Letusnamenames

United States

#324 Mar 21, 2013
You seem like you are getting desperate trying to dig up dirt. Not finding anything?
Good Morning Arnold

Arnold, MO

#325 Mar 21, 2013
Too bad, don't you have work to do?
Letusnamenames

United States

#326 Mar 21, 2013
No clients this morning.
Hmmmm

Arnold, MO

#327 Mar 21, 2013
Why does taking this back on point not post?
The old white guys running things for years, want the voters of Arnold to just SIT DOWN and SHUT UP.

Voters: Accept what you're told without question.

Voters: You don't need to see what goes on at Council Meetings.

Voters: You don't need an accounting of the financials.

Voters: You don't need to know who is visiting City Hall to make backroom deals and grease palms.

Voters: Ignore your increased taxes, payoffs to former employees, double-dipping

Voters: Ignore two sets of rules
Doris Borgelt has fought to improve the information Arnold citizens have access to, she has worked for years to expose the shenanigans at City Hall and by the old white guys who want voters to SIT DOWN & SHUT UP.

Doris Borgelt treats people like they matter. She goes through life asking questions and taking a ration of flak so that VOTERS don't have to do it.

Doris treats voters like intelligent people who deserve to know where their money is going, and to know who exactly is running things, and what they are up to.

Doris doesn't tell people to sit down and shut up. To ignore what's going on. To blindly accept whatever crap they're fed.

We voters of Arnold would be wise to vote for her.

Otherwise, it's just more of the same, same, same. And those of us in Arnold will see it remain a stodgy old city that will sue itself into history.
Successfully pressed to have council meetings video-taped and available on line for citizens. That is a big one for transparency in local government Made sure $500,000 was returned to the sewer utility fund. The Wall Tribute land was finally donated to that organization. Requested a flashing yellow light to warn motorists of impending red light be included as part the intersection improvements of Astra Way and 141. Ironic SM, you all scream you want honesty and then don't want to hear the truth.
I know for a fact, when residents call, she responds by phone and in person. She has put her name on complaints to shield those reporting problems who fear retaliation. You can and will say what you want, it doesn't matter, people know better.
From the very first meeting after her election, it was stated in the paper that it was a 7-1 council, her being the one. Seems more recently it was a 5-3 council, she being on the prevailing side and everyone was up in arms about that. Converting four other council members to independent thinking is one heck of an accomplishment, just not in your eyes.
Making a new law every week is not an accomplishment, there are enough on the books, find what applies and apply it equally and you will alleviate most of the problems faced by this City. Including the people in that process will bring more progress and cooperation than you can ever imagine, more than the closed door policy that has reigned supreme over the last many years.
How about the fact first and most importantly is she has and is trying to make the city transparent. She has been video taping meetings for years. Now don't let counts fool you into believing that he was all for that because he certainly does not. Until its election time of course.

Have you ever been to a meeting to see how counts treats people? Maybe you should go and see how it all works. Then you can form an educated opinion. He is a devil dressed in sheep's clothing when it comes to politics.
Letusnamenames

United States

#328 Mar 21, 2013
And I can find a lot of false statements in there. Doris doesn't treat people with respect unless she needs something. Otherwise you get treated like you don't matter. It was proven by one of her very own posts on here where she called a citizen and a** clown.

Get a clue. Doris just wants this to dig up dirt, not do right by the citizens.
remember when

United States

#329 Mar 21, 2013
Letusnamenames wrote:
And I can find a lot of false statements in there. Doris doesn't treat people with respect unless she needs something. Otherwise you get treated like you don't matter. It was proven by one of her very own posts on here where she called a citizen and a** clown.
Get a clue. Doris just wants this to dig up dirt, not do right by the citizens.
I called you an azz clown. Because you are ! Get it straight for once would you?
She said she would not reply to an online clown. As in BEHIND THE MASK.

