his April 5th blog post on Clallam County Watchdog, Mr. Tozzer refers to the email I submitted to the CRC (and which Chairwoman Fisch referenced during the meeting) but chooses not to include its contents or even accurately summarize them.
My email raised specific concerns about Mr. Tozzer’s dual role as both a commissioner and the author of a political blog. I highlighted how his posts routinely frame procedural actions as conspiratorial, engage in selective coverage, and leave inflammatory or racial comments from subscribers unchallenged. I also offered examples of misleading framing across several blog entries.
In his April 5th article, Mr. Tozzer reduces this testimony to an “anonymous email” and fails to provide any context, let alone the full text — despite having it. I stated clearly in the original email that I was willing to be identified if necessary. The mischaracterization of this testimony appears to be a deliberate omission. And out right fabrication of praising Fisch when reporting to the committe memebers of racial commenters. I believer this blog post was design to distract from his reluctance to assume a higher ethical standard in his own reporting and in any actions he may take while committe member.
This pattern of behavior — selectively shaping public narrative while actively participating in commission decisions — creates a chilling effect on public participation and raises serious concerns about fairness and transparency.
I urge the Commission to consider Mr. Tozzer’s conduct not just in relation to public speech but in how he uses his platform to influence perception while omitting or distorting critical input.
- KEVIN <3
there are SEVERAL members on the Charter Review who have "personal agendas".
When you send email to a journalist you give up your moral-rights, and copyright. Just as if you sent it to a newspaper's letters to the editor. They are allowed to edit it as they see fit (all newspapers, everywhere) but not ADD to it.
The role of Charter Review is to review our county charter and bring initiatives to the public on the next ballot. WE elect who we want to represent us. (I ran, I've run several times in the past.) The entire process is a giant committee (imperfect) and special interest groups usually get a few on the ballot that are a bit 'wing-nutty' and pushed through by a minority. But that is the imperfect process we have. (I urge you to learn more about the process, and what has occurred in the past.) There have been some amazing kerfuffles in the past -- and this is in that dust bin.
One out of 15 is a reporter. So?
How would that make you not comment? You cannot be that sensitive and fragile.
Kevin "heart", you seem to be protesting too much. It's what happens when people have been ignorant to the real world and engage in "it shouldn't be that way" and come out of the shadows with "feelings" not facts.
Start your own Substack column. You certainly have a lot to say.
I see NOTHING WRONG with the people electing the author of a blog (which doesn't seem all that political to me, but I read a lot of real "political" articles), knowingly, and then having him continue to write his opinions. That is the very definition of "transparency".
Do you have worms for brains, Dear Mimi? Because I don't think you do otherwise you wouldn't have decoded the political process so succinctly for me.
I was already aware of the email being entered into the public record which you did read about. To clarify, the email was not sent to a journalist. It was sent to the clerk of the committee on which Jeff serves. Then, Jeff, the blogger took the editorial liberty of misrepresenting the content of the email and adding the fabrication of praise for Fisch. Not to mention lying about the time of receipt. You may be familiar with journalistic integrity which your husband could provide a run down of. A competent journalist would not truncate quotes to alter the subject's intent. That's poor journalism or bad blogging. Look up using partial quotes when something needs to be referenced when it is a grammatically embedded phrase.
And, girl, this is the best part. It's irony. You're the big girl, someone who has been there and done that, letting no feelings get to her on the block tossing her power and authority to the woe of us emotional outsiders, but only offering emotional appeal - like what's with the all the words between quote shit? are you trademarking "politics" and "transparency"? Ask your husband for me too- and give us zero facts in order to dismiss valid procedural concerns.
You're right that personal agendas exist on every committee. That’s exactly why transparency and ethics are so important—not in a vague “sunlight is the best disinfectant” sense, but in the structural, functional sense: How do we make sure officials don’t use public roles to launder personal influence under the guise of process?
To infer that blogging while serving is transparent is a neat inversion, but it ignores the power dynamic at issue. When Jeff - Lack of journalistic standards aside - simultaneously moderates a political blog that shapes local public opinion and serves in an official role, they’re not just sharing ideas. They’re shaping the narrative and the process. The issue isn’t whether people knew he blogged—it’s whether he's using the platform to selectively elevate allies and discredit critics while hiding behind First Amendment cover. That is the Chilling Effect we be talkin about, yo.
