Why hasn't the Press asked for a copy of this letter? If the Press wants the video to post on its site...then why not ask Ms. Kabot for this so called "anonymous" letter and post it on its site for the public to see?
I mean, if Ms. Kabot and her lawyer are so convinced that she is innocent, wouldn't they want the public to view this letter??? and the tape for that matter???
And why didn't the Press ask Ms. Kabot if she had any idea who might've had sent the letter? And would she be willing to give that same answer under oath? Journalism 101 here folks....
And, has the Press seen this letter??? Was it hand written? Typed? What type of font? Was it pasted together? Any particular letterhead? Or blank?
And indeed...if this letter supports that Ms. Throne-Holst and the PBA were in cahoots to "get her"... why would the person who sent this letter do it anonymously? Why not do it publicly? After all, if the PBA and the potential next supervisor engaged in a crime....shouldn't the public have a right, in fact the necessity... to know??? I mean, what are we afraid of here if indeed Ms. Kabot...and the Press's... story...is accurate?
Did the letter have a return address? What was the postmark? Without this information, how do we know it wasn't sent by Ms. Kabot herself? Or one of her supporters? If it's anonymous...then it could've been sent by anyone...correct?
If it is an "alleged anonymous letter" how can the Press report on it without substantiating it? It could be from anyone....seems quite unfair and lacks of any journalistic integrity?
Not only that...what sort of credible media outlet would post a picture of Ms. Kabot at her sister's birthday, which appears to support her case...a picture that was sent to the Press by Ms. Kabot herself???? And what is this picture suppose to reveal? That she isn't drunk? Can that be gleened from this picture? and how do we know this wasn't earlier in the evening BEFORE she had something...or more to drink?
Or, maybe the Press just happened to be at the birthday party and snapped a few photos? Oh, wait...maybe the Press was in on the sting too... after all, it certainly has increased the hits on 27east...." Sep 28, 09 3:27 PM
Sam: Regardless....it was supplied by Ms. Kabot to the Press...and not taken by the Press...and is aimed at supporting her claims. It is propaganda...." Sep 28, 09 6:30 PM
Hey, golfbuddy: Yes, I do have an axe to grind....as a citizen! First off, Linda Kabot, not Anna Throne-Holst was arrested.... You are acting as though she's the one who got pulled over.... not the supervisor....Had Trhone-holst...or chris nuzzi....or whoever, been pulled over by the cops, charged with drunk driving...and then claimed it was a set up and said an anonymous letter supporting those claims...I'd be saying the same thing...and if the "paper of record" or any othe outlet published such a story without secondary sources I'd be as outraged by the subpar journalism....
It's very simple...Ms. Kabot may very well be innocent....then produce the letter.... And what difference does it make when Anna Throne-Holst, or any other town official knew or how they came to know? For crying out loud...the town supervisor gets pulled over for DWI and you don't think word's going to spread...especially in this town...??? especially to other town officials....
And, yes....when someone is pending trial and they supply a photograph that supports their claims.....that is propaganda....pure and simple...
And remember....linda kabot is making accusations that, if true, are extremely serious and cut into the personal and professional intergrity of the police and throne-holst and, if true, amounts to a very serious crime... sorry, but such accusations should be vetted and backed up before thrown into the paper as the credible.....
and I'll make a deal with you, golfbuddy...why don't you stop writing anonymous letters yourself...reveal who you are and I'll do the same????" Sep 29, 09 9:38 AM
Thanks, Mr. Shaw, for posting the letter:
But you've got to be joking? This letter is taken seriously? So, this so-called single mother of 2...gets a call from a girl friend....who heard directly from throne-holst....who heard directly from an officer????
if this person was "outraged"... why didn't she call the supervisor on the phone...or the press....or anna throne-holst directly? or the why didn't the girl friend who heard directly??? this is incredible that you would give this letter any credibility? Not only that...what if an officer did call and say "we got her?" what does that show? does that somehow show that he was saying "we got her" to confirm the "plot to get the supervisor" went through as planned? Or does it just reveal the sentiments of the officer who maybe didn't like the supervisor...as many in town do not? Throne-Holst is somehow guilty because a cop called her and said "we got her?" That's quite a stretch...
