It tells you a lot about our society and the way we look at the justice system when, after reading the article on the Ron Gonzales case in the Mercury News on Monday, the first thing I think of is: “Oh God! He’s going to get off!” The article reports that merely two of the seven, I repeat, seven charges can be disproved by documents already made public. Yet, the article was mostly about lawyers saying this is just the first step to a jury disbelieving the prosecution and the evidence they will present. Because lawyers these days can find so many loopholes—giving guilty and greedy people the chance to go free because of them—panic rushes up my spine in thinking that Gonzales could get off
When I first heard Gonzales’s attorney speak at a news conference, he fit into the profile of almost every over-the-top, loud-lawyer stereotype I could imagine. When talking about his client not being guilty in this case, he was like a kid yelling that he wasn’t really out at second base in a game of kickball or that his foot really wasn’t on the line when playing four-square. But he charges up the wazoo, so that must mean something, right? I would bet money (if that was legal of course) that he knows how to find loopholes and convince juries to believe him.
Like many other people, I have little faith in our judicial system to come through any more. I mean, before OJ, we never thought a murderer could be golfing at the best courses in the world. Now, I am not likening Gonzales’s charges to OJ’s, but you get the point—we always think that the truth will come out, the good people will prevail and the crooked ones will suffer. I sure hope my Pollyanna view comes true this time, but the skeptic in me just isn’t so sure.
Even so, there is a bright side—there still are 5 other counts. And what about the prospective jurors who already think Gonzales is guilty because of what they have read in the papers or seen on the news? Yeah, I know that juror selection should rid the courtroom of those preconceived notions, but that is hard to do. We already know that proving bribery could be one of the most difficult things to do in court. Yet, it can be proven that Gonzales is guilty of lying to the public in many other ways, so I just have to keep the faith that all will be exposed in the months and years to come.
And just like a car wreck, though I may want to at times, I won’t be able to look away.
I would think that Allen Ruby is experienced in finding loopholes. Let’s hope that Julius is on top of his game.
I still wish the rest of the council would stage a walk out. I’m ready to make posters to encourage them.
Let’s not get too worked up. Remember it’s not the documents that are already public that made the case, it is the testimony and new documents uncovered by the Grand Jury that made the case.
For the merc to publish this before the transcripts and eveidence are made public is irresponsible. They are jumping to conclusions without knowing what the GJ saw or heard. Remember it was the secret deal that got him in trouble not the public docs that we know about.
The merc just wants to stir people up so that they can keep something in th epaper every day. Only when we read the transcripts will we know what else is out there.
Don’t buy into the Merc’s premature, half-baked analysis.
OJ was innocent. He’s still out there trying to find the real killer.
SG…
The San Jose Mercury News prints the news. And what some lawyers say may be news. That’s their job.
The Santa Clara County Supervising Deputy District Attorney Julius L. Finkelstein gathers the evidence, sorts it out, follows the law and does what he has to do. And judging from his background and what people say about him, if I were the Mayor I’d be praying for a change of venue to someplace like Yolo or Modoc County.
The most important sentence in yesterday’s scandal piece in the Merc, buried in the third from the last paragraph:
“The indictment also cites evidence that Gonzales, Guerra and Norcal concealed information in 2000 and 2001, before the original vote on the contract, and that evidence appears to be stronger.”
The earlier, stronger evidence was, of course, not detailed. No need to neutralize your own front page story.
RR
Here is a dollar, now you can tell us how Ron is guilty.
Here is three dollars, tell us how you are to blame for it all.
RR #2:—too many ehtics laws???
I am of the view that we have far too many laws that are unenforced—like all the gun law nonsense that never affects the criminals with guns, or the education code with over 100,000 sections.
But since we seem to have too few politicians with any real notion of ethics, I guess we have to have more ethics laws, and they need to be enforced.
I do agree with you that although Gonzo has clearly crossed some ethical lines, Jules will have to prove that it rises to a criminal violation. Two excellent lawyers fighting it out should make a good show. I hope Court TV picks it up.
