The TRUTH about the candidates

Posted in the Carondelet Forum

First Prev
of 6
Next Last
DSH

Saint Louis, MO

#1 Mar 14, 2014
From the Leader Opinions:

Arnold can’t afford negativity, lawsuits
To the editor:
I have observed the events unfolding at Arnold City Hall over the past year. I feel a duty to report my findings concerning some of the candidates. Looking at the candidates running for election, I fear that the positive progress made by this year’s council will be lost to infighting and will cost the city severely both in reputation and tax dollars.

Candidates Kenny Moss and Doris Borgelt are now uninsurable. That means if they get the city in trouble again, which is likely, per their track records, it comes straight out of our tax dollars that were meant for something useful. Borgelt is considered that way because of her inability to conform to the role of councilperson and her harassment
of local businesses. Moss is uninsurable because he has
deliberately sued the city he has sworn to serve on more than one occasion. Bob Hohmeier’s public disrespect for law enforcement by calling sheriff’s deputies Nazis for doing their jobs and having DWI checkpoints sends an anti-establishment image we cannot afford.
These facts have been proven by this very publication. I am just reminding voters of them.

I encourage my fellow Arnold residents to be informed and get involved. The elections that matter most are the ones closest to home. This is where your vote is the difference between a productive city government or a money-and time-wasting city government.
The last city election was decided by about 3,000 voters; 13,000 are registered in the city.
Will you allow irresponsible government to prevail? Elect the positive team this year, Arnold – Nancy Crisler for Ward 1, Brian MacArthur for Ward 2, Paul Freese for Ward 3 and Gary Plunk for Ward 4.
Let’s build a city. See you at the polls April 8th.

Randy Hoselton
Arnold

I fully agree with Randy. Not only on this, but remember that Hohmeier and Borgelt have the backing of Robert Boyer, who is running for yet another term on the County Council.
guest

Arnold, MO

#2 Mar 14, 2014
How can you fully agree with someone who has the facts quite skewed? They are NOT uninsurable and the reasons stated for their previous cancellation are erroneous. Mr. Hohmeier did not oppose DWI checkpoints he opposed illegal "safety" checkpoints. Running DWI checkpoints at 7 am on a Monday morning are a flagrant misuse of police power. Yes get informed. Sexual harassment lawsuits against the police chief and one of his officers netted a $450,000 payout to a former officer. Failure to follow proper procedure for a complaint netted a parks employee $55,000 and a guaranteed job until retirement. Another lawsuit is pending due to misuse of a police database. A former city administrator was given a $75,000 parting gift when he left. An investigator was given $6,800 for an investigation that didn't come close to being about the subject for which it was contracted. Oh then there is the million dollar overrun on the road project for CVS Pharmacy project. I wonder if those people that live up there know their properties are next? The lawsuit against the city by the gold buyer was dismissed, could that have been because two employees were arrested and pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property? That's why proper inspections and licensing is supposed to be required for every business in town. How much do you think it is going to cost the city in bad publicity when the long time police chief has been blatantly and repeatedly violating city ordinance by selling products to the city for years? If you really dig into things you would learn the city is built on a foundation of corruption. Friends, family members, business associates and well-heeled campaign donating developers are the ones who are truly taken care of while the rest of the people pay for it. You just keep your head buried in the sand, just don't forget not to breathe while you're in there. What the city cannot afford is the free spending idiots that are currently in there that are not the good guardians as they have sworn to be.
Oh boy

Imperial, MO

#3 Mar 14, 2014
If Moss and Borgelt are so bad, how come all the law suits are being dropped?
DSH

Saint Louis, MO

#4 Mar 14, 2014
The lawsuit against the City by the Gold Buying business was dropped "without prejudice", which means it can come up again.

The lawsuit by Shockey against Borgelt, Moss and the City Council is going to settlement. Doris should know, it's next Tuesday.

