Originally Posted by Quentin

Well, the good news is that the county doesn't even have to respond to the AHF's complaint in any way, so the identity of the accuser may never become relevant at all (legally speaking, at least).

I think that's a fairly likely outcome here, really; the county might just read the AHF's complaint, send something back that in effect says "Thanks. Duly noted; we will take this under advisement" and then the next time we hear about it will come when the AHF holds another press conference to bitch about the county doing nothing in response to their complaint.

Has the county even promulgated the final rules for compliance with Measure B, btw? Does anybody know?