Tuesday, November 2, 2010

The 'Washington County Department of Land Use' Response To Incident Between Building Inspector and Amy Roloff


Local residents called the county, concerned that the large ark-like structure might topple over and injure someone. The picture is of the Ark on display for pumpkin season Oct 2010.



One of the most talked about segments in the final season of Little People, Big World, was the confrontation between Amy Roloff and the county building inspector. The majority of people expressed very strong and negative opinions about the conduct of the building inspector. Others were simply confused and wondered about editing and what really might have happened. A few others were unimpressed with how Amy dealt with the situation.

After the episode aired, Matt Roloff posted the following message on his Facebook Fan Page on October 27th:

Matt Roloff = Thanks everyone for so many messages supporting Amy. Most of you are right. The county did violate our 4th amendment rights of illegal search. The officer was dead wrong. Our legal options are being explored. Thanks again for all the well wishes I have passed them on to pitbull Amy. :))))

That is the Roloffs side of the story and what they portrayed on Little People, Big World (it bears noting that Matt and Amy Roloff are also producers of the show). In the name of fairness, what is the 'Washington County Department of Land Use' stance on the situation?

The Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation were emailed regarding the incident that aired in the Little People, Big World episode titled "Little Noah". They were asked if what viewers saw were the proper procedures of their department and/or if the department of L & T felt what appeared on the edited television program was an accurate depiction of events?

The following was the response from the Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation.

October 29th, 2010

Washington County’s Department of Land Use and Transportation apologizes for the action of our Building Inspector on the Little People, Big World segment aired October 25, 2010. We have also apologized to the Roloff family.

Many people are aware that the County and the Roloffs have had numerous interactions related to the land use and building codes enforced by the County. Our highest priority is the safety of our residents. We respond to complaints, particularly regarding potentially unsafe structures.


The Department received calls from nearby residents that a large "Ark like" wooden boat was being placed on site. They expressed concerns about it possibly toppling over and hurting someone. It was in this context that the inspector visited the property. He should have been more cautious about entering the property and he should have identified himself to Mrs. Roloff.

Appropriate corrective personnel action was taken. The department is providing additional training and taking other steps to ensure that we live up to a high standard of public service.

We would like to note that the program is an edited T.V. show, so some of the facts associated with it may have been omitted for entertainment value.

Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation
LUT is REACHing for excellence in customer service
Reliability Efficiency Assistance Courtesy Honesty






87 comments:

Brandon said...

This is how I see it.

An employee of an organziation, while not doing anything illegal, did not act according to the organizations standards by not telling Amy who he was.

The department apologized to the Roloffs and disciplined the man.

Matt Roloff goes on to say they are still considering legal action.

I ask this seriously. How can the Roloffs claim to be Christian with Christian values? Isn't being Christian all about forgiveness and letting God judge.

No one was injured, etc. Basically Amy was treated rudely when the inspector wouldn't identify himself or said he was only willing to talk to Matt.

They received an apology from the Department and the guy was disciplined. If the Roloffs are still "Expoloring their legal options" (I don't think they have any anyway) they obviously didn't accept the apology.

How mighty Christian of the Roloff family! They are all talk with all the so-called Christian stuff. They never display any of it.

Jocelynn said...

A very nice statement. I was impressed.

Greg said...

The Roloffs could learn from that response.

They recognized their inspector was wrong. They apologized.

Compare that to the Roloffs refusal to apologize for Jeremy's offensive racial and homophobic comments online.

But it's the Roloffs that write a book about their 'Big Values'.

Brandon, I agree completely. I think the Roloffs are a very vengeful brood. Nothing Christian about them.

Lynn C said...

I am glad they acknowledged that the building inspector was wrong. I thought Amy was justified in acting as she did.

If they apologized, it is up to the Roloffs whether they accept it or not. I guess they didn't. That's their choice.

David said...

I'm so tired of the Roloffs giant chip on their shoulders.

The statement was very professional and covered everything. The county inspector should have been more professional and courteous, but lets not lose sight of the real issue.

SAFETY!

The Roloffs did put a structure on their property that put two people in the hospital and could have killed them both.

They are right to investigate to ensure safety to prevent any possible accidents. What if, for example, the boat had tipped over and crushed Jacob's friend Levi. Not only would their have been the tragedy of an unnecessary death, but the county could possibly be held accountable for not doing their job and ensuring safety.

Rap541 said...

Well, they acknowledged that the inspector was wrong to be rude to Amy.

What they are not saying is "the inspector had no right to be there and was on his own, just hoping to find something wrong".

There were complaints. The inspector was not trespassing and not acting as a power mad dog, slavering to dish it out to the Roloffs.

Oh and yeah, do note the Washington County folks have made the editing arguement.

So in other words, there's no crime, hence no arrests. Matt's talking big but lawsuits are public.

David said...

That's correct, Rap. They could have quoted Matt Roloff about the editing of the show.

Funny that Matt isn't reminding his facebook fans of how the show is edited/chopped/sliced/diced/spliced and people are silly fools for taking what they are shown at face value.

Matt only trots that when it's him being criticized for something he's done on the show. When it's something that makes someone else look bad, they want people to believe that the show is 100% accurate and honest.

Ashley said...

Thanks for posting that Spirits.

There are always two sides to every story. It's important to remember that. They working to protect the public. If I was working for them I would probably doubt the Roloffs when it comes to safety too. They do have the trebuchet accident in their history books.

Dana said...

So it was neighbors causing problems for the Roloffs. What is wrong with those people? They should mind their own business and leave the Roloffs alone.

I'm pleased they admitted that the inspector was wrong.

Brandon, being Christian doesn't mean that you have to put up with people walking all over you or disrespecting you.

Timothy said...

I like hearing the other side of the story. Thanks for sharing. I agree with Brandon's assessment. The department is being more than gracious by apologizing to the Roloffs. Not sure I would have after Amy's over the top psycho like behavior in the truck.

The Roloffs are just being drama queens to get sympathy. I despise people that threaten to sue for minor things like that. The guy was impolite to not explain himself better. To give him the benefit of the doubt with the editing card, he also could have been intimidated by the crowd of camera crew and team of producers and Amy losing her cool. I don't know how I would have reacted in that situation either, but as they said, he should have identified himself.

And of course the Roloffs never look in the mirror and think about it from the other perspective or think about how they could have handled it better on their end. They always take the "they're picking on us and give us money!" stand.

Anon 2nd said...

Dana, you might try reading that again. They're not admitting anything of legal consequence.

Dana said...

Anon 2nd, I said I'm glad they admitted he was wrong. They did.

They said he was wrong. I quote:

"He should have been more cautious about entering the property and he should have identified himself to Mrs. Roloff."

Vic Rattlehead said...

Dana said: "So it was neighbors causing problems for the Roloffs. What is wrong with those people? They should mind their own business and leave the Roloffs alone.

I'm pleased they admitted that the inspector was wrong.

Brandon, being Christian doesn't mean that you have to put up with people walking all over you or disrespecting you."

This is what the Roloffs do best: play the victims.


The neighbors had every right to worry about the safety of that death trap "Ark" because the last thing they'd want to see is someone (like a small child) getting hurt or killed by that thing and the resulting media circus that would not only cast the community and county in a bad light but inconvenience their lives even further that the Roloff's already have by having cameras follow them around in public.

