My Tri-fold Pamphlet

Click on image to inlarge.

Click on image to inlarge.

Since I found no copyright mark or statement and since I had already found a statement in the original mailer from Marymount that was a part of Judge Yaffe's ruling as being false and misleading, I thought I would just play with what was sent to me and create a more truthful pamphlet, one that has no items now ruled as misleading statements, so you can compare what you may have received in the mail to what I have created, here.

I did my best to alter images and remove or change direct quotes and remove the names of any supporters. If I left something in that personalizes my pamphlet, then please let me know so I can change it.

What I did not put into my pamphlet is the fact that Judge Yaffe found in that, passage of Measure P and the implementation of Marymount's Campus Specific Plan WOULD supersede municipal code. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I continue to know that SOME municipal codes would be superseded by wording in The Marymount Plan and Dr. Brophy's lawyer, Mr. Gough, stated that as fact in open court, yesterday.

Now it seems to me that there is more than a fair amount of arrogance going on at Marymount if they felt their arguments would be found valid in Dr. Brophy's lawsuit and as Respondents in Mr. Lewis' lawsuit.

That arrogance will probably go very noticed by a whole bunch of folks and I hope Judge Yaffe is informed of the pamphlet's contents.

Whether Mr. Lewis or the Respondents and defendants in Dr. Brophy's case might seek some kind of damage or other type of settlement has yet to be seen or learned.

It just strikes me as a very bad move to send out advertisements that were probably mailed after the lawsuits were filed and before the rulings were announced.

Naturally Marymount's pamphlet would have never contained the truth that some of the existing municipal codes would be superseded should Measure P pass and the Campus Specific Plan's zoning change to into affect.

Yet again the pamphlet touts as something that could go forward with the passage of Measure P, items already approved and those elements were found to be acceptable to an authorized representative of Marymount College within the 90-day time frame for acceptance of the conditions that began on June 1, 2010.

Once again, representatives of Marymount College's quest to have dorms approved have sent out false and misleading information to registered voters in R.P.V.

I think the statement above now has a judicial backing as being accurate and not false or misleading or deceptive.

You can tell what has already been approved in Marymount's pamphlet by comparing it to what I created.

Everything that looks like it really was part of Marymount's pamphlet was approved by the City Council, accepted by a representative of Marymount College and included in The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

You know, Dr. Brophy, Marymount's attorneys, Marymount's Board of Trustees, Marymount's public relations consultants, supporters of Measure P had to have or should have before the pamphlet was sent out that the hearing on the lawsuits was scheduled for September 8, 2010.

I hope somebody with enough power to find out, tells the public when the pamphlets were actually sent to the post office for mailing. If it was after the hearing date was scheduled, all I can imagine is: "Lucy, you got a lot of explaining to do."

I think I als need to find out that if the pamphlet was mailed out after the lawsuits' hearing dates were set and Marymount still sent them out anyway, unsure of what the outcomes would be with the two lawsuits, might there be some kind of class-action lawsuit against Marymount and/or its representatives that could be considered.

Marymount's representatives have factually been held to have delayed the 10-year processes much more than any other entity, so perhaps it is time for others to throw wrenched into the gears.

But I am not a lawyer and because I feel the tide is welling up in opposition to Measure P and dorms on Marymount's campus, it may be that Marymount itself has thrown some extra wrenches into is own gears.

Is the newly very cleaned clocks at Marymount ticking away the minutes of Dr. Brophy's tenure at Marymount? I have no real clue about that.

But I think every time issues negative to Marymount's position arise, Dr. Brophy's tenure as the College's President may be winding down. (Hey, another clock reference!).

So, after more than 10 years of discussion, study, and voting and after Marymount spent in excess of $534,000 so far attempting to get dorms approved for its campus, today arrived in thousands of mailboxes a factually misleading pamphlet (in one or just a couple of elements) from the Yes on P folks that have a return address at the Marymount College campus.

"Institution of higher learning." "Good neighbor." "Benefit to the community." You know, those three items do belong to a College that is all that and more, right here is Rancho Palos Verdes.

That College not only provides real benefits to a great number of communities, it also has students living on its campus, in Rancho Palos Verdes, some with families!

R.P.V. has something no other city on the peninsula has, including San Pedro, a successful College, with on-campus student housing that provides leaders and benefits in places all over the world.

Let's continue to be proud of our Salvation Army Officers' College on Hawthorne Blvd and let's support The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project and......

Vote "No" on Measure P!