|
|
Post by gearofzanzibar on Dec 11, 2009 17:24:37 GMT -5
Since it's such a trivial thing now, could you post the picture? Uncropped, with the metadata intact?
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Dec 11, 2009 17:56:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by corner on Dec 11, 2009 18:27:36 GMT -5
Lovinglife pretty much summed it up. I see how it could look bad and maybe was a lapse in judgment for these very reasons. However, I never did it with any cynical reasons. I was never sneaky about it. As a matter of fact, I went to the Chairman's office the next day and broke chops about it. I simply said that I thought it would look bad if he was to vote on something he may have a personal stake in. To avoid any appearance of impropriety, he abstained. And, the house is on Proctor Blvd. which I drive several times per day to bring my mother to work and back. But again, this has nothing to do with the allegations in the letter. The letter stated I blackmailed him for money for a NFP. I had nothing to do with even proposing that legislation and the CE and Chairman and Majority Leader have all said just that. So the rest is just politics. And for him to take whatever second hand info he heard about this stupid picture and turn it into a PUBLIC declaration of illegal and immoral activities is not only wrong, but could be illegal too. Larry for the longest time I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt but i havent been out of the law enforcement business so long so that i have lost my nose when something smells rotten and this does .Proctor blvd is a shortcut to no where and i dont believe in coincidences with how many legislators how would you know his specific truck and why pray tell would you know her specific house or where she lives for that matter without actively seeking that info add that to fact of prior accusations against you of stalking by the former mayor,, i think you can see how there is an appearance of guilt on your part. |
|
|
|
Post by corner on Dec 11, 2009 18:45:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by stoney on Dec 11, 2009 18:54:22 GMT -5
Hell, they drive about 70 mph down the Parkway, that'd be the quickest! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by corner on Dec 11, 2009 19:25:04 GMT -5
Larry st joes st es dont matter the point that im making and you are missing is the fact that things look funny now none of this would make a bit of difference if hendricks didnt put the letter out but you can see how things can snowball and if i know the da's office at all the grandjury can be a 2 edged sword what im saying to you is is that you can cut even if as you say taking the picture and approaching fiorini was innocent.. we are not you enemies here but if it looks funny to us imagine how it looks to those that would do you harm and what they would try to do with it i learned along time ago as a public servant that everything you domust be aboveboard without even the slightest hint of impropriety,at any rate good luck with all of this and hope you dont get cut with the sword oh by the way about the truck being "there" sometimes a piece of ass is just that a piece of ass!
|
|
|
|
Post by stoney on Dec 11, 2009 19:29:26 GMT -5
But Larry, how did the OD know about that picture you took back in August if you didn't notify them of it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Dec 11, 2009 19:40:21 GMT -5
I guess I would probably take the picture too. Whether I would use it or how would remain to be seen, but if I thought a legislator was dunkin his dicky where he shouldn't, I would damn sure call him on it. Especially if the dunker was going to have to vote on the lease deal for the dunkee.
Larry, if I were suspecting wrong doing on the impending vote, and suspected there was something like that going on, you are damned right I would be going down Proctor Blvd. You are darn right I would take a picture, and you are darn right I would threaten to bring it to the public eye unless he agreed not to vote on the issue.
I think you cut him some slack and decided to settle for his not voting on the issue, but if I were you, I would have probably gone public with the news and let the public know what was in the wind politically, and let him explain what the truck was doing there. If nothing was going on, then he would have been forced to explain that fact and definitely would have had to excuse himself from the vote. It might have even caused the vote to go the other way, although I doubt that.
People in the public eye need to keep their pee pee's in their pants, and maintain a high moral standard. What is with the deal with infidelity being accepted behavior? If a legislator is suspected of fooling around, the public has a right to know when the suspected girlfriend has business going before the board.
|
|
|
|
Post by stoney on Dec 11, 2009 19:45:42 GMT -5
I hear ya' on the Henessey thing. That's terrible! Why did he do that to you?
|
|
|
|
Post by gearofzanzibar on Dec 11, 2009 20:05:49 GMT -5
Can I ask for a third time for you to post the picture, uncropped and with the metadata intact?
If you don't want to, just say so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Dec 11, 2009 20:12:06 GMT -5
What reason would there be to want the picture posted. It is simply a pickup truck parked in front of a house on Proctor Blvd, as I understand the posts. Are we looking for proof that it exists? With the possibility of pending legal action, I would not post it on a public forum either. It would serve no purpose.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Dec 11, 2009 21:42:44 GMT -5
Larry, I don't know if you had ill intentions from the start or were innocent from the gitgo, or just opportunistic, playing with the idea of how you could use the photo, but you would have to be absolutely crazy to post a photo that could injure a reputation, that has not been made public. In fact, if you're smart, you'll turn off your PC and call your attorney.
|
|
|
|
Post by gearofzanzibar on Dec 12, 2009 0:03:43 GMT -5
What reason would there be to want the picture posted. What possible reason is there for not posting it? Taking a picture of areas in open view from a public roadway is perfectly legal, as is publishing it. Not only are there no privacy concerns, there's also absolutely nothing actionable in the picture itself, as I believe Mr. Tanoury has already stated. |
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Dec 12, 2009 8:43:27 GMT -5
I'm not qualified to argue the legalities, but my instinct tells me a good lawyer would be prepared to argue that both victims' reasonable expectation of privacy was violated. I.e., the Katz test. Larry is a representative of the government, after all, and one of the victims is not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Dec 12, 2009 10:43:53 GMT -5
My question would be this. If there is no productive  purpose to posting the picture of a truck parked at the curb, why are you so damned insistent that it be posted Gear? |
|
purpose to posting the picture of a truck parked at the curb, why are you so damned insistent that it be posted Gear?