unfair and unbalanced III

[richardkelsey]

Okay -- so now I am tracking.

I read the News Transcript piece which quotes the PTO women as saying the PTO was going to co-sponsor this event. (BTW -- she gives this quote to the newspaper)

Then, Kane and Sims don't deny that a debate was being planned -- they merely attack the legitimacy of the debate because one PTO woman has a Miller sign in her yard. (I am sure no other member of the entire PTO has a Simms, Kane, or Wilson sign in their yard)

Neither Kane nor Simms offers an alternative -- and there is no debate.

You post these notes from the PTO -- I assume, to prove PTO woman a liar. That is -- if the debate discussion is not in the PTO minutes, it never happened.

Well -- I sure as hell was not at the Freehold PTO meeting. So, who debated what is up to that organization to account for.

But everything in the article indicates that a debate was being planned, invitations were sent, and the Dems knew about it -- and rejected the forum based on legitimacy/bias account.

This sure is no smoking gun.

Let's assume that the minutes get amended. Let's assume that they actually had a mention of activity.

What then? Wouldn't you just be making the Kane/Simms illegitimacy argument? Weren't you the first person to announce -- as I recall -- that "incumbants don't debate."

If the News Transcript agreed to hold a debate and moderate it --would or should Kane/Simms show up?

I guess I get the argument you want to make -- which is somehow PTO person is a liar. But is that even the issue? Do any of the other facts -- and statements of candidates comport with that conclusion.

Look -- I don't know you. Seems like you have been around Freehold a long time - and you apparently have done some real good with the little league. That's great. Freehold needs more people being active and participating.

This Miller guy shows up and throws his hat in the ring. He is also an active guy, working on school issues apparently and showing up to Council meetings with the same folks that have been going their since I was knee-high to a grass-hopper.

He is running an uphill campaign in an all dem town. He is sticking his neck out -- whether one supports him or not -- when 11000 other people would not.

Why not have a debate? Why not encourage participation? Why not have a dialogue and at least go through the motions of democracy? Seriously, I have no idea why anyone would be opposed to that.

Like I said on another thread -- a good debate would permit three democrats to speak and use each of their turns to sledgehammer Mr. Miller. (That's politics 101).

I have no idea why debating the issues is bad.

[Libyan Sibyl]

The kicker is that the mayor, Kane and Sims are coming from an area of greater knowledge. They are serving, they know the behind the scenes matters, they lived through certain aspects of this town more than the residents.

Ted, and any challenger, has a huge learning curve. The incumbents are intimately aware of what is going on, what has been done, what ideas have been kicked around and what ideas either won or lost in the back rooms, legal discussions and various committees. Ted can throw an idea out, and they can say been there and done that. It won't work, that idea is really not applicable, etc.

I really don't understand the rationale as stated by the candidates. I can surmise other reasons why not to debate (like they don't have to, they're incumbents).

But it's a little late now to organize something, the election is one week away and Ted came into the campaign late. So perhaps these things can be better organized next year (I have a funny feeling that a fire is starting to burn). As to the debate, it's not Ted's fault really that it won't go or how it was arranged and who said what - it's not gonna happen this year, and as I said before the incumbent argument - in my opinion - is really disappointing and disingenuous.

[richardkelsey]

There is really only one reason why these folks won't debate. That is because the APP goes to press every day.

They are absolutely terrified of headlines unearthing the news they don't want to face.

What is amazing to me -- is that the papers and the press have been so incompetent -- that they have not seized on the issue.
As I stated previously in my "machine" piece -- that can happen when organized dissent does not exist.

This election can be won with fewer than 900 votes. (maybe fewer than 800 votes.)

If Miller had any expert help -- and hit 500 doors of tax-payers in the last week -- he would have a small chance at winning -- very small. (That chance gets much bigger if the Press runs a front page piece on a hot topic the Brough is trying to keep quiet.)

[phyllisdefonzo]

Rich, since you mentioned it in the last sentence of your post, what is the hot topic they are trying to keep quiet?

[misterpr1981]

Geo, Thanks for posting the PTO bylaws!

[richardkelsey]

phyllisdefonzo said:

Rich, since you mentioned it in the last sentence of your post, what is the hot topic they are trying to keep quiet?

