The Committee responds: <br />The issue of non-securitization of the document in question was raised by the Committee in <br />Gioello. Mr. Gioello confirmed receipt of this email and entered it into the record. See Item 3 <br />(d) in this email attachment which reads as follows: <br />on should <br />Kloos states: <br />against the EWEB agreement in the March 30 letter from Susan Hoffman. <br />The Committee responds: <br />many areas, the eight items that followed. Furthermore, the <br />Committee thoroughly discussed the inadequacies and shortcomings of this document prior to <br /> in the record <br />prior to the Kloos May 15, 2018 letter. <br />Kloos states: <br />commitment document is real or forged. This is a new objection not raised in the list of <br />objections filed against the EWEB agreement in the March 30 letter from Susan <br />Hoffman. <br />The Committee responds: <br />See above response. <br />Appeal Issue #24; page 26: <br />Kloos states: <br />In item 3 the opponents make an evidentiary assertion about the testimony of City of <br />Eugene Scott Gillespie. He stated his professional opinion about road safety. The <br />claim <br />but saying that his evidence is erroneous and false is itself an evidentiary statement that <br />cannot be made for the first time in this appeal. <br />The Committee responds: <br />The sta <br /> <br />