|
Post by lifesaver on Jul 20, 2014 7:42:16 GMT -5
Hot off the press! Just got served papers that has the County of Adams is appealing the Final Determination of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records that granted me certain emails requested in a Right To Know request. This is public information available at the Courthouse, so I'm not divulging anything that can't be found with a small amount of effort. I am not going to hear/try the appeal in this forum. You may do that if you so choose. All I want to do, is ask a few simple questions: - Why do you think they are appealing this?
- Shouldn't the Office of Open Records, be 'open' and/or 'transparent?
- Didn't these Commissioners campaign on openness and transparency?
- Is it a coincidence that Hartzell failed to mention anything about the ex parte communication?
- How do you think an appeal from the 'County of Adams', to the 'County of Adams' Court of Common Pleas (which includes requests for emails to/from one of its compatriots), will unfold?
- Maybe Hartzell doesn't have enough to do. Why waste time and taxpayer money on this? What could be so bad that there is a need to protect these communications so fervently?
#6. I think it's a waste time and money. Too bad Hartzell didn't think about a hard drive crash. Moose, did you get the private message I sent you?
|
|
|
Post by Venter on Jul 20, 2014 10:57:26 GMT -5
Moose, Once AGAIN I read (muddled through) the Legal Bullshit that Hartzell was spreading. Below is a Copy* of one of the documents.
*The Copy is of a PDF, on which I used OCR to extract the words, so as a disclaimer, there may be a few misspellings. I also removed the references to the Legal Documents that are mentioned in the PDF - to make it a BIT easier to read. If you want those specific reference/citation numbers, and other things like addresses - then I guess I can send you the scanned file. An example: "Right to Know Law. 65 P.S. § 67.102; 65 P.S. § 67.304(a)." Will be replaced with "Right to Know Law..." I assume it is a Skill-Set used by Attorneys to prove that they know how to Cut&Paste other Legal Bullshit, in order to try to persuade an outcome.
|
|
|
Post by Venter on Jul 20, 2014 11:41:44 GMT -5
Sooooo... In a Nutshell (appropriate term), Hartzell seems to be asking the OOR to NOT Release ANY of the Emails between Kuhn to Hartzell to Kuhn to Phiel to Hartzell to Phiel to Kuhn to ANYONE on ANY BOARD Upon which he once sat or served in any capacity... So, I guess if any of them were in the Boy Scouts together, then we're all screwed! Of course, even in the Boy Scouts, they would have made a Pledge: "On my honor I will do my best To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight."
Okay, so maybe they WEREN'T Scouts
· "Attorney / Client Privilege" should only affect things if Hartzell was Representing Kuhn - or am I mistaken? · Okay, so REDACT any information which may be considered sensitive regarding Personnel. If all you have to do to keep your emails from being "Public Information" is to mention Personnel, then I would always say SOMETHING about an employee · Hartzell has STILL Managed to Skirt the Issue of Ex Parte Communications with all of this Misdirection and Smoke and Mirrors. · The PURPOSE of using the Right to Know is to try to get INFORMATION that is NOT Readily Available. You REQUEST Information because you Suspect that Something is WRONG. Moose was NOT on just any Fishing Expedition, he was asking for Specific Information that IS Pertinent to his suit. He IS ATTEMPTING to Fish in the Right Pond, yet Once Again... He is being Denied Access this Property which IS PUBLIC, yet somehow Ordained Inaccessible by Our ELECTED OFFICIALS, and their APPOINTEES - and that WE are Paying For!Remember - WE Never VOTED for Hartzell. We DO Have a RIGHT TO KNOW, and they need to STOP Hiding behind Hartzell!
|
|
|
Post by Venter on Jul 20, 2014 11:47:59 GMT -5
And you just gotta love this type of persuasion being used by Hartzell: But I'm SURE that all of the Citations made by Hartzell are 100% pertinent Don't magicians use that same tact, "Look over here"!Presto, Change-O.
|
|
|
Post by SpellChecker on Jul 25, 2014 15:38:05 GMT -5
And you just gotta love this type of persuasion being used by Hartzell: But I'm SURE that all of the Citations made by Hartzell are 100% pertinent Don't magicians use that same tact, "Look over here"!Presto, Change-O. I cant imagine why this isnt getting more attention in the county and why more people arent out raged by this case as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by Venter on Jul 25, 2014 18:40:58 GMT -5
I cant imagine why this isnt getting more attention in the county and why more people arent out raged by this case as a whole. Because the Gettysburg Times has decided to not pick up on it, for some reason or another.
|
|
|
Post by buckeye on Jul 26, 2014 7:16:47 GMT -5
IMHO, the reason the Times or Sun isn't reporting on this is: a) they don't have a reporter familiar with the legal aspects of the case; b) neither paper has the staff to do "investigative" stories, and c)they don't want to rock the boat. It's a small town, and a small county. The Washington Post or Baltimore Sun would be all over a story like this and would be more than happy to step on several toes. Our local papers know where their sources are for local news. They don't want to lose them and going after a local judge/lawyer/county commissioner could have negative impact on their reporting other stories. Why isn't the public outraged? Probably because the majority isn't even aware of the situation due to the above. And they're too busy trying to earn a living and spending time driving back and forth to Hanover and Frederick to buy essentials we're not allowed to buy in Adams County.