I don't think they want to be asked about possible appointments of out of town or out of country people to Freehold Boards. They lose either way. They either don't know and didn't ask, or they do know and know residents won't like it.

Of course, it also very well may be that that no illegal alien has been appointed. No one knows. But my guess is -- they would have hit back very hard if the allegation was demonstrably untrue. Just a guess.

As I said, we don't have any idea who was appointed, why, and what knowledge anyone had about that -- because of the silence, the cancelled meetings, and the refusal to debate.

Just a guess on my part -- of course. The issue of did they or didn't they , or is he or is he not is out in the public on this Board. But let's face it, it would be different in the Asbury Park Press.

[casualreader]

Kelso Dude:

Same old dodging of the same old question.

Who says Reyes is an illegal alien? Why does he merit being asked that question when no one else ever has been asked that question?

Is it his surname? His appearance?

The question is unfair and unjustified given what I have just said.

Where did this claim that he is illegal come from? I wish the author would take credit.

Casually Illegal

[richardkelsey]

casualreader said:

Kelso Dude:

Same old dodging of the same old question.

Who says Reyes is an illegal alien? Why does he merit being asked that question when no one else ever has been asked that question?

Is it his surname? His appearance?

The question is unfair and unjustified given what I have just said.

Where did this claim that he is illegal come from? I wish the author would take credit.

Casually Illegal

Well -- just to be clear -- I do think that all appointees should be asked. (I don't think you can have a policy that only asks selected people -- I wrote that before. It would be per se Unconstitutional -- IMHO).

The question here really is one for the Mayor and the Council that appointed him. They either asked, or they did not. Or, they may have knowledge of his circumstance through discussions surrounding the decision and due diligence in appointing him.

The question -- Casual -- is really about the mechanism the town uses, and its policy and diligence in selecting people.

Again -- some people here have even said they don't necessarily oppose having an illegal alien on the committee. The question is, however, should the voters and the town people be informed about the policy so that they may weigh in on the decision process. That seems reasonable.

I suspect, most lawful residents of the Borough would not support a policy that either does not ask, or knowingly permits appointment so illegal aliens. Given the Mayor's tough talk, the residents probably would be surprised that he would appoint anyone not here legally.

And, he very well may not have done so. But, as I said, no one seems to know the answers to any of the questions.

[misterpr1981]

But isn't it true, Rich, that you only started questioning based on Juan Reyes, who you have no reason to believe is an illegal immigrant?

I mean, I understand you wanting to ask everyone, however, you only started questioning this specifically about Juan and after Juan was appointed, but no one else. Seems a bit discriminatory to me...

[casualreader]

I am afraid to admit that I agree with MrPr.

This new policy was only proposed to address Senor Reyes? I never heard of it before this.

What a convenient adoption of a new policy.

[richardkelsey]

misterpr1981 said:

But isn't it true, Rich, that you only started questioning based on Juan Reyes, who you have no reason to believe is an illegal immigrant?

I mean, I understand you wanting to ask everyone, however, you only started questioning this specifically about Juan and after Juan was appointed, but no one else. Seems a bit discriminatory to me...

There had never been an allegation that the Borough was appointing illegal aliens before. Nor was there ever any reason to believe that the tough talking Council would do so.

That's what initiated my interest in whether or not they even check.

Sound policy changes are almost always reactive to lessons or facts learned.

I do think it would be illegal and improper for the government to single out any protected group of citizens. I certainly don't advocate that.

My position is simple.

The Borough should have been checking all appointees for legal status. (Due diligence probably requires other back ground checks too)

They either were not doing so, were doing so, or need to be doing so. (That's just my opinion -- BTW) The voters of Freehold may be very comfortable with either not checking -- or specifically permitting illegal aliens to serve.

It certainly seems fair to find out if they check, when they check, and if they don't check, why not? It seems also fair to ask what they know about appointees before they appoint them.

To me -- if you have a town with a large problem with illegal aliens -- part of the diligence process in making an appointee should be to determine if the person is here legally or not.

I don't think there is anything discriminatory about asking the Mayor what the policy is, and what he knows about his appointees. I also don't think it is wrong or discriminatory in any way to suggest policy changes when answers on these types of questions are unknown.