In my opinion the county shouldn't have apologized for sending an inspector and Amy should have been more mature and adult than to fly off in a blind rage and start acting like a four year old throwing a tantrum rather than just politely ask to see some identification (which is what she should have done in the first place).

The Roloffs always whine about wanting respect yet they act in the most disrespectful manner over the simplest things which causes trouble for them and then they say "well we're gonna sue because you hurt my feelings".

If anyone should be apologizing for acting badly it should be Matt & Amy.

Michelle said...

That's a very reasonable response. I think people should remind themselves that despite what the Roloffs might think (mostly because of their arrogance because of their celebrity), the world is not out to get the Roloffs.

The Roloffs, like everyone else, need to follow the laws and the safety people need to do their job thoroughly.

Carol said...

Vic, I agree. I think the Department are being very, very gracious to apologize to the Roloffs. The Roloffs should have been very grateful that the county were taking the high road by simply apologizing instead of shifting the focus to Amy's behavior, which they could have done.

I also agree that I think the inspectors behavior was influenced by the way Amy approached him and her fly off the handle manner. If someone comes in yelling at you, you might not act like you would have if approached in a civil manner.

Megan said...

Brandon, personally I believe Jesus is ashamed that the Roloffs publicly call themselves Christians. They don't act like it in almost every aspect of their lives.

They aren't about love, bettering yourself, others and society to serve God in a more Christ-like way. They are about greed, the quest for money and nastiness.

Rap541 said...

Dana - they aren't admitting the inspector was wrong to be there. They had legit complaints to look. Yes, the inspector had every right to be there, and he should have been more polite... but he wasn't just wandering by, hoping for an opportunity to *screw the Roloffs*.

I mean hasn't that been the whole issue? The county, and the evil neighbors simply HATE Matt?

But in fact the county is backing up their man's right to be there. Still waiting to hear how Matt has filed a lawsuit.

Actually, I am still waiting to see all those interviews Matt did with "national media" on how he's the victim of cyberbullying. Its been almost a month....

Greg said...

"Actually, I am still waiting to see all those interviews Matt did with "national media" on how he's the victim of cyberbullying. Its been almost a month...."

Rap, while Matt is at it, I would like him to explain why he feels "Matt is a jerk" is cyberbullying, but Matt thanking his fans for saying "the inspector was a jerk" and much more, is not cyberbullying.

Natalie said...

I like their response. The inspector was wrong to not simply show Amy his card right off the back and tell her he was there due to the complains and concern about safety.

They said he was wrong not to do that. Shame on the Roloffs for not accepting the apology, understanding that they are looking out for the safety of the residents (including the Roloffs and their friends) and moving on.

I think the Roloffs are being very petty and unreasonable people.

But then again Matt hates a charity hospital because of how he was treated almsot 40 years ago. The Roloffs don't exude love or forgiveness. I think they are very bitter people that only ever think about their own perspective.

Ronald said...

I'm glad they mentioned the editing. They were very gracious.

Wake up people. Matt and Amy Roloff control what was shown. Of course they are going to put Amy in the best possible light and make the inspector look evil.

Timothy said...

Megan, in my opinion, it is more proof that the Roloffs are pseudo Christians. They were offered a gracious apology but instead of attempting to defuse the situation, Matt tries to rile up their fans by using his celebrity status and talks of law suit.

No true Christian would act like that.

Mike P. said...

It's my thought that the inspector's only mistake is that he refused to identify himself and to state his business. That's not just a mistake, it is an arrogant mistake that bumps up the anger level (if we believe the editing).

Otherwise, he was within his rights to be on the property. Like it or not, law is on his side and the cop who informed Amy spoke the truth.

As for the neighbors "causing problems," what silly tripe that statement is. I hope the apologists don't drive with their blinders on.

If I owned adjacent rural property and wanted quietly to enjoy it, but found my views assaulted by Roloff's fantasies, and the country roads I must use clogged by traffic headed to Roloff's amusement park, I'd be angry too.

And worse, if I knew that Roloff scoffs at land-use regulations, jousts with inspectors and considers my concerns as mere bothersome whining, I'd be even more angry.

It's clear that neighbors aren't on good terms with Roloff, for reasons that are equally clear. Here enters the inspector (once again). He represents Washington County law and, most immediately, the neighbors; he's the referee, officiating the game that Roloff forces his neighbors to play.

As for Christianity and the Roloffs, I quote my favorite bumper sticker: "Jesus would slap the sh*t out of you."

John said...

It was a good response. The Roloffs should be grown ups, accept the apology and let it go. Keeping it going when the dept. has bent over backwards to be fair is just petty on the part of the Roloffs.

BeckyM said...

WHEN does this show end? and these people lose their 15 minutes of fame? Way overdue...

Kapper said...

I just don't see how the inspector was 'rude'. Silent, yes. Like he wanted to get the hell away from Amy Roloff. Should he have shown her a business card? Yes. But for crying out loud, she was near hysterical!!! All reasoning went out the window at that point. Cut the guy some slack. Not only did she literally sit on his lap to prevent him from leaving (even though she kept screaming at him to leave her property...) but she jabbed him a few times in the chest previous to that. Poor Roloff's, they're never in the wrong. Everyone else is to blame.

Shadow said...

"Many people are aware that the County and the Roloffs have had numerous interactions related to the land use and building codes enforced by the County."

While not excusing his behavior, I can understand why the inspector just wanted to leave, to avoid a confrontation that Amy was clearly determined to have. She saw the truck, she *knew* it was an inspector, she is *well* aware that something like an "ark" suddenly appearing on their property would be of interest to their neighbors and the Land Use dept, given the Roloffs' past history of ignoring and circumventing land use permits and regulations. Not to mention the cameras and film crew relishing every minute. He knew it would be a circus no matter what he did or said, so he simply attempted to end the situation as quickly as possible. A poor choice, but an understandable one, in the heat of the moment. When you are faced with an irrational person, engaging is the last thing you want to do.

Amy's behavior *was* assault by any legal standard, and she could have been charged. The Land Use office clearly chose to take the high road in that respect, giving her the benefit of the doubt and recognizing that her *intent* was not to commit battery, even if that was the result.

The whole episode was silly in the extreme, and completely unnecessary. I appreciate the neighbors taking the necessary steps to ensure the safety of the public and preserve land values. Many people would be happy if Matt decided he had had enough, and sold the farm, as he keeps talking about. Unfortunately, I suspect he will be around as long as the "cachet" of the show brings in customers. After all, it's not like he or his family actually do any of the farmwork. He has "people" for that sort of thing.

The Chosen One said...

Dana said "Brandon, being Christian doesn't mean that you have to put up with people walking all over you or disrespecting you."

It is apparent to most people here that you have no clue what it means to be Christian my dear. Yes, the county inspector should have identified himself upon arrival. The county has now apologized for his actions.

That being said, Mrs Roloff had no right to fly off the handle and berate the man the way she did. I'm still waiting for an apology from Mrs Roloff. I imagine the Second Coming will arrive before her apology does.

Perhaps a little refresher lesson from the Bible will help you out Dana.

“Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.” – Ephesians 4:31-32 KJV

baxter said...

Thank you The Chosen One." It's quite apparent that these so-called "christians" use Jesus and their own brand of "christianity" to rationalize and advance their own petty ways of mean spiritedenss and hatefulness. They do real Christians a terrible disservice.