DD#6: Even if there’s a change of venue, Julies prosecutes the case.
ditto #9 regarding #2’s too many ethic laws! Talk about spin, RR, time for you to immerse yourself at the Markkula Center for Ethics at SCU. You’d probably need to change occupations after that, or at least change your approach.
RR – #2
<< The Mayor is not guilty of a crime.>>
You do not know that. We do not know that. And the GJ may not know that. That’s why we have a process of law and enforcement. Besides, were you not one who said, ‘let’s not pre-judge?’
<< He showed poor judgement, he made mistakes—>>
Yes; we all do at times. But if in showing poor judgment or making mistakes we violate the law, we must deal with the consequences. And so if we must… why not he?
<<…but not every bad decision is a crime. >>
True. But when a bad decision violates the law, it cannot be excused on the basis of having been “a bad decision”.
<< but do you really advocate putting your political opponents in jail just because you disagree with them? >>
Only when they violate the law AND are found guilty of such. No public servant should be above the law… or is that what you are suggesting?
<< It was the District Attorney who came up with some creative lawyering to bring this indictment. Most in the legal community are shocked that this indictment was produced on this evidence. >>
Are you saying that ‘most of the legal community’ has seen the unreleased G J transcripts and the DA’s evidence before it has been released or the case gone to trial? Wow… Richard, you must really have the inside track on this.
<< If the Mayor is guilty of a crime, no politician is safe and no political decision that benefits a constituency group—any constituency group—can be made without threat of indictment. >>
Richard, you’ve got to be kidding; right? Are you arguing that the end justifies the means? That the rule of law should be suspended for those in public service who want to do good things?
<< No one can withstand the scrutiny… >>
The Mayor’s predecessors seem to function quite well within what you claim are “too many” ethical or legal boundaries. Where did this one go wrong?
One last question if I may. At any time in this Mayor’s political career, did you perform political consulting services for him or his staff?
Single Gal,
It appears the DA’s chose to overreach with conspiracy charges he might not be able to substantiate and a bribery charge that is a complete stretch. No matter which way this turns out, this decision means there is a strong likelihood that the sentence will either be too harsh or too lenient. These charges will likely hurt the prosecution’s credibility and increase the likelihood that Gonzales will get off. However, it could also have the reverse effect that successfully proving the lesser charges will convince the jury that he must be guilty of everything (warranted or not).
While I am hardly a Gonzales appologist, I do think its revealing that your entire piece is based on the assumption that he is guilty of criminal behavior. Your reaction “Oh God! He is going to get off!” implies you have already decided he is guilty. You also seem to imply that the fact that only two of the seven charges were disproven by the Merc suggest that he is guilty of the other five. This is a perversion of our justice system – its up to the prosecution to prove him guilty on those charges, not for the defense (and certainly not the Merc) to prove him innocent.
well, they can move it to Santa Clara, because one council member there was, until he was told to take it off, proudly displauing RG as an endorser.
Too many ethics laws, RR, here is another dollar, now renounce the candidates you told to put all those laws in there.
Hey, RR, here are two more dollars since you do not seem to be working a lot, and spend some time telling us what a crackpot you are
Et al,
I was a critic of Mayor Gonzalez before it was fashionable. He wouldn’t hire me to mow his lawn, if he had one.
It is the legal theory advanced by the DA that has the legal community raising eyebrows—not the evidence. A legal theory that uses part of a Supreme Court decison to define a benefitted third party in a bribe as a constituency group.
The Supreme Court meant you couldn’t enrich your brother-in-law, not a constituency group or special interest. Every action by government benefits a third party—or should—the DA chose to extrapolate that decision beyond its original intent.
We have too many laws in general, from the tax code to the vehicle code.
I was with a cop who saw a station wagon with four latino men driving down the street. He said, “I’d love to stop that car.”
When I pointed out there was no probable cause to stop the car, he said—“the vehicle code gives be 7,000 opportunities to pull the car over.”
