Bob White: A future that involves Bright Fiber brings questions
This concept that there was no requirement to publicize a 20-day period to object to the sale because Bright Fiber technically has no customers is one interpretation of fact.
There are usually more than one interpretations of fact when it comes to contractual or legal definitions. But then I assume you are aware of that. That is why we have prosecutors and courts. And of course, attorneys whose job it is to make that process as complicated, lengthy and expensive as possible.
This is to the benefit of the defendant as well as the prosecutor in the case of criminal matters. It usually isn’t to the benefit of a plaintiff.
The issue here is interpretation. As long as the explanation or definition of the defendant is allowed to go unchallenged it will stand as legitimate. I understand that even if The Union doesn’t necessarily agree with the expatiation or definition, The Union is not in a position to officially challenge it. I think I may investigate the process one would need to follow to officially challenge this definition, explanation, interpretation, or what better describes the statement, excuse.
I think it may be beneficial if others in the community were made aware of this interpretation question and their options with regard to it.
There are at least two official entities that might entertain this challenge. One would be the state attorney general, the other might be the Public Utilities Commission.
I have previously made contact with the latter in the form of a complaint or comment regarding Bright Fiber’s statement to me in writing that there were no conditions related to the grant, as well as false statements regarding the efficacy of 5G. The 5G matter pertaining to the viability of their fiber optic system going forward.
Bob White lives in Grass Valley.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.