Completely "nutty" Boss Godfrey Mormon Clone Mike Winder "steps in it," yet again
Oops. Looks like that narcissist West Valley City Mayor guy, and Salt Lake County Mayoral candidate, Mike Winder, has hit a slight speed-bump in his campaign quest to become the new "visionary, "Matthew Godfrey"-style Mormon Mayor (our characterization ) of Salt Lake County, upon the departure of Mayor Corroon.
Read all about the new lawsuit that was filed yesterday, naming the loser of the now discredited winner of the Richard Burwash lookalike contest, and reporting how this Winder idiot is now named as defendant in a brand new lawsuit, wherein plaintiff Hogan, who charges that Mike Winder/Richard Burwash (allegedly slammed hard in at least one of his jagged local print and/or online media stories), seeks $113,220 in lost wages and benefits and an unspecified amount in punitive and other damages with a blistering lawsuit (by Utah Standards at least) charging defamation (and libel):
Whew! And the beat goes on. [sigh]
Friday, January 27, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
State of the State Speech: Is it Necessary? - Updated
Danged good question, wethinks
On the heels of yesterday's State of the State Address, in connection with which the Standard-Examiner reported this morning that Utah Gov. Gary Herbert vowed to continue defending the state against an "overreaching, out-of-control and out-of-touch" federal government, (among other things), ABC4 News asks the question "pregnant question" which we're quite sure many of our politically-wonkish reader have been wanting to ask:
Danged good question, wethinks.
So what about it Gentle WCF Readers? Can we see by a show of hands how many of you were glued to your chairs in rapt attention in front of your big screens last night, eagerly soaking up Governor Herbert's every anti-federalist utterance?
On the other hand, how many of you were entirely unaware of the fact that Governor Herbert had even delivered this annual "Things are Great in Utah Under My Administration" 2012 pre-gubernatorial election rant, until you read about it on the front page of the Standard-Examiner this morning?
Let's re-phrase the question: Does anybody really give a hoot about Governor Herbert's opinion regarding the State of the State?
Just axin'...
Update 1/27/12 9:00 a.m.: The Salt Lake Tribune points out the hypocrisy of Governor Herbert's SoS anti-federalism rant. Whilst Herbert decrys “the regulatory colossus created by an overreaching, out-of-control and out-of-touch federal government," meanwhile, back at the "reality ranch," the Trib's Robert Gehrke aptly reports that "since Herbert took office, federal funding in Utah has grown by more than $1 billion":
On the heels of yesterday's State of the State Address, in connection with which the Standard-Examiner reported this morning that Utah Gov. Gary Herbert vowed to continue defending the state against an "overreaching, out-of-control and out-of-touch" federal government, (among other things), ABC4 News asks the question "pregnant question" which we're quite sure many of our politically-wonkish reader have been wanting to ask:
Danged good question, wethinks.
So what about it Gentle WCF Readers? Can we see by a show of hands how many of you were glued to your chairs in rapt attention in front of your big screens last night, eagerly soaking up Governor Herbert's every anti-federalist utterance?
On the other hand, how many of you were entirely unaware of the fact that Governor Herbert had even delivered this annual "Things are Great in Utah Under My Administration" 2012 pre-gubernatorial election rant, until you read about it on the front page of the Standard-Examiner this morning?
Let's re-phrase the question: Does anybody really give a hoot about Governor Herbert's opinion regarding the State of the State?
Just axin'...
Update 1/27/12 9:00 a.m.: The Salt Lake Tribune points out the hypocrisy of Governor Herbert's SoS anti-federalism rant. Whilst Herbert decrys “the regulatory colossus created by an overreaching, out-of-control and out-of-touch federal government," meanwhile, back at the "reality ranch," the Trib's Robert Gehrke aptly reports that "since Herbert took office, federal funding in Utah has grown by more than $1 billion":
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Standard-Examiner: Judge Keeps Lid on Warrants
Sodden question: Will the defendant Stewart get even an adequate legal defense in this matter, let alone a "first class" defense?
There's more interesting news in the 1/4/12 Ogden City Shootings matter, with a couple of new items appearing in the Standard-Examiner since our last WCF update.