It is not just ethics laws, we have too many laws regarding almost every action. Look at the Civil Code Section in your local law library, followed by the Criminal Code,
Everybody on this board has done something that would allow them to be investigated and or indicted—regardless of merit.
All of our public officials, at every level are mired in rule after rule. These rules take a toll on the ability to govern.
The recent resignation of the Fire Chief is a great example of rules run amock. After years of having generational firefighters, we now prohibit a person from becoming one if his father is in a position of authority.
Great policy.
As the original Mayor Daly in Chicago once opined, “when a father can’t help his son in business, what is this world coming to. . .”
Now there are laws and rules against helping your family in government and business.
What’s next?
Richard,
How the hell do you know what evidence was presented? The Grand Jury proceedings were not public and the testimony was secret. No transcripts have been released. There is absolutely no way that you, or most anyone else, knows what the evidence is.
#4 is right on in his/her commentary.
The more of your posts I read, the more I wonder why anyone would pay you for advice.
His DisHonor has already been punished—he has been stripped of power and respect, he has become a political joke, people roll their eyes upward when his name comes up, and we won’t have to vote against him in an election.
Any criminal penalties he suffers will be justly deserved, but even if he is not convicted, we know the truth: he’s a liar; he skirts the rules and possibly breaks them; he destroyed employee morale in the city; he forced out good people for petty reasons; he was a vindictive, mean, little man; and the list goes on.
The sooner he is gone, the better. If he sits in jail or at home doesn’t really matter. As long as he is not sitting in City Hall.
Single Gal, he’s getting off, baby! Rightfully so. He’s innocent as hell, and he’s been framed by those 2 cowards(Reed and Cortesy). The whole thing was blown out of proportion, and they have zero case against Gonzo. He’s one of the best mayor we’ve ever had! No, I don’t work for the mayor or the city. I’m just fed up with the b.s.. Single Gal, what’s your IQ, 80? The big picture is that San Jose has a great, great downtown, and the city on its way back to fiscal balance interms of city’s financial picture.
To all of the legal eagles who have convicted and sentenced the mayor & his CoS,
The DA used a grand jury process to bring charges against Ron Gonzales and Joe Guerra.
Using a grand jury was guaranteed to bring the greatest media exposure for the longest
period of time, up to and including the June election, to trot out criminal charges against Gonzales and Guerra.
A grand jury also has a much higher chance of achieving the prosecutor’s aims – an indictment.
The more typical procedure, an arraignment hearing before a judge, may not have achieved the same result.
A grand jury is a committee of citizens who are interviewed by a judge, and approved by the DA.
Unlike trial juries, grand juror candidates cannot be challenged by any defense attorney.
The original purpose of a grand jury was to provide a buffer between the king and his prosecutor.
Grand juries do not exist outside the US. More than half of the US states have abandoned the use of Grand Juries.
A GJ hears only the evidence as presented by the deputy DA.
Any conflicting evidence or testimony can be controlled or eliminated.
The defendant(s) cannot be represented by legal counsel during GJ proceedings.
The defendant(s) cannot hear or challenge any evidence or witnesses during a GJ proceeding.
Most grand juries are used by the DA to compel testimony from witnesses that will be used in the actual case.
Few grand juries act in a way contrary to the wishes of the prosecutor. In fact, Judge Sol Wachtler,
the former Chief Judge of New York State, was quoted as saying, “A grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.”
The GJ ‘indictment’, while impressive, is a grandstand event conducted to maximize the pre-trial damage to the defendant.
The real case will be tried in a real court of law, with a judge and lawyers.
As provided in the US Constitution, Gonzales and Guerra will have their due process.
In the criminal case for which the defendants will stand, the standard of guilt is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’
(Not the much lower standard, ‘a preponderance of evidence’, as in a civil case.)
Beyond a reasonable doubt is going to be very tough to achieve.
Don’t be fooled by the quantity of testimony and 100,000 pages of transcripts reviewed by the grand jury.
What matters is quality, not quantity.
Alan Ruby’s first strategy will be to exclude every piece of ‘evidence’ that will harm his client.
Secondly, he will try to exclude impartial jurors during the jury selection process.
