Saturday, April 25, 2015

The Mayors Channel 8 Interview










http://www.wfaa.com/videos/news/local/investigates/2015/04/25/26350053/


22 comments:

  1. Is there a link somewhere to the entire email chain referenced in the story?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trying to get a copy. Maybe soon.

      Delete
  2. Notice Laura's conflicted body language. Her body movements contradict the words coming out of her mouth. She shakes her head "no" when her mouth is saying, "to be honest".

    When someone uses phrases like, "To tell you the truth" in preface to a statement, what they are really saying is that they frequently lie.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "You dork". "I am excited". But the worst part was the late night sharing of strategy with the real estate guy. What the heck?? That's a fireable offense right there!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is treason by any definition.

      Delete
  4. It will be difficult to deny a personal relationship of they do get married in June.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Laughing hysterically. Ah, those three familiar words the guy hears when he meets his concubine at the mall, "Buy me something".

    ReplyDelete
  6. Coincidentally, the Richardson Coalition "Voter's Guide" email was broadcast this morning. Interestingly, unopposed incumbents aren't mentioned, as they had been in the past. If they had been mentioned this time, I wonder if Ms. Maczka would have gotten their endorsement. I suppose they could flip, like they did on Amir Omar (2011 vs. 2013). I think I'll email them at richardson.coalition@gmail.com and ask.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think the most interesting thing is no frown faces beside Rick and claudia and they have dialed back on their offensive manner. It is more subtle this year.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I wonder why...when light shines, it's not nearly as fun to dog people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure I understand. This whole dang thing is sad for the City and it's citizens whether or not they voted for Maczka.

      As for things that may have occurred at the Como Motel (or it's 2014 equivalent) I haven't seen evidence so I will just leave that alone.

      If Maczka had run on a platform of "I will flirt with real estate developers who have pending cases with the city, and will tell them the behind the scenes deliberations" she would never have been elected.

      And that, friends on both sides of Central, is what matters.

      The guy at The Wheel blog yammers that nothing "illegal" occurred. I don't know the law but I sure know what is not right.

      Delete
  9. A case of just because you can doesn't mean you should.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Come on people.....RECALL them all and put honest citizens in the council....No more Richardson Coalition! We have had enough of Chuck.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you willing to run?

      Delete
  11. If you don't want to vote, don't want to run for office and just want to watch from the sidelines and complain, then you get what you get. I hear this every day: "I'm not getting involved. I'm not going to any city meetings because they all know me and I need to stay friends with them. But somebody (besides me) needs to fix this!" That's exactly why the "we want more brick and cement" Coalition runs the city. And that's why the whole council is corrupt.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Aliens and lemmings, even if queer, introducing the Duchess and Dorkus of Richardson, Laura the concubine Gibbs (Maczka) and Mark the wad Jordan. You have to laugh at Eisemann's folly finally running aground.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Some review of the bribery statute in the Texas Penal Code is interesting and it sure looks like a considerable range of conduct will get you into illegal conduct. Take a look at the statute and the bold sections and tell all what you think. By the way, that second degree felony punishment is from two to 20 years in the pen.

    Sec. 36.02. BRIBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly offers, confers, or agrees to confer on another, or solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept from another:
    (1) any benefit as consideration for the recipient's decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, or other exercise of discretion as a public servant, party official, or voter;
    (2) any benefit as consideration for the recipient's decision, vote, recommendation, or other exercise of official discretion in a judicial or administrative proceeding;
    (3) any benefit as consideration for a violation of a duty imposed by law on a public servant or party official; or
    (4) any benefit that is a political contribution as defined by Title 15, Election Code, or that is an expenditure made and reported in accordance with Chapter 305, Government Code, if the benefit was offered, conferred, solicited, accepted, or agreed to pursuant to an express agreement to take or withhold a specific exercise of official discretion if such exercise of official discretion would not have been taken or withheld but for the benefit; notwithstanding any rule of evidence or jury instruction allowing factual inferences in the absence of certain evidence, direct evidence of the express agreement shall be required in any prosecution under this subdivision.
    (b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that a person whom the actor sought to influence was not qualified to act in the desired way whether because he had not yet assumed office or he lacked jurisdiction or for any other reason.
    (c) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the benefit is not offered or conferred or that the benefit is not solicited or accepted until after:
    (1) the decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, or other exercise of discretion has occurred; or
    (2) the public servant ceases to be a public servant.
    (d) It is an exception to the application of Subdivisions (1), (2), and (3) of Subsection (a) that the benefit is a political contribution as defined by Title 15, Election Code, or an expenditure made and reported in accordance with Chapter 305, Government Code.
    (e) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.


    ReplyDelete
  14. Notice the profound silence from the law enforcement community. That says complicity to me.

    If they are not going to hold community leaders to the highest ethical standards, then why should anybody be compelled to abide by the laws of a civil society? It doesn't take a junk yard dog lawyer to break the law, but it is a handy breed to have in the kennel when you feel froggy about stepping over the line and get nabbed.

    Frog legs anyone? It's time to cut'em off at the knees.

    ReplyDelete
  15. And now more information indicating that she was in collusion all along:

    http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/investigates/2015/04/27/richardson-mayor-to-developer-i-was-taking-bullets-for-you/26450225/

    ReplyDelete
  16. Wonder how many of the council were beneficiaries of this scheme and others? You know that Laura was NOT alone in the "tit for tat"....or is that a bit naughty?

    ReplyDelete
  17. I am glad they put the dog park someplace else and not City Hall. The dogs deserve better than stepping in all the **** that is already there.

    ReplyDelete