and just to be clear...you are alleging....because by reporting something so lacking in any credibility, that was very easily not written a "single-mother" of two....you are throwing it out there for public consumption..
why not publish any anonymous letter that claims wrongdoing? Where does it end? Sorry, but if this citizen was so "outraged" she would have not remained anonymous....OR...she would have called the supervisor, told her who she was....and asked the supervisor to keep her name from the public.....
this obviously does not pass the smell test" Sep 29, 09 9:56 AM
Ps...and to say Keahon's not alleging anything makes no sense.... the reason he is using it for his defense is that it points to a conspiracy.... if not, why use the letter. Either she was intoxicated or she wasn't.
and if he is not suggesting that anything in the letter was accurate ... then why use it?
I can't believe this... the lawyer himself says the letter... an anonymous letter at that, may not be accurate...but it's being used as part of her defense anyway and the press is publishing it.... this is laughable" Sep 29, 09 10:32 AM
the very fact that the letter is reported...and that the press asked throne-holst about it...gives it credibility....
it would be no different than if there was an anonymous letter stating that a certain town official stole money.... you could say that you were leaving it up to the public to decide its credibility... but if you reported the letter...and then went to that certain town official and aksed them about it... that very fact, that they had to defend themselves against an anonymous claim, plants the seed of doubt in the public eye... it's no different when a man is accused of rape... just the accusation itself makes people suspicious...that's why allowing anonymous allegations that can not be substantiated or proved is so damaging and reprehensible....
i think its very simple.... the press would be right in publishing this letter...ONLY if they knew who wrote it and could verify if...then they could legitimately keep the person private..... but the press doesn't know who wrote this letter and to publish it and report on it is unfair to those the letter targets....and any fair minded person knows it
and please, you mean to tell me that the press published it because by not doing so they would have come under criticism....? again, you don't publish an anonymous letter that suggests that someone named...in this case an elected official and the police in question.... took part in a crime, without being able to stand behind the legitimacy of the claim....
i mean, come on... do you think this is the only anonymous letter ever sent to town hall? where do you draw the line
and again.... foxnfowl....to suggest that anna throne-holst produce her phone records based upon an anonymous allegation is ridiculous... in that case, any time an anonymous person alleges something about someone...that someone has to respond and prove that the anonymous allegation is wrong? give me a break.... the fact remains that Kabot, not throne-holst or anyone else, was arrested....
" Sep 29, 09 12:39 PM
eastquogueguy is absolutely right:
btw...I just received a call from a friend that just received an email from another friend that was at Magic's the night of Ms. Kabot's arrest and saw her doing shots.... if i send that to the press...will you guys publish it?
" Sep 29, 09 12:59 PM
I agree with DJI13: it's not about parties... it's just dirty politics, and neither the democrats or republicans are immune to it....first off, any elected official who would malign the character of the cops is beyond the pale...regardless of party affiliation....
everyone has talked about kabot being innocent til proven guilty.... so are the cops....not only is keeping the roads safe from drunk drivers important work...it's dangerous for the cops....
what this is about is besmirching the character of someone based on an anonymous letter.... which is what is being done to throne-holst and the cops...and it borders on slander...
but it certainlly has been a diverson hasn't it? all that's been talked about is what throne-holst knew and when she knew it... the fact remains... the supervisor was pulled over and arrested for dwi and she refused the breath test....sure, she has her day in court as she should....but she, and no one else, should be on trial here....