And Bob Hohmeier called the Sheriff's Deputies "Browncoat Nazis". Not the Sheriff.
Matt Hay

United States

#6 Mar 14, 2014
DSH wrote:
The lawsuit against the City by the Gold Buying business was dropped "without prejudice", which means it can come up again.
The lawsuit by Shockey against Borgelt, Moss and the City Council is going to settlement. Doris should know, it's next Tuesday.
And Bob Hohmeier called the Sheriff's Deputies "Browncoat Nazis". Not the Sheriff.
No, it was "Dismissed without prejudice", which means the case was not proven. Sure, they can refile because it was not dismissed with prejudice, however, usually those situations are reserved for cases which are blatantly without merit. The court felt the claims were without merit, just not abusively without it. Typically, one would call this "losing" a court case.

With regard to Hohmeier, I was there, and he did not such thing. He compared the 7am "Safety and Compliance" Checkpoints to what was done in Nazi Germany, and he is one point, even Neurosurgeon Ben Carson agrees with him. It was a very apt analogy. Maybe you should have been at the meeting Dennis, rather than just repeat falsehoods you have made up out of whole cloth?
HaHa

Arnold, MO

#7 Mar 14, 2014
Wrong. "Dismissed without prejudice" does NOT mean the case was not proven, Hay. What it means is that it was dismissed and the filing party may refile. WITHOUT prejudice, meaning it will be allowed back into court.

Sigh.

It is not losing a court case. If I were betting, I'd be pretty sure a dismissal without prejudice arose from a failure to prosecute. That's it.

I know you're fond of armchair lawyering, but this is really pretty rudimentary stuff. If you don't know it, you should probably retire.
Matt Hay

United States

#8 Mar 14, 2014
HaHa wrote:
Wrong. "Dismissed without prejudice" does NOT mean the case was not proven, Hay. What it means is that it was dismissed and the filing party may refile. WITHOUT prejudice, meaning it will be allowed back into court.
Sigh.
It is not losing a court case. If I were betting, I'd be pretty sure a dismissal without prejudice arose from a failure to prosecute. That's it.
I know you're fond of armchair lawyering, but this is really pretty rudimentary stuff. If you don't know it, you should probably retire.
Isn't that just a rephrasing of what I said? So, would you call it a positive outcome for a plaintiff when their claim is dismissed without prejudice, aka winning/success? A failure to prosecute does not bar, or grant immunity from civil action for a claim resulting from the same conduct. Where exactly did you go to Law School again?

That said, when the storm water claim I was party to was dismissed without prejudice after Steve Robinson died, Sweeney claimed that the City "won" (despite the Supreme Court upholding the very claims we made in Zweig v MSD soon thereafter), so which is it? Seems my claim was dismissed and called without merit and baseless by the City with the same adjudication. 2 standards?
URNaive

Arnold, MO

#9 Mar 14, 2014
In some circles they call that Sweeney Law. Interpretations change when it suits him or his cronies. The Attorney General's opinions are merely that, an opinion and if Sweeney doesn't agree with it, you have to go with Sweeney's interpretation, I'm sure other attorneys cringe at that thought.
ArnoldCC

Arnold, MO

#10 Mar 15, 2014
URNaive wrote:
In some circles they call that Sweeney Law. Interpretations change when it suits him or his cronies. The Attorney General's opinions are merely that, an opinion and if Sweeney doesn't agree with it, you have to go with Sweeney's interpretation, I'm sure other attorneys cringe at that thought.
It goes both ways. Doris and Matt seem to do the same thing.

In BOTH cases nothing was proven and nobody won or lost. It never went to trial. Too bad Matt can't be the bigger person and just say it like it is instead of playing the Sweeney did it so can I game.

And yet Matt posted false allegations against me with no proof. I think that if that happened to him he would be demanding proof and it would be okay yet when I demand he supply proof for the false allegations against me he blows it off with his friend Doris. Go look at Doris' board and you will see their double standard in action, if they haven't removed the posts to cover their rears.

