Art Gordon wrote:

---

OK, I'll play. Let's assume everything you just said is proven to be fact. What are you going after? George Parker fired? Fair enough. Mike on Hollow Ave has to reimburse the city? OK, fair enough.No I want the person who ordered it done investigated. If the DPW guys were ordered bya director or supervisorto do it, who ordered the director or supervisor to have them do it? I want the chain of command investigated and the person who did the original order to resign and charged with theft of services. Nothing more, nothing less. Do you agree?

Don't let us get in the way of your investigation. Joe claims to have unbridled access to everything and everyone who hates the current administration. Just prove everything you said and I'd be happy to see all involved fry.

Problem is in the real world random photos aren't admissible as evidence in court. There needs to be some kind of evidence chain that can prove the photos weren't doctored. Now I could be wrong, but I don't remember any other evidence being offered than a few pics on Joe's site showing what could arguably be someone cutting trees on private property on Hollow Ave. There's no point of reference though,sure there is. there's the house in the background, the truck parked on private property, the stumps are visible and neighborhood witnesses to the whole job.no scale, nothing in the photos to accurately mark a property line. No one confessed. Now that's weird.No one did anything except complain.

The guys who did the alleged work were in the union. The union hates the Doherty administration,I don't believe that union hates him.yet no one came forward to claim they were forced to do private work.Yeah, right. They'd be fired if they complained.One could argue that a union worker would want to so he or she could avoid charges of wrong-doing.Theboss gets charge, notthe subordinate who followed orders. They can claim ignorance.Never happened though.

Last time I checked there is no provision for anyone employed by city to have to defend themselves on live TV to accusations.If the paper did their job, pressure could havebeen placed on the city and heads would roll. That's not the case in this city.Never saw it happen before Doherty was mayor either. Connors got hammered pretty good but I don't remember his staff answering questions on live TV.

So back to my opening statement. I believe everything you said is true. How are you going to prove it?I wasn't there, and can't prove it. Others can.Maybe Glenn can help. He's some kind of lawyer, he'll have advise. It isn't as easy as you guys make it seem.It's never easy when it comes to this regime. They're connected and closely, from the ground up to the state capital.

In conclusion: prove it and I'll support any fine or sanction a court recommends. Joe has connections, perhaps he can involve another investigating body other than the one you mention.Good luck, we're all behind you 100%. In the end you have to admit, while quite passionate about this issue, your case is thin.

---

sharilewis wrote:

---

Check it out Lus and Art. We're making this place legit! More and more are coming to join us! Listenmy new friends, if you're nice to me, we'll put this site on the map. One thing though, you have to get into more subjects than just bashing Joe.There's lots to talk about in this city. Let me know what you think, or ask me to leave. I will honoreither request.

---

Paul wrote:

---

sharilewis wrote:

---

Right of way my (smart) ass! And yes, anyone who supports Doherty is a part of the problem and game.

---

Didn't you say in an earlier thread here that Joe supported Doherty in three elections? Wouldn't you agree, then, that such support makes Joe part of the problem as well?

---

Oh and while you are answering Paul could you explain the kind of support he lent to Doherty?Did he perhaps run around supporting Doherty on his back, since according to records he wasnt even registered to vote in Scranton until 2002-2003 or so from what was reported in the news?Wow he must have been a big supporter not to mention his poor back which must have been killing him.J

Paul wrote:

---

"Not anymore Art. That was 5 years ago, down to 51% last election and well below that now." Can you back that up with some polls or figures? No Paul I do not and neither do you. I just comprehend "trends". If you believed the crap in the paper, he should have walked into the last election. He had to spend $1,000,000 to win and only squeaked DiBileo by just over 400 votes in the primary and winning by just over 1200 votes in the general. That wold make a reasonable person believe that the trend for his numbers are going down and factor in the recenttax increase and rate increases, lends me to believe the majority of the people TODAY would reject him in an election if a decent candidate ran against him. Make sense ro am I way off?

If Joe supported Doherty at any time in his career, then he woudl be part of the problem.He was bull****ted like many others and the negativeopinion about Connors' performance, justifiably,helped him win. You said it yourself. Please don't hurt yourself backpedalling like that. No backpedalling Paul. Just my opinion.

I was gonna add someting along the lines of "at least you can unscrew a lightbulb" but I forget the rest of the line. It's obvious Joe and many others are "unscrewing the lightbulb" they put there. What's wrong with that once you realize you were wrong?

---