Cribk, You have now posted a question regarding alleged embezzlement on several occasions and then asked why Jay Macejko took no action. Please understand that embezzlement is a theft crime. Thus, any theft of money over $500.00 would be a felony. Such a crime fall under the jurisdiction of the County prosecutor. If he wished the county prosecutor could present that case to the grand jury and prosecute. Any felony filed by Mr. Macejko ultimately falls to Paul Gains.
For people who claim to be so moral and offended by the use of words, you have had no problem bashing me in your posts without knowing me. Apparently, your ethical standards only apply to others. I cannot say it any more plainly than I have. I have never bashed Paul Gains in any of my posts. In fact, I have defended him. I have also defended Jay. I was simply pointing out that Bertram seems to be on a personal crusade to hurt Jay Macejko without any real knowledge of what transpired. You all hide behind anonymity and launch ad hominem attacks. I will not.
Did I not already say that while jay and I worked for Paul there was Never a time when I had any concern for his sobriety. Not one. Further did I not say that jay did not mean to imply that there was such a concern. Why would such a statement be assumed by anyone to imply what Bertram says? The word sober, to many, does NOT mean "not drunk". Look it up. There is no controversy here. I also said I liked Paul. You should read my post. However, in the end, Jay is a friend, who I know. I know his heart and I know him to be a good, honest and decent man. Thus, I, on my own, wrote my comments to Bertram's article. The comments are mine and mine alone. The myth however that Jay has an association with the Cafaro family merely because others running in the past did, deserves no response. Yet, I doubt there is any involvement. I expect any citizen could attend one of his appearances and ask. this election is between two men and ultimately the voters will decide. Bertram is obviously trying to create controversies where none exist.
Lady rides. It is not ok to suggest anything without proof. Including involvement with the named family in the article. It is possible for two people to seek office, neither of them being bad people. This election should be about issues, not ad hominem attacks.
If one were to look up the definition of sober in webster's dictionary you would see that of six definitions of the word only one involves abstention from alcohol. One definition is to be marked by earnestly thoughtful character or demeanor. Another is to be marked by temperance and seriousness. Yet, Bertram has assumed the most hurtful definition. I know jay Macejko and I know Paul gains. Honestly, I like them both. And I worked with jay and for Paul. I can assure you that at no time did jay or I ever question Paul or believe Paul to be a drunk. I also know my friend jay and I know the meaning he wished to convey by use of the word sober Is not as Bertram has decided to interpret. Perhaps the meaning taken by a word says more about the person hearing the word than the one saying it. Ask jay what he meant, don't assume it bertram.
Public has a right to details of suit against Macejko, city
17000. = felony = PAul Gains jurisdiction, and crib k, u know it.
January 27, 2012 at 9:51 p.m. permalink suggest removal
The good, the bad, the ugly
Cribk,
You have now posted a question regarding alleged embezzlement on several occasions and then asked why Jay Macejko took no action. Please understand that embezzlement is a theft crime. Thus, any theft of money over $500.00 would be a felony. Such a crime fall under the jurisdiction of the County prosecutor. If he wished the county prosecutor could present that case to the grand jury and prosecute. Any felony filed by Mr. Macejko ultimately falls to Paul Gains.
January 22, 2012 at 5:49 p.m. permalink suggest removal
‘Did he just call me a drunk?’
For people who claim to be so moral and offended by the use of words, you have had no problem bashing me in your posts without knowing me. Apparently, your ethical standards only apply to others. I cannot say it any more plainly than I have. I have never bashed Paul Gains in any of my posts. In fact, I have defended him. I have also defended Jay. I was simply pointing out that Bertram seems to be on a personal crusade to hurt Jay Macejko without any real knowledge of what transpired. You all hide behind anonymity and launch ad hominem attacks. I will not.
January 16, 2012 at 11:22 a.m. permalink suggest removal
‘Did he just call me a drunk?’
Did I not already say that while jay and I worked for Paul there was Never a time when I had any concern for his sobriety. Not one. Further did I not say that jay did not mean to imply that there was such a concern. Why would such a statement be assumed by anyone to imply what Bertram says? The word sober, to many, does NOT mean "not drunk". Look it up. There is no controversy here. I also said I liked Paul. You should read my post. However, in the end, Jay is a friend, who I know. I know his heart and I know him to be a good, honest and decent man. Thus, I, on my own, wrote my comments to Bertram's article. The comments are mine and mine alone. The myth however that Jay has an association with the Cafaro family merely because others running in the past did, deserves no response. Yet, I doubt there is any involvement. I expect any citizen could attend one of his appearances and ask. this election is between two men and ultimately the voters will decide. Bertram is obviously trying to create controversies where none exist.
January 16, 2012 at 7:32 a.m. permalink suggest removal
‘Did he just call me a drunk?’
The last name is maillis. And as you can see I worked with jay and for Paul. Maillis, attorney...hmmm? Who could I be?
January 15, 2012 at 8:58 p.m. permalink suggest removal
‘Did he just call me a drunk?’
Kensgirl, damage control? I m not hiding behind anonymity. My identity is known.
Come out of the shadows.
January 15, 2012 at 7:11 p.m. permalink suggest removal
‘Did he just call me a drunk?’
Lady rides. It is not ok to suggest anything without proof. Including involvement with the named family in the article. It is possible for two people to seek office, neither of them being bad people. This election should be about issues, not ad hominem attacks.
January 15, 2012 at 5:58 p.m. permalink suggest removal
‘Did he just call me a drunk?’
If one were to look up the definition of sober in webster's dictionary you would see that of six definitions of the word only one involves abstention from alcohol. One definition is to be marked by earnestly thoughtful character or demeanor. Another is to be marked by temperance and seriousness. Yet, Bertram has assumed the most hurtful definition. I know jay Macejko and I know Paul gains. Honestly, I like them both. And I worked with jay and for Paul. I can assure you that at no time did jay or I ever question Paul or believe Paul to be a drunk. I also know my friend jay and I know the meaning he wished to convey by use of the word sober Is not as Bertram has decided to interpret. Perhaps the meaning taken by a word says more about the person hearing the word than the one saying it. Ask jay what he meant, don't assume it bertram.
January 15, 2012 at 12:50 p.m. permalink suggest removal