BTW II -- I am not picking solely on illegal aliens. I do think that Board members for regularly meeting Boards should be Freehold residents, unless no other resident can be found -- or real expertise of a certain type cannot be found within the community -- but is needed. To me -- the price of local control in New Jersey is steep -- so I would want as much of the locol control and input I can get.

Like I said -- these are just policy arguments -- there is no right are wrong answer as to what the policy is or should be. However, the policy should not be a secret.

[stffgpr2003]

I keep being told, by Brian that this is not a campaign issue and it is only a coincidence (Brian's "bad timing," he says) that this comes up now. Is this really the case? You already know that the council will discuss the Holmdel Ordinance recommended by LS at a workshop. If that is not satifactory, should we infer that you are now making this a campaign issue?

I again ask you to remember when Luis DeJesus was appointed to the same committee. He is not mainland native born. He was appointed to represent the immigrant community, too. This board was active while he served. There were elections taking place while he served. Why was his immigration status of lesser concern back then, while he served? Did any of you - back then - know if he was or wasn't a legal resident? He must have been - he currently works for the Borough and had to prove his authorization for that purpose.

So, don't jump to any conclusions about Mr. Reyes. You wanna be mad at the council for not violating Mr. Reyes' civil rights by asking if he is here legally? You want to know for sure, then go ahead and ask him and let us all know. And, don't be insulted if he tells you to take a hike.

[misterpr1981]

Rich, thank you for skirting my question.

Your lack of an answer actually gives me more of an answer.

[casualreader]

Councilman Levine dude:

Great to have you back posting. You and me again like old times.

I agree with you. This "policy issue" is the work of Ted "Wannabe Councilman" Miller and his campaign of fear.

Look at the inane story he just posted about Abduallah Whatever and some illegal aliens trying to kill some soldiers.

This guy's campaign is a disgrace.

On November 6 unless you vote for me its a choice between BAD ideas and NO ideas.

[glow=red,2,300] [shadow=red,left,300] VOTE CASUAL ON NOVEMBER 6[/shadow][/glow]

[richardkelsey]

stffgpr2003 said:

I keep being told, by Brian that this is not a campaign issue and it is only a coincidence (Brian's "bad timing," he says) that this comes up now. Is this really the case? You already know that the council will discuss the Holmdel Ordinance recommended by LS at a workshop. If that is not satifactory, should we infer that you are now making this a campaign issue?

I again ask you to remember when Luis DeJesus was appointed to the same committee. He is not mainland native born. He was appointed to represent the immigrant community, too. This board was active while he served. There were elections taking place while he served. Why was his immigration status of lesser concern back then, while he served? Did any of you - back then - know if he was or wasn't a legal resident? He must have been - he currently works for the Borough and had to prove his authorization for that purpose.

So, don't jump to any conclusions about Mr. Reyes. You wanna be mad at the council for not violating Mr. Reyes' civil rights by asking if he is here legally? You want to know for sure, then go ahead and ask him and let us all know. And, don't be insulted if he tells you to take a hike.

Marc:

You have a lot packed in here.

First -- if the Borough does not ask it's appointees -- all appointees -- as a matter of policy, for proof of legal citizenship, then I agree it cannot do so with regard to Mr. Reyes alone. That would be discriminatory. I am not suggesting the violation of anyone's "Civil Rights." I am suggesting that if this council and mayor really don't do this -- they should. In doing so -- it should and must be applied equally.

Second -- to the extent this is a campaign issue -- it is because the man was just appointed in August as I understand -- and the Borough has been dodging the question since then, apparently. Issues come when they come.

I have no idea who Mr. DeJesus is -- but if he works for the Borough, then he must show some proof of lawful presence. So, why would anyone make an assumption that he is not here lawfully? I don't follow you on that.

You seem to be suggesting that you couldn't ask this guy his status without violating his rights. Well, if you have any facts to suggest he is here illegally, any, prior to the appointment -- it is actually a Federal Felony to knowingly induce an illegal alien to enter or stay in the United States. (Knowingly is also, in conscious disregard of the facts).