Here are the key paragraphs from an online story of yesterday afternoon, which reveals that the veil of secrecy continues concerning this case:
This latter story is particularly interesting for two reasons, we believe:
1) It reports a total of four warrants have so far been issued (and sealed), including "a fourth search warrant" issued by 2nd District Judge Scott Hadley on Monday last. Mr. Gurrister's story also provides information on the earlier three:
Moreover it seems that an extraordinary amount of effort is still being expended by the court and prosecutors in a curious effort to conceal the identity of the prosecution's confidential informant, whose true identity seems to have been already publicly revealed, thus raising the pregnant question, what else are these political hacks trying to hide?
Hopefully, in this context, the Utah print media will dig in their heels, take the sealing of these records up on appeal, and help shine a little light on the evidence which triggered the issuance of these warrants in the first place.
2) And Mr. Gurrister's expanded story reveals this interesting tidbit:
It's a highly complicated case however, which will pretty quickly gobble up massive defense costs for investigators, expert witnesses and pretrial discovery, not to mention the thousands of billable hours which will inexorably accrue for attorney's fees. So at this early point folks, regarding the prospective price of Matthew Stewart's defense, we'll go out on a limb and predict that "the sky's the limit," folks.
In this connection, Don't forget the SE story we cited in our earlier WCF writeup, quoting Bernie the Attorney Allen, who said that a first class criminal defense will cost, as a rule of thumb, "close to a million dollars for each case."
Here's the big question we think: Will the defendant Stewart get even an adequate legal defense in this matter, let alone a "first class" defense?
Update 1/25/12 10:00 a.m.: The Standard has just now uploaded Mr. Gurrister's updated morning story to its website:
There's more interesting news in the 1/4/12 Ogden City Shootings matter, with a couple of new items appearing in the Standard-Examiner since our last WCF update.
Here are the key paragraphs from an online story of yesterday afternoon, which reveals that the veil of secrecy continues concerning this case:
OGDEN -- Prosecutors have sealed at least three warrants tied to the Matthew Stewart shooting case.The Standard also carries an expanded version of this story in its morning print edition, which reveals some even more interesting details to this story:
Search warrants are, by law, sealed for 20 days, then become public unless prosecutors convince a judge to extend the seal without date, said Nancy Volmer, state courts spokeswoman.The Weber County Attorney's Office was successful in having some of the warrants sealed even before the 20 days had expired, Volmer said, two last week and one Tuesday.
This latter story is particularly interesting for two reasons, we believe:
1) It reports a total of four warrants have so far been issued (and sealed), including "a fourth search warrant" issued by 2nd District Judge Scott Hadley on Monday last. Mr. Gurrister's story also provides information on the earlier three:
- Warrant issued Jan. 4 by Judge Ernie Jones, sealed Jan. 6 by Judge Mark DeCaria.
- Warrant issued Jan. 5 by Hadley, sealed Jan. 6 by DeCaria.
- Warrant issued Jan. 5 by DeCaria, sealed Friday by DeCaria.
Moreover it seems that an extraordinary amount of effort is still being expended by the court and prosecutors in a curious effort to conceal the identity of the prosecution's confidential informant, whose true identity seems to have been already publicly revealed, thus raising the pregnant question, what else are these political hacks trying to hide?
Hopefully, in this context, the Utah print media will dig in their heels, take the sealing of these records up on appeal, and help shine a little light on the evidence which triggered the issuance of these warrants in the first place.
2) And Mr. Gurrister's expanded story reveals this interesting tidbit:
The Rule 8 fund maintained by the state through premiums paid by various participating counties provides a $100,000 lump sum for capital homicide defenses, Richards said.Up until now, we'd assumed that public's expense for fees and costs for Mr. Stewart's public defender defense would be capped at the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 8's $100,000 per case; but with this morning's Tim Gurrister revelation on that angle, it looks like all bets are off on the question of how much taxpayer dough it will ultimately take to properly defend this case.
Davis and Box Elder counties subscribe to the fund, but Weber does not, he said, meaning he will have to negotiate with Weber officials for funds to supplement his client’s defense.
It's a highly complicated case however, which will pretty quickly gobble up massive defense costs for investigators, expert witnesses and pretrial discovery, not to mention the thousands of billable hours which will inexorably accrue for attorney's fees. So at this early point folks, regarding the prospective price of Matthew Stewart's defense, we'll go out on a limb and predict that "the sky's the limit," folks.
In this connection, Don't forget the SE story we cited in our earlier WCF writeup, quoting Bernie the Attorney Allen, who said that a first class criminal defense will cost, as a rule of thumb, "close to a million dollars for each case."