Just goes to show that neither side is clean and innocent. And no, Matt does not have a law degree. Now let's see of they attack me personally again for telling the truth.
DSH

Saint Louis, MO

#11 Mar 17, 2014
Matt, Bob Hohmeier wrote a letter to the editor in the opinions column in the Leader, in which he used the term "Nazi Browncoats" to describe the Jefferson County Sheriffs Deputies.
ArnoldCC

United States

#12 Mar 17, 2014
I'm sorry, but the word Nazi should never be used in any context. There are better ways to phrase things. Bob was wrong for using it no matter what the context whether as an adjective or as a moment in history.
U R A HD KAS

Winter Park, FL

#13 Mar 17, 2014
ArnoldCC wrote:
I'm sorry, but the word Nazi should never be used in any context. There are better ways to phrase things. Bob was wrong for using it no matter what the context whether as an adjective or as a moment in history.
you aren't sorry about anything. A true comparison was made between people being stopped for their papers in Nazi ruled Germany and the illegal safety checkpoints being conducted by Jefferson County Sheriff's Department at 7 am on a weekday morning. It was a fair comparison.
DSH

Saint Louis, MO

#14 Mar 17, 2014
Someone's a tattletale on here!!! I'm getting FB IM's.
ArnoldCC

Arnold, MO

#15 Mar 17, 2014
U R A HD KAS wrote:
<quoted text> you aren't sorry about anything. A true comparison was made between people being stopped for their papers in Nazi ruled Germany and the illegal safety checkpoints being conducted by Jefferson County Sheriff's Department at 7 am on a weekday morning. It was a fair comparison.
There is no comparison to what happened in Germany at what happened at that time and here now. In Germany they checked papers with intent to take and kill Jewish people. How does that compare to Jefferson County? It doesn't.
ArnoldCC

Arnold, MO

#16 Mar 17, 2014
DSH wrote:
Someone's a tattletale on here!!! I'm getting FB IM's.
Need me to teach you how to block them? You won't see them and best of all they won't see you.
Fact Checker

Saint Louis, MO

#17 Mar 17, 2014
So explain to me "Moss is uninsurable because he has
deliberately sued the city he has sworn to serve on more than one occasion."

He is suing 5 individuals for slander, defamation, and conspiracy.

Not understanding the twist and exaggeration on "more than once"
U R A HD KAS

Winter Park, FL

#18 Mar 17, 2014
ArnoldCC wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no comparison to what happened in Germany at what happened at that time and here now. In Germany they checked papers with intent to take and kill Jewish people. How does that compare to Jefferson County? It doesn't.
You are wrong. They stopped everyone. Jews were not the only people shipped off to concentration camps and stripped of their possessions. Checking their papers was a way to control everyone.
ArnoldCC

United States

#19 Mar 18, 2014
U R A HD KAS wrote:
<quoted text>You are wrong. They stopped everyone. Jews were not the only people shipped off to concentration camps and stripped of their possessions. Checking their papers was a way to control everyone.
You seem to be able to not read. I never said they didn't stop everyone. What I clearly stated was that their intent on checking papers was to find the Jews to send off to concentration camps. And checking papers was not to control everyone. They used other methods to do that. Such as training the youth and brainwashing them to the point that they turned in their own parents.

It was a very sad part of human history that NOTHING compares to. To even consider using it at all is apalling. It should never have been referenced by Homeieir.
U R A HD KAS

Ocala, FL

#20 Mar 18, 2014
ArnoldCC wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be able to not read. I never said they didn't stop everyone. What I clearly stated was that their intent on checking papers was to find the Jews to send off to concentration camps. And checking papers was not to control everyone. They used other methods to do that. Such as training the youth and brainwashing them to the point that they turned in their own parents.
It was a very sad part of human history that NOTHING compares to. To even consider using it at all is apalling. It should never have been referenced by Homeieir.
They sent many other people besides Jews to concentration camps.
ArnoldCC

United States

#21 Mar 18, 2014
U R A HD KAS wrote:
<quoted text>They sent many other people besides Jews to concentration camps.
As I said (really,learn to read) they brainwashed youth to turn in their own parents.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Carondelet Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Fox C6 Board of Education : Discussion (Jun '14) Apr 24 Paul Bunyan 1,254
Strands Salon Apr 23 Disappointed 1
Petco Flawed Dogs on Saturdays (Mar '10) Apr 23 Shelti1007 37
Arnold's Home and Garden Show. Really??? (Apr '09) Apr 21 Outmindouttime 20
Message For Missing Heather Nicole Kullorn's Fa... (Apr '12) Apr 21 ABC_123 3
New Plaza Apr 20 ArnoldCC 1
News Latest on Ferguson: Civil rights leaders condem... Apr 16 Son of Man 2,093
More from around the web

Carondelet People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]