2pelo Honey Posted April 25, 2010 Report Share Posted April 25, 2010 Wrong again. Catching this stuff is their JOB. Watching out for the taxpayer is their JOB. The fact that they didn't do their job, and they're NOW crying foul makes them just as guilty as Harder for doing it. Sorry. Sorry for what, stating your opinion? No biggie there, much the same as I'm entitled to mine, which is entirely different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 25, 2010 Report Share Posted April 25, 2010 Consider this a vermin "putting up" I guess. The resident experienced Esquire says: "Anyone criticizing him for buying small christmas presents for his employees may do so, but you vermin that are calling it criminal should be ashamed of yourselves." Are you using sneaky legalese there when you say "criticizing him for buying small christmas presents"? I would argue that we are not in fact "criticizing him for buying small christmas presents." The fact is we are criticizing him for using taxpayer's funds to buy those "small christmas presents." You sir, did not "put up". I challenge someone with a lot to type out there to show me what statutes were allegedly violated. Its no legalese to see that you have avoided my question/challenge and spouted off rhetoric yet again. My original point still stands: NO LAWS WERE VIOLATED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 25, 2010 Report Share Posted April 25, 2010 I think the point the guy is making is that people can disagree with how the $$ was spent, but the "vermin" are ones who are trying to make it look like a crime was committed to bash the sheriff at the start of political season, right after he announced his running. Seems simple enough to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 25, 2010 Report Share Posted April 25, 2010 you are kidding yourself if you think anything comes of this... he'll get a fine, tops... he'll be re-elected... and you'll be sitting in a corner still kidding yourself... misappropriation n. the intentional, illegal use of the property or funds of another person for one's own use or other unauthorized purpose, particularly by a public official, a trustee of a trust, an executor or administrator of a dead person's estate, or by any person with a responsibility to care for and protect another's assets (a fiduciary duty). It is a felony (a crime punishable by a prison sentence). (See: fiduciary, embezzlement, theft, larceny) He screwed up when he made the chairs an election sign... Live with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 25, 2010 Report Share Posted April 25, 2010 misappropriation n. the intentional, illegal use of the property or funds of another person for one's own use or other unauthorized purpose, particularly by a public official, a trustee of a trust, an executor or administrator of a dead person's estate, or by any person with a responsibility to care for and protect another's assets (a fiduciary duty). It is a felony (a crime punishable by a prison sentence). (See: fiduciary, embezzlement, theft, larceny) He screwed up when he made the chairs an election sign... Live with it. This will be my final post. Congratulations on your research in coming up with a definition of misappropriation. It is, however a legal definition and not a statute or crime. In reading your definition, it refers to estates and other such matters. Drug forfeiture funds do not fit in this catagory, nor are they "tax payer money" as some suggest. Tax payer money refers to funds appropriated to the Office of Sheriff by the State and County, NOT what they themselves take in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 25, 2010 Report Share Posted April 25, 2010 Drug money is NOT taxpayer money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 25, 2010 Report Share Posted April 25, 2010 misappropriation n. the intentional, illegal use of the property or funds of another person for one's own use or other unauthorized purpose, particularly by a public official, a trustee of a trust, an executor or administrator of a dead person's estate, or by any person with a responsibility to care for and protect another's assets (a fiduciary duty). It is a felony (a crime punishable by a prison sentence). (See: fiduciary, embezzlement, theft, larceny) Correct. Note the second word in the definition: intentional. It all comes down to this: do you think the sheriff would knowingly and intentionally risk his job, reputation, and jail time... so he could buy lawn chairs for his employees? Or do you think it's more likely that he thought what he was doing was legitimate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 25, 2010 Report Share Posted April 25, 2010 You twits are forgetting something. Harder submitted this bill, and Fiala approved it! She signed the check. Someone along the line could EASILY have denied it, or questioned it. No one did. Don't put ALL the blame on Harder. Hey spinner, don't spin this to fit your post. Yes Fiala aproved him to use the money, which is allowed. She did NOT approve it for gifts. HARDER did that. Someone along the line DID question it. The budget dept. flagged the line item which is what brought all this to light. They DID their job too. Nice try spinner. Don't get too dizzy spinning......lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 25, 2010 Report Share Posted April 25, 2010 This will be my final post. Congratulations