| Author | Post |
|---|
Number1
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 52 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 24th, 2008 03:04 am |
|
| ... Last edited on Sun Aug 24th, 2008 03:06 am by Number1
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6147 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 21st, 2008 02:08 am |
|
Well, it started out as a legitimate topic. Nancy's problems, or the lack thereof, are worthy of discussion. At some point we got off on the chances and strategy of the lawsuit.
I think it is and will be secondary to the real issue. Has this issue surfaced enough among Nancy's constituants to vote her out?
I am not sure that it will be enough to oust her. It might be a bit closer then in the past, but I still think she has a good chance to remain in office.
|
Number1
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 52 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 21st, 2008 02:03 am |
|
Well, ODG, perhaps they found some common ground after all
|
Old Dover guy
Member
| Joined: | Sun Feb 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | Cambodia |
| Posts: | 74 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 21st, 2008 12:54 am |
|
| sure got quiet all of a sudden number one...
|
Number1
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 52 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20th, 2008 04:17 am |
|
Old Dover guy wrote: I think the rest of us viewers need to leave the board for a few moments while Fred and Buckle-up/Truth Dude (one in the same) have their "special time"....over this non forum related topic...
I do agree ODG. It seems that they both think "size matters". Put those things away boys; you're embarassing yourselves!!
|
Old Dover guy
Member
| Joined: | Sun Feb 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | Cambodia |
| Posts: | 74 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20th, 2008 01:15 am |
|
| I think the rest of us viewers need to leave the board for a few moments while Fred and Buckle-up/Truth Dude (one in the same) have their "special time"....over this non forum related topic...
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6147 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20th, 2008 12:31 am |
|
It is true...if you add up all editorials and columns, I probably have about 50 articles published in the past 8 years. Now, I have had a bit more published than just the State News, so perhaps I have a different perspective, but I've seen them print absolute drivel, so I never imagined they would turn me down. Heck, they have even published some of the crap people get in emails, so
The first editorial I wrote was on the Y2K "problem" where I went against a clown who thought the world was going to end. I wrote, a month out, that nothing was going t happen, and like most others, I was on the right side. I've wrote a few in response to Gingrich, and I've wrote a few on other very controversial subjects. Heck, I've even had one published in the past two weeks. I am actually amazed that they print them pretty much as I write them.
And....EVERY one has been a featured editorial (not the News Journal, admittedly, but I don't think they do that). I don't think I am a great writer (good, perhaps), but I've also been careful to write about things that I think are interesting to me and the readers, show a bit of knowledge about the subject, and don't go overboard with hyperbole. I had an earlier discussion with Brendan about this when he was complaining about not getting HIS points published, but he wanted to respond to a response of a response to a letter, which gets kind of boring if you haven't been following it all along.
Am I bragging? Well, I didn't think it was that difficult to get published, so I was just telling my experience. I don't doubt that others may have difficulty, but I would suspect there are specific reasons, like I gave Brendan.
|
Buckle Up
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 49 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 07:24 pm |
|
Fred wrote:
Editorials are one thing; how about news? Did I miss the news coverage on this?
As for having letters published, I have NEVER not had a letter published...I've been writing for the various papers for 8 years, and probably have not been as prolific as you, but I've had about 20 letters published.
One of my strong suits I like to think is objectivity. I may have strong feelings on an issue, but I can at least see the other person's side. Do you not see that the courts, the Attorney General and the Auditor might have a different interpretation that might be right? It is not necessarily correct, but they are doing what they need to?
Or are you convinced that the entire thing is a great big conspiracy with the only point being to discredit the few patriots who will stand up to them?
Freddy Boy, me thinks you are fibbing about NEVER NOT HAVING A LETTER PUBLISHED!!
There are many of us mere mortals who have had their “letters to the editor” passed over time and time again. So either you are fibbing or you are one of a kind in your intellectual skills. Yes, far beyond the thinking and writing skills of us poor commoners.
Now let me address the stupidly of your inference that editorials are somehow insignificant. In case you didn’t know the editorials are written by the editors of the newspaper. If an editor takes time to address a subject then you can be sure it is significant. Since you put your foot in your mouth on this one I guess your next step will be to suggest that since FOX NEWS hasn’t talked about Wagner’s DOUBLE DIPPING or the courts FISHY ruling there is no interest.
Fred, I hate to tell you but your strong suit isn’t objectivity. It is rationalization. Here’s a little slogan for you to file away in you highly trained mental component. “Justification through rationalization = hypocrisy!”