Trucker said...

I agree that overall I do think the Roloff family is vengeful. And certainly I see no Christian values coming from ANY of this family as they interact with one another. The children's disrespect for the parent's is blatant.

Matt is 100 douche bag.

He is keeping his 15 minutes going by his constant FB updates. He is not at all interested in fading away.

Anon3rd said...

I don't think the Roloffs are being unChristian like nor was Amy in the wrong. Do the neighbors have a legitimate concern, I think they do and I think the county has an obligation to see what it was all about.

Amy was visibly upset because someone had trespassed and when found and asked what he was doing the inspector ignored her, wouldn't answer any questions as to what he was doing, would not give her his name, was rude to her even after she said that she was the property owner, he wouldn't talk to her. He would only talk to Matt.

Well, I do believe her civil rights were violated in 3 ways: 1) the inspector had a duty to identify himself. He knows who Amy is there was no reason not to identify himself. 2) he also needed to identify why he was on their property. 3) He was trespassing by climbing through a locked gate identified with signs as trespassing if you come onto the property.

On another note, my perception of the inspector was that he was an arrogant male chauvinist (and no, I'm not a women's libber). Amy had every right to have her questions answered. The inspector was violating the terms of his employment, I'm sure. Since when does the county have a right to trespass when there is no threat. A simple call to the Roloff's asking to examine the structure would have been the way for the county to handle this.

To go a little further, I think Amy was ignored one because she is a woman and two because she is a little person. More power to the Roloff's for pursuing this. Until you have walked in the Roloff's shoes as a dwarf, I would say that most of you do not understand who very frustrating it is to be treated in such a condensding manner.

David said...

Anon 3rd, I think it's ridiculous to claim the inspector was being discrimatory towards Amy because she is a dwarf.

He wanted to talk to Matt. Last time I checked, Matt is a dwarf.

Let's be realistic about it. As their statement says, they county and the Roloffs have had many interactions. Do you want to put a wager on it that every one of the inspector's dealings with the Roloffs was with Matt? Because Matt is the one that comes up with the ideas for structures and micromanages the projects? Is it fair to say Matt deals with the structures and not Amy? Of course it is. It's natural he would want to talk to the person he always deals with.

Having said that, as they said and apologized for, the inspector should have identified himself. However Kapper and Shadow make good points. It's natural to assume a lot of the inspectors reaction has to do with the way Amy blew a gasket. She wasn't rational. When someone is like that, not being reasonable, the smart thing to do is to disengage and remove from the situation.

Rap541 said...

He was trespassing by climbing through a locked gate identified with signs as trespassing if you come onto the property.

Then why no arrest? Even assuming the police officer at the scene was incompetant or corrupt, Matt and Amy not only have the non edited tapes as evidence, but also have the ability to appeal to national media if they geniunely feel they aren't recieving justice. Matt's even talking about pursuing his "legal options". So what are they waiting for? I mean, Matt even was praising the police recently so clearly he's not on such bad terms that they'd all deny him justice due to hating him....

my perception of the inspector was that he was an arrogant male chauvinist

I rather thought that as well... the refusal to discuss anything with her was rude. However she was also belligerent and physically demanding. I'm not suggesting that she was threatening, but she was touching the guy and demanding his camera, and she did tell him to get off the property and then tried to stop him from leaving. Its a catch 22 I'm sure the county is familar with, concerning the Roloffs. If the guy doesn't immediately leave because Amy told him to, then the Roloffs claim he was intimidating them and refused to leave. But if he does leave, then Amy tries to make him stay....

two because she is a little person.

Until you have walked in the Roloff's shoes as a dwarf, I would say that most of you do not understand who very frustrating it is to be treated in such a condensding manner.

Yeah, this not so much. I know our anon posters don't like clarifying their posts (they tend to hit and run, not realizing that just because they say so, people aren't magically convinced of their points) but I will ask.

What led anyone to think Amy was being condescended to because she was a dwarf? And keep in mind, I personally do think the inspector was being a chauvinist... That doesn't mean Amy's dwarfism came into play.

I did see in that edited tape, Amy physically positioning herself in front of the inspector to force him to walk around, and Amy jumping into his car and sitting on his lap, Amy demanding property from the inspector despite a reasonable explanation, and Amy telling the man to leave and then attempting to physically prevent him from leaving.

If an average height person had done the "leap into the car and sit in him to make him stay" (and she wasn't being gentle either) routine, I suspect there'd be a whole different ending to this. But's she's a little person, so apparently its sorta cute that she physically assaulted someone.

Timothy said...

I feel the only discrimination involved was Amy using her dwarfism to her advantage. Think about if Amy was of average height. Or a man.

Think about it. What would have happened if Jeremy had acted identical to Amy? Climbed into the inspector's vehicle and had physical struggle with the inspector over control of the driver's seat? Jeremy would have been arrested for assault.

Amy does and she is cheered on. It's cute and funny and brave!

Anon the 3rd, Amy was totally acting in an "unChristian" manner.

Melissa said...

Matt must not want people to know the county apologized. I posted on his facebook wall. I asked him if he accepted their apology and posted the link. He deleted my comment.

Brandon said...

Melissa, possibly, but I think it's more Matt's hatred of Spirits. He doesn't permit anyone to say the name "Spiritswander" on anything he controls. How silly. lol. Like people can't find it on google easily enough.

That was quite the Christian conversation Matt was having with the Mad Greek deli guy Pondo. I think they are cyberbullying Bob!


Pondo: Who was the douche bag who came up to you and said he wouldn't pay $2.00 to go to your pumpkin patch. What an ass, 2 dollars per car, thats 50 cents per person if you have a family of 4. Maybe he should step up and pay your property tax, your employees, equipment costs, pumpkin seeds, fertilizer, water, etc. What a che...ap bastard! Stay the f@%k off my property then is what I would tell him.

Matt: His name was bob. He didn't even tip Nichole.

Matt: Pondo. On behalf of Bob. I'm going to raise my parking fee

Lori: What an idiot!....That the idiot who complained about Matt charging $2 for parking ought to pull his head out of his you know what. Don't let the idiots of the world ruin a truly great thing for all the other appreciative people out there!

Matt: Thanks Lori :)


Can't you feel the Christ's love ozooing from Matt's pores?

Bob fan said...

Brandon, that shows what a rich snob Matt and his friends are. Friends with a rich owner of a restaurant using cuss words to insult people that work hard for their money and don't want to pay monyy grabs they don't have to pay at other farms. Matt and his rich friends that treat him VIP because he's rich and a celebrity swear and insult the working class man behind his back.

Shadow said...

Hey, that gives me a great idea! Maybe next year, I'll get some friends to help hand out flyers to all the folks waiting in the looong line to get into the Roloffs' parking lot. We could provide info on all the OTHER local pumpkin farms that DON'T CHARGE A DIME for parking and don't have hour-long lines for everything. Of course, without the show, people may have (gasp!) forgotten all about the Roloffs by next October. We can only hope...

By the way, if the "Mad Greek" thinks it's such a great idea, why doesn't HE charge people for parking to visit his restaurant? Oh, right, because they would all go somewhere else!! Just like Bob! Go Bob Go! Hahahahaha...

Anon 4th said...