on your research in coming up with a definition of misappropriation. It is, however a legal definition and not a statute or crime. In reading your definition, it refers to estates and other such matters. Drug forfeiture funds do not fit in this catagory, nor are they "tax payer money" as some suggest. Tax payer money refers to funds appropriated to the Office of Sheriff by the State and County, NOT what they themselves take in. So I will simplify it for you so that you leave with a sound understanding of how wrong you are: misappropriation n. the intentional (he intentionally bought UNSOLICITED christmas gifts), illegal (not authorized under federal law) use of funds of another person for one's own use (these funds ARE NOT his BUT they were made into campaign signs), particularly by a public official. It is a felony (a crime punishable by a prison sentence). (See: fiduciary, embezzlement, theft, larceny) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 25, 2010 Report Share Posted April 25, 2010 Hey spinner, don't spin this to fit your post. Yes Fiala aproved him to use the money, which is allowed. She did NOT approve it for gifts. HARDER did that. Someone along the line DID question it. The budget dept. flagged the line item which is what brought all this to light. They DID their job too. Nice try spinner. Don't get too dizzy spinning......lol Apparently YOU got dizzy. Reread the article. They flagged the invoice, but that's ALL they did! They fully admit it. They DIDN'T look into it, and they paid it anyway! That was MONTHS ago. It didn't come to light until someone questioned it AFTER THE FACT. Fiala didn't do her job, and now she's crying about it. Plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 25, 2010 Report Share Posted April 25, 2010 Apparently YOU got dizzy. Reread the article. They flagged the invoice, but that's ALL they did! They fully admit it. They DIDN'T look into it, and they paid it anyway! That was MONTHS ago. It didn't come to light until someone questioned it AFTER THE FACT. Fiala didn't do her job, and now she's crying about it. Plain and simple. So I will simplify it for you so that you leave with a sound understanding of how wrong you are: misappropriation n. the intentional (he intentionally bought UNSOLICITED christmas gifts), illegal (not authorized under federal law) use of funds of another person for one's own use (these funds ARE NOT his funds BUT they were made into campaign signs), particularly by a public official. It is a felony (a crime punishable by a prison sentence). (See: fiduciary, embezzlement, theft, larceny) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 25, 2010 Report Share Posted April 25, 2010 [ You are quoting law with No understanding of it. That particular law is pertaining to the property or funds of another person and has nothing to do with government money. When cars are seized from drug dealers, those cars are actioned off and the money is then taxpayers money. What's the difference? Does Harder feel that he can give a few confiscated cars as gifts too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 25, 2010 Report Share Posted April 25, 2010 [ You are quoting law with No understanding of it. That particular law is pertaining to the property or funds of another person and has nothing to do with government money. When cars are seized from drug dealers, those cars are actioned off and the money is then taxpayers money. What's the difference? Does Harder feel that he can give a few confiscated cars as gifts too? So I will simplify it for you so that you leave with a sound understanding of how wrong you are: misappropriation n. the intentional (he intentionally bought UNSOLICITED christmas gifts), illegal (not authorized under federal law) use of funds of another person for one's own use (these funds ARE NOT his BUT they were made into campaign signs), particularly by a public official. It is a felony (a crime punishable by a prison sentence). (See: fiduciary, embezzlement, theft, larceny) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 25, 2010 Report Share Posted April 25, 2010 So I will simplify it for you so that you leave with a sound understanding of how wrong you are: misappropriation n. the intentional (he intentionally bought UNSOLICITED christmas gifts), illegal (not authorized under federal law) use of funds of another person for one's own use (these funds ARE NOT his BUT they were made into campaign signs), particularly by a public official. It is a felony (a crime punishable by a prison sentence). (See: fiduciary, embezzlement, theft, larceny) HEY STUPID The law states - funds of another person and NOT GOVERNMENT MONEY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 25, 2010 Report Share Posted April 25, 2010 HEY STUPID The law states - funds of another person and NOT GOVERNMENT MONEY Broome County is a Municipal Corporation...read the CHARTER. Main Entry: municipal corporation: a public corporation created by law to act as an agency of administration and local self-government Corporation: a body formed and authorized by law to act as a single person and endowed by law with the capacity of succession : an entity recognized by law as constituted by one or more persons and as having various rights and duties together with the capacity of succession Are you an accomplice?? I must ask at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 26, 2010 Report Share Posted April 26, 2010 I have researched & read enough here to figure this out for anyone who isn't getting it. The Sheriff used questionable discretion regarding the funds, however did nothing illegal. People trying to stretch misappropriation of funds simply are clouding the issue; It does NOT fit in this case. The co exec s office says they 'red flagged' this item. OK, funny how it seems to get leaked to the media the same week the sheriff stated his canadacy for another term. Dirty politics at its best. Thank you all, other sheriff hopefuls, for making my mind up not only to vote for, but to assist & support Sheriff Dave Harder!