That’s right Fred, you are a hypocrite and your posting expose you as such.
a) Anyone can get a letter to the editor published anytime they want;
b) editorials don’t count because they are written by the editors (bosses) of the newspaper; or how about this one,
c) many postings ago you suggested Nancy Wagner should lie and say she did her planning work at home in the evening to compensate for her doubled dipping time because that is what you would do.
Freddy boy you were advocating lying by one of our elected Representatives. You are a hypocrite.
|
diamondpilot
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 9th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 06:47 pm |
|
C.C. Wagner (Bud) was first hired by the State of Delaware in 1969. At the time, he was teaching Communications at the Graduate School of Temple University. The State of Delaware actively recruited him for his expertise to start the Education Television Network for the state. This was a precursor of present day PBS.
Bud successfully founded the network and it was used in classrooms all over the state. Bud did not know Nancy at that time.
Don't claim that I am actually Bud. I'm not. I taught with Bud in Penna at the time and knew him well. Bud is a no-nonsense hard nosed good guy and an all around straight shooter. You can be certain that any employer for whom Bud has worked has received full value for their money.
More setting the facts straight to follow.
When it comes to a battle of intellect and wit, Roberto comes to the fight totally unarmed.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6147 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 05:25 pm |
|
Editorials are one thing; how about news? Did I miss the news coverage on this?
As for having letters published, I have NEVER not had a letter published...I've been writing for the various papers for 8 years, and probably have not been as prolific as you, but I've had about 20 letters published.
One of my strong suits I like to think is objectivity. I may have strong feelings on an issue, but I can at least see the other person's side. Do you not see that the courts, the Attorney General and the Auditor might have a different interpretation that might be right? It is not necessarily correct, but they are doing what they need to?
Or are you convinced that the entire thing is a great big conspiracy with the only point being to discredit the few patriots who will stand up to them?
|
truth dude
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 60 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 04:21 pm |
|
FRED quote: “What was interesting is that your earlier cases got a fair amount of publicity, but I missed any notice in any of the papers or the radio on this one. DID I JUST MISS IT, OR HAVE THE PAPERS GROWN TIRED OF IT, as well?”
You sure MISSED it FRED! On Tuesday August 12th the DELAWARE STATE NEWS published John Flaherty’s and my letter to the editor (“standing”) within 24 hours of receiving it. Close to if not a record time for publishing. They had the option to remove Nancy Wagner’s name but allowed its inclusion.
You sure MISSED it FRED! On Tuesday August 12th the NEWS JOURNAL published John Flaherty’s and my letter to the editor (“standing”) within 24 hours of receiving it. Close to if not a record time for publishing – especially for the NEWS JOURNAL. They also had the option to remove Nancy Wagner’s name but allowed its inclusion.
You sure MISSED it FRED! On Sunday August 17th the NEWS JOURNAL had an article on their editorial page referencing the “FISHY” decision on “standing” by Judge Charles Toliver.
FYI – FRED if you think it is easy to get a letter published in either the DELAWARE STATE NEWS or the NEWS JOURNAL you are living in a cave. I repeat both of these newspapers published within 24 hours. THEY ALSO WON'T PUBLISH LETTERS THEY DON'T BELIEVE WOULD INTEREST THEIR READERS.
The news media is now waiting to see if Flaherty and I file an appeal with the Supreme Court. The people who claim to not be interested are either Wagner's cronies or those who don’t care about how our tax dollars are spent—sound familiar!
2centsworth is correct -- this is becoming boring. No more responses by me to your mostly uninformed comments until or if I file. Then maybe I will take the time to correct you.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6147 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 01:52 pm |
|
I've posted that change several times and that it was based on several actions, including the shenigans with her husband and the DelState bit. This alone wasn't enough to change my mind, and still isn't.....I get that you have a history with her, and this is important to you. Your court cases are beginning to bring sympathy to her, however.
And yes, the Supreme Court will rule on standing. I would hope, not just for your sake, that they rule on a broader interpretation of who does and who does not have standing in these kinds of issues. If you got standing (still an uphill battle) you will then have to fight each of the other issues that Nancy brought up as to why the case should be thrown out, each of them possibly requiring a Supreme Court reversal...and THEN you get to argue the meat of your case. By my timing, I suspect that if you are lucky you will get 3 slapdowns for any success that you get, and it will drag out 3-4 more years.