My family and I live in NJ and have never paid for parking at the very, very busy pumpkin places we have been to. All the same great things to do. I am sure there has probably been some headaches behind the scenes, but the public dosen't seem to witness it.

I guess NJ has their act together and aren't so bad after all. Have been to pumpkin places on Long Island NY too, same thing. Well organized and completly family orientated and not so obvious of riping the poor public off.

Christine said...

Shadow, I thought the exact same thing about the "Mad Greek" owner. Wouldn't a restaurant get a lot of "families of 4"? He thinks people should happily pay $2 parking. HE should do it!

As you said, no one would go. Why? Because you can go to all the restaurants and not pay for parking. This guy is obviously completely out of touch with the regular public.

Probably too busy wining and dining the local celebrities. I'm sure the Roloffs probably eat free at the Mad Greek. Since he thinks charging for parking is so great, maybe he could recoup some of the money lost in giving the Roloffs comp. food by adding it on to regular non celebrity customers...oh that's right, he wouldn't have any if he charged.

Seriously, that obscene comment from the Mad Greek owner explains a lot about why he's friends with the Roloffs.

Brandon said...

Shadow, great point!

Btw, isn't Matt always complaining that people criticize him on the internet when he doesn't know who they are?

You'd think Matt would appreciate Bob telling him off in person! Go Bob!

Jocelynn said...

To be honest, I was a little taken aback by the strong language of the Mad Greek owner. He's posting on a public page. I think he should be more careful about using that kind of language to insult people. In my opinion, it makes him look like a jerk.

Shadow, that is an idea. I've actually read stories from people this year that said they drove to the farm, saw the line, turned around and went home.

By their conversation, I think Matt and "Pondo" are owners that are out of touch with the public.

Rap541 said...

Hey, where is this conversation happening?

Expressed said...

Rap, the Mad Greek dude and Matt talking about this Bob guy telling Matt off about the $2 parking charge?

It's on the wall of Matt's facebook fan page's wall. Click on "Just Others". The comment is from Pantelis Pondo (right now the date is "on Tuesday".

Rap541 said...

Ok, thanks Expressed :)

Rap541 said...

"Rap, while Matt is at it, I would like him to explain why he feels "Matt is a jerk" is cyberbullying, but Matt thanking his fans for saying "the inspector was a jerk" and much more, is not cyberbullying"

You know Greg, I think what has often irritated me with Matt is that Matt willfully encouraged his boardies like Sawyer etc to cyberbully, complete with praising them etc for attacking others (Remember, its STILL up on the mattroloff.com board that matt likes it when his boardies "kick hater ass") but cries victim when he feels he's been bullied.

And the constant hatefilled comments with Matt's approval - I don't see Matt the Christian in anyway protesting "douchbag" or "effing cheap bastard" when its directed at someone who Matt doesn't like... thats sooo saintly of him :)

The inspector is wailed on for being a jerk, an a-hole, and there's Matt saying thanks for the insults, yup yup we appreciate you calling that man names because thats what he deserves!

And anyone who questions matt's pricing? *Douchbags!* and Matt's thanking the person for calling Matt's complaining customers cheap effing bastard douchbags! Matt apparently has no problem with *that*!

But Matt should only be praised and if he isn't, he's the victim of lying cyberbullies! Poor victim Matt...

After all, there are NO valid criticisms of Matt Roloff. Anyone who makes any protest at all is a *douchbag* and Matt will thank his fans for calling out the *douchbags*.

Calling people "effing douchbags" and "jerks" is so Christian and there's Matt Roloff, pleased as punch that its happening, and encouraging it to continue - unless he's the target, of course.

Then he's the poor sad victim being hurt.

Maybe someone should point out that "do unto others" doesn't have a "unless they're disagreeing and then they deserve, the douchbags!" exclusion? Maybe if Matt wants to enjoy the insults being dished out, he needs to learn to take them as well, instead of declaring himself the victim.

Brandon said...

Rap, you nailed it. Best post ever. I'd challenge any of the people that were on the "Roloffs are victims of cyberbullying" bandwagon to respond to your post, point by point with no ad hominem attacks.

I'd throw in the fact that Matt and Ron "cyberbullied" Matt's neighbors the TLC website, that the Roloff boys have been part of ridiculing Justin Bieber, Jeremy and his friends insulting his fans with bullying and hurtful comments including laughing at the appearance of a teenaged Puerto Rican girl that made a fan page for Jeremy and finally the Kate Gosselin factor. If these national media outlets ever release these interviews they supposedly did with Matt (according to Matt) I expect Matt to chastise the world for cyberbullying Kate Gosselin (and for that matter, Octo-Mom) but ya know what, Matt ain't going to do that because he knows how ridiculously poor that would be received especially considering Matt allowed cyberbullying comments against Kate on his own controlled Facebook page...and I'm sure Matt doesn't think they are victims of cyberbullying, just like Bob the disgruntled parking guy and the county inspector aren't being cyberbullied in Matt's mind because one thing I've learned about the Roloffs is that only the Roloffs are ever victims. Roloffs and Roloff supporters can do and say whatever they like, but the moment something negative is said about the Roloffs that Matt doesn't like, Matt wants the FBI involved because he is a poor, poor victim. :)))

CabanaGirl127 said...

Wow. You all think that it's *Christian*-like to sit and judge others? Give the Roloff judging a rest. No one but God can judge! Anyways, Amy was totally justified in her behavior. There are no trespassing signs posted. That is their right to their land. So what if some nosey neighbor thinks it'll kill someone. The county has called and made appointments before and they should have on this one too.
Love and blessings to you all!

Rap541 said...

Well... unlike the Roloffs, I don't claim to be Christian. And if one but god can judge then why is Matt calling people sourpusses, bullies etc and agreeing with his buds how some of his fans are cheap effing bastard douchbags?

Why if only God can judge, does Matt publically judge his neighbors as "martini farmers"?

And understand the law actually allows the county to not give warning for inspections. They don't have to, and for good reason.

Now explain how Matt is being a good Christian and should be praised for his judgemental comments. I think we all would enjoy yet another "When Matt namecalls and judges, he is a blessing of God and Jesus loves his namecalling and judging, but when anyone judges Matt, its bullying and not Christian".

CabanaGirl - a reminder - telling people not to judge is in fact you judging others. :)

Shadow said...

"Amy was totally justified in her behavior."
"some nosey neighbor"

Judging much? Sounds like you're a little annoyed only because our judgements don't match yours.

Peace out...

Photocrazy said...

I watch the show on occasion, I did just watch the episode mentioned.
Most jobs require you show work identification when you go to someone’s property. These days you shouldn’t even let a solicitor onto your property without ID due to the fact that many people casing homes to obtain any information that they may use when they break in later, I worked 9-1-1 for 8 years. I am sure that in the rules of the department, they are supposed to show ID before proceeding.

The guy parked his car outside the gate, he walked up the drive. She saw him on her property and asked him who he was. He refused to tell her and kept walking, ignoring her requests. If you found someone walking your property, fenced or not, you would demand to know who and why they were there. Most of us would have called 9-1-1, then try to find out who they were. He used his size to try and force his way past her when she asked for his information. He had no right to do any of that. If he wanted to see the ark, he should have told her there were complaints and it was his job to look at it.

The Roloffs have had other run-ins with the county and their neighbors. Matt seems to live by the saying the only difference between men and boys are the size of their toys. I know from earlier shows, he let groups come for field trips etc. to enjoy his playpen. Everyone can be rude at times, you get tired of all of the complaints by people who want the country life without the “real country happenings”. The comment "martini farmers" is a good name for them. They complain when farm machinery is driving down the road, slowing them down, when at 3am the neighbor who has a real farm is out bailing hay, it has to have the dew on it to make it good, that trucks are driving past their homes during harvest season. Those are the things that come with "living in the country". I grew up on a small horse farm and that is the way it is.

I read about a family that moved to the country and called the county because people’s horses on the road left behind "road apples", which she got on her expensive car. I had a 9-1-1 call from a woman who wanted a deputy to come out and tell the neighbor to stop bailing hay in the middle of the night. I advised her that is when hay has to be bailed. She wasn't happy.

I am sure the Roloffs had to start charging to park because they have to pay people to direct traffic, as it is so busy and the Martini Farmers complained about traffic. I was reading the paper the other day, people were complaining that it took 2 hours or so to get off of Sauvie Island which is just outside of Portland. There is only one bridge that provides access to and from the island. It was pumpkin season and it is a popular place to go, just like the Roloff Farm. This is a large metro area that covers a 60 mi by 90 mi area, from Troutdale to North Plains and Vancouver to Salem, with some farm area in-between. That means when it is berry season there will be heavy traffic to and from the berry farms, corn season and pumpkin season etc the same. If you don't like it move to the mountains, but don't complain during ski season. They had a pumpkin catapult that broke and injured them, nobody else, a great number of pumpkin farms that have them.

Now about acting like a "Christian"! People here are like most people who hide behind being a Christian. They think they are “the Chosen” and better than everyone else. They hate gays, promote their "Christian Politicians" etc. It doesn't seem to matter that all of the politicians hide behind their Christianity, and are the ones caught sleeping around with women and men or both, ripping people off while they rake in millions, which is never enough for them. Every sect thinks they are better than the rest and look down their noses at others. Most are the epitome of what they claim to despise. You will be better when you realize people are people, work on your own problems.

Rap541 said...

Photocrazy - so you conceed that the inspector didn't have to ask permission to inspect the property and his real flaw was not "trespassing" but being rude to Amy.

Amy in response didn't call 911, she called her husband, and then demanded the man's property, ordered him to stay after ordering him to leave and then jumped on him to physically detain him. And frankly, until the Roloffs allow all the uncut footage of that incident to air, we really don't know what happened, and we do know that TLC is going to protect the talent first in any presentation.

As for the complaints, forgive me but "Matt's a farmer, so he's always right and his neighbors need to like it or leave their property!" isn't how the law works. For starters, Roloff Farms doesn't make the majority of its profits from selling farm products, now do they?

Oh hey, I read about people calling in complaints about a guy who was letting construction sites dump their waste on his property and was creating a giant mess for their neighbors. That was Matt. How is letting construction sites use the land as a dump "farming"?

Don't get me wrong - I am sure there are petty complaints made. However the law is not "Kiss Matt Roloff's ass, he's a man with big toys so do as he says" and suggesting that his commercial business - you know the amusement park where he charges for parking, sells rides and tours, and buys pumpkins for resale to keep the myth that its a working farm going - somehow means no one has any rights but Matt, is a typical Matt staffer apologist.

I'd respect him more if he hadn't been in the papers calling himself a midget and playing the "poor widdle Matt" card years ago over land use. When Matt doesn't get his way, he never hesitates to play the dwarf card, now does he?

Rap541 said...

You will be better when you realize people are people, work on your own problems.

And Photocrazy gives us yet another variation of "If Matt does it, it's ok, and if anyone complains, they should *shut up*"

Let me explain - Photo has made it very clear that they believe Matt has every right to badmouth his neighbors. Photo has even listed several other incidents where Photo feels people are completely justified in being annoyed at complaints.

Why, pray tell, isn't Matt being told to shut up and tend to himself? Matt, your neighbors are epople and you are no better than they, people are people, so stop insisting you're better because you use your land differently.

That's the point right? But wait... no... Matt has every right to voice his disdain of the "martini farmers", right? After all, he's a *farmer* and they just... own property near him. How *dare* they voice a complaint! they should tend to themselves and Matt is proud to use his popularity to to gain public support from complaint strangers.

Everyone else tho? You better shut up. Because if you aren't supporting Matt, you're butting in and need to look at yourself. People who don't even live in Oregon and have never met Matt Roloff? if you support Matt, *you* need to mind matt's business and proudly declare your support! After all, calling people youy've never met "nosey" is *your business* and if it supports Matt, its ok to cyberbully the neighbors and make all sorts of comments.

Matt and his lackeys only want people minding their own business when they aren't kissing up to Matt. If you don't agree with Matt's views, shut up. if you do agree, then you feel free to call people you've never met names vbecause that supports Matt.

Brandon said...

Anon27...I almost totally disagree with you.

The "offense" committed by the inspector was not that bad.

When you really examine it and take in all the facts and look at the departments gracious apology, the inspector was rude when he didn't immediately identify himself. He was rude. He did not assault, abuse or steal anything or from anyone.

Rude, impolite, bad manners when dealing with an irrate and irrational person (Amy). That's what we're dealing with. Bad manners in dealing with an irrational person.

They didn't need to apologize to the Roloffs. Where is Amy's apology for assaulting the man by climbing into his vehicle and sitting on top of him? Or Amy acknowledging that she didn't respond in the most appropriate manner? Or this another case of how people should treat the Roloffs but the Roloffs never need to do the same to others?

Instead the department took the high road and apologized for the inspector not identifying himself.

As for your suggesting about the Roloffs calling 911...if you read the department's apology or listened to the officer, the county inspector does have the right to inspect the property without notifying them. The officer explained the reason and it makes perfect sense. If a person has something illegal and they know the inspector is coming at 3pm, then they might temporarily alter it and then remove it again after the inspection is over.

Their statement explains that the inspector was wrong because he did not immediately identify himself to Amy.

Like they pointed out as well, the facts that we were shown was edited and produced by Matt and Amy Roloff and their producer pals.

For all we know, the inspector could have identified himself and they edited out.

For all we know, Matt knew the inspector would be coming.

We also know that the footage they aired was edited to make the inspector look bad and to make Amy look justified in assaulting the inspector. When the inspector correctly pointed out that the gate he went past did not have any signs (an irrelevent point anyway because it was not illegal for a government issue to inspect an issue of safety), he was right. You were fooled by Roloff editing. They showed a different gate that had the sign, not the gate the Inspector went by.

It was classic hatchet job editing by LPBW and Matt and Amy Roloff. Play the clip of the inspector saying there was no sign, then show a totally different gate that does have a sign.

April 9 said...

Does anyone know the diciplanary action taken against the Washington County Inspector?

Specifically what is the title of the Washington County Inspector?

Is the Inspector a Register Professional Engineer and if so, with what specialty?

In another state, I brought suit against a
county photographer who violated a no prespassing sign and photographed my home, posting a view not visible from the public road
and have obtained a judgement substantial judgement for this invasion.

This case has gone way too far, the Roloffs' have many violated rights.

lucas said...

