Pin It


Molski needs a new scam

I read with glee the news that three of Jarek's cases were tossed in favor of the defendants, all reputable businesses in our and the neighboring community of Santa Barbara ("Molski loses three cases," July 28-Aug. 4). Finally the court system has ruled against that mentally crippled fuck (oops, hope I don't cause Jarek any "mental anguish") and his fuck lawyer as well.

Persons who are disabled who suffer a problem at a public establishment have recourse, but Jarek took it way too far in a scam that has been exposed to all. Thanks, New Times, for a great piece before on Jarek, it certainly gave insight into how twisted minds work. Looks like Jarek and his attorney need a new scam ... .


Bill Leys

Santa Margarita


Molski made things worse for the disabled

The saddest thing about the judicial decisions regarding Molski cases has nothing to do with Jarek Molski. It's good to see that legalistic extortionist exposed as the opportunistic jerk he really is.

But, because of Molski's antics, profoundly disabled persons with legitimate problems regarding the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) are now going to be held more suspect. The ADA isn't perfect and we still have a ways to go in making streets, mass transit, and businesses more accessible to the disabled. But the self-serving efforts of Jarek Molski have only succeeded in further alienating disabled persons and making realistic compliances to the ADA even more problematic.


James Kunkler

San Luis Obispo


The point of ADA is prevention

I am not amazed that the obtuseness of those, including the judiciary, who, dismissing Mr. Molski as an economic opportunist, imply that had Mr. Molski actually been hurt physically then it would have been all right to sue for damages under a "noble" law.

These people, including the judges, either have not thought through the issues, or have lenses distorted by the belief that the privileges of proprietorship excuse one from legal obligations to the handicapped minority. And so we now have the idea, endorsed by the writers at the New Times, that what is needed to get corporate interests and moneyed shopkeepers to toe the line of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which has been in existence for 15 years, is not people like Molski claiming to be hurt and threatening litigation, but instead people actually getting hurt, and pleading apologetically for some monetary compensation for enduring injuries that would have been avoidable otherwise. A cripple must be further handicapped before EOS winery will bring itself into line with a 15-year-old law? Give me a break. Molski should have complained before bringing suit? New Times doesn't get it. Complaining doesn't work. It takes legal sanctions to get capitalists to think about social justice.

Molski is a hero because he had the guts, for which he was compensated, apparently, to shove the hypocrisy down the throats of those who posture as caring, yet dodge its responsibilities.


Gregory O'Kelly

San Luis Obispo



Time to face social reality, Ed

I got excited when reading Ed Cobleigh's latest letter ("Righting historical wrongs is a slippery slope," July 21-28) because as I read along, I thought he may have successfully removed his foot from his mouth, at least partly. Oh, but then I read, "Surely the passing of 10 generations should be sufficient to adapt socially and economically."

Obviously Eddie doesn't believe historical injustices experienced by groups such as Native Americans and African-Americans contribute to their current social and economic conditions. I would ask him, then, what is his explanation for it? Why are those same groups two to three times as likely to be poor, to be in jail, or addicted to drugs or alcohol? Is it because he feels they just need to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps," or is his explanation that such a difference is due to some deficiency in some groups? Does he feel it is a coincidence that the groups that were oppressed if not outright slaughtered throughout American history are now the disenfranchised and impoverished groups of today? Is it a coincidence that schools in poorer areas, disproportionately populated by Latinos, African-Americans, and Native Americans, receive less funding and have much lower levels of achievement than do predominantly white, suburban schools? It is attitudes like Ed's that hide the social and economic reality of our country, which only serves to maintain the status quo.


Brian Baker

[email protected]


Chumash helped themselves when no one else would

In regards to the Chumash Indians and the feeling of some people that the Indians owe something back to California, how long is history?

Some 40 years ago I was sent to the Chumash Indian Reservation near Solvang to take pictures to tell of their plight. Although the massive pipeline from Lake Cachuma, carrying drinking water, crossed their land, the Indians had no running water in the ramshackle homes on the reservation. They had the right to take a portion of the water, but did not have the money to create the pipelines and facilities to put water into their residences. They carried water and used outdoor plumbing, just like their forefathers.

It does not seem so long ago to me when the government and neighbors just didn't care about the conditions under which the Indians were living.

Today, if the Chumash tribe members are washing in gold-plated bathtubs, I say good for them. They were able to help themselves and should be allowed to keep it up. I enjoy seeing the Chumash Indians making donations to help throughout the community without government taxation and mandates.


Karen M. White



Don't stop believin'

Glen Starkey is a jerk (Strictly Starkey, July 28-Aug. 4)! I went to the Journey concert at the fair and it was amazing! Two-and-a-half hours full of Journey hits! Steve Augeri looks and signs so much like Steve Perry it's unbelievable. The place was jumping! Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful!


Joan Sales

San Luis Obispo


Something smells perjurous

In the July 28-Aug. 4 "News" section ("LOCSD members drop request for restraining order"), it stated that, "Court documents indicate that [CSD director Richard Le Gros' and Stan Gustafson's] request for a restraining order was made for the explicit purpose of excluding [Los Osos citizen Richard] Margetson from voicing his opinion during a critical decision-making period."

However, later in the story, Le Gros and Gustafson are quoted as stating that the reasons they originally gave in their request for a restraining order was because they feared for their lives.

When you file papers asking a judge to issue a restraining order, don't you have to sign such papers, affirming, under penalty of perjury, that your stated reasons for requesting such an order are factual and true? If so, then which statement is the truth? Fear for their lives? Or the intention to use the court as a political weapon to silence a citizen critical of district spending on the sewer project? And which "truth" was sworn to under oath?

Does the SLO District Attorney need to take a look at this to determine if two elected CSD directors, in an effort to silence a citizen watchdog, have instead committed perjury?


Ann Calhoun

Los Osos

Pin It


Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

Readers also liked…

Search, Find, Enjoy

Submit an event

Trending Now