" Sep 29, 09 1:23 PM
well, jrw1262, good job...you just cracked the case... she and the PBA are guilty... their endorsement of her totally proves the conspiracy true...
now, if we can just figure out who tipped off all the Israelis who worked in the WTC not to show up for work that Tuesday...we can indict Bush for planning 9/11 with Bebe...." Sep 29, 09 2:18 PM
Look, I'm not trying to be smart....honestly... but this anonymous letter suggests that throne-holst and the cops engaged in a very serious crime....don't you think it's a little unfair to publish a letter without having any clue who wrote it or why? it would be unfair no matter who it targeted....
i don't think any town official, including kabot, would be party to such a heinous offense....and I would have to see clear cut proof that the cops would do such a thing...
don't you see that anyone could have written this letter? would you want a paper to publish an anonymous letter that impugned your character? Would anyone reading this blog?
Would you at least want your accuser to come forward...or to at least know that the publisher who printed it knew who it was that was making the accusation? and that the publisher stood behind the anonymous source...?
and just becaue someone holds elective office doesn't mean they should be subject to "anything goes" accusations.... again, the fact remains that kabot was arrested by the cops.... and there is not one shred of proof or evicdence....so far....that supports that the cops, or any town official, did anything wrong... the only thing is this letter??? Oh, and of course the tape that kabot and her attorney will not make public....
I ask again...how can any fair minded person believe that this anonymous letter....that no one, including Joe Shaw, any reporter at the Press, Linda Kabot, her attorney, or no one else, knows the identity of the writer and/or sender of the letter and what their motivation was.... is fair to have published by the press and given credibility?
after all...if you are willinng to entertain that a town councilwoman conspired with the cops to bring down the sitting supervisor.... can you not entertain the notion that a supporter or friend of the sitting supervisor might have written or sent this letter?
I mean, how do you know...how does any one know....that this letter isn't a fraud? the only legit way a paper could publish this letter is if they were pretty certain that it was legitimate... If they had any doubts of its legitimacy...then they were obligated NOT to run it.... it's that simple...and no matter who says what... that's the truth....
and no matter what Mr. Shaw says about letting the public decide...the fact that they put it out there...knowing full well that it could just as easily be fraudulent as authentic....they gave the letter...and its conent...credibility...
So, I'm not trying to be smart... I'm trying to be fair.... This letter should never have been published or reported on...UNLESS the press knew who wrote it and that the editor and publisher of the Press were able to stand behind the letter as solid and credible.... " Sep 29, 09 3:18 PM
foxnfowl: i respect your passion...but you are mistaken on one count: the accusations against throne-holst are coming from an anonymous source that no one can substantiate or give any legitimacy to... you are forgetting...Kabot was arrested.... she is on trial.....no one else... You mean to tell me that throne-holst has to now prove her innocence based upon this shallow claim that no court in the country would even accept into evidence... ? In that case...anybody could accuse anybody of anything and then they would have to respond? You've got to be kidding me? Kabot gets arrested for DWI and all of a sudden throne-holst and the cops are suspect? She, nor anyone else, should have to reveal their phone records based upon some crank letter.... that's beyond absurd" Sep 29, 09 3:23 PM
Golfbuddy: I AM defending the democrat candidate.. AND the police...and I would be defending the supervisor had an anonymous, baseless letter been published accusing her of something so eggregious....
but she aint' the only one with rights here... all have rights and shouldn't be defamed by such a letter....and no, it shouldn't trigger an inquiry because it has no merits... If the person who wrote it comes forward and identifies him/herself...and is willing to go on the record...different story....
and the fact that the Press only published it because I requested it should concern all involved...why did it take a comment on this blog for the Press to reveal this ridiculous letter to the public?
and I did not create a Sh@# Storm..the Press did...by not vetting an anoymous letter that suggests that an elected official and the arresting officers engaged in some sort of set up... had their reportage had some integrity and journalistic ethics there would be no such storm.....
blame me, blame the police, blame throne-holst, blame whoever....the fact remains that kabot got arrested for dwi and now others are suspected for wrongdoing and have to prove they are innocent... and that's absurd
no one....BUT Ms. Kabot is on trial here... she has a right to defend herself and present a case.... but unless there is credibile evidence that someone else did something wrong... it is unfair and wrong to suggest otherwise....