I for one am thankful she digs up all the dirt that is there.
Lifts the rug and exposes for all to see.
If there wasn't any dirt, she wouldn't have to dig would she ? If it wasn't for her we couldn't watch videos of the meetings and they could all keep lying.

Unlike you ( hmmm ) made some valid points. The only point you have is on top of your head!
Letusnamenames

United States

#331 Mar 21, 2013
I have a very valid point. She never posts the PROOF of any of her allegations. She lied on here about paying real estate taxes and has yet to show what property she owns in the city. She attacks when a question is asked that she doesn't want to answer because it would make her look bad. That's shown all over here. She is not transparent as she purports to be.
Oh Well

Arnold, MO

#332 Mar 21, 2013
The fact remains that she does pay real estate taxes. It is none of your business on what or where it is located. If you are unable to locate the information that is your problem. You have no proof either way. The fact is paying real estate taxes is not a requirement to run for mayor.
Letusnamenames

United States

#334 Mar 21, 2013
According to the Jefferson County Assessor there is NOTHING for real estate taxes under her name. Personal property, yes, real estate, NO. Prove she paid real estate taxes. You can't. It is our business because she stated she did and wont prove it making her a liar.
Obe One

Saint Louis, MO

#335 Mar 21, 2013
Doris should clean up her home front before trying to clean up Arnold. Arnold does not need to be cleaned up. But her home front, sure could use some work.
Check Again

Arnold, MO

#336 Mar 21, 2013
Letusnamenames wrote:
According to the Jefferson County Assessor there is NOTHING for real estate taxes under her name. Personal property, yes, real estate, NO. Prove she paid real estate taxes. You can't. It is our business because she stated she did and wont prove it making her a liar.
You are unable to find the property she owns in Arnold. You cannot prove she doesn't own anything. You lack investigative skills. You are calling her a liar when you cannot PROVE she doesn't own anything in Arnold. You are making false statements. That is considered libel. She made a statement that she can prove, you have made a statement that you cannot prove. If she were to take you to court, it would be a slam dunk. You might be well advised to retract your statement maybe consult your attorney.
Va Nilla

Arnold, MO

#337 Mar 21, 2013
Oh Well wrote:
The fact remains that she does pay real estate taxes. It is none of your business on what or where it is located. If you are unable to locate the information that is your problem. You have no proof either way. The fact is paying real estate taxes is not a requirement to run for mayor.
Quite right. Doris is half-owner of a vacant mostly flood plain useless lot. Her half the taxes is a whopping $98.20. Out of that, Arnold gets $5.56. Jefferson County lists the ownership as "Vischer Scott and Borgelt Doris". Parcel ID is 01-5.0-21.0-.-004-003.

Owning property may not be a requirement for holding elected office, but I will be damned sure to vote for someone who owns their home and understands how to protect property values. Doris could care less about protecting property values, since she really ain't got none. Her measly $5 contribution to Arnold's tax base is a small fraction of the taxes paid by homeowners. Give me somebody with some skin in the game. If Doris gets elected, you can bet that property values are going down.
Va Nilla

Arnold, MO

#338 Mar 21, 2013
The case of the reappearing limerick.

There once was a Dick named Doris,
She was a dude with a clitoris,
Senior B-I-N-G-O - she killed,
Trash fees - she demanded be billed,
Her race to be mayor wasn't victorious.

Ice Ice baby!!!!!!!!!!
Poet KnowIT

Arnold, MO

#339 Mar 21, 2013
my turn

Polka dot outfit lookin kinda drab
Sleeveless upper arms showing some flab
Jeffco bus service making her crab
Obnoxious attention she tries to grab

Lies and more lies, she don't like truth
Makin things up cause she got no proof
Her sneering smile shows her rotten tooth
Let's vote her down in the election booth
Letusnamenames