What was interesting is that your earlier cases got la fair amount of publicity, but I missed any notice in any of the papers or the radio on this one. Did I just miss it, or have the papers grown tired of it, as well?
|
2centsworth
Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 28th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 25 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 01:51 pm |
|
| Man, this is getting old. I agree Fred, sympathy for Nancy is probably building as we speak. Come on DIAMONDPILOT, drop your bomb.
|
truth dude
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 60 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 12:21 pm |
|
Way to go FRED – you have finally seen the light. FRED quote: “I actually HAVE changed my position from being totally supportive TO BEING FOR WHOEVER RUNS AGAINST HER.” Just kidding – I recognize the typo. Obviously, you now want to blame me for changing your mind on who to vote for so you can have a clear conscience when you vote for Wagner. Seems like you don’t really have many core values.
The SUPREME Court will make the decision and not FRED! I will post when the filing is official.
In order for Delaware taxpayers to lose “STANDING” the Supreme Court will have to reverse their own case law. Keep your fingers crossed FRED. You might be able to post an “I told you so” if the Supreme Court has as little concern for taxpayers’ money as FRED.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6147 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 02:46 am |
|
I actually HAVE changed my position from being totally supportive to being for whoever runs against her. I can still look at things logically, however, and see that your case has holes in it, especially getting it started. You might have a point if you go through all the records with a fine tooth comb, but some of the details are really going to fall into the "I don't care" catagory. If she chooses to take her lunch at 8:30....so what? I get that she probably grabbed a sandwich somewhere along the day, so I am not sure why the diet comment, but that time was accounted for.
You are determined, you are a zealot, and I wish you, as I have always done, good luck on your journey. I have been consistant that I think your chances are next to zero, which is what most of my comments are based on. It doesn't matter what you think the law is, or what case law versus the law versus the procedures are, it is what the law actually is and how it is practiced that counts. You seem blind to this; it is obvious to you what the law should be and you can't see how anyone else can see anything else.
What is beginning to happen is that people are getting tired of the case. You've tried your best, you've thrown everything you can, but with every dismissal you lose some of the anti-Nancy vote. You actually might be in danger of a backlash, in that people start sympathizing with Nancy because of your crusade.
|
truth dude
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 60 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18th, 2008 09:48 pm |
|
FRED, great comment: “when the case comes down to leaving a salaried state job to go to another salaried state job....meh. I lose interest and I tend to lose my outage at her behavior.”
As usual you left out a very important fact. You forgot to mention the state employee/legislator was being paid twice for the same identical hours by hard working/taxpaying Delawareans. That is what is known as illegal double-dipping.
Great comment #2: “One thing that separates us commoners from lawyers is the ability to understand that the other side quite often (if not always) does have a point. You may or may not agree with it, but they do not simply dream up their defense. It is based on case law as much, if not more so, then your argument.”
Sorry FRED – missed again. The other side did not present one single case law that identified taxpayers did not have standing to challenge the expenditures of their tax dollars. All their case law involved cases that were not taxpayer cases. But you are free to dream up whatever you want even though you don’t know what was presented in Court.
Great comment #3: “I can only comment from what is in the court case, because that is what they will base this on. What YOU want to do is exclude those things that you don't think are important, such as the supervisory approval of Nancy being gone.”
There you go again FRED -- commenting as if you know. Wagner being given permission to leave is exactly the issue and you are somehow telling me I want to exclude that point. Why do you think Auditor Tom Wagner was included in the suit? He made a determination that a state agency contract can supercede Delaware Law. What a great deal for our legislators -- they can get themselves hired by state agencies then double-dip on a daily basis. Admit it FRED. You are only guessing what has been presented in Court but you somehow try to make others believe you know what is happening. I guess 6,000 plus post can go to your head if one isn't careful.
FRED, I am well aware that you staked your claim on this issue early on and you will defend that position no matter what happens – that is your right. When I post you are constantly trying to prove me wrong -- again your right. So let me give you a couple of more examples of absolute abuse by Nancy Wagner so you can spin some more.
1. Payroll documents show that Capital School District employee Nancy Wagner on at least one occasion claimed her lunch period at 8:15 AM so she would not have her pay docked for performing legislative duties. Please don't tell me she went on a diet that day.