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 26, 2010 Report Share Posted April 26, 2010 I have researched & read enough here to figure this out for anyone who isn't getting it. The Sheriff used questionable discretion regarding the funds, however did nothing illegal. People trying to stretch misappropriation of funds simply are clouding the issue; It does NOT fit in this case. The co exec s office says they 'red flagged' this item. OK, funny how it seems to get leaked to the media the same week the sheriff stated his canadacy for another term. Dirty politics at its best. Thank you all, other sheriff hopefuls, for making my mind up not only to vote for, but to assist & support Sheriff Dave Harder!! Well said! Responsible voters should all not allow the mudsliners to benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 26, 2010 Report Share Posted April 26, 2010 it is NOT against the law. He did not use the best judgement, but no crime was committed. His political opponents, through the Co exec office, are beginning their dirty politics. Anyone criticizing him for buying small christmas presents for his employees may do so, but you vermin that are calling it criminal should be ashamed of yourselves. I am a retired attorney with over 34 years experience. I defy anyone to point out what statures were violated by this. Put up or shut up. I don't think you will know whether it was against the law until the investigations are complete. Elliott Spitzer probably didn't think he was guilty either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Me Posted April 26, 2010 Report Share Posted April 26, 2010 If anyone criticizes Sheriff Harder they need to go see a shrink. yOUR A LOSER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2010 Report Share Posted April 26, 2010 As advertised on Sheriff Harders website THE FRIENDS OF DAVE HARDER FOR SHERIFF invite you to participate in a fundraising golf tournament to support Dave’s campaign for re-election as Broome County Sheriff. What: Fundraising Golf Tournament When: June 18th, 2010 Time: 12:00 Noon Start Time Where: Endwell Greens Golf Course Cost: $75.00 Person $300.00/Foursome To Register or for information contact: Jim Hawley (607) 343-3409 Phil Kane (607) 343-3408 David Harder Broome County Sheriff Alex Minor Broome County Undersheriff Hope to see you there for this worthy cause! More corruption aren't these two guys running the golf outing city cops? I wonder if they are using city phones and time to organize the event. HEY MAYOR RYAN CHECK THIS OUT! If he does'nt make enough, he will steal it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dave Posted April 26, 2010 Report Share Posted April 26, 2010 This is another case for this year to throw the incumbents out. Gary O'Neil would be a good choice anyway to take over. At least he kows the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 26, 2010 Report Share Posted April 26, 2010 And this quote shows Fiala is just as blind..."Fiala said she approved Harder's request to spend the money from the forfeiture fund without knowing it would be used to pay for Christmas presents for his staff."....Two peas in a pod if you ask me, the blind leading the blind....Also how the hell is that Harder can get a pension of over $50000.00 a year from the sheriff's department and still work for the sheriff's depart and collect another almost 80 grand a year...That's BS...That's the kind of thing that's breaking the taxpayers back...If you're collecting a public pension then you shouldn't be able to hold a public job, talk about some serious double dipping!!!!!.............. What you say looks reasonable on the surface and who isn't against "double dipping"? The problem with what you are saying is that anyone who receives a pension should not be allowed to hold an elected position. That isn't fair and I doubt it is Constitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 26, 2010 Report Share Posted April 26, 2010 This is another case for this year to throw the incumbents out. Gary O'Neil would be a good choice anyway to take over. At least he kows the job. NO WAY! He is just like an incumbant, we need someone NEW that has not been there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 26, 2010 Report Share Posted April 26, 2010 Why the hell would anyone want a camp chair with someone elses name on it anyway. Harder's ego needs to be checked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 26, 2010 Report Share Posted April 26, 2010 This is another case for this year to throw the incumbents out. Gary O'Neil would be a good choice anyway to take over. At least he kows the job. Awe Captain, is that you? ...did you start all this mess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.