Given the intense media coverage, that might not be too hard.
His third strategy will be to challenge the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses.
Finally, he will raise enough doubt in the jurors’ minds whether the motives and actions prove that a crime was committed.
Julius Finklestein is probably facing the trial of his career.
Don’t get your hopes up too high for a steak & lobster dinner to celebrate a conviction.
You just might have to settle for a ham sandwich.
For further reading:
http://www.nacdl.org/CHAMPION/PRESPAGE/98apr.htm
18 – Remember, Friday is satire day. Please refrain from posting your hilarious satirical pieces until then. I am sure you will get a wider audience then of people who appreciate your comedic rantings. As for the rest of us who are grounded in reality, we find your blathering ridiculous.
It amazes me how people confuse a poorly written Mercury article with judicial process.
#4 has it right. Let’s wait to see what evidence and testimony was presented to the Grand Jury before drawing conclusions about the strength of the case.
Richard – so you advocate Chicago’s Mayor Daly as San Jose’s new political behavior standard – Explains a lot about your view of acceptable political ethical behavior
As the original Mayor Daly in Chicago once opined, “when a father can’t help his son in business, what is this world coming to. . .”
Your statement ” the simple fact is we have too many ethics laws” would be something public would agree if revised to
” the simple fact is we have too many ethics laws purposely written by politicians and their consultants to allow political insiders to do the opposite of stated intent of ethical behavior and open government”
Let’s get this straight.
Richard Robinson, who tells of us with jobs and who work, that we are being too unfair to elected officials who take our money, and still have to wheel, deal, and steal, and expect a free meal.
The fact is that this guy thinks that the voters are too stupid, and he even said he is seldom wrong, and that he and elected officials have to work too hard.
Robinson, you don’t work, that is the key. You sit out in front of city hall with a sign, ‘WILL KISS RG BEHIND AND TAKE ON TH VOTERS FOR CHANGE”
GET A JOB, RICH
Elected officials have too many rules that govern them?
Ok, RR, otherwise known as the most arrogant, and also most out of touch blogger here, let’s get rid of the all the rules.
You want to get rid of the Sunshine laws and all the rest of the rules, so you will be the only guy at the meeting that gets his way.
Tell you what, RR, and most people hire someone else these days to give them advice because RR has been too eager to shiv his own clients in the back too many times, why not go to Tehran, and lobby there?
Hey, Richard “I am not comfortable with the people in charge of the government, I only want elected officials to be above the law,” Robinson
why not read more Bobby Kennedy, who would not even know who you are and would not want to,
“Whenever men take the law into their own hands, the loser is the law. And when the law loses, freedom languishes”
Next time you want to whine about how your clients have too many laws to deal with, read some American Government sometime.
#18 Innocent as hell? Isn’t hell where the guilty go?
Fed up # 18—please don’t question anyone’s IQ until you can write a coherent piece with no misspellings, and no grammatical or syntactical errors.
How are you related to Gonzo?
#17: Amen brother!!
Dear Single Gal:
Regarding Gonzo, bribery etc. Didn’t the mayor receive a hefty check from one of the unions for his Political Action Committee? If it is proven that he lied to the council to benefit another party, and then that same party turned around and cut a check to an entity that he has a direct interest in, isn’t that the definition of at least, a payoff, and at most, a bribe? Am I wrong about the contribution to the mayor’s PAC?
Pete Campbell
Question for JMO’C.
If a person is charged with 6 felonies in a single indictment; and is found guilty on at least two of the six; and then is found guilty one more of those six… does the 3-strike rule come into play?
#18 Don’t get on your connection’s bad side because he/she is providing you with some killer smoke.
#15 RR, you forgot to mention that we have that law about nepotism that required Mr. Clett to demote himself because of our pal Gonzo and his affair & subsequent divorce from Alvina and marriage to his city-employed girlfriend. EVERYBODY should have seen the writing on the wall when he didn’t even flinch over the uproar that all caused. He is one piece of work that guy.
Your clown like postings amuse me—kick off your large clown shoes and pull off your red nose and get a life, your fixation with everything Gonzo is bordering on the scary….stop cyber stalking the man and figure out a new topic to disect—-you are becoming quite the bore with your boorish posts—It is no wonder you are single, with your singular fascination with all that is Ron and your juggling you would drive any would be suitor to run for the hills—for the love of God move on already-
1. That article was written by Barry Witt…which is really strange b/c he hates the city and the mayor w/ a passion. The only conclusion I can come up w/ is he hates the DA’s office more. He seems extremely hateful most of the time with some secret, hateful agenda.
2. I think I know who Single Gal is! I bet others on this board do too! I think she produces interesting documenteries.
Can everybody tone the rhetoric down, just a little.
I enjoy the joust as much as anybody, but clearly if all you have to do spew is hate, misinformation or attack individuals personally—you need a therapist not a blog.
The spin on this board is vitrolic. We need to banter with some sense of logic and dignity.
It is amazing to me that the most offensive postings are those who are holier than thou in their self-rightious determination of the truth.
It is hard to preach ethical conduct when mired in the mud. Stick to cogent facts and remember, not every post is about political spin.
Sometimes I have found myself in some agreement even with my most ardent critics. While no one is right all the time, most people are not “wrong” all the time.
That includes our Mayor, City Council and other public officials.
I have done a lot in my life with my IQ of 80. It has allowed me to stalk Ron G and not feel bad about it and produce drivel on this blog.
I know, I am single when there are so many nice men out there like Reality Check and Fed Up Blogger!
I still don’t think OJ did it. He was framed.
SG,
The Mayor is not guilty of a crime. He showed poor judgement, he made mistakes—but not every bad decision is a crime.
Your disdain for the Mayor is shared by many, but do you really advocate putting your political opponents in jail just because you disagree with them?
It was the District Attorney who came up with some creative lawyering to bring this indictment. Most in the legal community are shocked that this indictment was produced on this evidence.
If the Mayor is guilty of a crime, no politician is safe and no political decision that benefits a constituency group—any contituency group—can be made without threat of indictment.
The simple fact is we have too many ethics laws. Chuck Reed is calling for 34 more ethics laws. No one can withstand the scrutiny and bearing the burden of withstanding the scrutiny is a financial and personal burden no person should have to bear.
It costs money to defend oneself in court, even if the charge is not legit.
If you want to “hurt” the Mayor, beat him politically. Don’t root for an unfair legal system that seeks to put him in jail for poor decision making.
For if it occurs, ask not for whom the bell tolls, the bell tolls for all of us.
Reality Check, a strong supporter of Cindy’s, would seem to have confirmed with post #32 that his candidate is closely aligned with Gonzo. Otherwise, why would he have any problem with the Gonzo-bashing here?
RC, I don’t like the thought of voting for Chuck, but your post has demonstrated exactly why I need to.
You knpw, Robinson, you clown, the best way to tone it down, is for you just to a cork in it.
You sent a mailer about a poltiician that his daughter read when she got home from school, so you are the biggest mud slinger around, and you have the gall to talk about other people.
As was said previously, Bobby Kennedy would have read one your postings, and laughed his head off.
Did it make you giggle when you attacked the guy in a such a manner that his kids felt bad about it. What a hyprocrite.
Robinson, while you claim that most people are wrong all the time, except you, and you said that word for word, big shot, several weeks ago, let me ask you this
While you are sooooooooooo worried about ethics laws, aren’t you involved in a lawsuit about ethics laws?
For the money, RR, for the money, you will say anything, right?
I am getting just a little too angry at all these blasts directed at my old friend, Richard Robinson. This is supposed to be SAN JOSE INSIDE, and not ROBINSON GETS IT.
Richard is a good man and an excellent consultant. I believe he is entitled to his opinion, and all of you who do not like it, fine. But at least he is putting his views out there. Are all of you?
Hey Reality Check – you’re back! Sorry that you had to take off all that time to lick your wounds from this last election. You are going to need to take even more time off after the November one. Viva Reed!