So -- if you had facts to provide some reasonable suspicion that the individual was not legal, you cannot simply choose not to ask to circumvent the obligation. Whether or not providing a person with a political appointment to a policy making Board constitutes "inducing that person to stay" is a mixed question of fact and law. I do know this -- he threshold on that issue is remarkably low in the cases that address what is referred to as the "anti-harboring" provisions found at 8 USC 1324(a).

I did not appoint the guy. I don't know him. I did not interview him, and I have no information about his status other than questions raised here.

If the Borough knowingly appointed him, knowing or suspecting that he is not here legally, -- they have both a legal and political problem.

If he is here legally, they don't have any problem. (Well, some people might not like a CASA Freehold appointee, but that is a minor political problem).

Finally -- here is a real irony. The provisions of 8 USC 1324(a) may be enforced by local law enforcement. That is because they are criminal. (A penalty of up to 5 years in prison and a 10K fine). While they cannot be prosecuted by state prosecutors, they can be investigated and enforced by the Borough. So -- Mitch Roth could rack up a few arrests here possibly too, if the Borough knowingly appointed any person who was here illegally. LOL

So -- I think worrying about the civil rights of people is very important -- paramount. I think it is also wise to worry about potentially breaking federal criminal law. That alone would be an excellent reason to institute a policy that mandates checks for all town appointees. If you folks want to do that after the election, that's fine.

I don't think, however, that finding out both what the policy is -- and what the Borough knew about a recent appointee is all that crazy.

Let's remove immigration from the table.

Assume an appointment is made to the Parks and Recs committee in late august of an election year. Assume that the Borough, appoints someone everyone agrees looks like a Great person to give guidance and work with the kids and the community on these issues. Now let's assume that a question is raised about the person's status as a sexual offender.

Would the Borough respond to the issue?

What if someone asked, "hey, why don't we run checks for these types of people before making appointments?"

Would none of that be legitimate?

The answer might be as simple as -- crap -- we never thought of it. Or, we ran a check and it came back clear.

The fact that it is election time is not relevant to when an issue arises. Some d**n issues arise at the worst possible time. Frankly -- isn't it better that an issue arises when people are thinking about or should be thinking about good government and good policy-making.

I didn't create this issue. I had nothing to do with appointing anyone. The questions, however, seem enormously fair.

[richardkelsey]

misterpr1981 said:

Rich, thank you for skirting my question.

Your lack of an answer actually gives me more of an answer.

Funny -- I thought I answered it directly.

[Libyan Sibyl]

stffgpr2003 said:

I keep being told, by Brian that this is not a campaign issue and it is only a coincidence (Brian's "bad timing," he says) that this comes up now. Is this really the case? You already know that the council will discuss the Holmdel Ordinance recommended by LS at a workshop. If that is not satifactory, should we infer that you are now making this a campaign issue?

I again ask you to remember when Luis DeJesus was appointed to the same committee. He is not mainland native born. He was appointed to represent the immigrant community, too. This board was active while he served. There were elections taking place while he served. Why was his immigration status of lesser concern back then, while he served? Did any of you - back then - know if he was or wasn't a legal resident? He must have been - he currently works for the Borough and had to prove his authorization for that purpose.

So, don't jump to any conclusions about Mr. Reyes. You wanna be mad at the council for not violating Mr. Reyes' civil rights by asking if he is here legally? You want to know for sure, then go ahead and ask him and let us all know. And, don't be insulted if he tells you to take a hike.

Was Mr. DeJesus a member of Casa Freehold? Yes or no. I don't think so. Was he involved in slandering the town and its officials.

As to whether people are looking at skin color for these appointments, did anyone here makle a point of Cecilia Reynolds?

Frank Freyre is a member of the committee, doesn't he represent this community? Doesn't Cecilia Reynolds represent this community? And given their histories, doesn't Rev. MacGuire and Rev. Ricky Pierce represent this community?

What is his contribution?

So when it is learned that Mr. Reyes is a day laborer from Casa Freehold is it not wrong to question this appointment? If you re-read Brian's words, he is not making a deal out of whether Reyes is illegal or not. His issue was with a Casa Freehold appointment.

As to campaign issues, have you heard Ted write about this once? Have you found it on his blog? No, you haven't.