Simple: whoever wrote this letter....come forward and identify yourself and under oath state your case!
and yes, Golfbuddy: some do think it was a set up and those minds won't be changed....and that's exactly why the letter should never have been reported on or thrown out there in the first place... because it planted the seed of suspicion that throne-holst and the cops are guilty of extremely dirty politics... and so far... there is no credible proof or evidence to support that.... very unfair and wrong.. no matter how you spin it....
" Sep 29, 09 4:43 PM
hey, sam; whether the campaign poster is arrogant or not is irrelevant.... it has nothing to do with kabot's dwi...or this so called conspiracy...as jrw1262 suggests by his "Hmmm?" i believe they endorsed other candidates as well...perhaps they were in on it too...?
and maybe you think it's hysterical...i don't know why you think that... but if it was suggesting you engaged in a criminal set up.. and causing people to question your integrity, perhaps it wouldn't be so funny
" Sep 29, 09 6:30 PM
treewoman: what I mean by trial...is she was arrested here and is pleading innocent and taking her case to court.... I don't mean she is on trial...I mean she is taking her case to court...my mistake...
and yes, there are anonymous tip lines to protect people...but the tips are not made public, that's what I am talking about....when you call crime stoppers the police don't go pubic with accusations...they check out the tip and make sure it is credible, they don't run to the press and say we caught the guy because some anonymous caller told us so..... try calling the police with a false tip...or wrongly accusing someone of a crime..and see what happens to you....you'll go to jail....
and as I mentioned... whoever wrote this could take it to the press on condition that their name not be released....that way the press could verify the source and keep them anonymous... at least that would give it some substance and legitimacy
And i am not saying that kabot should not take the letter to her lawyer...she can build whatever case she wants and they can take whatever they want to court and put it in front of a judge...their discretion...although I am willing to bet that no judge would accept that letter into evidence... but I don't know the letter is not legitimate, how can i? but i don't know it is either...but until the press does, and until it can consider it credible.......it shouldn't be made public because other people are being hurt in the proces.....and the threshold for credibility isn't someone saying it is because it merely exists....anyone could have written it.
and you are wrong...the letter does suggest a conspiracy...."we got her" ?....if it didn't suggest a set up, then what's the point of it in the first place?
and no...dirty politics doesn't shock me...but I am not going to believe someobdy engaged in dirty politics just because they hold public office and some anonymous letter suggests it...is a politician guilty of dirty politics just because they are a politician? what about their presumption of innocence...? I don't assume all politicians engage in dirty politics..... maybe this is, maybe it isn't....
and no...i don't think any calls in the middle of the night are suspicious.... at least not in the sense that is supports some type of set up...what are you saying...that if someone did call her or anyone else...they are somehow guilty? fact is, kabot was pulled over and she is the one accused...no one else.... maybe she's innocent, maybe she's not... but she was the one arrested....
you can geez all you want... but you cant just float a rumor or suggestion or allegation out there about somebody just based on an anonymous letter that no one knows who wrote, or sent.....by that standard the press could publish any letter that alleges anyting,,,,just because it exists and somebody says it.... again...how many times does it have to be said: anybody could have written this letter? don't you see that?
again....whoever wrote it...come forward....or go to the press and reveal yourself and ask that your name be witheld.....and then let the press go on record saying that they KNOW who wrote the letter and then we can all shut up.....
after all....either you are alleging a major conspiracy between the cops and the potential next supervisor...or dirty politics at best....and I think we all have a right to know that before we vote....or, you might be helping to exonerate ms. kabot who was framed or wrongly arrested by the cops...either way, don't you feel you should do the right thing and give this letter of yours some credibility and shut up all the doubters???" Sep 29, 09 10:01 PM
Okay, my last comment: this is getting beyond boring and absurd:
Fact: For any media outlet, be it the SHP, the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, TMZ....whatever...to publish an anonymous source...be it an anonymous correspondence, quote...or information gathered from an anonymous source....the editors giving the greenlight MUST know who that source is...
they can withold and protect that source from the public...but they MUST be able to verify the source is credible and be able to stand behind the legitimacy and the credibility of that source. PERIOD.
