Rep. Phil Hart
Phil Hart is on the front page of the Press, in a surprising article that is not complimentary, yet the Press, again, has not posted that piece online. Are they shying away from political comments under their articles?
The contempt trial for Bill McCrory is this afternoon at 4pm, courtroom #1 in the old building.
Questions, comments, ideas?
This beggars the description “shame”. Phil Hart decided that paying taxes wasn’t for him. So he let the remainder of tax payers pick up his slack. He decided that protected forrestry wasn’t for him, so with stealth he stole a large amount of timber. When caught, he claims that there is an historic loophole that made it “okay” for him to steal the timber. Even more egregious, this forrestry was meant for the benefit of Idaho schools. And the Idaho voters just continue to return him, unopposed, to office. This election there is a choice. A write in candidate, Howard Griffiths. He has my vote. Do I think he will win, sadly no. What is wrong with this place???
Websters Collegiate Dictionary: Crook: a person who engages in fraudulent or criminal practices.
Crime: Something reprehensible, disgraceful.
Phil Hart qualifies (by his own admission) on all points. No less disgraceful are the voters who return him to office!!!
Comment by rochereau — October 12, 2010 @ 9:28 am
Well, I would rather be called a crook than a dingleberry.
Comment by Stebbijo — October 12, 2010 @ 10:04 am
Stebbijo, the continued re-election of this man and all that his (lack) of character implies, is not a facetious subject.
Comment by rochereau — October 12, 2010 @ 10:58 am
Interesting ‘news’ article. The accurate definition of a ‘loophole’ is dependent upon who the person is that is using the word. A loophole when used by someone who wishes to place someone in a poor light, just because, uses the word ‘loophole’ as if it means that what occurred is actually against the law… but somehow it just wasn’t pointed out. One interesting thing about laws is that they are to be interpreted as written and passed by the Idaho Legislature. The purpose for this ‘interesting thing’ is that ‘common folk’ are suppose to be put on clear notice of what is ‘legal’ and what is ‘not legal.’ If any written statute, especially a ‘criminal’ statute, is prepared for consideration by the Idaho Legislature it is presumably closely reviewed…before it is submitted to a vote…by…guess who…the Attorney General. Thus if the statute, as written, reviewed by the Attorney General, and passed by the Idaho Legislature, does not make an act ‘criminal’…it is…simply…not a crime and not criminal. It is not…a loophole…it is not a crime or a criminal act, it is not prohibited. Being a ‘common folk’ I am personally unaware of the ‘moral obligation’ to which the Attorney General refers. Perhaps based upon his personal convictions the Attorney General has a different ‘moral obligation law manual’ than Presbyterians, or Catholics, or Jews, or atheists? Perhaps the Attorney General should have his own personal ‘moral obligation law manual’ published and distributed around the state, so that us ‘common folk’… who have believed for all these years that in order to ‘know what needs to be done/or not done to comply with the law’ we should read the statutory law passed by the Idaho Legislature could also be put on notice of the Attorney General’s moral obligation laws. This would enable us ‘common folk, if we wish to determine whether an action we wish to take is ‘legal’ or ‘not legal’,to also refer to the Attorney General’s personal ‘moral obligation law’ before deciding whether or not they should act or not act in a particular manner. Certainly it would be much easier for us ‘common folk’ to just rely upon the statutes passed by the Idaho Legislature. However, if the Attorney General is going to refer to ‘moral obligation law’, even if it is for a purely political purpose as the Attorney General’s statement was, we ‘common folk’ should have the benefit of knowing what it is that the Attorney General is ‘charging’ us with.
Comment by Happy Trails — October 12, 2010 @ 11:16 am
Fine, lets talk about this serious subject. I was out of the logging industry back then. Who was the contractor – what mill took the logs?
Comment by Stebbijo — October 12, 2010 @ 11:17 am
I read some other articles about this situation – the stealing of timber and I find the whole argument facinating. However, not remembering the “logger’s” name is a bit much. Other than that, I am thinking he found a great loophole and he got a nice house out of it. Also, anyone who can screw the IRS has my respect. Hart has put in some great legislation. Last session he worked feverishly. I would rather have a smart crook in office than a dumb one.
Comment by Stebbijo — October 12, 2010 @ 12:41 pm
Good questions Stebbijo, I don’t know. Unless I missed something, that wasn’t in the article. And, yes, the contractor/logger was equally culpable.
Happy Trail…just why are you obscuring the real point. As for needing “moral law guidance”, that comes from within and should have been learned during childhood. I clearly understand your sarcasm and your attitude goes a long way toward answering my original question, what’s wrong with this place. And the AG was correct, Hart is morally obligated to pay for the lumber he stole. But his actions prove time and time again that he is morally bankrupt.