Here's the big question we think: Will the defendant Stewart get even an adequate legal defense in this matter, let alone a "first class" defense?
Update 1/25/12 10:00 a.m.: The Standard has just now uploaded Mr. Gurrister's updated morning story to its website:
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Salt Lake Tribune: Ogden Shootout Suspect Claims He Cannot Afford An Attorney
Just as we predicted on 1/20/12, the taxpayers will be footing the full bill for the upcoming trial in this matter
The Salt Lake Tribune reports this morning about another significant development in the 1/4/12 Ogden Shootings Case. Just as we predicted on 1/20/12, the taxpayers will be footing the full bill for the upcoming trial in this matter. Here's the lede from this morning's Sheena McFarland story:
In apparent anticipation of Stewart's application for indigent defense, Ogden City based Weber County public defender Randy Richards has also already initiated pre-trial discovery in this matter, according to this story in Sunday's Standard-Examiner:
No word yet as to who will serve as Mr. Richards's appointed defense co-counsel.
The Salt Lake Tribune reports this morning about another significant development in the 1/4/12 Ogden Shootings Case. Just as we predicted on 1/20/12, the taxpayers will be footing the full bill for the upcoming trial in this matter. Here's the lede from this morning's Sheena McFarland story:
Matthew David Stewart — charged with capital murder and multiple counts of attempted murder in connection with a deadly shootout with Ogden police — has filed court documents indicating he cannot afford to hire an attorney.Read the full story here:
Stewart, 37, indicates in an affidavit of indigency filed Monday in Ogden’s 2nd District Court that he has no assets other than his home.
Stewart adds that the home "has no equity," and that he expects to "lose [the home] because I am unable to pay the mortgage," according to the affidavit.
He says he has "some limited resources" to temporarily pay for an attorney, but he cannot afford to pay for expert witnesses or for any necessary investigation.
In apparent anticipation of Stewart's application for indigent defense, Ogden City based Weber County public defender Randy Richards has also already initiated pre-trial discovery in this matter, according to this story in Sunday's Standard-Examiner:
No word yet as to who will serve as Mr. Richards's appointed defense co-counsel.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Surprize of Surprizes: Utah Politicians Find Major Loophole in Ethics Law
One more reason for Utah lumpencitizens to insist on forcing Lt. Governor Bell to place the UEG Citizens Ethics Initiative on our 2012 Utah Ballots
Sorry to be so late with what was originally intended to be "this morning's" WCF post; but sadly we experienced a technical WCF "hardware 'won't talk to software' problem" on and about WCF which we couldn't quickly "fix," without first going out for a good long lunch, takin' a long breather and then thinkin' a little more about how these pesky problems could be more easily fixed upfront, if Microsoft magnate Bill Gates would merely deign to regularly talk to people like Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Eric Schmidt
However belatedly however, O Gentle WCF Readers, we are nevertheless back into "Here's the all-time Best O' the 1/23/12 Day Red Meat News Story of the Day" from today's Northern Utah Print Media news-cycle, posted to WCF despite the tech-glitches which we rather painfully experienced earlier today:
It's definitely a very good one down below from the Salt Lake Tribune which we highlight now, tipped to us from yet another sharp-eyed and alert WCF Reader who quite sagely prefaced his heads-up missive with "This is a must-see article in the Trib":
Here's the most excellent SLTrib story upon which our reader tipped us, wherein it becomes obvious, that despite all legislative the hoopla, that there's no manner in which Utah legislators might seemingly stand restricted under current Utah Law, from expending campaign contributions money. The truth is that Utah legislators can spend their campaign contributions money on ANY DANGED PERSONAL EXPENSES for which they dang well please:
Let's put this one in political context, folks. During last year's 2010 Utah Legislative legislative session, the Utah GOP majority made a big deal about passing a law which was purportedly designed to "ban" state officials and candidates from spending campaign donations for personal use. This is the proof in the pudding... how it finally worked out folks, with loopholes in this legislative ethics-remedial bill (so-called) that crooked Utah legislators, in their ultimate wisdom, designed to be wide enough through which to fly a Boeing 747 straight through.
And here's the so-called "personal use banning" 2010-enacted Utah statutory rule, which somehow still permits Utah legislators to spend almost-unlimited campaign donation money on personal expenses:
One more reason for Utah lumpencitizens to insist on forcing Lt. Governor Bell to place the UEG Citizens Ethics Reform Initiative on our 2012 Utah Ballots, don'tha all think?