And that basic, professional journalistic standard in this instance was not met.
Now.. to be fair and even handed...if any one else involved here receives an anonymous letter supporting their point of view...the Press has to publish it... Where does it end?
If ath were to receive a letter in her office and private mailbox in response to kabot's letter published by the Press stating that a friend received a call the kabot was doing such and such before she got pulled over... how could the Press not publish and report that? It would have no more or less credibility than kabot's letter..... that's why there are standards.
And it doesn't matter what any one else...be they from the press or the public says...that's the way it is. " Sep 30, 09 11:52 AM
Sam: with all due respect, you are dead wrong: Kabot and her attorney are not the SOURCE...they just received it... for all you know...Kabot...and I'm not saying she did... but she could have written it herself and sent it to herself....or a friend could've... there is no way of knowing...
not knowing who wrote it amounts to nothing more than hearsay:
the SOURCE is who WROTE it...your analogy would be like kabot saying someone told her this and it not being written down... just because the letter exists doesn't mean its authentic....it has to be substantiated that the letter is not a fraud.....and that's why the Press has to know who wrote it and that what's being alleged in the letter has some merit... it's that simple..if not, anybody could say anything about anybody just because they heard it or received it in an anonymous correspondence... how can anyone logically think that is an acceptable standard?
but..I tell you what, because obviously you are going to think whatever you want and that's your perogative....let's wait and see if the judge accepts the letter into evidence... if so... then I will say you were right and I was wrong. Deal? " Sep 30, 09 12:31 PM
Sam: Unlike the letter in question...the Press knows the source of the police reports....the Police. That's my point.
There is a world of difference between reporting so and so did such and such, "according to police," as opposed to so and so did such and such "according to an anonymous source, that no one knows who it is, states in a letter that he/she heard from a friend..?"
anyway, tired of arguing....as I said in my earlier post.... Ms. Kabot has her day in court.. as she should...and the court will decide her guilt or innocence... and let's see if the judge accepts the letter as evidence." Sep 30, 09 12:39 PM
fine, sam; that's your opinion, whatever, you win:
let the press publish anything that alleges anything about anybody....regardless of where it comes from or who says its legitimate... everybody's fair game....
and no longer does the press have a responsibility to ensure what they report is credible.... so long as someone says there is an anonymous letter or source that says something favorable to them...that's good enough....
welcome to the dumbing down of America
" Sep 30, 09 1:49 PM
hey, treewoman: you say "Ms. Kabot wasn't drunk." How do you know that? Can you prove it? Were you there?
And if you so firmly believe she would have passed the breathalyzer test...then why didn't she just take it? Had she...and passed it....this would all be settled and her claims legitimate. Oh, wait...I'm sure ath and the cops would have rigged the score to show intoxication: at least, that's what I heard was in the other "alleged anonymous letter."" Oct 1, 09 3:11 PM
Wait, treewoman: "this town is not big enough that Ms. Kabot could be a drunk...and not have everyone know about it?" You mean..it's a small town and word spreads very quickly and easily? Ok. Understood.
Secondly...you don't have to be a "drunk" to get behind the wheel when you shouldn't....In fact, it is often people who very seldom drink, and are therefore significantly affected by alcohol when they do, who get behind the wheel and pose a danger...
Thirdly... and no, I wasn't there and I don't know that she is guilty or innocent... I have no way of knowing for sure. She has every right to her day in court...that's not why I have been so outraged on this blog. I'm outraged that somehow other people....whose "history also suggests otherwise..." now are somehow obligated to empty their pockets and prove their innocence based upon an potentially fraudulent letter...that is based on second hand hearsay information that only became public because Ms. Kabot made went to the Press with it and they in turn slobbered all over it as though it was legitmate information worthy of publication and print.