2. Payroll documents show that Capital School District employee Nancy Wagner on at least one occasion voluntarily came to school on a snow day and then claimed approximately 6 hours of compensation time so she could go to legislative hall when students were in school and be paid a second time for those same 6 hours. Incidentally, no other teacher who voluntarily came to work on a snow day ever received compensation time in the Capital School District. This compensation pay received by Nancy Wagner was also a violation of her contract since she was not entitled to receive compensation time.
FRED, I agree Nancy Wagner is not Al Capone but you and all those who complain about my efforts somehow overlook the main point. If Nancy Wagner can do it (double-dip) then so can the rest of the state employees who double as legislators. You may be able to overlook that but there are many of us out here who refuse.
Second point: Now we the taxpayers of Delaware are being told by the Delaware Superior Court that we can not challenge taxpayer expenditures even though the highest Court in Delaware the Delaware Supreme Court says we can. There is a 95% chance this "standing" issue will go to the Supreme Court on appeal.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6147 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18th, 2008 05:58 pm |
|
truth dude wrote:
FRED, I’m going with the Supreme Court of Delaware. You just haven’t convinced me your opinion is superior to their case law.
Well, it isn't ME you have to convince, nor is it my opinion. It is those who ruled on your case. I've read it, and while I can certainly see some aspects of your point...do you at least see THEIR side? One thing that seperates us commoners from lawyers is the ability to understand that the other side quite often (if not always) does have a point. You may or may not agree with it, but they do not simply dream up their defense. It is based on case law as much, if not more so, then your argument. That is not to say they are right and you are wrong, but that they do have a point....and from what I gather, you sort of concede this, but want the case to go further.
I can only comment from what is in the court case, because that is what they will base this on. What YOU want to do is exclude those things that you don't think are important, such as the supervisory approval of Nancy being gone. I think it IS fishy, and it may well be that her job at Dover High didn't need the planning time....but that is a different kettle of fish.
Because they kicked back the standing, they don't have to rule on the other issues. I am sure you are convinced that you would win on those points, but I am as certain that the AG and the state of Delaware will be able to make at least as good of a case. You can keep dragging this on, as it is your right, but when the case comes down to leaving a salaried state job to go to another salaried state job....meh. I lose interest and I tend to lose my outage at her behavior.
|
truth dude
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 60 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18th, 2008 05:15 pm |
|
FRED: Just because you have more than 6,000 responses doesn’t mean you always know what you are talking about.
A FRED quote:
“No, it is pretty simple. They have legal standing as taxpayers, but they do not have the legal standing to bring the suit...only the AG has the right to represent the state in all litigation with state wide interests.”
WRONG FRED:
Delaware Supreme Court case law – CITY OF WILMINGTON v. LORD: “If suit by a taxpayer to enjoin misuse of public monies or public property is not allowed, governmental action questioned will likely go unchecked, at least in absence of action by Attorney General…it is our opinion (Delaware Supreme Court) that a taxpayer does have standing to sue to enjoin the unlawful expenditures of public money…A taxpayer has a direct interest in the proper use and allocation of tax receipts. That interest gives the taxpayer a sufficient stake in the outcome of the suit to allow him to challenge improper uses of tax funds…”
FRED, I’m going with the Supreme Court of Delaware. You just haven’t convinced me your opinion is superior to their case law.
As for your Al Capone comment – I don’t have the time to respond now but I will later today.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6147 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18th, 2008 03:27 pm |
|
truth dude wrote: Ron Williams – editorial page
News Journal Sunday Aug. 17, 2008
A Flawed Legal Ruling – direct quote
Without taking a position on whether state Rep. Nancy Wagner is guilty of accusations by civic gadfly Bob Reeder regarding her “double-dipping” as a state lawmaker and teacher, it appears that something is fishy with the recent decision by Superior Court Judge Charles Toliver. Toliver ruled that Reeder and John Flaherty, a Dover lobbyist, do not have “standing” as taxpayers to challenge the legality of state employees double-dipping.
But the Delaware Supreme Court has clearly ruled that citizen taxpayers do have legal standing to challenge the questionable spending of tax money.
State Auditor Tom Wagner has ruled that state agency contractural wording can supercede state law on such things as double-dipping. Thus Reeder’s lawsuit.
This is a ruling Judge Toliver just might want to revisit.
No, it is pretty simple. They have legal standing as taxpayers, but they do not have the legal standing to bring the suit...only the AG has the right to represent the state in all litigation with state wide interests. In fact, as the courts indicate, HE said himself that he lacks standing both in writing and in oral arguments.
