Here's a quick reminder of tonight's (8/31/11) Ogden Ethics Project (OEP)-sponsored Ogden City Council Candidates Forum, which will be held as set forth below:
Time: Wednesday, August 31 · 6:30pm - 8:30pmOEP has already demonstrated that it can run a classy and clean non-partisan, ethically-impeccable Mayor Election Forum.
Location: Union Station Browning Theater, Wall Ave. at 25th Street, north end of building Ogden, UT
Created By: Ogden Ethics Project
Now that the OEP has gotten into the groove, we'll just say that we're expecting another high-performance public 2011 Ogden City Election event tonite!
As is our usual practice, we'll leave our lower comments section open, and dedicate this thread to anyone who'd like to post comments now, during or after tonight's 2011 municipal election council candidate event.
Whatever you do, don't let the cat get yer tongues.
Update 9/1/11 6:59 a.m.: The Standard-Examiner hard-copy edition provides the post-event story this morning, although the story seems to be unavailable on the SE Online site. Here's a link, however, to the "digital edition" (which mimics the "print" edition):
So what about it, O Gentle Ones? Was Mr. Wallis's sudden departure from the Ward 2 race (and his off-the-cuff endorsement of candidate White) an impromptu thing, or part of a "cheesy" pre-planned "stunt?"
We'll also re-extend our invition to anyone who attended last night's event, to chime in with your own remarks and observations.
Update 9/1/11 8:30 p.m.: Okay, folks, the story is finally up on the SE Live website:
Better late than never, we guess. (Sheesh)
24 comments:
Hilarious, Rud1!
These dopey Ogden City mayoral candidates are most certainly the dumbest batch of "Dumbass ) Ogden City Mayor candidates ever,
Quick report:
The event went smoothly. Candidates expressed a good variety of views, with a much stronger (though not unanimous) inclination toward smaller government than among the mayoral candidates.
The most surprising development was that candidate Todd Wallis, in his closing statement, bowed out of the Municipal Ward 2 race and endorsed Courtney Jon White.
Attendance was about 65, not including the candidates. This was tiny compared to last week's mayoral forum, but still pretty good, in my opinion, for a pre-primary forum for council candidates.
We did shoot video of the event and hope to have it up on the OEP web site within a few days, along with our video of last week's mayoral forum.
Mr. Schwebke from the Standard-Examiner was there, but I didn't see Ms. McKitrick from the Tribune.
Thanks for the update, Dan.
Anybody else want to chime in?
I wish I was that cunning... I can say, scouts honor, I didn't have any idea he was going to do that.
Wallis' action seemed completely impulsive to me.
I do have to say this one of the best debates i have ever been too. The candidates were classy in there answers and stuck to the rules set by the moderator. I was disappointed though that Richard Hyer felt inclined to keep over using his time. afterwards stating " I never heard the bell." Which in fact there was a giant clock in front of the candidates reminding them of their time. Can you so D'oh?
Ward 2 is my ward and I was at Union Station early so that I could meet the two candidates that were unknown to me, Todd Wallis and Jon White. I think that Mr. Wallis had no idea what he was commiting to. Mr. White, on the other hand, was very prepared and commited to running a good campaign. He expressed himself well and confidently. Jennifer Neil spoke so softly and slowly that in talking with people after the debate, theymistook it for lack of confidence and knowledge. I tried to assure them that was not the case.
During the time period when the candidates explained their views and answers to the questions posed by the moderator, there were several times when candidate for Ward 2, Richard Hyer, was the only one of the eight candidates who answered differently. His views were unusual -- for instance, he believes in eminent domain, he doesn't believe that we should subsidize Mt. Ogden Golf Course and saw nothing wrong in building condos in that beautiful park and ruining our open space. He labors under the misconception that the Economic Development Dept. in the City buys HUD homes for $1. and then remodels them and sells them at fair market value. After working for four years with Amy, she has my vote for the at-large seat. Mr Thompson made pretty good sense and is against eminent domain. Most are not willing to start any new projects until we pay off some of the debt and finish the projects that are already started. It was a good informational evening.
Richard Hyer appears to have it backwards. The way the city has operated for the past 11+years is we pay full price for something and then sell it to a FOM for $1.
As was observed by several audience members and friends, I came across a little soft spoken and maybe not so confident. Apologies all around: public speaking is not one of my strong points.
Click here for a look at my updated blog that will expound on what I intended to get across last night, and then some ...
TLJ
I arrived home this afternoon and found a election card in my mailbox(which is illegal since it had no postage attached or mailing address on the card) from Mr. Culliton. He trots out his conservative faith as a qualification for elected office. He mentions ending handouts. Raise funds voluntarily like Churches, Non-Profits and Charities. He does not answer if he wants to end the handout of giving those same organizations tax exempt status and eliminating the charitable deduction people receive on their taxes. Just what we need. Another holier than thous bible thumper in government.
I've talked to him, and I would wager he is against church tax-free status, as am I
I'm Mr. Culliton and I'm a full-time legal researcher in constitutional law and studied for my BA in the Science of Criminal Justice: Emergency Management. Could you do me a favor and point out the statute which verify's your frivolous claim that it's illegal without a postage or mailing address?
One more thing; no hand outs means no favoritism by the city council taking "Tax Payer" dollars and picking and choosing which people in the private sector get the funds without equally apportioning.
If you don't support conservatism that's fine, vote for someone else, however, please have the curtousy not to make things up Sir!