A fun but indirect example: Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is often criticized for her activist work and for receiving payments from organizations that have a direct stake in the kinds of cases her husband rules on. It would be similarly troubling if the wife of a popular political podcast wins a local election to reshape county level policy and uses his platform to boost her message, misquote critics, misrepresent or fabricate statements. So are, Mimi, are you really a fiercely independent woman or do you have a particular agenda yourself?
If a voter sees a pattern of selective comment moderation, targeted ridicule, and questionable framing from someone who now wields institutional power, it’s not fragility to question that. It’s civic engagement.
I will continue to interact in the comments exclusively. I have witnessed many of the subscribers dismiss counter perspectives or facts because ignorance is fun? idk. So why write a whole ass blog no one will read when the cuppa here is so addicting? As it is, subscribers here will not put the cup of kool aid down long enough to see past the cup.
Did you ever wonder why you can't win an election?
Kevin, want to have coffee?
I never wanted to win an election. I was never in it "to win" I was in it to experience the "process". In the first election, I liked the opponent so much that I openly said "elect him". The second time, I was able to witness dirty politics up close, and first hand.
I wanted the experience.
I think you are looking at all this way too emotionally.
When do you have time for a cup of coffee?
p.s. I am not my husband, and would prefer that you respect that. He has nothing to do with what I do. I do not hide behind him, nor do I promote our relationship. (Try being an enlightened male here.)
I don't exploit your spouse (whatever that may be). Respect my relationship.
Why do you trust this blog as a source?
so when do you have time for coffee... speaking on a blog is cumbersome.
Name a date, name a time...name a place.
So the whole board of commissioners should be held accountable for what is spoken or written by an individual commissioner . Besides as I recall you cannot submit an article to the newspaper without verifying who you are…. The lack of decorum, self control and maturity is amazing!
'ENGINEERED TAKEOVER'! Decades in the making...the devil's own work!😱
My plan re-posted:
Have President Trump declare an emergency for blue states by Executive order and order the U.S. Department of Defense to open the PX facilities across the state to provide cheaper food and gas. Fort Lewis, Everett, McCord, Bremerton, Whidbey Island, Yakima and Spokane should be opened to verified non-military personnel. Please write President Trump. They could easily set up new distribution centers at the Coast Guard bases. The Romans in Washington State have gone too far.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
just sent this to President Trump
I ask President Trump declare an emergency for blue states by Executive order and order the U.S. Department of Defense to open the PX facilities across the state to provide cheaper food and gas. Fort Lewis, Everett, McCord, Bremerton, Whidbey Island, Yakima and Spokane should be opened to verified non-military personnel. Please write President Trump. They could easily set up new distribution centers at the Coast Guard bases. The Romans in Washington State have gone too far.
I also ask President Trump to investigate the Bureau of Indian Affairs taking land off tax roles by transferring to tax exempt Tribal land. This is causing a hardship for property owners throughout the country, especially rural counties such as Clallam County, Washington.
Because the BIA gives the ability for our county commissioners to block the movement of land to tax-free, the feds have no control. It's basically, you can't ask for a larger agency to do what our commissioners won't do. Focus on that.
True. But the President can, by Executive order, tell the agency what to do...
The Executive order should address the property owners for sure. They created a Roman ball and chain on the property owner.
This y'all plan to save on taxes? Pay a 5% surcharge?
No. have a President wave his magic wand. What surcharge...
Clallam County Charter Review Commission Meeting - April 14th at 5:30pm
https://clallamcowa.portal.civicclerk.com/
In person 223 East 4th Street, Room 160, Port Angeles or video
Read up, chime in.
https://clallamcowa.portal.civicclerk.com/event/3098/files (files not posted yet as of 4 / 5)
Zoom: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83692664344 meeting ID: 836 9266 4344 passcode: 12345
Public comments to the Clerk loni.gores@clallamcountywa.gov or Phone: 360-417-2256
Thank you. This always helps.