And, from the reading of the lawsuit,
http://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/(hudjad45da1gxxraycbc0zr1)/download.aspx?ID=85070
there was a week case to begin with. The court case refered to her leaving early during her "duty free planning period"....I thought we were promised something else. Sorry, but her leaving early during this time, especially when she has the approval of her boss, doesn't make her Al Capone. Maybe she technically should be there, and maybe you could argue that a position that doesn't need the time for planning shouldn't be on the books, but I am NOT going to lose sleep over this point.
|
Buckle Up
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 49 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 06:42 pm |
|
DIAMONDPILOT: I was wondering how long it would take you to climb out of your hole once I read the News Journal article.
Perhaps you can fill me in on the legislation Nancy Wagner refused to introduce that was self-serving to Reeder and caused him to go after her. It seems like you must be mighty close to Ms. Nancy to have this inside information. So please share it with the rest of us.
Incidentally DIAMOND PILOT, you are doing an outstanding job of attacking the messenger. Perhaps if you really believe in Wagner’s innocence you could convince her to get an official legal opinion on her alleged illegal “double-dipping”. However, you better be careful! Why do you think she has spent the past two years fighting against a legal opinion on her “double-dipping” behavior? It seems to me you are the one who is the “mental midget” if you can’t figure that out.
Are you sure your name isn't BUD?
|
diamondpilot
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 9th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 06:01 pm |
|
Whose attacks against Rep. Wagner started years ago when she refused to introduce a piece of self-serving legislation he wanted? If you said "the man who can't seem to ever determine how to correctly file a court action" or "the man who sees conspiracies everywhere" or "the mental midget", then YOU ARE CORRECT, SIR!
Why doesn't he demand the same "follow the letter of the law" standards of himself that he wants from everybody else? See the assonace appellation above for the answer.
|
truth dude
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 60 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 03:06 pm |
|
Ron Williams – editorial page
News Journal Sunday Aug. 17, 2008
A Flawed Legal Ruling – direct quote
Without taking a position on whether state Rep. Nancy Wagner is guilty of accusations by civic gadfly Bob Reeder regarding her “double-dipping” as a state lawmaker and teacher, it appears that something is fishy with the recent decision by Superior Court Judge Charles Toliver. Toliver ruled that Reeder and John Flaherty, a Dover lobbyist, do not have “standing” as taxpayers to challenge the legality of state employees double-dipping.
But the Delaware Supreme Court has clearly ruled that citizen taxpayers do have legal standing to challenge the questionable spending of tax money.
State Auditor Tom Wagner has ruled that state agency contractural wording can supercede state law on such things as double-dipping. Thus Reeder’s lawsuit.
This is a ruling Judge Toliver just might want to revisit.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1156 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 11:51 pm |
|
| Nancy retired 2 years ago when she forced her way into DSU.
|
curiousindover
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 28th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 353 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 11:13 pm |
|
| Does anyone care, anymore. Nancy has taken advantage of technicalities, Reeder has been a pain in the butt and no one has taken ANY notice. My guess is whoever has the best polical campaign and get out the vote effort wins. With the Presidential election taking center stage, I'd guess the backlash will trickle down to the local races. Nancy might consider retirement.
|
diamondpilot
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 9th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 09:23 pm |
|
| Who goes to bed at night lamenting, "I coulda been Bob Bondurant instead've a bum! I coulda been somebody!"
|
diamondpilot
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 9th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 9th, 2008 11:46 pm |
|
I'm still pondering how to "weather" a person. Which leads to other questions: "Can a corpse get a sun tan?" "Can one loose weight by shivering?"
Ah, but I digress. Roberto, azende me tuzeprovenos sfachim.
|
Prophet of Doom
Member
| Joined: | Sat Nov 19th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 214 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 9th, 2008 09:08 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: I was wrong both times, but I will keep voting. I will hold my nose and vote McCain because Obama is so bad for America. McCain is bad for America. Obama is far worse. His election will assure our doom!
|
diamondpilot
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 9th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 9th, 2008 07:35 pm |
|
as to weather Nancy Wagner was guilty or innocent. He took the position that a private citizen has no legal standing to request an interpretation of the “double dipping” law from the Court. Both the Attorney General and the Public Integrity Commission previously took the same position.
Bob Reeder
Nice spelling, Bob! How does one "weather" a person?
Dover is fortunate that you did not "teach" a core subject. How did you ever get a teaching certificate?