We'll stand by for your ever-savvy comments, folks.
Sorry to be so late with what was originally intended to be "this morning's" WCF post; but sadly we experienced a technical WCF "hardware 'won't talk to software' problem" on and about WCF which we couldn't quickly "fix," without first going out for a good long lunch, takin' a long breather and then thinkin' a little more about how these pesky problems could be more easily fixed upfront, if Microsoft magnate Bill Gates would merely deign to regularly talk to people like Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Eric Schmidt
However belatedly however, O Gentle WCF Readers, we are nevertheless back into "Here's the all-time Best O' the 1/23/12 Day Red Meat News Story of the Day" from today's Northern Utah Print Media news-cycle, posted to WCF despite the tech-glitches which we rather painfully experienced earlier today:
It's definitely a very good one down below from the Salt Lake Tribune which we highlight now, tipped to us from yet another sharp-eyed and alert WCF Reader who quite sagely prefaced his heads-up missive with "This is a must-see article in the Trib":
Here's the most excellent SLTrib story upon which our reader tipped us, wherein it becomes obvious, that despite all legislative the hoopla, that there's no manner in which Utah legislators might seemingly stand restricted under current Utah Law, from expending campaign contributions money. The truth is that Utah legislators can spend their campaign contributions money on ANY DANGED PERSONAL EXPENSES for which they dang well please:
Let's put this one in political context, folks. During last year's 2010 Utah Legislative legislative session, the Utah GOP majority made a big deal about passing a law which was purportedly designed to "ban" state officials and candidates from spending campaign donations for personal use. This is the proof in the pudding... how it finally worked out folks, with loopholes in this legislative ethics-remedial bill (so-called) that crooked Utah legislators, in their ultimate wisdom, designed to be wide enough through which to fly a Boeing 747 straight through.
And here's the so-called "personal use banning" 2010-enacted Utah statutory rule, which somehow still permits Utah legislators to spend almost-unlimited campaign donation money on personal expenses:
One more reason for Utah lumpencitizens to insist on forcing Lt. Governor Bell to place the UEG Citizens Ethics Reform Initiative on our 2012 Utah Ballots, don'tha all think?
We'll stand by for your ever-savvy comments, folks.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Salt Lake Tribune: After Protest, Congress Puts Off Movie Piracy Bill
A true "man bites dog story," if ever there ever was one
In response to last Thursday's WCF article, wherein we put the arm on our readers to sign the online petition urging congress to "deep-six" the pending SOPA and PIPA bills, we get the good news this morning from the Salt Lake Tribune:
Yesiree, folks. The People spoke up... and our congress-critters listened.
It's a true "man bites dog story," if ever there ever was one.
In response to last Thursday's WCF article, wherein we put the arm on our readers to sign the online petition urging congress to "deep-six" the pending SOPA and PIPA bills, we get the good news this morning from the Salt Lake Tribune:
Yesiree, folks. The People spoke up... and our congress-critters listened.
It's a true "man bites dog story," if ever there ever was one.
Salt Lake Tribune: 2012 Utah Legislative Preview
Added bonus: The latest news from our friends at Utahns for Ethical Government
The Utah Legislature convenes for its regular 2012 session tomorrow morning; and we know all Weber County Forum political wonks are sitting on the edge of their seats, awaiting this year's wacky Capitol Hill hijinks. In that connection, The Salt Lake Tribune is running an informative 2012 legislative preview article series this morning, which we'll reel off in no particular order:
That's it on the Utah legislative front for now, folks.
Don't let the cat get your tongues.
The Utah Legislature convenes for its regular 2012 session tomorrow morning; and we know all Weber County Forum political wonks are sitting on the edge of their seats, awaiting this year's wacky Capitol Hill hijinks. In that connection, The Salt Lake Tribune is running an informative 2012 legislative preview article series this morning, which we'll reel off in no particular order:
- Top issues to watch in the upcoming legislative session
- Utah Legislature’s actions on open government will be graded
- Utah Legislature: Who’s in charge?
- New faces on Utah’s Capitol Hill
- Utah lobbyists, by the numbers
That's it on the Utah legislative front for now, folks.