In fact, you haven't even seen me write about his immigration status in a while. CR, PR and Marc keep bringing up this point. The debate has been more focused on an appointment of Casa Freehold member. And there is no debate about this gentleman's affilaition with that group.

Casa Freehold's Merits
- involved in lawsuit against town;
- brought in the Mexican Govt for consular ID Cards;
- protested Marc's appointment;
- protested Marc's free speech;
- have called the town and its elected officials racist;
- have mis-used the press to publicly degrade the town;
- have said the citizens are like the Farmingdale residents who were violent;
- have a braod agenda for the legitimization of the illegal community in local, state and national levels.

If you don't think that there is a reason to question this appointment, then obviously there is a difference in opinion. I guess I care more about the integrity of appointments than others.

[stffgpr2003]

If you re-read Brian's words, he is not making a deal out of whether Reyes is illegal or not. His issue was with a Casa Freehold appointment.

Follow the posting trail. This is not about Brian's Casa Freehold concerns, right now... it's about Reye's immigration status...

Rich IS making a big deal out of the illegality issue and has been for quite sometime - ever since Ted announced his candidacy, especially.

Based on Rich's other pro Vote FB GOP slanted postings, and his steady attack on the Mayor/Council's track record at election time (especially trying to make Reye's immigration status an issue) what else should we infer other than Rich IS trying to drop what he thinks is a bomb to help Ted's campaign?

Marc

[stffgpr2003]

stffgpr2003 said:

quote]Frank Freyre is a member of the committee, doesn't he represent this community? Doesn't Cecilia Reynolds represent this community? And given their histories, doesn't Rev. MacGuire and Rev. Ricky Pierce represent this community?

On your other point...

The people you mention do not adequately represent the immigrant community, because none have walked in the immigrants shoes. Some support the immigrant community, but serve on the HRC to represent other community segments. One individual is leaving the HRC after December.

To me representing the community means being able to gather the people together and help them understand their social and economic commitments to the greater community, of which they are a part. Of course, this goes along with articulating their needs, too.

If Juan Reyes or anyone can get the day laborers to move off Main Street to seek work; and to ride bikes, at night, with reflective gear; and to comply with all of our housing codes - AS HE TOLD SOME OF US HE WANTS TO HELP ACCOMPLISH - then Juan, the man, is more important to me than Juan - anything else.

So far, none of the others you have mentioned, above, have succeeded in any of these areas and a few haven't even tried to. Here's to Juan being successful.

As for Casa Freehold...that's a discussion for another day.

Brian was appointed to that board to help offer the committee balance. Not necessarily to oppose the illegal immigrants, but to help the board recognize and serve the other diversity in Freehold Borough. It is unfortunate, he didn't stay on.[/quote]

[Libyan Sibyl]

stffgpr2003 said:

If Juan Reyes or anyone can get the day laborers to move off Main Street to seek work; and to ride bikes, at night, with reflective gear; and to comply with all of our housing codes - AS HE TOLD SOME OF US HE WANTS TO HELP ACCOMPLISH - then Juan, the man, is more important to me than Juan - anything else.

So far, none of the others you have mentioned, above, have succeeded in any of these areas and a few haven't even tried to. Here's to Juan being successful.

As for Casa Freehold...that's a discussion for another day.

If Mr. Reyes can do any of that, than God Bless him. That would be an ever greater accomplishment for a person to do any of that through a committee that, according to some, has no real power.

[misterpr1981]

richardkelsey said:

misterpr1981 said:

Rich, thank you for skirting my question.

Your lack of an answer actually gives me more of an answer.

Funny -- I thought I answered it directly.

As Judge Judy would say, "you thought wrong."

[stffgpr2003]

If Mr. Reyes can do any of that, than God Bless him. That would be an ever greater accomplishment for a person to do any of that through a committee that, according to some, has no real power.

Let's encourage him and, at least, give him that chance. If he can't help - everyone loses.

Marc

[misterpr1981]

Richardkelsey said:

>To me -- the price of local control in New Jersey is steep -- so I would want as much of the locol control and input I can get.

Rich, this statement defines you.

