Mayoral election
Concerned Citizen

Anonymous Proxy

#347 Mar 22, 2013
Letusnamenames wrote:
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.
I'd post links for you, but the way the site is set up, it doesn't work. So you'll just have to do a bit of research on your own. But I will point you in the right direction! Google Missouri Case.Net and go there. Do a Case Number Search for 11JE-CC01055. Go to the Docket Entries tab. Read. Find out where Shockey, with the help of Counts and Sweeney, have kept records hidden until a judge forced them to release them. And ordered the city, with OUR tax dollars, to pay a fine for hiding them.

Two weeks ago in council, Shockey insisted that this was much ado about nothing. That he was completely innocent and the insurance company exonerated him. Well, if that REALLY were the case, don't you think that he'd WANT to share those documents? Even INSIST they be shared to PROVE how innocent he claims to be? Nope. Just like the rest of city hall under Counts and Sweeney. Hide public records. Even if the AG threatens a lawsuit to force their release. The mayor has insisted in council that they are not hiding anything in Arnold. That's a blatant lie!
Well

Arnold, MO

#348 Mar 22, 2013
Potential Litigation wrote:
<quoted text>
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
How amusing. This wasn't libel. Prove the harm Doris suffered because of it.

Oh wait.

There wasn't. Oopsie.

See, here is the thing - whether or not the statement was true, Doris did not suffer any harm because of it. Whether or not she owns property or pays real property tax or not, does not affect her reputation whatsoever. Goodness. Oh and also, the statement was not made with actual malice (the standard for a libel claim against a public figure). It was an honest assessment of a search on the Jeffco Assessor's website.

I cannot STAND people running around screeching slander and libel when they don't understand the elements of such a claim.
Letusnamenames

United States

#349 Mar 22, 2013
Doris Borgelt wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
And no libel because in this post she publically admits that her name is not on the property and she is not billed showing that I would have never found anything. So she just debunked her own libel claim.(Don't worry, I got screen shots of it and my searches).

The statement was not done out of malice but to get the information and there was no harm done to her.

However, I would be careful publicizing that people suffer from "mental instabilities" on a Facebook page.
Potential Litigation

Arnold, MO

#350 Mar 22, 2013
Well wrote:
<quoted text>
How amusing. This wasn't libel. Prove the harm Doris suffered because of it.
Oh wait.
There wasn't. Oopsie.
See, here is the thing - whether or not the statement was true, Doris did not suffer any harm because of it. Whether or not she owns property or pays real property tax or not, does not affect her reputation whatsoever. Goodness. Oh and also, the statement was not made with actual malice (the standard for a libel claim against a public figure). It was an honest assessment of a search on the Jeffco Assessor's website.
I cannot STAND people running around screeching slander and libel when they don't understand the elements of such a claim.
You obviously haven't been reading this very long. The person that screams sue, sue, sue, libel, slander all the time is the one who was making the allegations, they just got a dose of their own medicine. Also you haven't got a clue as to what is going on in the City of Arnold. There are a bunch of liars, cheaters, thieves, cads and snakes that have been running this town into the ground for years. It is time to clean house. The good old boys have got to go and Counts sweeping all of the huge mistakes under the rug and the sexual harassment lawsuits that are going on against the police chief and city all being hush, hush while they all drag Moss through the mud it reprehensible. Use some common sense and recognize corruption when you see it.
Letusnamenames

United States

#351 Mar 22, 2013
Show me where I have ever done what you are accusing. Make sure you have the right person.
JaQuan

Malden, MO

#352 Mar 22, 2013
Doris Borgelt wrote:
<quoted text>
... 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.
...
If you wanna claim that flood lot is worth $800,000, why don't you put your money where your mouth is. Pony up and pay taxes based on that value.

But seriously, the $8000 lot the city sold to the veterans wall committee is probably bigger than your flood lot, and worth more too.
Arnold homeowner

Saint Louis, MO

#353 Mar 22, 2013
Established fact: Doris is not a homeowner.

Since Arnold only sends trash bills and sewer bills to homeowners, this means Doris is not legally responsible for paying a sewer bill or a trash bill.

A few months back, Doris made a motion to restart trash fees. Guess who doesn't get a trash bill.

Doris has stated she thinks sewer bills should be higher. Guess who doesn't get a sewer bill.

I like the "skin in the game" comment. The mayor should be responsible for paying the same bills and taxes as homeowners in order to have a legitimate understanding of responsible citizenship.
Arnold homeowner

Saint Louis, MO

#354 Mar 22, 2013
On a related note.