Why such fear about an inspector on your property? If I owned an operation like theirs I would be begging local professionals to stop by and make sure everything was safe. Come on, in the past we've seen how the contraptions on their tourist attraction nearly killed their own child and a dear friend. Amy was probably scared to death that an inspector might site them for the many ramshackle and dilapidated structures on the property.

Heaven forbid, it might be the end of her gravy train!!!!Wow, they seem to hold themselves above the law... greed isn't an admirable quality.

Frank said...

"And understand the law actually allows the county to not give warning for inspections. They don't have to, and for good reason."

Poster Rap541 does not have her facts exactly right. Or rather is leading the reader to the wrong conclusion. I agree It's OK to have a "surprise" inspection. However, It's unlawful (in every state in America) to enter someones property for inspection without either a search warrant or for the prevention of immediate life altering danger. 4th amendment.

In other words, A surprise inspection is legal as long as the official asks (and receives) permission to come in or on your property. No Trespassing signs make the violation is even clearer from a legal standpoint.

I just wanted to make sure the erroneous leading post was corrected. Please research a large body of case law on this issue.

Brandon said...

"No Trespassing signs make the violation is even clearer from a legal standpoint."

Frank, the no trespessing sign was on a different gate. You were fooled by LPBW editing.
Spirits, can you do the screen captures to prove the point?

Much to my chagrin (I'm not an all for government guy all the time!) government officials do have more rights than an average citizen when it comes to inspections.

Again, because of editing that Matt always reminds fans of, you know when he's laughing at the silly folks for believing something that was portrayed on the show, you can't trust what we saw in that scene was what really happened. The "don't trust LPBW editing" rule doesn't only apply when Matt wants it to (when it's something that makes Matt look bad. It definitely applies when Amy and Matt Roloff have a dispute with somebody and then they have a say in how the material is produced to the public.

Also, you ignore the reality that the Inspector could also have chosen to take legal action against Amy for her assault on him.

Climbing into someone's vehicle and physically touching them, fighting for control of the driver's seat and physically sitting on them is assault. Putting your hand on someone's shoulder is assault these days. Doing what Amy did to the inspector would qualify. Amy having dwarfism does not make her above the law.

By the way, I generally like Amy, but if people want to play the card that the Roloffs are the poor victims who had their rights violated and had a case for a lawsuit (that's very Christian of them), you can't ignore that the Inspector would surely have a case against Amy for her assault on him, if he chose to pursue it.

Rap541 said...

Frank - Then a) Why does Matt, on his twitter, tell people he was hit by a last minute surprise imnspection and forced to pay the season's profits over building inspections* in 2009? and b) Why isn't Matt suing for illegal trespass?
c)why wasn't the cop arresting the inspector?

A guess - what we saw edited out was the "misunderstanding" Matt alludes to where he as the property owner gave the inspector permission to check things out. :)

Or else Matt *isn't* a fighter and is allowing himself to be violated on camera. Hey Frank - why isn't matt pursuing this legally? He's got the cop on camera saying the inspector did nothing wrong? What about that?

*Btw matt's twitter opening day of pumpkin season is a lie. On the show the inspection was depicted a week earlier. Unless Matt had two rogue inspections, he wasn't almost shut down the day before pumpkin season. :)

Lynn C said...

Rap, what does the inspection of the Ark when nobody was home have to do with the inspection before the opening of pumpkin season?

Rap541 said...

Matt said the previous inspection, in twitter, was a surprise inspection, which Frank is suggesting is impossible without permission.

So was Matt telling the truth when he previously suggested the inspectors showed up the day before opening and tried to shut him down? When it was depicted on the show as happening a week before and was completely planned?

And was the inspector "trespassing" and "illegally entering the property" in the current situation? Because even assuming the cop was lying/incompetant, if a *crime* was committed on *camera*, why isn't Matt pursuing criminal charges?

In fact - the "big misunderstanding" comment makes me thing Matt knew the guy was coming out and gave permission. Coupled with the cop saying it was perfectly legal.... Until Matt is willing to say on record "I had no idea there was an inspector coming, I did not give permission, and my wife did not give permission for anyone to enter the property" then where is the crime?

Is there a crime? Matt's a *fighter*... is he *fighting* the criminal trespass? And if so... is it a secret? How *can* it be a secret if it's a legal action?

I use the previous incident - of Matt grossly exaggerating and bold face lying on the timing, to point out that there's a great deal to question when it comes to believing the show's depiction. The red flags on this inspector incident are Matt's "big misunderstanding" comment and the cop stating on camera that no crime was committed. If a crime *was* committed, Matt's got one hell of a lawsuit... Hard to believe Matt is forgiving and forgetting... if he's got a legal leg to stand on. I strongly suspect he doesn't.

Anon 29 said...

"They are right to investigate to ensure safety to prevent any possible accidents. What if, for example, the boat had tipped over and crushed Jacob's friend Levi..."

Anyone notice the trebuchet has never been seen on this show again...Hmmm...I wonder why...

Rap541 said...

"Anyone notice the trebuchet has never been seen on this show again...Hmmm...I wonder why..."

While the official story is well... a confused mishmash of "we're working on it" and "it'll be bigger than ever and safer", the last time we saw it, it was falling apart because it was poorly constructed and never seen again.

Frankly "horrific accident that nearly killed two people" would be enough to put me off rebuilding and considering the national media attention brought by the horrific accident, I can see the county taking a much closer look at attractions

clueless legality said...

"A last minute surprise inspection"? When you run an attraction that attracts the crowds that they do,(amusement parks, carnivals, etc.), they would be stupid stupid stupid to not follow local government inspections.

If a tourist were to die on their property does Mr. Financial Wizard understand what his liability might be?? Me thinks not. Amy seems equally uncaring. If someone can't walk into your prperty without a freakout, maybe theres a problem with your property?

aponce16 said...

I think the county should require The Roloffs to have some sort of liability insurance, in case somebody got hurt with one of Matt's creations. Wait, Matt doesn't really create anything... Matt just copies stuff he has seen in other places. He is running a very dangerous entertainment park camouflaged as a farm.

Moonster said...

I'm curious, for those of you who didn't view it as "that bad.." do you own homes? land? I would definitely call the police if someone was on my land without my knowledge. If they didn't identify themselves, I would take a picture of them with any camera I had..(cell phone), I'm surprised Amy didn't. ..and she did call 911, hence why the police did show up and state it wasn't illegal.

People have a right to make complaints of their neighbors, but it doesn't mean that the county or whoever shouldn't investigate it the right way.

If this happened to you personally, I think you'd view it differently. Always greener on the other side and from the outside.

Stop judging, it's a show, it's about a family and they're people.. same as you and I. No one is perfect. No "perfect" Christians out there. So, for those who claim that they aren't "Christian" - give it a rest please. We all have our faults. Just most of us don't have it shown on TV.

Christine said...

" I would take a picture of them with any camera I had..(cell phone), I'm surprised Amy didn't. ..and she did call 911, hence why the police did show up and state it wasn't illegal."

Uh...There was a whole camera crew there filming.

When someone sues the county claiming "severe emotional distress" people are going to judge, as they should.

There should be scorn and ridicule for these people like the Roloffs that file frivolous lawsuits and waste taxpayer money.

Rap541 said...

If there are no perfect Christians and the Roloffs aren't perfect, why is all criticism of the Roloffs met with cries of "lying haters hate the Roloffs!" and "no! Thats not true!" and "but but but "?