|
|
|
Post by Venter on Jul 26, 2014 10:38:48 GMT -5
IMHO, the reason the Times or Sun isn't reporting on this is: a) they don't have a reporter familiar with the legal aspects of the case; b) neither paper has the staff to do "investigative" stories, and c)they don't want to rock the boat. It's a small town, and a small county. The Washington Post or Baltimore Sun would be all over a story like this and would be more than happy to step on several toes. Our local papers know where their sources are for local news. They don't want to lose them and going after a local judge/lawyer/county commissioner could have negative impact on their reporting other stories. Why isn't the public outraged? Probably because the majority isn't even aware of the situation due to the above. And they're too busy trying to earn a living and spending time driving back and forth to Hanover and Frederick to buy essentials we're not allowed to buy in Adams County. All extremely valid points, Buckeye. Especially the Public "... isn't even aware of the situation..." I'm wondering if the Times would take an "Guest Column" from Bruce Hollinger. And if so... Bruce would you be willing to write one? In lieu of a "Column", do you think it would be worth placing an "Advertisement" in the paper?
|
|
|
Post by Alex Oreilly on Jul 26, 2014 21:21:43 GMT -5
Bruce could write a Letter To The Editor and ask that if he could write a rather lengthy letter so he can fully explain everything.
|
|
moose
Post Master
Posts: 184
|
Post by moose on Jul 27, 2014 14:45:14 GMT -5
There's a reason most people facing litigation don't make comments to the media. They don't want to give the other side the option to contest not having a fair trial, etc. I try to give the facts when I present something and let the readers decide for themselves. While I sometimes try inject humor, sarcasm, and/or satire, I usually try to state that it is my opinion, but that I made such opinion based on the evidence gathered. I could never tell this whole story in a Letter to the Editor as they would not accept the length of the letter. I don't know the best way to inform the public but I have an idea that I cannot share, just yet. Note the new assessment appeal rules as reported by the Times (attached below). What's NOT different is that the burden of proof is STILL on the property owner to submit credible evidence to support their Fair Market (assessed value) Value, of their property. This means facts must be gathered and submitted and it is simply not enough to declare that their property is worth such and such. This is why I went to the Court when the Appeals process failed to recognize the value of my half acre lot in Carroll Valley that didn't perc. I presented the same evidence at Court that I did at the appeals process and finally had the assessed value lowered to that of other 'like' properties in Carroll Valley through the Court of Common Pleas. In otherwords, I had to PROVE the value of my land. This is UNLIKE those who simply declare their property is producing an agricultural commodity, and the County takes them at their word and lowers their tax burden (for the rest of us to pick up). There cannot be two sets of standards for proving property values, depending on how much land you own. This is a violation of of our constitutional rights and cannot be tolerated and MUST be challenged! Of course, all the above is my opinion, and you are all welcome to agree, or not. commissioners_update_assessment_appeal_rule....pdf (277.09 KB)
|
|
|
Post by lifesaver on Jul 27, 2014 15:34:26 GMT -5
There's a reason most people facing litigation don't make comments to the media. They don't want to give the other side the option to contest not having a fair trial, etc. I try to give the facts when I present something and let the readers decide for themselves. While I sometimes try inject humor, sarcasm, and/or satire, I usually try to state that it is my opinion, but that I made such opinion based on the evidence gathered. I could never tell this whole story in a Letter to the Editor as they would not accept the length of the letter. I don't know the best way to inform the public but I have an idea that I cannot share, just yet. Note the new assessment appeal rules as reported by the Times (attached below). What's NOT different is that the burden of proof is STILL on the property owner to submit credible evidence to support their Fair Market (assessed value) Value, of their property. This means facts must be gathered and submitted and it is simply not enough to declare that their property is worth such and such. This is why I went to the Court when the Appeals process failed to recognize the value of my half acre lot in Carroll Valley that didn't perc. I presented the same evidence at Court that I did at the appeals process and finally had the assessed value lowered to that of other 'like' properties in Carroll Valley through the Court of Common Pleas. In otherwords, I had to PROVE the value of my land. This is UNLIKE those who simply declare their property is producing an agricultural commodity, and the County takes them at their word and lowers their tax burden (for the rest of us to pick up). There cannot be two sets of standards for proving property values, depending on how much land you own. This is a violation of of our constitutional rights and cannot be tolerated and MUST be challenged! Of course, all the above is my opinion, and you are all welcome to agree, or not. Agree moose, that 400 word limit for an LTE wouldn't begin to tell the whole story. It's hard to say what you need to say within that word count limit, I know, I've done it several times. And thinking about it I suppose I understand the reasoning behind it. Could you imagine the LTE's from some "regular" contributors if you were allowed to drone on and on? And I also agree that you need to be careful about trying this case in the press. That being said, perhaps the Times would give you a guest editorial column. If they can do it for Mark Berg they can do it for you.
|
|
|
Post by Venter on Jul 27, 2014 20:39:51 GMT -5
Then I'll let the cat out of the bag, Moose... ... but I still don't think that dropping 250,000 leaflets from the balloon will actually do too much - Especially if you don't unpack them from the BOX first!!!
|
|
moose
Post Master
Posts: 184
|
Post by moose on Jul 27, 2014 21:06:13 GMT -5
Then I'll let the cat out of the bag, Moose... ... but I still don't think that dropping 250,000 leaflets from the balloon will actually do too much - Especially if you don't unpack them from the BOX first!!! DAMN YOU, Venter! You CANNOT keep a secret, can you!!
|
|
moose
Post Master
Posts: 184
|
Post by moose on Jul 27, 2014 21:18:37 GMT -5
...that does get me thinking....that balloon doesn't currently have a BIG OLE SIGN on it, yet, does it! It's just ASKING foe a SIGN. I KNOW someone who does that ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Alex Oreilly on Dec 15, 2014 18:44:45 GMT -5
Moose's, Clean and Green lawsuit gets dismissed. Hopefully, he appeals it and takes it to the State Court system.
|
|