Topix Web Site Being Investigated.

[Clipper]

Only TWO topics?? Hell we are doing well for Clipper's Corner on a monday morning. We can probably wander much farther by supper time.

[stoney]

What's for supper, Clip?

[Clipper]

Haven't decided yet Stoney. May a little "skabetti" with hot sausage and meatballs. Depends on whether either of us feels well enough to cook or not. We both have been sick all weekend and still feel like crap. I called someone to sub for me at bowling tonight. I am not going out of the house unless it is on fire.

[stoney]

That's what we're having tonight~~spaghetti with my homemade sauce.

[Clipper]

WE usually have Kathy's sauce, but today it will be prego or a quickly thrown together sauce of tomato puree and spices, not cooked all day. We both are feeling lousy and not really ambitious enough to make home made sauce today.

When I cook shrimp to put over pasta, I sometimes simply saute some crushed garlic in a good quality olive oil, with a little oregano, and a few pepper flakes for flavor. After tossing the pasta in it, I sprinkle it liberally with fresh grated parmesan. I have been known to drain most of the sausage grease, add some olive oil and use that same sort of sauce for sausage and pasta. The only difference being that I slice the sausage in about 1 inch pieces, and saute it with a diced bell pepper, and don't saute the garlic until after I take the sausage out.

[tanouryjr]

Swimmy, you're good! That was my original opinion. Maybe I'm trying too hard to be fair and unbiased. By doing so, I may be overreaching. You are correct, the law is very clear in that this is a clear case of aggrevated harassment. And after reading that letter again, which I haven't read in weeks, they do make very definitive statements that are presented as fact. It's a roller coaster for me. I hear all the talk about political vendettas and don't ever want anyone to think that I woud ever condone such a thing. Maybe I am too close to have a unbiased opinion. I may have to retract my approval of the editorials - something I don't do very often, lol.

Bobbie, whether it's murder or harassment, the principles are the same. A law was broken. We don't get to pick and choose which ones we enforce or who they are enforced against. No one is above the law. And your statement was after the D.A. announced it was going to a grand jury, which was well after the election.

[bobbbiez]

Larry, speaking of your situation, what law was broken? Right from the start that was what I was confused with. I always understood when someone said something about another which was untrue it was classified as slander and should be handled in a civil court.

If I'm not mistakened we were discussing this letter right around the election because I remember Hendricks making a statement that he hadn't make a decision on whether he would take the seat or not.
As far as this whole thing I felt it was politically motivated and I still do since it's going no wheres now. Other then your name being cleared tell me what was solved by this whole mess?

[Swimmy]

Jan 11, 2010 16:36:36 GMT -5 bobbbiez said:

Larry, speaking of your situation, what law was broken?

The alleged law broken is PL 240.30, which can be read here. Less confused now? :-)

[Swimmy]

Jan 11, 2010 14:38:06 GMT -5 @tanouryjr said:

Swimmy, you're good! That was my original opinion. Maybe I'm trying too hard to be fair and unbiased. By doing so, I may be overreaching. You are correct, the law is very clear in that this is a clear case of aggrevated harassment. And after reading that letter again, which I haven't read in weeks, they do make very definitive statements that are presented as fact. It's a roller coaster for me. I hear all the talk about political vendettas and don't ever want anyone to think that I woud ever condone such a thing. Maybe I am too close to have a unbiased opinion. I may have to retract my approval of the editorials - something I don't do very often, lol.

Bobbie, whether it's murder or harassment, the principles are the same. A law was broken. We don't get to pick and choose which ones we enforce or who they are enforced against. No one is above the law. And your statement was after the D.A. announced it was going to a grand jury, which was well after the election.

Thank you, Larry.

You are trying too hard to be unbiased. What's done is done. Let the court figure it out now. I really do not see how this is protected speech, and would love to see some of these guys have criminal convictions against them. It might forcibly open their eyes to see that they are NOT above the law and times are a changing... It was refreshing to see reed withdraw from re-election (last announced in September 2009 that he was seeking a second term) in the midst of a full state comptroller's audit. Slowly these government officials are finding that we are not tolerating it anymore.

[bobbbiez]

Jan 11, 2010 16:42:27 GMT -5 Swimmy said:

Jan 11, 2010 16:36:36 GMT -5 bobbbiez said:

Larry, speaking of your situation, what law was broken?

The alleged law broken is PL 240.30, which can be read here. Less confused now? :-)

Right Swimmy! You are kidding.

Does that mean all cases as such go to the Grand Jury?

[Swimmy]

If, "with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, you cause a communication to be initiated by mechanical or electronic means or otherwise, with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm," why not?

I would fully expect to face criminal liability if I signed a letter I did not fully read and caused to be communicated to the persons identified in that letter that made several false allegations presented as fact because I wanted to exact revenge and have personal disdain for the parties contained in that letter. As I said before, it's one thing to make allegations and leave them as that. It's another to make allegations you know to be false, not protected speech. And it's criminal to do so only because you want to exact revenge on your own party and only because you have personal disdain for a law-abiding citizen who did no wrong while acting in his official capacity.

[bobbbiez]

OK, so what becomes of this case (letter) now?

[Swimmy]

It's in the court's hands now. ;D

Sometimes a lawsuit is just what you need to determine where the law ends and the chaos begins.

[bobbbiez]

I hear ya Swimmy. So what's your personal opinion on this whole thing and what do you think will come of this?

[Swimmy]

Aren't all opinions personal to some degree? lol

I think that regardless the outcome of the case it's about time the public is forced to open its eyes to the bullshit that our "leaders" engage in on a daily basis!