A long term federal government study found that people who had "driver's ed" courses in high school had a higher rate of accidents than those who did have that course. Now we are starting to see one of the reasons why: semi-literates are the "instructors"!
Bob, given your history of filing frivolous lawsuits, you missed your calling. You should have been a slip-and-fall lawyer. Ah! But then there are those pesky LSAT tests first.
And finally Bob: Please spare us more of the "MIG on my Six near Cuba" regailing. We all know that real military heroes never go around talking about their service. But we do know the type of people who do that.
Six, two and even.
Last edited on Sat Aug 9th, 2008 07:37 pm by diamondpilot
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1156 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 7th, 2008 02:12 am |
|
If you are planning to donate cash, let me send you my address.
I hear you Fred, I have supported candidates and politicians who turned out to be far less than I imagined. I voted for Jon Corzine in NJ when he ran for the Senate, foolishly thinking he would represent some business sense in the Senate.
I also voted for GWB both times thinking he would come around and control spending.
I was wrong both times, but I will keep voting. I will hold my nose and vote McCain because Obama is so bad for America.
Last edited on Thu Aug 7th, 2008 02:13 am by Playing the Game
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6147 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 7th, 2008 01:54 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: I love it when you defend a Republican with a scandal ridden bckground. I get tingly all over.
She needs to be placed on the podium as an example by her party and the corrupt political machines in this State.
Can't say that I am not fair....
I have said I am not going to vote for her; however, her legal strategy makes perfect sense....why admit that something you did might be questionable when you have a "clean" bill of health to shoe the voters?
I wish she would take the honorable path and not run. I wish her party had someone to run against her, but they don't want to ruin what has been a good run, so your chances of what you would like to see are slim and none...and Slim has left the room (and it doesn't matter which political party she hailed from....neither party would do anything.)
I have the ability to see both the good and bad in people, CR. I've voted for her since she has been running, but am probably going to actually donate to her opponent this time.
|
Old Dover guy
Member
| Joined: | Sun Feb 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | Cambodia |
| Posts: | 74 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 7th, 2008 12:14 am |
|
| Buckle Up sure has been quiet...
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1156 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 6th, 2008 09:53 pm |
|
I love it when you defend a Republican with a scandal ridden bckground. I get tingly all over.
She needs to be placed on the podium as an example by her party and the corrupt political machines in this State.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6147 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 6th, 2008 12:16 pm |
|
The problem is that I agree with Nancy's position on NOT asking for the ruling. If I think I did nothing wrong and am convinced of this, have been reassured by my lawyer that everything is kosher....why would I give my opponent the opportunity to broadcast that my actions were investigated by the committee?
I may not agree with her actions, but I agree with her strategy.
|
Poltergeist
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 26th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 139 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 6th, 2008 03:58 am |
|
| No. Bob what we saw was a triumph for law!! Now, go to work for our opponent, so we can beat you properly at the polls!
|
Disgusted
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 29th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover |
| Posts: | 464 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 6th, 2008 02:37 am |
|
It's been my view for a long time that we need a public integrity commission to investigate the public integrity commission. Oh, wait, I'm being redundant...
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6147 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 5th, 2008 08:10 pm |
|
| Well....I think it depends on whether you want to start with the assumption that the official is innocent or guilty. If you presume they are innocent, you have to allow a higher standard to be reached.
|
Two Cents
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 504 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 5th, 2008 05:52 pm |
|
truth dude wrote: If Wagner really believes in her innocence she should ask for an advisory opinion from the Public Integrity Commission – please don’t anyone hold your breath waiting for that to happen. You will surely die!
Bob Reeder
In my humble opinion, the state of delaware public integrity commission is a zero. It has no interest in the facts, but will produce a report filled with double-talk that tells one nothing. Its advisory opinion on a given matter is about the same as those opinions provided in these forums, except that the majority of people posting in the forums have no political ambitions or obligations.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6147 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 5th, 2008 05:52 pm |
|
As you might expect, I am not surprised that it turned out that way.
You are right in that Nancy will claim it as a victory-which it is-and spin it as proving she is as pure as the driven snow-which I don't think she is.
However, the point of law does make a bit of sense. I am not sure I want every Tom, Dick, Harry and Bob able to file a demand for a procedure for every elected official we have.