And Gonzo bashing is good any time of year and holds no statue of limitations. Keep going SG!
Don’t know about any of you but I am glad to have Pete Campbell on our side come 2007.
Hey RR whats up ?
“the most offensive postings are those who are holier than thou in their self-rightious determination of the truth.”
and yet you somehow determine
“The Mayor is not guilty of a crime.”
We all agree it sure is hard for you
” to preach ethical conduct when mired in the mud” Of supporting such ethical low lifes as Ron and Cindy and their Big Money backers.
They must pay you well.
#36
Are there not any other issues of substance to blog about other than Gonzo and Garbage—A war raging in the middle east, a Governor’s race, oil prices out of control and 3+ dollars for a gallon of gas, City Council races in D-3 and 6, and immigration solutions from all quarters and all most want to do is bash Gonzo—do you think there is a direct correlation between the lack of participation on this blog and the same issue being hashed, re-hashed and re-hashed again—does anyone think that there might be broader participation from those other than Mark T., JMO, Pete Campbell, Frustrated Finfan, Robinson, Hugh jardonn, Mal Content and the other 2 or 3 regular posters if the topics on the blog were a tad more interesting and took up some issues that matter in peoples daily lives??????
How to improve our transportation system, BART or no BART to SJ, affordable health care, housing, retail downtown, crime and gangs, or a lack thereof…..but alas, everyday its Gonzo and Garbage……..BOOOOOOORING.
Did Pandori make the runoff and who did he buy his home from?
#40
My candidate made it to the runoff—Did yours?
Did Pandori make the runoff and who did he buy his home from?
Why is Reed so opposed to a ban on moonlighing for the Mayor and City Council, is he working for someone that may pose a conflict of interest, does he work on city related issues on his side business—full disclosure, voters have a right to know?
The same politicians, political staffers and their consultants that bitterly complain about too many confusing and conflicting laws have been for decades writting political reform laws with numerous loopholes that allows the same political insiders to do opposite of stated intent of ethical behavior. election financing and open government reforms
The voters have long recognized political reform loophole games and will continue to demand clear, effective, reasonable and enforcable laws and regulations that the public has confidence will be enforcable while politicians and their consultants continue to propose loophole ridden reforms making political reform situation worst
Public will never agree that we have too many ethics laws when they can clearly see the many abuses, conflict of interests, special interest and political backroom deals, non public decisions, ethical and city charter violations ( politicians interferring with city staff ) as we have seen for the last 7 years in San Jose
We need is right on!!!
We have the same problem all over the Bay Area. Look at Santa Clara where Dominic Caserta wanted the City Manager investigated because he could not play in the basketball league.
The last post by WE NEED has made it more plain than ever before. We need reform!!!
JohnMichael, how old are you, 15? You’ve made the most spelling and grammatical errors on the blog! Take a basic english course before you continue on with blogging.
RC, I’ve been checking out this blog way less in recent weeks because, believe it or not, I do agree with you. There is more to discuss in this town than the Gonzo garbage thing, but don’t see how SJI is the place to hash out the situation of oil refiners laughing all the way to the bank, which they probably own. No wait, banks don’t gouge the public nearly enough to satisfy the MDR of greed that your average slimey oil refining G.W. Bush good ol’ boy type would require.
But I agree there are other things to talk about. Election blogging isn’t going to heat up again for a while but it’s never too early to start asking the candidates for specifics, something sorely lacking in the primary from just about everybody but Dave P.
Plenty of other topics to be considered. Some of the bloggers on here don’t generate much input, and one doesn’t even own a computer so can’t even read or respond to people’s posts.
This may be the 10th largest and 1st most boring/backwater town in the top 10, but there’s plenty of blog material regardless.
I’m with you RC, let’s give this garbage thing a rest before we’re all so bored with it that apathy sets in, just like it has for most of the electorate.
JMC did not graduate from junior high school, so he cannot get the commendation from Chuck. Why has Chuck lost the endorsement from George Kennedy? He had it in the primary. Chuck, did you make him mad again?