Don't let the cat get your tongues.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Dave Greiling Morning "Behind the Headlines" Column: Our Intent Was Neither to Glamorize Stewart Nor Disrespect Cfficers
We're not a licensed psychologist, but here's what we think nevertheless
There's an eye-opening column in this morning's Standard-Examiner hard-copy edition, wherein Dave Greiling discusses, in his "Behind the Headlines" column, some rather harsh reader reactions to last Saturday's front page photo spread. Here's the lede:
Sadly, Mr. Greiling's column adopts an apologetic tone. "First, no media outlet sets out to intentionally alienate its readers, its customers, if you will." "I'm sorry that the photo and its display caused that type of reaction. It's also obvious that, in this case, we fell short of doing an effective job of telling that particular story," Mr Greiling says.
We caught that front page montage ourselves when we retrieved our S-E print edition from our front porch last Saturday, we frankly appreciated the human interest angle that that this "ticklish" photo image piece conveyed. Yes, we'll give our hearty "thumbs up" to the journalistic judgment of "the editor who designed the page," and who was "struck by the contrast between Stewart's appearance in the photo and the acts he is accused of committing."
Absolutely no apologies are required from the Standard for running this photo image piece, in our view. This photo display does very clearly and powerfully convey the truth of the matter, which is that the kid in the photos isn't necessarily some kind of non-human demon from hell, but "could be my little brother or the kid we went to school with." "It really is a shocking contrast. I think it showed he's a normal kid with a normal background," Mr. Greiling adds. Yes folks. Shockingly, the suspected "perp" in the 1/4/12 Ogden Shootings story "could be the kid who lives next door." Imagine that.
Hopefully folks, this little kerfluffle won't compel the S-E editors to soft pedal the "human interest" angle, either with respect to this story, or any other emotion-charged news item which might pop up in the future.
Happily though, despite the otherwise apologetic and conciliatory tone, the S-E editors appear to be stickin' to their guns in re this:
We're not a licensed psychologist, of course, but that's what we think.
So what say our Gentle Readers about all this?
There's an eye-opening column in this morning's Standard-Examiner hard-copy edition, wherein Dave Greiling discusses, in his "Behind the Headlines" column, some rather harsh reader reactions to last Saturday's front page photo spread. Here's the lede:
Last Saturday's front-page presentation was not received well by some readers.You can read Mr. Greiling's full morning column here:Specifically, a large photo montage of accused shooter Matthew David Stewart resulted in unfavorable online comments, phone calls and letters to the editor.
Sadly, Mr. Greiling's column adopts an apologetic tone. "First, no media outlet sets out to intentionally alienate its readers, its customers, if you will." "I'm sorry that the photo and its display caused that type of reaction. It's also obvious that, in this case, we fell short of doing an effective job of telling that particular story," Mr Greiling says.
We caught that front page montage ourselves when we retrieved our S-E print edition from our front porch last Saturday, we frankly appreciated the human interest angle that that this "ticklish" photo image piece conveyed. Yes, we'll give our hearty "thumbs up" to the journalistic judgment of "the editor who designed the page," and who was "struck by the contrast between Stewart's appearance in the photo and the acts he is accused of committing."
Absolutely no apologies are required from the Standard for running this photo image piece, in our view. This photo display does very clearly and powerfully convey the truth of the matter, which is that the kid in the photos isn't necessarily some kind of non-human demon from hell, but "could be my little brother or the kid we went to school with." "It really is a shocking contrast. I think it showed he's a normal kid with a normal background," Mr. Greiling adds. Yes folks. Shockingly, the suspected "perp" in the 1/4/12 Ogden Shootings story "could be the kid who lives next door." Imagine that.
Hopefully folks, this little kerfluffle won't compel the S-E editors to soft pedal the "human interest" angle, either with respect to this story, or any other emotion-charged news item which might pop up in the future.
Happily though, despite the otherwise apologetic and conciliatory tone, the S-E editors appear to be stickin' to their guns in re this:
The photo montage helped tell the story of Matthew Stewart, in the editors' opinion.What the S-E editors are experiencing here is likely a particularly accute reader response resulting from a psychological phenomenon known as "cognitive dissonance", we think. When presented with two highly contrasting, but practically plausible "realities," some less sophisticated S-E readers, who've been carefully cultivating a lynch-mob mentality over the course of the past few weeks, couldn't handle the informational dissonance and simply slipped into "melt down mode," we'll propose.
We're not a licensed psychologist, of course, but that's what we think.
So what say our Gentle Readers about all this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
© 2005 - 2011 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved