Ott Lawsuit Settled

Letusnamenames

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#171 Jun 3, 2013
Names Named wrote:
<quoted text>It sounds like you'd go to the mat for this administration regardless of how corrupt they are. Why? And the mayor is the chiefs boss and should have fired him and not promoted him. That's how it works in the real world. The buck stops at the top.
Why don't you divulge your proxy? Afraid the administration might track you down and say your statement are libelous?

Letusnamenames

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#172 Jun 3, 2013
Names Named wrote:
<quoted text>It sounds like you'd go to the mat for this administration regardless of how corrupt they are. Why? And the mayor is the chiefs boss and should have fired him and not promoted him. That's how it works in the real world. The buck stops at the top.
What are YOU hiding by your anonymous proxy?
Not Saying You Are Dense

Arnold, MO

#173 Jun 3, 2013
But...bottom line: The Mayor DEMANDED Ken Moss resign and there was proof provided in the investigation that exonerated him and there was $55,000 paid out by the insurer. On the other hand, $450,000 was paid out and there was no demand that the Chief resign or the officer that was involved. That is about as fishy of a smell you will get, the fish have been out on the dock a day or two, or try the beached whale after about a week....nasty.

Letusnamenames

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#174 Jun 3, 2013
Were you in the room? No, you weren't. You're going off of hearsay. The Mayor didn't DEMAND anything according to him and several others. That's the thing, it's a he said/she said scenario. Just like when Waller accused Kownacki of referring to the sexual orientation. If the other council members banded together and redid their story it is then them against Waller. See how that works? It's all hearsay.

Now, do you wish to pursue this line of saying the Mayor did something that he may have proof that he didn't? Where's your proof he did and it better not be a Ken said so because that won't hold up in court from my understanding.
hello

United States

#175 Jun 3, 2013
The Mayor was quoted in the paper as to his thoughts of how it would be better for Ken, his business and his family if he resigned, did you not read that? Moss will win because Arnold is run by a bunch of liars.

Letusnamenames

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#176 Jun 3, 2013
hello wrote:
The Mayor was quoted in the paper as to his thoughts of how it would be better for Ken, his business and his family if he resigned, did you not read that? Moss will win because Arnold is run by a bunch of liars.
Post his quote.
Names Named

France

#177 Jun 3, 2013
Letusnamenames wrote:
<quoted text>
Post his quote.
"I told him (Moss) that he might want to consider resigning because he's a young guy with a business, and this isn't going to look good," Counts told Patch. "I don't have the power to make him resign. My job was to bring the situation before council."

http://arnold.patch.com/groups/politics-and-e...
Here Is Your Sign

Arnold, MO

#178 Jun 4, 2013
Names Named wrote:
<quoted text>
"I told him (Moss) that he might want to consider resigning because he's a young guy with a business, and this isn't going to look good," Counts told Patch. "I don't have the power to make him resign. My job was to bring the situation before council."
http://arnold.patch.com/groups/politics-and-e...
Nothing like giving quotes proving you are blackmailing someone to the local reporter.

Letusnamenames

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#179 Jun 4, 2013
Yeah, that quote really says he DEMANDED his resignation. Twisting the facts again, are we?

Letusnamenames

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#180 Jun 4, 2013
Names Named wrote:
<quoted text>"I told him (Moss) that he might want to consider resigning because he's a young guy with a business, and this isn't going to look good," Counts told Patch. "I don't have the power to make him resign. My job was to bring the situation before council."

http://arnold.patch.com/groups/politics-and-e...
Show your proxy. What do you have to hide? You accuse the administration of hiding things yet you are hiding yourself with that anonymous proxy.
Fed Up Taxpayer

Germany

#181 Jun 4, 2013
Letusnamenames wrote:
<quoted text>
Show your proxy. What do you have to hide? You accuse the administration of hiding things yet you are hiding yourself with that anonymous proxy.
You really need to understand how this works. The government works for us. Not the other way around. They govern by the consent of the governed. Transparency shouldn't even need to be a law except that normally the power goes to the head of government and need necessary constraints to remind them. If our government wasn't so corrupt this conversation wouldn't be happening and fear of retaliation by them wouldn't be an issue. So I can understand why some prefer to remain anonymous.

Letusnamenames

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#182 Jun 4, 2013
Fed Up Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>You really need to understand how this works. The government works for us. Not the other way around. They govern by the consent of the governed. Transparency shouldn't even need to be a law except that normally the power goes to the head of government and need necessary constraints to remind them. If our government wasn't so corrupt this conversation wouldn't be happening and fear of retaliation by them wouldn't be an issue. So I can understand why some prefer to remain anonymous.
You should show your proxy. You're hiding something, just like you accuse them of doing.

Retaliation is most likely in your head. Tell us how you were retaliated against. And pick a screen name.
Back on Track

Arnold, MO

#183 Jun 4, 2013
You need to get your ADD in check and discuss the issue instead of trying to knock it off track every chance you get. DISCUSS THE ISSUE, which is the Ott lawsuit being settled. The only one's hiding anything around here is the City of Arnold government. As stated earlier they were almost giddy when they released the investigative report for the Boone case, why not do the same for the Ott case, unless of course, they don't want everyone to know just how much of a debacle it really was? The investigative report needs to be released. The people need to know as much about this case as they were spoonfed on the other.

Letusnamenames

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#184 Jun 4, 2013
Back on Track wrote:
You need to get your ADD in check and discuss the issue instead of trying to knock it off track every chance you get. DISCUSS THE ISSUE, which is the Ott lawsuit being settled. The only one's hiding anything around here is the City of Arnold government. As stated earlier they were almost giddy when they released the investigative report for the Boone case, why not do the same for the Ott case, unless of course, they don't want everyone to know just how much of a debacle it really was? The investigative report needs to be released. The people need to know as much about this case as they were spoonfed on the other.
No ADD here. Just pointing out that you're accusing people of hiding things and yet you can't even be open yourself so why should we believe you? We shouldn't. Then you throw out a fear of retaliation and you don't name a single example. Ever get your paranoia checked out?
Back on Track

Arnold, MO

#185 Jun 4, 2013
DISCUSS THE ISSUE, which is the Ott lawsuit being settled. The only one's hiding anything around here is the City of Arnold government. As stated earlier they were almost giddy when they released the investigative report for the Boone case, why not do the same for the Ott case, unless of course, they don't want everyone to know just how much of a debacle it really was? The investigative report needs to be released. The people need to know as much about this case as they were spoon-fed on the other. I am not a taxpayer supported entity, the City of Arnold and it's Police Department are, transparency is something they preach, but do not practice. Talk about the Ott case.
Point Them Out

Arnold, MO

#187 Jul 19, 2013
There were questions at the council meeting last night regarding this issue. A gentleman wanted to know if there had been a criminal investigation into the threat to the husband of Officer Ott. If not, why not? As usual there will be no answers on that. Why does the offending officer and his superior still retain their position?
HaHAHAHA

Saint Louis, MO

#189 Jul 25, 2013
If only Arnold was as clever as they are rich. People would have been terminated. Bye, Bye, haif million. Just waiting for history to repeat itself. HaHAHAHA
HaHAHAHA

Saint Louis, MO

#190 Jul 25, 2013
SHE'S SO FINE THERE'S NO TELLING WHERE THE MONEY WENT!
GOING DOWN IN A BLAZE OF GLORY JUST LIKE DETROIT.
Jimmy the greek

Kansas City, MO

#191 Jul 25, 2013
LINE ON ARNOLD
Odds of bankruptcy with current administration: 60 percent

Letusnamenames

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#192 Jul 25, 2013
Jimmy the greek wrote:
LINE ON ARNOLD
Odds of bankruptcy with current administration: 60 percent
And the money came out of MIRMA's purse, not Arnold.

I see you all are going overtime with the scare tactics. Guess you can only get elected by scaring people into voting for you.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Eureka Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Looking (Aug '15) 15 hr big dick 3
Know Missouri Law Regarding Cameras Before You ... (Sep '14) Oct 10 sherri 227
News Blue Owl pie makes Oprah's list of favorite things (Jan '12) Oct 9 guest 12
War Against Memorial On Heads Creek (Apr '17) Oct 8 Crunch 91
carla rushing (Jan '09) Oct 4 LoveCodyLane 36
What Happened to TimberRidge Community Church? (Apr '15) Oct 2 Brenda 11
TROOP Identity to be Revealed (Mar '14) Oct 1 TROOP 60

Eureka Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Eureka Mortgages