Meddlesome Doris is proud of the fact that she goes snooping around looking for possible code violations on homeowners. Then she calls city hall to make a complaint. This is one of her ways of seeking retaliation against people that disagree with her.

Since Doris is not a homeowner, she is not legally subject to the same property maintenance standards as homeowners. She cannot possibly understand the obligations and cost of home ownership.

One more example of how she has no skin in the game. She wants to hold homeowners to a standard when she cannot be held to the same standard.

How many times have we heard her say that elected officials should be held to a higher standard. Easy to say when she cannot be held to any standard.
Doris Borgelt

Arnold, MO

#355 Mar 22, 2013
Arnold homeowner wrote:
Established fact: Doris is not a homeowner.
Since Arnold only sends trash bills and sewer bills to homeowners, this means Doris is not legally responsible for paying a sewer bill or a trash bill.
A few months back, Doris made a motion to restart trash fees. Guess who doesn't get a trash bill.
Doris has stated she thinks sewer bills should be higher. Guess who doesn't get a sewer bill.
I like the "skin in the game" comment. The mayor should be responsible for paying the same bills and taxes as homeowners in order to have a legitimate understanding of responsible citizenship.
My family gets a trash bill and a sewer bill every quarter, just like everybody else does. Just because I don't have a trash and sewer bill in my name doesn't mean it doesn't come out of the family budget. Get a clue, my family eats, does laundry, takes showers and everything else just like yours does. You are really grasping at straws. Most I have talked to would rather pay for trash service and use that money as a start to get the sewers and storm water problems fixed for the people who have been suffering for years and whose homes are being damaged by raw sewage and storm waters entering their homes. Farmcrest, Bender, Tenbrook Manor, Melody Ln., Key West, Sunset, Cambridge Ct., Grant, Christ, Oye, Keller, Hyde Park etc.
All of the complaints that have been ignored for years need to be brought out into the open and addressed, and by addressing them I mean getting the job done so the complaints are no more!
The city has spent money on sewers for AB, who can well afford to pay for their own sewers. The sewers were paid for two residents on Ridgecrest when the city chose to get into the development business for the lot at 2306 and spent over $242,000 improving that lot. There have been plans sitting down in the sewer department for years for sewer subdistricts, people have paid their tap on fees in advance and ten years later people are STILL on septic systems and not hooked up to public sewers. There have been plans and studies that have been paid for over and over again for the same project that has never been done. Then someone will suggest another study and the city pays for another one!
The people who live here deserve to have THEIR concerns addressed before we give anymore corporate welfare to the next Tom, Dick or Harry Developer that rides into town.
Doris Borgelt

Arnold, MO

#356 Mar 22, 2013
Arnold homeowner wrote:
On a related note.
Meddlesome Doris is proud of the fact that she goes snooping around looking for possible code violations on homeowners. Then she calls city hall to make a complaint. This is one of her ways of seeking retaliation against people that disagree with her.
Since Doris is not a homeowner, she is not legally subject to the same property maintenance standards as homeowners. She cannot possibly understand the obligations and cost of home ownership.
One more example of how she has no skin in the game. She wants to hold homeowners to a standard when she cannot be held to the same standard.
How many times have we heard her say that elected officials should be held to a higher standard. Easy to say when she cannot be held to any standard.
Actually, I have taken complaints from citizens and business owners and have made the complaint FOR THEM so they didn't have to put their name on a complaint and their names be revealed to the violators as sadly was happening on a regular basis. Again, any repairs made to the home in which I reside come out of the family budget just like any other household in town. I have also defended other homeowners who had complaints filed against them regarding violations that were not valid in their location due to their residency predating incorporation. You can keep your tripe coming, but I do have some other things to do and most likely won't be answering immediately. Have fun.
pest control

United States

#357 Mar 22, 2013
voters need to squash Doris like a bug at the ballot box.
Interesting Point

Arnold, MO

#358 Mar 22, 2013
Go Doris, Go Go Go. You are the ONE who will sit in the Mayor's Seat because you know how to run a meeting according to Roberts Rules and are observant as to lots of other things going on in a Council meeting. I watch and I learn.
Letusnamenames

United States

#359 Mar 22, 2013
You obviously didn't get what they accused you of in their post. It had nothing to do with reporting things for others.
pest control