United States

#340 Mar 22, 2013
Va Nilla wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite right. Doris is half-owner of a vacant mostly flood plain useless lot. Her half the taxes is a whopping $98.20. Out of that, Arnold gets $5.56. Jefferson County lists the ownership as "Vischer Scott and Borgelt Doris". Parcel ID is 01-5.0-21.0-.-004-003.
Owning property may not be a requirement for holding elected office, but I will be damned sure to vote for someone who owns their home and understands how to protect property values. Doris could care less about protecting property values, since she really ain't got none. Her measly $5 contribution to Arnold's tax base is a small fraction of the taxes paid by homeowners. Give me somebody with some skin in the game. If Doris gets elected, you can bet that property values are going down.
Since THIS person listed it I will retract my statement. All that was needed was someone to list this to resolve it. The person who threatened to sue, I'm sure Counts could sue you for libel for the whole personal property thing. And you would lose your lawsuit, too. Doris is a public figure and has put herself out there. She is subject to scrutiny and I also asked for her to prove she paid real estate on numerous occasions putting the responsibility on her to clarify which she refused to do. If i eouldnt have asked her to prove it then i could be subject to lawsuit, but i repeatedly asked for her to show where she did pay and she did not. That alone would make the lawsuit go in my favor. I did consult an attorney (a real one) and this is what he said.
Letusnamenames

United States

#342 Mar 22, 2013
Sounds like someone is having a temper tantrum because people don't care what she has to say. Just a hint, if you want people on your side you need to provide this little thing called PROOF for your allegations. I guess the citizens are finally getting tired of your crap and seeing through you for what you really are.
Enlighten Us

Arnold, MO

#343 Mar 22, 2013
WAJ wrote:
So it's okay for Chief Shockey to use his personal engraving business (NOT LOCATED IN ARNOLD) to purchase items for the city, the police department, and its employees only to bill the city for it? That's okay with people? Or is he trying to hide the fact that he's even charging the city for any of this? Where are any receipts/bills? Do they lie within the police departments expenses or annual budget somehow? Has Shockey not been given/paid enough money or rewarded enough through contracts and pay raises as chief or by being promoted to city administrator? Given all that, you would think that Shockey would donate any such items as a kind gesture and for all the overlooking of corruption, lies and harassment he evokes! Not to mention all the money he has had and continues to cost the city in attorney fees. His maniacal, self loathing, egotistical, disgrace to the uniform, embarrassment of a man, and unintelligent self, is one of Bob Sweeney's main contributors in the overcharging and extreme attorney fees costing this city. Even now that the businesses' ownership name has been transferred into Shockey's daughters' name, it's all still a load of crap, and doesn't it just scream NEPOTISM to you? Oh and his daughter, by the way, who's husband currently works as a police officer at APD, that Shockey somehow bamboozled the city into hiring, prior to him even going through the police academy, that the chief managed to get the city to pay for as well!
Those of you pitiful people worrying about Doris and her purchasing election signs from a business located outside of Arnold need to get your heads out of your A$$E$ and start focusing on what's really important and the issues causing our city's demise and the three stooges responsible for that, being SWEENEY, COUNTS, and SHOCKEY!
Gloom, despair, and agony on me
Deep, dark depression, excessive misery
If it weren't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all
Gloom, despair, and agony on me

desperation. that's all this is. The agonized croaks of a hag who had every chance to do one thing right and didn't even try. She probably revels in her misery.
Doris Borgelt