I believe Matt is considered right and moral and just to namecall his neighbors and encourages hate towards his neighbors.... I never see Matt Roloff tell the fan base "hey, you're not here, you don't really know whats happening" when the fans all diss the people who dare complain to the county about the Roloffs...

I assume all the Christians here will concede that Matt encouraging anger towards his neighbor a flaw that he should be judged on?

I kinda bet the answer is no, bless us Matt is right as a Christian to encourage HATE. Matt wants his neighbors reviled and bless him for turning that HATE out to the masses and fanning the flames!

Come on Christians who always insist Matt is right.... is Matt being Christian and good and praiseworthy when he plays the hate game? Enquiring minds would love to see the dance :)

Moonster said...

I didn't state that Matt or anyone for that matter is always right.

Anyways, I'll drop the religious issue. It's not worth my time arguing and in reality, not my place to judge. It seems like this is more for entertainment value than anything else -- these comments. ..and I'm not going to waste my time on a flame war :)

Yes, the camera crews were there, but if they weren't - what I stated was absolutely what I would do. In this case, the camera crew could probably help their case as evidence.

Wasting the tax payer's money? Not even. The county knew they were in the wrong - and to be honest, I would want more than an apology. I would want to make sure it would NEVER happen again. Just because it's the county doesn't mean they can be "big brother" - they know the steps that they should have gone through. They chose to ignore it. Maybe the inspector didn't think he'd get caught. His bad. But, he did something wrong (maybe not illegal, but not right)...and it's big enough not to ignore. Least from a homeowner's perspective.

Moonster said...

One more thing, if the inspector had the OK from Matt to be there - why did he run away? Why didn't he just state he spoke to Matt..and allow Amy to clear it up with Matt.

Running away made him look guilty. Seriously, using his size like that against Amy made him look ridiculous. Again, like most edited TV.. it's probably just perspective.

I think this blog is probably more entertaining than the show itself ;P

Timothy said...

He probably tried to exit because Amy was not rational. She came at him yelling and demanding he hand over his camera. She wasn't in any state to be reasoned with.

When someone is like that with you, the best way to deal with it is to disengage by removing yourself from the situation.

The statement from Washington County speaks for itself. Their priority is safety of the county residents. Matt has a mini amusement park. People have already been seriously injured by one of those structures.

Rap541 said...

Why is it when matt defenders are asked to give an opinion on Matt acting badly... they always want to drop it?

I mean, take the religious stuff out all you want - Matt said nasty things about about his neighbors and encouraged the same amoung his fans. Is it *ok* to say "I don't think Matt is very nice", or since judging is wrong, we all need to sit silent when we see someone acting badly?

I mean, I understand why when specific examples of Matt being a jerk are brought up, that suddenly the conversation gets dropped... his fans and staff don't want to or aren't allowed to acknowledge that he's like the rest of us, a flawed human being.... but that leads us down the "the roloffs are NOT perfect but no criticism of the Roloffs is ever fair or valid, hater" road.

"One more thing, if the inspector had the OK from Matt to be there - why did he run away? Why didn't he just state he spoke to Matt..and allow Amy to clear it up with Matt."

He did ask to talk to Matt but Amy refused. Amy did tell him to get off the property... I'm inclined to think if he refused to leave, Amy would be claiming he refused to leave and that would be cited as him intimadating her.

"guilty. Seriously, using his size like that against Amy made him look ridiculous. "

She told him to leave and then insisted on placing herself directly in his path in an effort to detain him.

When he got to his car, she dove into his car and sat on him, while he pointedly held his hands up and away from her to indicate he was in no way attempting to be physical with her. How exactly does that constitute using his size against Amy?

Moonster said...

If I was Amy, I would not have let the inspector go UNTIL Matt go there to clarify things up. How you would react if this was on your property is subjective.. in reality. Obviously, I would have done something similar ... and I would definitely have words with the county.


Again, you may be different. If I was a guy - I might have a totally different view on the subject. I more than likely would just seize the camera. But, that takes brute strength. I'm curious if he would have acted differently if it was one of the kids or if Matt met him instead of Amy.

Anyways, using his size meaning the way he was leaving. I'm going to drop this, in the long run - what happens - happens. It's their business with the county - these are just opinions. :)

Kerry T said...

Some posters accuse Matt of saying bad things about his neighbors. Personally, I don't consider calling a neighbor, "a martini farmer" very insulting at all. I'm a neighbor of the Roloff's and (my real name is Kerry Talbot) I take that as a compliment. I work at Intel and I'm proud of my hobby farm. What else are people on this site referring? I'm now convinced that people are perpetuating false accusations against the Roloff farm which most will tell you is counter productive to our community. Real Names please.

Brandon said...

Kerry, Matt and his father Ron, went on TLC's message board and trashed his neighbors. After the Treb accident, a neighbor gave a quote to the newspaper. I think the name was Arvit. He said when he heard the sirens from the ambulance he knew it was headed to the Roloffs. (sounds like a smart asumption to me).

Matt and Ron went on TLC's message board and bashed him and other neighbors. Ron said Arvit was jealous of Matt.

Matt told stories about his evil neighbors almost running over the twins when they were 5 years old because they were reckless on ATVs and told about arguements about property lines.

The Roloffs going on a fan board, riling up their fan base by naming their neighbors and telling stories that they're jealous and making them out to be monsters nearly killing todlers twins is an example of Matt bad mouthing the neighbors? You disagree?

David said...

Kerry, you're unaware that Matt often speaks negatively about his neighbors? It's common knowledge. He has moaned about them picking on him for many years. He played the dwarf card too. Do the neighbors deserved to be talked about as though they are bigots that are harassing the little people?

I think it was in the same article that he called his neighbors martini farmers (which is not a compliment), he called himself "a midget" by saying the neighbors and county were after "the midget".

I quickly tried to search for that article but no luck. Anyone have it? The thing that stood out in it was Matt's very angry personality. Completely different than his cutesy "Goobly Gook" quirky TV personality.

Rap541 said...

David is refering to this article, Kerry

http://www.portlandmercury.com/news/small-town-dirt/Content?oid=28604

Here's some quotes from the article.

It's a beautiful idea, with just one problem; according to Roloff, there's an angry mob of neighbors jealous of his success and scheming to undermine his goals.

"They're picking on every little thing I do," Roloff accuses, "

Roloff's neighbors treasure their seclusion and worry his enterprise will upset their reclusive lifestyle. Roloff insists his way will ensure that the farming lifestyle will last. Unprofitable farms go broke, and farmers are often forced to sell their acreage to developers. He also thinks his neighbors are more than a little jealous that his methods work.

The "jealous neighbors" stuff and this article occured well before the show began and Matt is very consistent and quick to refer to himself not as a farmer but as a "midget farmer".

The martini farmer comments were on the TLC forum and were about how his neighbors aren't real farmers like him, but martini farmers, people who move to the country to simply look at their land. He complains a great deal about them and while he supposedly wants his website and facebook to be a positive place, he allows his fans to say increasingly nasty things about his neighbors. Comments supporting the neighbors in their irritation at say massive traffic problems that involve the police are typically removed and anyone who doesn't praise Matt is a "jealous neighbor".