USPS Reg. Domestic Mail Manual Section 508 Recipient Services subsection 3.1.3 Use for Mail
"Except under 3.2.11, Newspaper Receptacle, the receptacles described in 3.1.1 may be used only for matter bearing postage. Other than as permitted by 3.2.10, Delivery of Unstamped Newspapers, or 3.2.11, no part of a mail receptacle may be used to deliver any matter not bearing postage, including items or matter placed upon, supported by, attached to, hung from, or inserted into a mail receptacle. Any mailable matter not bearing postage and found as described above is subject to the same postage as would be paid if it were carried by mail. "
How do you like them apples, Mr. Culliton?
I would say the apples are vague, no violation of a statute is punishable without a person who can show standing "Injury & Damages"
How you like my apple tree...
"Generally, '[t]o establish guilt' in a criminal case, "the prosecution [must] show that [1] the injury or harm specified in the crime occurred, [2] this injury or harm was caused by someone's criminal activity, and [3] the defendant was the [perpetrator]."State v. Talbot, 665 P.2d 1274, 1276 (Utah 1983) (citation omitted). "The corpus delecti, or body of the crime, involves only the first two elements, however." State v. Mauchley, 67 P.3d 477, 482 (Utah 2003).""Corpus delecti rule" states that person may not be convicted of crime if no independent evidence, outside defendant's own statement, exists; to satisfy doctrine, state must produce independent evidence that injury or harm specified in crime occurred and that injury or harm was caused by someone's criminal activity." State v. Archuleta, 850 P.2d 1232, 1241."Mr. Justice Cooley, in Post v. Campau, 42 Mich. 96, 3 N.W. 272, said: "The elements of a cause of action are, first, a breach of duty owing by one person to another; and second, a damage resulting to the other from the breach." In Foot v. Edwards, 3 Blatchf. 313, Fed. Cas. No. 4,908, Mr. Justice Ingersoll said: "The commission of an act by the defendant, and damage to the plaintiff in consequence thereof, must unite, to give a good cause of action. No one of these facts by itself is a cause of action against the defendant." In City of North Vernon v. Vogler, 103 Ind. 319, 2 N.E. 821, it is said: "In every valid cause of action two elements must be present-the injury and the damage. The one is the legal wrong which is to be redressed; the other, the scale or measure of the recovery." Fields v. Daisy Gold Min. Co., 73 P. 521, 522, 26 Utah, 373."An issue is "ripe" for adjudication only when it has sharpened into an actual or imminent clash of legal rights."Pett v. Autoliv ASP, Inc., 106 P.3d 705."In general, standing is available only to a person who has sustained some injury to her personal, legal, or property rights." In re E.H., 137 P.3d 809, 819."To satisfy the "basic requirements" of the traditional standing test, "a party must alleged that he or she has suffered or will immediately suffer an injury that is fairly traceable to the conduct at issue such that a favorable decision is likely to redress the injury." Chen v. Stewart, 123 P.3d 416, 437 (Utah 2005)."In order to have standing, a plaintiff must be able to show that he has suffered some distinct and polpable injury that gives him a personal stake in the outcome of the legal dispute." Council of Holliday City v. Larkin, 89 P.3d 164."Under principals of standing, a party may generally assert only his or her own legal rights, and cannot raise the claims of third parties who are not before the court." Provo City Corp. v. Thompson, 86 P.3d 735."The requirement that a plaintiff demonstrate particularized injury is the traditional test for standing." Washington County Water Conservancy Dist. v. Morgan, 82 P.3d 1125.Beat that buddy!
Your apples are vague, beat these apples buddy...
"Generally, '[t]o establish guilt' in a criminal case, "the prosecution [must] show that [1] the injury or harm specified in the crime occurred, [2] this injury or harm was caused by someone's criminal activity, and [3] the defendant was the [perpetrator]."State v. Talbot, 665 P.2d 1274, 1276 (Utah 1983) (citation omitted). "The corpus delecti, or body of the crime, involves only the first two elements, however." State v. Mauchley, 67 P.3d 477, 482 (Utah 2003).""Corpus delecti rule" states that person may not be convicted of crime if no independent evidence, outside defendant's own statement, exists; to satisfy doctrine, state must produce independent evidence that injury or harm specified in crime occurred and that injury or harm was caused by someone's criminal activity." State v. Archuleta, 850 P.2d 1232, 1241.
You listed U.S. Postal service rules not LAWS! Lol
LOL is right! Hopefully Mr. Blackrulon will file a formal complaint, and give you an opportunity to argue your bizarre theory that US postal regulations do nor have the force of law before a local federal judge.
LOL is right! Hopefully Mr. Blackrulon will file a formal complaint, and
give you an opportunity to argue your bizarre theory before a local federal judge that US postal
regulations do not have the force of law .
LOL is right! Hopefully Mr. Blackrulon will file a formal complaint, and provide you an opportunity to argue your bizarre theory before a local federal judge that US postalregulations do not have the force of law .
LOL is right! Hopefully Mr. Blackrulon will file a formal complaint, and provide you an opportunity to argue your bizarre theory before a local federal judge that US postalregulations do not have the force of law .
I cannot respond to googleboy's post, so I'm responding above 'Good luck!'
Go to law school buddy
Well, lets not fight over postal code. I'd rather dig into a candidates positions and not their literature tactics.
Yes, putting things in mailboxes is frowned upon by the USPS. Why? Maybe it's for security, maybe it's to secure their mail monopoly. I'm not sure.
It is not a frivolous claim. It is spelled out in postal rules and regulations. The other candidates seem to understand what they can and cannot do with campaign information.This seems to indicate that you only wish to apply and obey that which suits your purpose
Post a Comment