The park faced many of the problems it did because of Dailey. It started with her hiring of an incompetent director. She opposed anything that didn't leave power in her hands.
April 4, 2016 at 10:01 p.m.
Gains is a bum. The biggest shock of all is that he actually made it to a courtroom. But, then again, his last two appearances were for this case and Gerberry's plea. So, he appears for politics but not prosecutions. He has some nerve calling out other public officials for not honoring their oath.
He set out to screw these guys out of his desperate hope to reach Cafaro. Good luck with that. Look at the comment by the agent - the "investigation" continues. An investigation is not the same as prosecution.
In the end, this was a waste of time and public resources. Gains and his buddy Bert can try to crow and claim some sort of victory or positive step at cleaning up so-called corruption. But, both have to be seething. Sadly, Yavorcik will bear the brunt of the hit.
March 29, 2016 at 5:41 p.m.
Another mealy-mouthed lame excuse by Gains for his office not doing their job. What he said is absolutely untrue and he should know it, although I doubt that. And shame on the Vindicator for letting him get away with a comment like that.
Guys like DiRienzo will never stop, especially knowing a soft touch like Gains is manning the helm. Enjoy your three week vacation to Sturgis, St. Pauly Boy. Nothing to worry about here.
July 15, 2015 at 11:01 a.m.
Wasn't Mark Hanni endorsed when he lost to Mary DeGenaro for the court of appeals?
June 6, 2014 at 3:28 p.m.
I don't even know where to start. It's like sensory overload.
February 7, 2014 at 8:56 a.m.
Thank you for that clarification. I was really scratching my head sometimes with comments that I felt were inconsistent with the Kurt W that I thought he was. So, to the dude on here, my apologies. Drink up.
January 24, 2014 at 5:42 a.m.
I am just as guilty as others who read this moron's column only to then come on here and vent about his idiotic rantings. I realize how odd that is and continually ask myself, "Why do I do that?" The only sound reason is that it is a common forum where you find others who generally agree about the worthlessness of this writer and his columns. It's kind of like the "Howard Stern effect" - people who reported in polls that they hated his show drove up the numbers because they "wanted to hear what he would say next." I'll have to ponder this some more.
Most interestingly, though, is that Bert has never publicly come onto this forum to defend or explain himself. Sweetwood has, at times, chimed in but never Bert. I suspect he looks at it but, at least to me, it says a lot about his psyche and attitude towards readers and people who post on this board. And, it's not pretty. Dismissive, arrogant, narcissistic, and single-minded immediately come to mind.
I have to somewhat disagree with KurtW's statement about Bert being "the only writer in this area that took on the Local Political Establishment." I don't think he has done that. Carrying out your own agenda and picking and choosing which official he will lambaste is not taking on the political establishment. His toying with Betras is not taking on the establishment. You are not taking on the establishment when you turn a blind eye to the wrongdoing of other officials with whom you have developed a relationship. Hell, many years ago, I believe Bert wanted to be part of the establishment (in my humble opinion). Another poster pointed out that he seemed to benefit in his DUI cases from lax local attitudes and, if I am correct, he rubbed elbows, ate dinner with, and considered to be friends a certain family about whom he regularly complains.
As to McNally, Bert will continue to be an annoying gnat to him and continue to wish ill will on him and others. McNally seems to be in the enviable position where he does not have to worry about pleasing Bert or the paper. Good for him. If I were him, I would dismiss them at every turn and only speak with the other media outlets. This really has to stick in Bert's craw so, like the incessantly petulant child that he is, he will take his little digs when he can.
P.S. Stay out of the bottle, KurtW. Hasn't it already done enough harm to you and those around you? This is not an attack, just words of caution based upon how regularly you mention booze in your posts.
January 21, 2014 at 10:09 a.m.
This article is very misleading. Ohio law does permit the agents or others to act.
1717.13 Any person may protect animal.
When, in order to protect any animal from neglect, it is necessary to take possession of it, any person may do so. When an animal is impounded or confined, and continues without necessary food, water, or proper attention for more than fifteen successive hours, any person may, as often as is necessary, enter any place in which the animal is impounded or confined and supply it with necessary food, water, and attention, so long as it remains there, or, if necessary, or convenient, he may remove such animal; and he shall not be liable to an action for such entry. In all cases the owner or custodian of such animal, if known to such person, immediately shall be notified by him of such action. If the owner or custodian is unknown to such person, and cannot with reasonable effort be ascertained by him, such animal shall be considered an estray and dealt with as such.
The necessary expenses for food and attention given to an animal under this section may be collected from the owner of such animal, and the animal shall not be exempt from levy and sale upon execution issued upon a judgment for such expenses.
While there don't seem to be any criminal penalties associated with the prior section, part of the Animal Cruelty statute could also apply:
(1) Torture an animal, deprive one of necessary sustenance, unnecessarily or cruelly beat, needlessly mutilate or kill, or impound or confine an animal without supplying it during such confinement with a sufficient quantity of good wholesome food and water;
(2) Impound or confine an animal without affording it, during such confinement, access to shelter from wind, rain, snow, or excessive direct sunlight if it can reasonably be expected that the animals would otherwise become sick or in some other way suffer. Division (A)(2) of this section does not apply to animals impounded or confined prior to slaughter. For the purpose of this section, shelter means a man-made enclosure, windbreak, sunshade, or natural windbreak or sunshade that is developed from the earth's contour, tree development, or vegetation.[;]
Obviously, no effort went into researching this article. Very disappointing as Gorman is usually pretty good. Also, shame on those humane agents or those advising them for not knowing entirely what they are talking about.
January 9, 2014 at 11:25 a.m.
Lees is not a "REAL cop." In my humble but educated opinion, he is a liar and a manipulator. Terrible choice.
December 29, 2013 at 4:27 p.m.
Wouldn't be surprised if Foley was in tears as the previous poster stated. But, while he may lose some authority, it is doubtful he will see a cut in pay. The chief is not eligible for OT, captains are. Plus, he will continue his secondary employment.
Lees is a terrible choice. Guy has no morals despite how well he publicly portrays himself. Those unhappy with Foley (and past chiefs) will be griping about Lees in six months. But, truly, terrible choice.
Hume...meh. Any beating heart with a law license has to be better than Farris. McNally is a fool if he gives Farris the option of staying on.
December 29, 2013 at 3:03 p.m.