Bad legal advice plays right into Floyd Squires’ hands

cyndy day wilson

The State Bar of California: Cyndy Day-Wilson – #135045 Current Status: This member is active and may practice law in California. Really?

Floyd and Betty Squires have been doing battle with the city of Eureka for decades they are seasoned veterans. City Councils, Managers, Police Chiefs and City Attorney come and go and apparently so does any institutional memory about how to successfully go after Floyd and Betty Squires and the many illegal slums that they own.

The Examiner certainly applauds the City moving against Floyd and all of his properties; In fact its way over due. To ignore the lessons of past attempts and lost court battles with the Squires is folly.

We pointed out in our post “Eureka takes a good first step, but……….”

Simply evicting the residents without well prepared and executed plan to re-house them was counterproductive. Well, it was not only counterproductive, but sets up a path for the Squires’ to strike back at the city. No doubt using the same bottom feed lawyer Bradford Floyd they always use.

The failure here seems to us to be the usual very weak link at the City again; the incompetent City Attorney spewing out consistently bad legal advice and strategy. We’ll have to wait and see how the numerous claims against the City regarding this eviction will play out. Whatever the case, Eureka will have to pay for another one of its City Attorney’s bad calls.


Remember the Late councilperson Lance Madsen’s, dying-declaration?

On June 13th last year the Examiner said : “Time to show The Eureka City Attorney the emergency exit!”



16 thoughts on “Bad legal advice plays right into Floyd Squires’ hands

  1. Where’s Jason Singleton, champion and savior of the disabled and downtrodden in all of this. I have two theories: You can’t get blood out of a turnip, and the Squires aren’t rookies when it comes to litigation. Singleton likes easily intimidated rookies with a nest egg…it looks like he bit off more than he could chew with his last two attempts….

    Liked by 2 people

  2. It might be worth a look at how much preventable liability this City Attorney has caused the city. Might open a few eyes…

    Liked by 1 person

  3. This is the same attorney that told the council not apologize to the Wiyots. She should go just for that.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Not only does Cyndy Day-Wilson give bad advice, but she (and the City government, doing nothing different) makes inhumane decisions. She targets the most vulnerable residents of Eureka. Likely she (and wretched Nancy Delaney) would have defended the murderers who massacred people during the World Renewal Ceremony.
    The Early Targets
    The first concentration camp in Germany opened in Dachau in 1933, at a time when the Nazi government was still consolidating its power. Accordingly, it focused on political prisoners—communists, social democrats, and dissidents who posed a threat to the new regime and were unpopular with most other Germans.

    All of these early victims were easy targets, people whom other Germans did little or nothing to protect, and whose disappearance from the public scene they often welcomed.

    Soon Nazi authorities and the police began to consign members of other groups to the new camps: homosexual men arrested as criminal offenders; Jehovah’s Witnesses who refused to obey demands to cease their activities; women accused of prostitution; people labeled “asocial” because they were homeless, begged, or for some other reason did not fit into Nazi society.

    In 1936, in preparation for the Olympic Games in Berlin, German police “cleaned up” the city, arresting people deemed inappropriate—prostitutes, street people, petty thieves—and forcing hundreds of Gypsies (Sinti and Roma) into makeshift camps. All of these early victims were easy targets, people whom other Germans did little or nothing to protect, and whose disappearance from the public scene they often welcomed.

    Nazis Increase Power and Targeted Populations

    Mass attacks on Nazi targets that included widely respected members of German society did not start until 1938, five years after Hitler was named chancellor. By then Nazis had firm control of all the instruments of state power—the police, courts, laws, civil service, military and press—so they could afford to be less cautious.

    This was the first time Jews were sent to concentration camps for no other reason than that they were Jews.

    The “Euthanasia” Program

    During 1939, Nazi authorities began deadly attacks on one of their major targets: people considered handicapped. Rather than sending them to concentration camps where they would have to be housed and fed …[i]n just a few years, with the cooperation of scores of doctors, social workers, hospital administrators, and others, Nazi officials organized and carried out the murder of at least 70,000 Germans deemed “unfit for life.” To the extent possible, the authorities tried to hide these killings from the rest of the population, so that family members would not protest.

    [Eventually] the types of prisoners …form[ed] a catalogue of everyone the Nazis vilified. There were Jews from all over Europe, communists, and Polish intellectuals; partisans and resistance fighters from Yugoslavia, France, Ukraine, and elsewhere; Gypsies, gay men, Afro-Europeans, uncooperative Roman Catholic priests, and Protestant pastors; critics of the regime and people who had merely told jokes about Hitler; male and female forced laborers; conscientious objectors; Germans accused of sexual relations with so-called non-Aryans; Jehovah’s Witnesses; Italian soldiers who had surrendered to the Allies; convicted criminals; and many others. As this list indicates, Nazi ideology needed enemies, and its aggressive expansion provided an ever-growing supply.
    Divide and Rule

    Nazis specialized in pitting people against each other… this approach meant picking on the least popular elements of the population first, so as to maximize public support, or at least indifference.