[stffgpr2003]

stffgpr2003 said:

If Mr. Reyes can do any of that, than God Bless him. That would be an ever greater accomplishment for a person to do any of that through a committee that, according to some, has no real power.

The HR committee, for him, is just a place to discuss items and report back. His real workshop should be the streets, homes and places of worship, etc. Let's encourage him and, at least, give him that chance. If he can't help - everyone loses.

Marc

[richardkelsey]

stffgpr2003 said:

If you re-read Brian's words, he is not making a deal out of whether Reyes is illegal or not. His issue was with a Casa Freehold appointment.

Follow the posting trail. This is not about Brian's Casa Freehold concerns, right now... it's about Reye's immigration status...

Rich IS making a big deal out of the illegality issue and has been for quite sometime - ever since Ted announced his candidacy, especially.

Based on Rich's other pro Vote FB GOP slanted postings, and his steady attack on the Mayor/Council's track record at election time (especially trying to make Reye's immigration status an issue) what else should we infer other than Rich IS trying to drop what he thinks is a bomb to help Ted's campaign?

Marc

Sure -- 11 years after I leave I re-surface to try to help some guy I never met win a campaign? I have never been involved in any political campaign for elected office in Freehold since I left there. Never.

Silly!

[stffgpr2003]

Sure -- 11 years after I leave I re-surface to try to help some guy I never met win a campaign? I have never been involved in any political campaign for elected office in Freehold since I left there. Never.

Silly!

Good. Then you're returning as our always neutral moderator. Thank God!

[misterpr1981]

richardkelsey said:

>Sure -- 11 years after I leave I re-surface to try to help some guy I never met win a campaign? I have never been involved in any political campaign for elected office in Freehold since I left there. Never.


Be right back as I go grab the shovel.

[Libyan Sibyl]

misterpr1981 said:

Be right back as I go grab the shovel.

No rush. Take as long as you want. Please.

[casualreader]

Kelso dude:

So if you are proposing a policy change then perhaps it should be implemented from this point forward not retroactively to include your favorite target Senor Reyes?

I mean since your interest is primarily good public policy and not partisan politics or immigrant bashing.

Below is the biggest legal mumbo jumbo I have ever read. I could defeat you in a court of law with the twisted and stretched logic of the quote below.

So -- if you had facts to provide some reasonable suspicion that the individual was not legal, you cannot simply choose not to ask to circumvent the obligation. Whether or not providing a person with a political appointment to a policy making Board constitutes "inducing that person to stay" is a mixed question of fact and law. I do know this -- he threshold on that issue is remarkably low in the cases that address what is referred to as the "anti-harboring" provisions found at 8 USC 1324(a).

You really have to be kidding with that one. They would laugh you out of the courthouse.

I have to admit though you are one of the best I have ever seen at twisting an argument.


Casually Impressed at Your Demagoguery

[fbrepublican]

stffgpr2003 said:

If you re-read Brian's words, he is not making a deal out of whether Reyes is illegal or not. His issue was with a Casa Freehold appointment.

Follow the posting trail. This is not about Brian's Casa Freehold concerns, right now... it's about Reye's immigration status...

Rich IS making a big deal out of the illegality issue and has been for quite sometime - ever since Ted announced his candidacy, especially.

Based on Rich's other pro Vote FB GOP slanted postings, and his steady attack on the Mayor/Council's track record at election time (especially trying to make Reye's immigration status an issue) what else should we infer other than Rich IS trying to drop what he thinks is a bomb to help Ted's campaign?

Marc

Let's take this back to Brian's Casa Freehold Concerns. Actually, this goes beyond Brian, but the town. Let us make this a campaign issue. Now we see why there will be no debate with Miller. I can see it now at the debate.


Citizen asks: Mayor Wilson and Councilman Kane, how do you explain the appointment of someone who does not live in our town and is associated with groups who only case problems?

Kane and Wilson: ( Silence)

Citizen: Why did you allow Frank Argote Freyre to make this appointment? When did he start giving you marching orders?

Kane and Wilson: ( Insert canned tough speech here)

Citizen: Is Reyes and illegal immigrant?

Kane: No, he is an undocumented worker.

Councilman, if you think this Reyes guy is going to do any good and have the interest of the town in mind, I have a bridge to sell you.