United States

#360 Mar 22, 2013
Interesting Point wrote:
Go Doris, Go Go Go. You are the ONE who will sit in the Mayor's Seat because you know how to run a meeting according to Roberts Rules and are observant as to lots of other things going on in a Council meeting. I watch and I learn.
whew, you are so gullible. doris know nuthin about roberts rules of order. but she did author borgelts rules of disorder.

probably to go along with the rest of her disorders
Doris Borgelt

Arnold, MO

#361 Mar 22, 2013
Letusnamenames wrote:
You obviously didn't get what they accused you of in their post. It had nothing to do with reporting things for others.
Well yes, it does! You see I don't go looking for things, people call me and complain. They call me because their complaints have fallen on deaf ears in the past and I actually pay attention! In the beginning I passed those complaints on and was told no violations existed. After experiencing that, when called, I not only went to visit the complainant, I took pictures of the violation and when told later there was none, started forwarding the pictures I had taken as evidence of the existing violation. I recall quite a few occasions where blatant violations existed and had been ignored. I recall telling the city administrator that every person complaining about being ignored could not be crazy or liars as I had been told! If you think things here are all hunky dory, well, you just keep viewing the world through your rose colored glasses, but I live in the real world with the rest of the real people and will point out the inadequacies, violations by the city of state law and their own ordinances as they are discovered. If they city expects the citizens to abide by the laws, they, along with their friends and cronies should have to follow the same.
Hello

Arnold, MO

#362 Mar 22, 2013
Speaking of pest control, who owns the dilapidated building housing United Service Spraying at 1447 Jeffco? Do you mean to tell me that city inspectors pass by that everyday and cannot see the peeling paint, the deteriorating roof, exposed wood and that the building is in a general state of disrepair? How about that porch that is falling off of the old building directly across from Tenbrook on Jeffco?
Letusnamenames

United States

#363 Mar 22, 2013
I do not think anybody that has been accused of stalking by others and calls for the public to harass a veteran on their mayoral facebook page lives in the real world.
Doris Borgelt

Arnold, MO

#365 Mar 22, 2013
JaQuan wrote:
<quoted text>
If you wanna claim that flood lot is worth $800,000, why don't you put your money where your mouth is. Pony up and pay taxes based on that value.
But seriously, the $8000 lot the city sold to the veterans wall committee is probably bigger than your flood lot, and worth more too.
If the city can pay that much when buying property from business partners of sitting council members, using that standard, that's a reasonable amount to ask the city to buy my lot for, right? But you see my point. The lot on Ridgecrest wasn't worth $286,000!$266,000 was paid for a quarter acre. Since I have almost three quarter acres....well, you do the math!
Bill Moritz

Arnold, MO

#366 Mar 22, 2013
Doris you are brave as hell behind a keyboard in the darkness with your face freakishly illuminated by the glow of your monitor. Have the courage of your convictions to step up to the microphone in a public meeting and say that you believe that Phil Amato has benefitted Peggy Allen with city funds improperly, illegally, unethically and downright wrong. You claim to possess leadership material but I say you are a bully. You are just brave as hell until called out for it. Until you show some backbone to say it in public find another topic. How about you share with us what you will do for entertainment in about 12 days. I predict you will get smoked by the voters by a minimum of 55%.
Doris Borgelt

Arnold, MO

#367 Mar 22, 2013
Bill, in case you haven't noticed, you don't top my list of respected leaders. If you think paying $266,000 dollars for a quarter acre of ground and an additional $20,000 for the .91 acres behind it, then I'd like you to purchase my lot! It seems the ground next to the VFW post was "appraised" by the same company, somewhat overvalued maybe by about $52,000? I wonder just how many other overvalued pieces of property are in the city's land portfolio. I loved the explanation about how the city's appraisal was based on it being half filled. Funny, it isn't filled at all, so how could it have been appraised as if it had been? That's like the appraisal for the Ridgecrest property, estimated at highest and best use, when that was not the condition it was in. Then the city turns around and invests an additional $242,000 to bring it all up to grade and "help out" Raven Development or Duncan Avenue Properties so they had a place to dump all of the dirt and rock they scraped off of the CVS site. Tell me again, why did we pay them to dump what they needed to get rid of instead of them paying us?

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
Neighbors Fighting At Bottom of Hill on Carter (Oct '16) 13 hr Ted 88
Looking (Aug '15) Wed Loser 4
Roads on Ruth & Regina Terrible For School Buses Wed Lifer In Echo Valley 10
Know Missouri Law Regarding Cameras Before You ... (Sep '14) Wed Steve 228
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

Eureka Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Eureka Mortgages