The four sentences that they challenged in our rebuttal argument, are clickable links below. The links go to other posts which explain the documents that prove that our statements were true.
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE B
Rosy forecasts, exaggerated claims. We’ve seen this before, and Santa Clara County’s Civil Grand Jury agreed-VTA was overpromising to win your vote.

Below is the initial ballot argument that we submitted to the registrar’s office on August 13. The sentences that our opponents took us to court on are clickable links in the post below. If you click on the links you’ll see an explanation of the documents that we submitted to blow their claims apart. I think you’ll agree, they had a really weak case. This was more about political intimidation than anything else. But I’m happy to share with you how laughable, disingenuous, and over-the-top their claims were.
ARGUMENT AGAINST …

Their challenge to our rebuttal was filed right at the deadline for filing documents for our hearing, giving us no opportunity to present further evidence.

For background on this, see Frivolous SVLG/VTA lawsuit against us
As you will see, Mike Burns must have spent a lot of time on this.

None of VTA’s Measure D arguments hold up.
Use the current Watchdog Committee?
VTA is already supposed to seek those members’ review and comment. VTA’s “Watchdog Committee” and its “Citizens Advisory Committee” are the same people!