Sure, there are plenty of other things to talk about but our City Hall jail bird keeps stoking the fires on this topic. And, just wait until the transcripts are finally released. Obviously, the lawyers for the GG boys don’t want the public to see them—gee, I wonder why. When those come out there won’t be anything else to talk about for days.
Leave it to RC to want to use this local board to discuss the world situation. Maybe he should change his name to the “Great Deflector.”
47: Really? Please point out those errors to me. I always prefer to spell correctly and be gramatically correct. Take as much time as you need to respond, and get as much help as you feel necessary to substantiate your claim.
#50
Never knew housing was an international issue or that the city council elections in D-3 and 6 elevated to a global level, or downtown retail should be brought to the UN for action. Did you read my post? See below to refresh your clouded memory:
How to improve our transportation system, BART or no BART to SJ, affordable health care, housing, retail downtown, crime and gangs, or a lack thereof…..but alas, everyday its Gonzo and Garbage……..BOOOOOOORING.
Whole lot of “world situation” stuff in the items listed above….did pandori make the runoff and who did he buy his home from?
Wow, a bunch of men arguing with one another. This is fun.
It’s more like a duel of wits—with an unarmed opponent.
JohnMichael, you hypocrate! let’s start with “and”. You don’t put “,” before “and” if there’s no noun to make a complete conjunction. Lastly, you want avoid using “but” as a start of a sentence. The same especially goes with “and” There are numerous errors to go over! Like I said, you should take grammar lessons. Hey, you just spelled “grammatically” wrong. You use a dictionary when want spell things correctly.
Sorry, “Fed Up”, but of course you can properly put a comma before “and” in a series under certain circumstances. If you do not, the word before the “and” and the word after the “and” become a pair unto themselves which is separate and distinct from all those in the list that precede them.
That rule re not using “but” to start a sentence died about the same time the rule not to end a sentence with a preposition died.
The correct spelling is “hypocrIte”, with an “i”, not an “a”.
Unfortunately I sometimes rely on Spellcheck instead of a dictionary, which often gets me in trouble. If you had used either Spellcheck or a dictionary, you would have spelled hypocrite correctly.
HAVE A NICE DAY!
JMO…
Guess I should have done my homework. Seems that the 3-Strike Law was designed for and applies to a whole different animal, and not to “soft” acts against others, society or the community.
Interesting how someone can wreak so much havoc with so may people to satisfy their will or greed and the criminal justice system terms it “not serious”. When compared to those crimes listed in 1192.7 (c), they in deed do seem less serious.
When someone breaks into a home and steals a few valuables, they fall under the three strikes law and can do “hard time”. Yet when someone steals a person’s home or their life savings through fraud or intentional misuse of corporate governorship, the law treats it differently and “hard time” does not apply. Sometimes it does not seem fair.
Don’t get me wrong. I understand the rationale for the 3-strikes law and basically support it. But on a socioeconomic level, it’s almost like traffic fines scaled to the value of your vehicle. Drive an expensive car and don’t kill anyone and your fines for violations are small. Drive an older, high mileage or inexpensive model and your violations are serious and the fines are huge. Kinds of a stretch; but you get the idea.
So for a few felony convictions the worse the mayor could get is a little time at tennis camp?
Where shall we send the cookies and tennis balls?
Yeah, it is good for the Reedites to have something to dismiss.
Of course the other land use deals Mr. Integrity dealt with enethically are even more serious.
#55 Fed up Blogger and #56 JMO
I sure am glad that this isn’t a spelling bee or an English composition test. If it were, I would be in second to last place. Hey I just found one good reason to keep that guy who rants about that Hostetter thingie on this blog.
Giselle leaving Hissoner? Any confirmations? Denials?
#60: The current over/under is six months after Gonzo leaves office. Place your bets!
Of course Giselle will leave Gonzo the clown. No more power and money to syphon off!
I liked it when you used to write about Irish Pubs, the singles scene and whatnot, b/c it allowed me to at least reminisce about the good stuff I remember about SJ…