And lastly, the only reason I mentioned her not taking the test is because YOU said you "firmly believed" she would have not failed it had she taken it...and you declared, not opined, "Ms. Kabot wasn't drunk."" Oct 1, 09 3:39 PM
Oh, I see treewoman, you hate it that Ms. Kabot is labeled a drunk...even though she was arrested by cops empowered with the right to pull her over and arrest her....who are conditioned traffic experts by the courts....that angers you.... but anna throne-holst and the cops are accused of conspiring to "get her" based an anonymous letter and second hand info...and you now want to see thier private phone records.....you want them to defend their good name and character based upon this questionable letter that no court would ever accept as evidence.... but that you're okay with? My word." Oct 1, 09 3:44 PM
sorry...meant to say considered traffic experts by the courts" Oct 1, 09 3:50 PM
Sam: You are absolutely right. You have every right to refuse the test...that's true: And it is also true that when you are issued a driver's license in NY....which is a privilege and not a right..... you agree that if you do refuse to take the test should you get pulled over...you give up your license for a year. That's the deal going in. " Oct 1, 09 3:58 PM
Treewoman: I could personally give a rip if she is innocent or guilty.... I hope if she's guilty she's found guilty and if innocent found innocent...
but let me ask you..... do want to be subjected to the same standard as this letter suggests? i.e. "Okay, treewoman... you've been accused of such and such.... now prove this isn't true? Why you ask? becuase someone..we don't know who....said in an anonymous letter that they heard from a friend who heard from someone else that you may have done this... so, now...show us you haven't"... that seems fair to you? Honestly?
But that's exactly what you and everyone else on this blog is saying when you say that ath and the cops should prove they didnt' take part in this "set up." Give me a break.....
and No I don't work for a newspaper... but do me a favor.. Call the NY Times, WSJ, the Columbia School of Journalism...and ask ANYONE if a paper should run with an anonymous source, publish an anonymous letter unless they KNOW who the source is so they stand behind the information as credible.... In fact, give them this exact example and ask them if the Press should have run and this letter.....and then get back with me.... once you've been enlightened...." Oct 1, 09 4:32 PM
my God treewoman: the very fact that the letter is saying she received this phone call from a cop saying "we got her" insinuates a set up and calls her character and the cops' into question... Dont' you realize if that's the case the cops and she engaged in a major crime?....if this ridiculous letter doesn't accuse her, or the cops, of anything, then why the heck even bring up the letter? what's its purpose? I mean, its logical...common sense for crying out loud... I mean, why did kabot bring it the press then? just for fun? why on earth would you want ath to produce her phone records? or even answer any questions at all if that "supposed" phone call saying "we got her" didn't matter and didn't somehow work in Kabot's favor? And my word... what bleeping difference doesn't it make anyway if she did get a phone call? You mean to tell me that the sitting supervisor gets nabbed for drunk driving and you don't think word is going to get around???? that morning the SHP and the INDY were their for her arraignment... they knew somehow... maybe they were in out too? So, big deal... Linda Kabot...and only Linda Kabot is the issue here.... no one else..... does this woman take responsbility for anything? read just about every article in any paper since she has been in office... either its Heaney, or Kagel, or the GOP leadership, of Fred Thiele, or the Press itself when things weren't going her way... I recall reading her say something about the Press just trying to sell newspapers....??? and now its the cops and ath? I mean, come already.. grow up" Oct 1, 09 5:11 PM
highhatsize: you are dead wrong... newspapers should only use anonymous sources when they can stand behind the credibility of the source... they can keep a source private...but they have to know who that source is to make sure it is credibility... and that's just the fact of the matter.... by simply posting something you ARE gilving it credibility.... Imagine if a male public official was accused of cheating on his wife....and without knowing whether or not it was true... the Press published an anonymous letter that said....second hand... that the man in question "may have" cheated on his wife... just putting it out there....even though the press says its "up to the public" to decide, with people expecting him to respond to the anonymous claim....they are damaging the man's character.... plain and simple... because it could be completely untrue, yet the doubt is out there and the question raised.....would you want that to happen to you?