Arnold, MO

#344 Mar 22, 2013
Va Nilla wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite right. Doris is half-owner of a vacant mostly flood plain useless lot. Her half the taxes is a whopping $98.20. Out of that, Arnold gets $5.56. Jefferson County lists the ownership as "Vischer Scott and Borgelt Doris". Parcel ID is 01-5.0-21.0-.-004-003.
Owning property may not be a requirement for holding elected office, but I will be damned sure to vote for someone who owns their home and understands how to protect property values. Doris could care less about protecting property values, since she really ain't got none. Her measly $5 contribution to Arnold's tax base is a small fraction of the taxes paid by homeowners. Give me somebody with some skin in the game. If Doris gets elected, you can bet that property values are going down.
Protect property values by enforcing city codes instead of letting a section of town deteriorate on purpose so it can be blighted, then condemned and taken by eminent domain so some pie in the sky dreamer can turn around and make big bucks building a town square.
Protect property values by making sure structures built are on solid ground instead of sliding down a hill due to storm water erosion problems.
Those same values are protected by making sure runoff is not directed to run along and under homes destroying their foundations as has happened quite frequently.
By city standards, the lot you refer to, if sold to the city using 2306 Ridgecrest as a base for valuation, would be worth close to $800,000! It is a residential building lot, over twice as large as other lots in the subdivision. One day, there will be a house on that lot.
You have denigrated every person in Arnold who rents an apartment or home by saying anyone who doesn't, hasn't enough skin in the game. I guess in your opinion, us peons should not aspire to serving in public office! Because I am not the one billed for property taxes on the home in which I live, doesn't mean they aren't paid. What level of real estate taxes would be acceptable to you?
I know you are still angry because one of your children found out your home was being foreclosed on and you will never let that go, but you have embarrassed yourself trying to punish me for a situation you got yourself into. You weren't honest with your family, why would you be honest with the public you don't even know?

WAJ

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#345 Mar 22, 2013
Doris has given the public information and pointed us to the areas that have provided proof on matters! You're just to blind to see what's right in front of you! If you can look up info on her, try looking at the court documents that are public record, quotes in publications from Sweeney, Counts, and Shockey or statements that those stooges you support make out in the open. You think you're so smart, then PROVE that the lies, harassment and corruptions don't exist! We're so tired of your uneducated barking on providing proof, when the truth of the matter is you cannot provide one ounce of evidence to disprove the documented FACTS that are out there! Those of us not plagued by the ignorance you so vehemently display are able to clearly see where the problems within this city lie.
Potential Litigation

Arnold, MO

#346 Mar 22, 2013
Letusnamenames wrote:
<quoted text>
Since THIS person listed it I will retract my statement. All that was needed was someone to list this to resolve it. The person who threatened to sue, I'm sure Counts could sue you for libel for the whole personal property thing. And you would lose your lawsuit, too. Doris is a public figure and has put herself out there. She is subject to scrutiny and I also asked for her to prove she paid real estate on numerous occasions putting the responsibility on her to clarify which she refused to do. If i eouldnt have asked her to prove it then i could be subject to lawsuit, but i repeatedly asked for her to show where she did pay and she did not. That alone would make the lawsuit go in my favor. I did consult an attorney (a real one) and this is what he said.
Too late to retract. You didn't check your facts, it doesn't matter whether you asked her or not, she was not compelled to answer. It doesn't matter whether she is a public figure or not, your statements must still be truthful, yours were not. You made the statements, the burden of proof was on you. You have libeled her. Maybe she will be paying property taxes on your house next year? If she were a plaintiff in a case against you, she would have no problem proving that your claim was false, which is all she would have to do.
Know that in most cases, especially when the piece of information is of public concern relating to a public figure or even a private individual involved in a public matter, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to prove the statement is false. Regardless, if you are charged with libel, remember that being able to prove truth is your best defense. Juries usually decide libel cases, and most jurors are going to expect you as the defendant to prove an allegedly libelous statement is true. from http://www.wikihow.com/Disprove-a-Libel-Claim

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
byrnes-mill-corruption-focus-shifts (Jul '14) 37 min cedar hill 4
Where's Doris? 4 hr WRWJR 22
Never sign a debt collector's consent judgement 6 hr Consent Judgement 1
Londell Drive behind School 7 hr CuriousInArnold 1
Fox C6 Board of Education : Discussion (Jun '14) 9 hr cleanhouse 1,220
Sherry Poppen for BOE 9 hr WDCJ 56
Know Missouri Law Regarding Cameras Before You ... (Sep '14) 9 hr No Negatives 49
Eureka Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Eureka People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]