Comment by rochereau — October 12, 2010 @ 12:48 pm
I’d rather have an honest man in office than any crook.
Comment by rochereau — October 12, 2010 @ 12:49 pm
rochereau, yep I would rather have an honest one too, but these days we can’t seem to have our cake and eat it too. I want to know who that logger is so I can get a log house, too!
On a side note: Scott Wiedmann with the Dept of Defense called me back on my inquiry regarding that federal law UOCAVA. He told me the law only guarantees the federal vote which makes sense because that is all it does.
An Act to consolidate and improve provisions of law relating to absentee registration and voting in elections for Federal office by members of uniformed services and persons who reside overseas.
The rest is up to state law.
Comment by Stebbijo — October 12, 2010 @ 1:21 pm
Gad, I am still pouring over that UOCAVA. I do believe they got it wrong – wrong – wrong. Here is another excerpt:
Comment by Stebbijo — October 12, 2010 @ 1:34 pm
“They got it wrong” as in the judge’s ruling on the elections contest.
Comment by Stebbijo — October 12, 2010 @ 1:35 pm
On another subject, The McCrory trial,,,,would somebody venture a guess as to how much money was wasted this afternoon by having the scheduled hearing in courtroom #1 being canceled? I went there and was among other interested citizens expecting there to be a hearing. It was on the docket at the entrance. Not even the security guard was notified. How about all the other people who were scheduled to be part of the hearing including the attorneys? Pretty damned inconsiderate if you ask me.
And can someone also tell me how someone other than a judge or prosecutor in Idaho site a citizen for contempt of court. Isn’t that criminal? Well some well known attorney doesn’t know it is.
Comment by Ancientemplar — October 12, 2010 @ 4:53 pm
I have the newest Judicial Adminstrative Conference Minutes from July over on my site here if anyone is interested in them.
Comment by Stebbijo — October 12, 2010 @ 5:07 pm
I was thinking about the Phil Hart Timber Theivery and I thought to myself, “Just how would Shawn Keough (R) Sandpoint, and Joyce Broadsword (R) Sagle, view this situation?” They are both senators and heavily entrenched within the timber industry. Shawn Keough is the Executive of the Associated Loggers Exchange and I believe Joyce Broadsword is in a home log business. Yep. These logger ladies know how it works. Spineless is what they are.
Comment by Stebbijo — October 13, 2010 @ 5:27 pm
On another thread, KootenaiConservative has asked this question:
Comment by Dan — October 15, 2010 @ 5:54 pm
Dave Oliveria’s claim to fame is his “Huckleberries Hears…” Pure gossip. Case closed.
Comment by mary — October 15, 2010 @ 6:06 pm
Let me answer!
I would say any time Oliveria writes a post called “Huckleberries hears . . .” It’s gossip. When DFO brings a comment made in a thread, and places that thread out front as a new topic, without any verification to what the poster has written, then it’s gossip. Especially when the person who originally made the comment is an anonymous blogger. Such an action adds legitimacy to the post, which may be — and definitely has been in the HBO history files — utter nonsense.
Now I understand that what anonymous bloggers say can be anything from an insider jewel to complete rubbish. That’s okay; gossipy comments are the stuffing to the blog turkey. But taking such a thing and posting it “out front” legitimizes it in a way that would earn the site the topic of “Gossip Blog.” Especially when the comment is “owned’ by an anonymous source. I would say that’s the definition of pure gossip.
Our goal here on OpenCdA is to cite sources and provide links to them or to copies of documents at all times. When we write opinion, we state it as such and put our names on it. The comments may contain gossipy elements, but we do not repost those elements out front as fact. If you believe otherwise, then please point out where there are errors and they will be corrected.
Comment by Dan — October 15, 2010 @ 6:10 pm
Gossip need not be limited to the celebrity gossip of the NY Post’s Page Six.
Comment by Dan — October 15, 2010 @ 6:15 pm
“Our goal here on OpenCdA is to cite sources and provide links to them or to copies of documents at all times.”
Then will Mary in the future be linking to HBO when discussing the site, or at least having the courtesy to call it by its name when discussing it?
Comment by KootenaiConservative — October 15, 2010 @ 7:07 pm
No, Dave, I will not.
Comment by mary — October 15, 2010 @ 9:15 pm
Dave? There doesn’t appear to be anyone named Dave on this thread, Mary.
