Thursday, June 8, 2017

• Bridges Sent Packing... Again!

The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the city of Wildomar on Case number E063986 Martha Bridges et al. v City of Wildomar.

Over the years (self stylized community activist) Martha Bridges has sued this city repeatedly. She usually loses, and loses, but like the hack duffer that gets one birdie per round, she's been bolstered by the occasional win... but not this time.

Last month I traveled to Riverside to watch her attorney basically make a fool of himself in front of a three judge panel at the court of appeal, as he tried to argue that Wildomar doesn't have a general plan. Even though adoption of the plan that the county had in place for this area was done on day one of the city.

Today I got word that the lower court's ruling was upheld, which was in favor of the City of Wildomar. Which translates into a win for the tax payers of Wildomar too. 

To read my recap of what I heard in court, follow this link, and go to the midpoint of the blog.

Now that this question has been answered... for the umpteenth time, it makes a person wonder what propels this wretched Wildomar woman's endless onslaught against the city? 

No one knows for sure, but it's a pretty safe bet that at least part of it stems from her losses when she ran for city council in 2008 and again in 2010. 

Yes, it's hard to fathom that someone would be that obstinate for so long, but since when does reason or logic enter the picture when payback is on someone's mind?

If I were a betting man, I wouldn't wager that we've heard the last lame lawsuit from "Martha Bridges et al". Stay buckled up, the year isn't even half over yet. 

Now, time for some Fun With Specious Logic

It's been pondered before, about destructive historical figures, and what would happen differently if you could change something in their past. 

Would they still have been in the position to cause such damage to others?

It's been argued that two of the 20th century's greatest tyrants could have gone another way, had circumstances been different. 

First is Mr. Nazi himself, Adolf Hitler. He was an artist at one point. Imagine if he had been able to sell his art instead of having it rejected as "grim."
A sample of the mad man from Munich's water color style.

The next infamous person in my example is Fidel Castro. He was reported to have been a baseball player; a pitcher I believe. Imagine if he'd actually signed the contract he was rumored to have been offered. 

And now we have a twice rejected city council wannabe. I wonder how many fewer lawsuits the city would have had to deal with had we just elected her instead of rejecting her? 

The world will never know

Oh, and for those of you with your mouth agape after that last bit of offhanded musing, asking, "Did he actually just compare some sue-happy old bitty to two of history's worst dictators?" 

Looks like I did. 

Fine, I win the Godwin Award for needlessly bringing in Hitler to make a weak point. But the point stands. 

•          •          •

It has been said that we are prisoners in a dark closet, with small openings, that, on occasion, admit some light. Small wonder that the demons who lurk in the deepest corners, are more real to us than the sweet light of reason outside.
– E.G. Marshall CBSRMT 1974

Wildomar Rap reminds you that the sweet light of reason is also sugar and gluten free.


  1. I for one thank Ms. Martha Bridges for her diligence in ensuring wildomar stays on the right course. I consider her a friends an confidant, even a comrade if you wish. Just like a local suffragette of old, the one and only Margaret Collier (the MAR in wildomar), Ms. Bridges follows her heart.

    1. I don't have a witty or pithy reply to that. I'm thoroughly nonplussed by such a statement. Not that it comes as a surprise, it's just an odd thing to suggest an alliance to someone so destructive, even if it's due to "following one's heart". I suspect a touch of Stockholm syndrome has taken root.

  2. I think Margaret Collier Graham would roll over in her grave if she heard the above comparison! I might admire Martha Bridges if I thought she had good intentions and good arguments but I think, rather, that her intent is to waste our hard earned tax dollars! I, for one, am sick of it. She needs to get a life! She is a troll.

    1. When such comments, as the one you're referring to above, are gleefully posted it speaks to the very credibility of the person posting it. Thing is, for all the efforts and time he puts into reading about the local issues, and often coming up with interesting things to contemplate, he has a body of work that rivals the Titanic's one and only voyage.

  3. How much did this cost her? I'm hoping she has to pay Wildomar's legal expenses. The only way to stop these troublemakers is to make sure they pay! Of course our "slowgrowth" city council isn't helping either. We're in neutral while Menifee, Murrieta, and Lake Elsinore are in overdrive!

    1. Not sure how much this cost her, but it did cost the city $118K. Imagine if she was faced with the possibility of having to reimburse the city for ever losing lawsuit she's filed.


Let's hear what you have to say... for other inquiries try the email listed under "view my complete profile" but if you want to discuss a blog topic, I'll only do it in this comment section, not by email.

Subscribe by Email