Jun 9, 2011
This Letter to the Editor was submitted on June 9 in response to an editorial by Nisqually Valley News Publisher/Editor Keven Graves he published on June 3:
As reported by the Associated Press* and numerous other media outlets, the Thurston County Sheriff’s office has ruled the death of Sally Paulsen as an unfortunate accident. In your June 3 editorial, why did you insinuate that Sally died under unusual circumstances? In the news article in the same issue, why did the reporter prematurely draw inappropriate and unsubstantiated conclusions between Sally and Ramtha’s School of Enlightenment?
I consider all the students in this school so very unique, rare, and such a gift to their family, friends, and community that the loss of such a precious student as Sally hurts my heart.
An NVN reporter called my staff on May 25 at 11 a.m. for comment before the Sheriff released Sally’s name or any of the circumstances surrounding her death. For my staff to “not comment” before the facts were made public by the Sheriff’s office was totally appropriate and respectful. Your criticism of me and/or my spokesperson for not offering condolences at that time was unreasonable given that Sally’s body had not yet been identified. Also, to correlate this School’s food storage practices with Sally’s death prior to the release of the information from the Sheriff’s office would have been imprudent speculation, as stated by my staff.
If an NVN reporter wanted information about RSE’s food storage practices, a two-second online search with the words “Ramtha, food storage” would list many pages of links about this School’s practices. Click here for Ramtha’s thoughts about food storage: http://www.ramtha.com/newsletter/vol5/issue4/SP3.html
Finally, my spokesperson was in contact with the executor of Sally’s estate immediately after the Sheriff identified her body, and my staff has been supportive of all efforts to assist her friends and family. The fact that our press release did not reach you in time for your print deadline is no excuse for your reckless statement.
* Read more from the Associated Press.
Jun 8, 2011
Tacoma News Tribune editorial writer Cheryl Tucker published an editorial in Inside Opinion June 9 titled “Knight’s water war with Yelm is one worth fighting.”
“Ramtha may or may not have been a great warrior 35,000 years ago, but his purported modern incarnation – New Age guru JZ Knight – is fighting a good fight of her own.
“Knight, whose 80-acre estate and Ramtha School of Enlightenment is just outside Yelm city limits in Thurston County, has been battling in court for four years to prevent five housing developments from going in nearby.”
“Knight’s argument: that Yelm had overestimated its ability to provide water to the developments, and so would be forced to drain water from sources where she owns senior water rights.”
“Knight and the DOE make an excellent point: Those questions need to be answered way in advance – before development plans are finalized. If local governments can’t prove they have enough water to accommodate the new growth, then they shouldn’t permit it.”
Jun 6, 2011
Tacoma News Tribune staff writer Sean Robinson wrote an in-depth report titled “JZ Knight’s bid to halt development heard by state’s Supreme Court.”
Note: The print edition was titled “JZ Knight proves to be a warrior vs. development”
“Neighbors often groan about the new housing developments next door. Typically, that’s all they do – but JZ Knight, 65, is no ordinary neighbor. She’s started an argument that could change the rules of local land-use planning throughout the state, and she’s determined to finish it.”
“If Knight prevails, the legal precedent could echo across the state, especially in rural communities where water is scarce. Owners of senior water rights could halt development in its tracks.”
Knight has previously stated “to halt development” was not her intent. Knight’s case was about “the City of Yelm’s attempt to approve five proposed new developments without adequate proof of a sufficient water supply.”
JZ Knight presented evidence at five public hearings showing that the City of Yelm’s water rights are not adequate to serve five proposed Yelm subdivisions.