Better watch yourself Kerry Talbot - it doesn't seem to take much to get lumped in with Matt's enemy neighbors... you know, the monsters who didn't move to the country to live next to a dirt landfill or a cut rate amusement park.

Judy B said...

It's the neighbors that stick their noses into the Roloffs business. Matt has a right to respond and speculate why they try to cause trouble for the Roloffs.

Rap541 said...

Yes, because when you buy a home in the country, you have no rights. Right Judy?

Only *Matt Roloff* has the right to enjoy his land as he wishes. If he wants to roll fifty trucks a day onto his *farm* to dump dirt, God bless him and anyone who doesn't like choking on dust and listening to construction trucks, well... Matt's FARMING so they are just HATING people and *making trouble*.

We don't live in America, we live in Matt Roloff's personal kingdom, after all. If Matt says its good, then anyone who dares say different is a hater making trouble. Anyone who speaks against anything Matt does geniunely understands that Matt is right, but is just making trouble, purely for spite, right Judy B?

No complaints against Matt Roloff are ever valid, anyone who dares speak against him always does so out of spite and hate.

Because we don't live in America, and Matt Roloff is the LawGiver, right?

Anonymous said...

Here's a link to matt's tlc martini farmer post where he uses the public forum at TLC to badmouth his neighbor.

http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1331921028/m/2351991258/p/1

Kerry T said...

Notice that the "Jealous" comment is not in quotes?? Even IF Matt referred to his neighbors as "jealous" I hardly call that HATE, negative or even angry. It sounds more like a calm response to the neighbors.

I rest my case.

Kerry T

Mike P. said...

@Anonymous 12:07 - -

Thanks for that link.

Geez, how much twaddle can one sanctimonious dwarf hold?

One thing to be made clear: Oregon land-use laws were created (with much public support) in the late 60s and early 70s, and were among the first in the nation. It is THEIR duty to contain urban sprawl and to prevent unrestrained development of farmland, not the Roloff's.

Roloff claims that his "agritainment" operation is necessary to stop housing developments and condo construction on rural farmland. But since the law itself is designed to do exactly that, and is in fact distinctly hostile to operations like Roloff's, the claim is a wild exaggeration, if not a conscious lie.

Oregon land-use law has worked well for the state and its people, but from the start has been under constant attack by persons such as Roloff and other developers, who believe that their interests trump those of the rest of us.

Roloff ought to consider that it was because of people like him that land-use law was first necessary, and was cheered by the citizenry who supported it.

Rap541 said...

By the way, I don't necessarily take "the neighbors" side as holy writ. What I find dislikeable about Matt's stance is this.

His neighbors own land, just like him. They have as many rights as Matt. I personally do not see Matt as the sort to be all "well, it annoys the hell out of me, but it's their land so even though I *could* report them, I won't". He really doesn't. Matt has made it clear that if he can use the rules to say "eff you" to someone, he will. (Please see the deck episode for an example of Matt delighting in using the regs to get his way).

The laws exist for everyone. We really have just Matt Roloff's word that his neighbors who complain are just jealous of his success and complain not because they are bothered but because they hate little people who are successful. As seen on the show, the dirt dumping, and a number of other activities, including the massive traffic jams and Matt's guests using the neighbors land as a parking lot as happened in early seasons (even Matt has admitted there were problems) are things that reasonable people will complain about because it does indeed detract from their enjoyment of their own land. Particularly if Matt is making the claim that being paid to accept tons of construction dirt is "pumpkin farming necessary".

Matt's neighbors *could* get on websites and play the "Matt's an asshole" posting game. Instead they use the legal system and Matt calls them racist for daring to use the law. Yes, folks, suggesting your neighbors are complaining about you because they hate people with genetic differences is indeed accusing people of being racist.

And then what does Matt do? He uses his fame to head over to tlc and present his side to thousands of people who have no direct involvement and encourages the fans of his show to think nasty of his neighbors.

That's called escalating the situation. I'm pretty sure any chance of resolving the issue amicably went out the window when strangers like Judy B etc began to deem Matt right and anyone on the other side "nosy neighbors sticking their noses into Matt's business".

Matt's such a turn the other cheek guy, using the TLC forums to you know, bitch about his neighbors. :)

Rap541 said...

Also - just to make the point - if you read the link the anon posted, farther down in the conversation is a person in 2006 pointedly warning Matt about the content of Zach and Jeremy's myspaces. Jeremy's racist comments stemmed fron 2005-2007 and were visible to the public and Matt up until Aug of 2009. That certainly says a great deal about how Matt feels about hatespeech.

Rap541 said...

Kerry T - I have to assume, since Matt hasn't sued the Portland paper for defamation, that he has no problem with how his views were characterized. I mean, if he said nothing of the sort and the reporter inserted this... sure seems like Matt would be protesting this, wouldn't he? I mean, the reporter is attributing the comment *directly to Matt* "According to Roloff".... I assume the newspaper is lying and hating on Matt too?

After all, anything negative about Matt Roloff is always a made up lie by a jealous hater. Matt's not perfect but there are NO VALID CRITICISMS to be made of Matt ever... Not perfect but any critical comment is a lie by a jealous hater.... How about it Kerry?

Maybe Matt should sue the Portland paper too? After all they directly attribute nasty comments to him :)

David said...

Kerry, you're seriously still refusing to admit that Matt speaks negatively about his newspapers. You asked for sources. Matt's and Ron's comments on TLC's cite has been presented. An article with Matt has been cited.

Do you think this is false? As Rap said, the article attributes it to Matt.

"It's a beautiful idea, with just one problem; according to Roloff, there's an angry mob of neighbors jealous of his success and scheming to undermine his goals.

"They're picking on every little thing I do," Roloff accuses, "


Kerry, if you're denying that Matt says his neighbors are jealous, why did Matt say they are picking on every little thing he does?

Rap, thanks for the link to the Portland Mercury article.

David said...

Kerry, check the link. Check the neighbor bashing. Matt's neighbor is told to get a life. Matt says "I agree with this :)"

Ron Roloff says Brad is jealous.

http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1331921028/m/3511967158?r=7111918158#7111918158

mattroloff
Junior Member

Registered: 10-25-06 Posted 11-01-06 03:45 quote:
[[Originally posted by liibaan:
Brad Avrit, the roloffs neighbor, needs to get a life and leave the poor family & their business alone!!!]]

I agree with THIS!
--------------------------------

history700 (Ron Roloff)
Junior Member

Registered: 03-19-06 Posted 11-01-06 03:52 AM
Originally posted by liibaan:
[[Brad Avrit, the roloffs neighbor, needs to get a life and leave the poor family & their business alone!!! ]]


liibaan you are correct Brad Avrit is just mad he can,t play in Matt,s sand box!!! PaPa Ron

Rap541 said...

Kerry T - is Matt getting his lawsuit together? Against the Portland newspaper that mischaracterized him in that article? After all, per you its not a direct quote, so "Acordding to Roloff" isn't a writing convention to make an interview more readable, its an outright lie, Matt never said to this reporter that his neighbors are jealous and scheming. Why isn't matt *fighting* this injustice? I thought Matt was a *fighter* who fights *lies*....

Since this article that attributes this to Matt is the source of the "Matt thinks his neighbors are jealous and scheming against him" and if he said nothing of the sort to the reporter, I'd say he has one hell of a lawsuit.

*if he said nothing of the sort*