and kabot's trial, both to you and treewoman, has only to do with whether or not she was drunk or not....it has nothing to do with ath or any one else. Period.
and yes, grow up... the town supervisor was arrested and charged with DWI....how in the world did this get to be about anyone else....?" Oct 1, 09 6:39 PM
I don't give a rip about your link.. you cannot quote, post, use an anonymous source UNLESS you know who that source is... PERIOD. You can withold sources....you can protect sources....and not name them in the story, you can even go to jail like Judy Miller by not outing your source....... but the editors have to know the credibility of the source..... and it doesn't matter who the subject is.... So, if the press receives an anonymous fax stating that this male public figure likes little boys.....it would be okay to publish it? Just because some anonymous person somewhere claimed so because this public figure just so happened to be in the news? You really think, even if totally disproved later on, that such allegations aren't going to stick in some people's minds? You've got to be kidding?
so tell me, highhatsize: say the Press received another anonymous letter....claiming that Ms. Kabot was at Magic's downing shots before she was pulled over....should they post it in the name of fair play? Whether they know its true or not... whether the letter was written by someone at Magic's who saw her... or whether it was written by an enemy of hers who completely made the whole story up and she was never near the place? Do you think that's okay? Would such a letter be any more or less relevant....any more or less credible than the one already posted? Would you go for the Press posting that letter?" Oct 1, 09 7:24 PM
I actually read the paper, golfbuddy: I have an interest in what goes on in my town and with my tax dollars. I dont give a damn who you think I am. " Oct 1, 09 7:49 PM
oh...so is that the threshold? so long as it wasn't addressed to press its a news item? so a candidate receives anonymous information damaging to his/her opponent and brings it to the attention of the press....then its fair game? no matter what that anonymous information claims?" Oct 1, 09 8:26 PM
golfbuddy, treewoman, highhatsize...all of whom are also anonymous on this blog....can believe or think whatever you want.... the fact remains you cannot suggest or imply wrongdoing....based upon an anonymous, second hand source based on hearsay that no one can verify the authenticity of........ and no matter what I say, or what anyone else says, you are not going to change your mind...and neither I am... so, there you have it....i'm done... this is a colossal waste of time" Oct 2, 09 9:59 AM
Mr. Jones and me .... stumbling through the barrio
Yeah we stare at the beautiful women
"She's perfect for you, Man, there's got to be somebody for me."
I want to be Bob Dylan
Mr. Jones wishes he was someone just a little more funky
When everybody loves you, son, that's just about as funky as you can be" Oct 2, 09 11:56 PM
“It’s not an excuse, but an explanation,” she said. “I’m not happy about it.”
That's not blame shifting, it's the truth...this is the campaign treasure's job....that's why you have one and he obviously made an a mistake, this was a simple oversight that, like Turkey Bridge said, happens in just about every campaign and it's no big deal...that's why the state allows for a second deadline with a small penalty.... Notice the state has a 32 day pre-election filing deadline and an 11 day pre-election filing....
" Oct 22, 09 4:30 PM
shortly after midnight on October 2, Linda Kabot received a phone call from someone inside the Board of Elections saying "we got her." Linda Kabot should release all of her phone records ASAP...." Oct 22, 09 4:54 PM
yes, golfbuddy...I would say the same thing if it was Kabot's finances.....if her treasurer made a simple oversight.....no big deal...." Oct 22, 09 10:16 PM
GraceMorrissey, Ginnylau, concerns
> ""Why should he be required to change schools?" - Have you read anything above? Aiden is changing schools. That is what this whole discussion..." more
> "First off proximity has nothing to do with it Eastport is about same distance, second Eastport is a feeder school for Remsenburg, third the..." more