I hope you are able to see the difference between wether or not I think she is being honest with whether you had a legal right to what you demanded. I think leaving it in the court of public opinion, getting behind her opponent and working for him would be the best course of action at this point.
|
truth dude
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 60 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 5th, 2008 05:43 pm |
|
Just returned from the Motion to Dismiss Hearing. As many of you anticipated the Judge dismissed the case on technicalities without hearing the evidence as to weather Nancy Wagner was guilty or innocent. He took the position that a private citizen has no legal standing to request an interpretation of the “double dipping” law from the Court. Both the Attorney General and the Public Integrity Commission previously took the same position.
Next step – file an appeal with Delaware Supreme Court or rely on the most powerful Court available – the Court of Public Opinion. The choice is simple! The Court of Public Opinion! It is far less time consuming and considerably less expensive.
There is little doubt that Wagner will attempt to spin the decision by claiming the Court found her alleged "double dipping" behavior to be legal. She did that twice before even though she knew she wasn’t telling the truth.
If Wagner really believes in her innocence she should ask for an advisory opinion from the Public Integrity Commission – please don’t anyone hold your breath waiting for that to happen. You will surely die!
Bob Reeder
|
Habanero
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | DelMarVA, USA |
| Posts: | 3692 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 3rd, 2008 12:27 am |
|
Fred...........
I thought about this thread earlier today when a headline in the paper I was reading caught my eye. Something along the lines of "Wagner quiet on future. following resignation."
It just about at me, and I thought WOW, and I immediately clinked on the link. Then felt a bit silly because for a moment I fogot I was reading a Virginia paper and not the DSN or NJ..........
BTW --- this Wagner (can't even remember her name) had Cabinet level positions in both the Warner and Kaine administrations and is presumed to be going to run for Lt. Gov next year.
|
Number1
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 52 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 09:49 pm |
|
I have been away for awhile Bob. I want you to reread where my vote will go.
Number1 wrote:
Buckle up, I have the utmost respect for the law! It is your lame attempts to have Nancy tried in the court of public opinion that I have NO respect for! If I am the defense attorney one of the first questions I ask Bob is if he is the author of some of this mess. When he answers "yes!" I'd move to have the whole thing thrown out! The law is about protecting people even Nancy.
I am not voting for her Bob. It's time for change. She is not nearly as effective as she once was. I don't think that is a position "Bud" would have. My position is simply this: use your negative energy to attack something that might actually help the community!
I don't consider myself a "Nancy supporter".
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6147 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 08:05 pm |
|
I am very suspicious of any one who relies on "reads" as indicative of anything. I've seen too many blogs that the proponents triumph the hits as proof that people care.
What I think (and this is why I think it IS similiar to the Holy Cross blog) is that you've got a few VERY concerned people who rack up the hits. Holy Cross is somewhat unique in that you have a very interesting subset of the population (good income, high Internet and computer ownership) that interested them highly. The blog has moved, and I can tell you without question that a relatively few people (in the 60-70 range) can generate a lot of hits.
I started out this particular topic because I thought some of the things people were pursuing her on issues that I didn't think were all that important. I get that some do, but as someone who is a bit more tied in than the average person, if I don't think it is that big a deal, very few others will. The "double dipping" is a perfect example that I think most people did a "so, what" reaction to. She was elected to an office, and she has a job to do, and I think most people took the high estimates with more then a grain of salt.
Now...since then other things have come up, and they may well be enough in the totality to get rid of her. I went from being a supporter to looking forward to helping her opposition, but I do not hold her legal manuevers against her, because it is exactly what her lawyers are advising her to do, because they feel they can win on this point AND not concede anything now, or for the future.
But good luck, anyway.
|
Poltergeist
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 26th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 139 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 05:47 pm |
|
truth dude wrote: Poltergeist:
1) I always recognized your loyalty to Nancy Wagner. You, Old Dover Guy and Number 1 have been consistently in Wagner’s corner.
2) Your comparison with the Holy Cross issue doesn’t hold water. No matter how you try to explain away 15,000 reads it still remains in excess of 15,000. Incidentally, there have been more than 4,000 in the past several months.
3) I agree the public never cared about “Double Dip[ping” until I made the issue public. However, isn’t it possible the public never cared because they were never aware? I’ll bet you would care if it was someone other than Nancy Wagner -- unless, of course, you believe we the taxpayers should pay elected officials twice for the same identical work time.
4) Read my responses and stop begging me to back down with legal action. I said the Legal Court is not the final decision. It is the COURT OF PUBLIC OPINIOPN and I have every right to continue to address that Court.
5) No more responses from me until the Court decision!