Comment by KootenaiConservative — October 15, 2010 @ 9:44 pm
I’d say that the “Huckleberries Hears” platform is akin when journalists (Politico.com, for example) publish rumors they hear from sources that are unverified but nonetheless newsworthy. They might turn out to be nonsense (reports that Kendrick Meek would drop out of the Florida Senate race) or they might be completely true (DFO posting reports that Ron Nilson would run for NIC Trustee), but they are all interesting enough that they deserve reporting. I believe that whenever something is an unverified rumor, DFO identifies it as such.
However, even if you still find “Huckleberries Hears” to be mere gossip unworthy of a news-y site, that still represents only a small minority of what HBO covers. Political and local news are the bread and butter of HBO. How can one disregard that obvious fact and focus entirely on the “gossip-y” stuff and still hope to remain credible?
Comment by KootenaiConservative — October 15, 2010 @ 9:54 pm
Out of 30 items on HBO’s front page right now (yes, I counted) only two concern something that Mary has identified as a “gossip” topic, which is coverage of OpenCDA (the recent endorsement of Nilson/Ketchum with commentary). Those have attracted a grand total of 11 comments between them – most of which are me attacking Wood’s playing hooky from the KCRR debate. The other 28 are various newsy and ‘fun’ topics, but none even remotely approaching the realm of gossip. So the evidence is suggesting that Mary’s assertion that HBO is nothing more than a gossip blog who talks about OpenCDA to stir up traffic is looking completely false. Unless you have a different interpretation of the facts…?
Comment by KootenaiConservative — October 15, 2010 @ 10:02 pm
Curious, KC: You take issue with Mary calling HBO a gossip blog, but I don’t see you on HBO taking issue with people referring to OpenCdA as OpenSewer and other childish terms. Do you live on a one way street?
Comment by Dan — October 15, 2010 @ 10:06 pm
Nope. It’s childish, and I will call him on it the next time he inevitably brings it up. Just as I am calling Mary out for being childish.
But at least it’s his obvious opinion and not a plain distortion of facts, as your and Mary’s attack is.
Comment by KootenaiConservative — October 15, 2010 @ 10:11 pm
Goodnight, Dave.
Comment by mary — October 15, 2010 @ 10:45 pm
My name isn’t Dave. Nor is my last name Oliveria, if you’re assuming what I think you are. You can find my name on HBO if you do some digging. You can also find that I’m a regular commenter there. I don’t always agree with the prevailing consensus over there, but I will always state my opinion and justify it with facts. I intend to do the same here.
If you are going to continue to ignore my requests for you to justify your attacks on HBO, I’m going to continue to take it as confirmation that you don’t have an argument. And I will continue to challenge you if you continue to say HBO is a gossip blog, as you seem to be wont to do.
Goodnight, Mary.
Comment by KootenaiConservative — October 15, 2010 @ 10:51 pm
Looks like we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one.
Comment by mary — October 16, 2010 @ 9:01 am
On what one?
Comment by KootenaiConservative — October 16, 2010 @ 9:08 am
KC: Your comments intimate that you are not here to discuss anything, but rather to attack Mary. There are individuals in this community who are obsessed with Mary (and myself) and our history of exposing the shortcomings, illegal activities, and foibles of our local government. They too have come on here using handles that imply that they are conservative or are somehow aligned with our values. Then they attack, attack, attack, and never contribute otherwise to the dialog. Even if you aren’t one of those people, then you are coming across that way.
Mary Souza will not stop calling out local government until they respect the citizens and practice transparency. Seeing how that’s not going to happen until we get at least 2 of them unelected, Mary and Bill and I are not going away any time soon. So you can choose to contribute to the discussion here, or you can continue to troll away at Mary and look for bogeymen who don’t exist.
My guess is that you’re looking to be banned here. Violate the policy and you will be banned. You haven’t done that, though my guess is that’s your goal if you really are the troll I think you are and not being honest with us or yourself.
Comment by Dan — October 16, 2010 @ 9:38 am
Bill, I have said nothing against Mary or yourself regarding your quarrels with City Hall, SD271, or any other political issue. Actually, I believe you’ll find that, more often than not, I’m supportive of or at least sympathetic to the general position of this blog. (See the recent posts re: Christie Wood and Bauman’s edict, where you’ll find I agree with you.)
I am not here to promote HBO or to parrot DFO’s opinions. But I am going to call Mary out if she continues to make childish and baseless attacks (calling HBO a “gossip blog”). Just as I will speak up over there if DFO says something petty or inaccurate about OpenCDA or any other topic.
If I am in violation of OpenCDA’s policies or am dangerously close, please do me a favor and let me know. Otherwise, I look forward to our future discussions.
Comment by KootenaiConservative — October 16, 2010 @ 10:04 am
Oops, sorry, I meant Dan.
Comment by KootenaiConservative — October 16, 2010 @ 10:15 am