    To enforce the hierarchy, guards chose some prisoners from higher-ranking groups to help them control the rest of the inmates

    Liked by 2 people

  5. It’s easy to blame the Eureka City Attorney, altho there’s no indication that the author of the article has a solid source–or any at all–as to what her actual advice was. She can advise all she wants, but the City Of Eureka has repeatedly demonstrated over the year that it will do what it wants notwithstanding antiquated notions of compassion and sanity. The one shining exception to the callousness was Garr Nielsen, and he didn’t last long.

    A lot of money is spent on advertising and consultants in Humboldt County to give the illusion of choice. Yet whoever is in office, the agenda seems to be the same, the machinery of “government” continues to grind up and stomp on those without influence.

    Liked by 1 person

    • There’s no way the City took this enforcement action without the City Attorney directing. No staff member would go out on that limb alone. You can speculate all you want about what we know or don’t know. Good Luck!

      Liked by 2 people

    • Why would the TE be required to write about sources? It’s an anonymous blog, and they may feel the need to protect the anonymity of their sources.

      That is, assuming they had a source on this post. They probably didn’t need one, since it is pretty clear that the City Attorney would weigh in on actions likely to result in future court action. Like, for example, going after a slumlord that has sued the city numerous times in the past.

      Liked by 2 people

  6. That no member of the Eureka City Council spoke out against the City’s creating more homelessness makes clear that the Eureka City Attorney’s personal opinion, or official opinion, whatever it was, is irrelevant. Her real-world role is to provide legal cover, to provide the facade of legality, for what the Council wants to do. She knows who butters her bread, and in whose good graces she must remain.

    The failure of the Council to apologize to the Wiyots is a perfect example. To suggest that the City would be opening up the litigation floodgates were it to acknowledge what has been well-established for over a century is ludicrous. But it gave members of the Council legal cover, an excuse, to do what it wanted to do, i.e. NOT apologize. Taking the blame for that and other matters will keep the Eureka City Attorneys’ meal ticket secure.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Hoping the new ‘configuration’ of the City Council will soon result in some above-board, ethical, compassionate, and meaningful activity. (And by this, I don’t mean some secret fund for a purported homeless shelter or campaigns discouraging personal sharing with people begging on the street). We need some courage from the Council, not just talk and maintenance of the status quo. The status quo has many residents of Eureka suffering. Things have been way out of balance here (like the scales of economic, environmental, and social justice), so there needs to be a heavy shift in favor of human rights and economic rights

    I agree with both terrylc and JP and tuluwatexaminer. Day-Wilson is not necessarily wagging the dog, but she will push things to the ugliest in her role as the not-so-smart legal advisor for City government.

    Liked by 4 people

  8. At the recent Operation Safe Streets-Eureka, she was advising attendees of the social host ordinance and reminding folks they could run afoul of the law if they served Alcohol to minors under the age of 18. Of course, you can get in a whole lot of trouble serving Alcohol to those 18-20 year olds (Proper drinking age is 21). She is just ignorant. (Don’t forget she gave us Chief Mills too.) She comes across as one of those dipsy Sorority blondes who always got by on her looks. However, to quote Michael Corleone, “she is weak and stupid and this is life and death.”


  9. This attorney was brought in by the Old Manager (Tyson) and the Brady bunch. Her main job was to do battle with the Coastal Commission and get the Marina Center built. How that work out?
    Now the City is stuck with her, until this City Council gets fed up enough to fire her.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. As long as the city isn’t afraid of inviting lawsuits from the Squire’s and the wrongfully evicted, why not simply take over the property with eminent domain?

    The city could have kept these folks housed while repairs were made…it could have been our first free housing for the homeless modeled after the program in Utah that is actually effective.

    Too bad, with all our well-paid experts with advanced degrees at HSU and at CR, none are involved enough in their community to crunch some numbers and inform us of just how much cheaper it is to house people for free than to subject them to the indignities of law enforcement, temporary shelter, emergency rooms and mental health admissions, incarceration, and new interest in enforcing shopping cart, bicycle or panhandling permits…that mostly impact the destitute, placing them under further stress and endless debt.

    Liked by 3 people

  11. Eminent Domain??

    We don’t need no stinking commies mucking up Eureka’s expanding rental industry and our profitable advance toward feudalism. Keeping this building among Eureka’s numerous blighted properties promises more jobs for our hard working police and fire-crews while the well-known owners write-off their losses.

    Why do you people hate the job creators?

    Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s