Bob Reeder
Bob I am not begging you to back down. I don't believe in suppressing an individual's right to their opinion. My feeling from the start is that Nancy has represented me well, so it is my right to defend her as it is your to pursue this double dipping issue.
With sincerity I wish you the best of luck. But I know that my Representative does her job well! I get to say that as well as you get to say what you think!!
|
truth dude
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 60 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 03:32 pm |
|
Poltergeist:
1) I always recognized your loyalty to Nancy Wagner. You, Old Dover Guy and Number 1 have been consistently in Wagner’s corner.
2) Your comparison with the Holy Cross issue doesn’t hold water. No matter how you try to explain away 15,000 reads it still remains in excess of 15,000. Incidentally, there have been more than 4,000 in the past several months.
3) I agree the public never cared about “Double Dip[ping” until I made the issue public. However, isn’t it possible the public never cared because they were never aware? I’ll bet you would care if it was someone other than Nancy Wagner -- unless, of course, you believe we the taxpayers should pay elected officials twice for the same identical work time.
4) Read my responses and stop begging me to back down with legal action. I said the Legal Court is not the final decision. It is the COURT OF PUBLIC OPINIOPN and I have every right to continue to address that Court.
5) No more responses from me until the Court decision!
Bob Reeder
|
Poltergeist
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 26th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 139 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 02:42 pm |
|
truth dude wrote: Poltergeist – Believe me, I’m not half as worried as Wagner/Wagner and Thomas. Furthermore, have you ever heard of the “Court of Public Opinion”. With more than 15,000 reads I believe the public is interested.
However, whatever the Judge decides on Aug 5, 2008 I will not attempt to hide it from you or anyone else. That would be both unethical and cowardly of me.
Bob Reeder
Bob that is 15,000 views over a period of 2 years. Compare that with the recently removed Holy Cross topic which saw 15,000 views in less than two months! Not to mention the fact that you and a couple incarnations of you kept rolling it to the top! But I do wonder if not for your "work" whether the public even cares about this alleged "double dipping" activity.
But I will say this Bob. After rereading and pondering some of what you posted, I have had a bit of a change of heart. While I think the election process should determine who is fit enough to serve, once that person is in office they are accountable to the law. Having said that though, if this case is dismissed on technicality, the law has been satisfied. Then you should let the electorate decide. As a member of the community she serves, I can tell you I will vote for her.
|
Skjuda
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23rd, 2008 07:02 pm |
|
I believe they will "win" and get the case thrown out. That is the politcal way. Please post who the judge is and supporting documents for all of us so we can judge it ourselves.
My bet is the judge will be seeking political office very soon.
|
truth dude
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 60 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23rd, 2008 03:53 pm |
|
Poltergeist – Believe me, I’m not half as worried as Wagner/Wagner and Thomas. Furthermore, have you ever heard of the “Court of Public Opinion”. With more than 15,000 reads I believe the public is interested.
However, whatever the Judge decides on Aug 5, 2008 I will not attempt to hide it from you or anyone else. That would be both unethical and cowardly of me.
Bob Reeder
|
Poltergeist
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 26th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 139 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23rd, 2008 03:12 pm |
|
| Bob, sounds like you are concerned that they'll be successful. So if it is as you say, "their right" should that not end the "controversey"?
|
truth dude
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 60 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 23rd, 2008 02:50 pm |
|
(Defendants Nancy Wagner, State Auditor Thomas Wagner and Capital School District Superintendent Michael Thomas)
It is now less than two weeks until the defendants’ Superior Court Hearing to dismiss their alleged illegal behavior on technicalities rather than presenting evidence to support their claim of innocence will take place -- Aug 5, 2008.
To date there is no indication that any of the defendants have requested an Attorney General Opinion and/or a Public Integrity Commission Opinion on the alleged “Double Dipping” behavior by Nancy Wagner. Evidently, they are afraid of the Opinion response.
Repeating – all three defendants are going to attempt to have the allegations of illegal behavior dismissed on technicalities in lieu of presenting evidence of innocence. Certainly, that is their right. However, as public servants ethical behavior should be a priority. It looks like on this one ethical behavior is going to be ignored.
I will blog the Judges decision for the Aug 5, 2008 “Motion to Dismiss on Technicalities” as soon as I am in possession of that information
Bob Reeder
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6147 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 22nd, 2008 09:34 am |
|
| And so is half of America.
|
Current time is 10:15 am | |