Angel Ortiz should resign.
Senator Palpatine
law at the same time? I think its time for Councilman Ortiz to step
down. This man
is supposed to be a leader and set an example, but instead breaks the
law.
I dont buy the crap that "I've been meaning to do it but....". Come
on.
He knew he could get away with it because of his position.
any thoughts?
DA66
Lynne Abraham might be going after him. If this were a city police officer, and
he had been driving his patrol car without a license, then got around to
getting one, do you think Timoney would be saying the same thing that he has
said about Ortiz? That officer would have been suspended, and if not fired, he
or she would have been transferred to the bowels of the department as
punishment, just like Capt. Brady. But since it is Ortiz, Timoney states that
there is nothing that can be done about it now. Personally, I don't think he
should be fired. After all, Mariano wasn't fired when the citizenry found out
that his staff was delivering cookies while on the city's dime... and nothing
happened to Mariano when one of his aides was arrested for buying drugs while
using a city vehicle. Anyway, like we didn't already know that some on Council
think that they are above the law?
Sssscold
down. >>
Agreed, 100%. Ortiz has always been an impotent Council member but a good,
credible voice for the kinds of liberal positions I generally like. But his
credibility is gone and I've already sent him a letter suggesting that he
resign. He won't, of course, because then, he'd have to get a REAL job.
Greg Dubrow
What's the issue?
I haven't read the Inky in a couple of days?
g
James Andrews
: What's the issue?
He's been driving around without a license for 25 years.
Jas.
--
James Andrews
Philadelphia, PA
Greg Dubrow
>: What's the issue?
>
>He's been driving around without a license for 25 years.
Joining the ranks of such other upstanding citizens as Milton Street
(vending), John Street (defaulted on college loans), Fran Rafferty
(boxing in chambers) and Rick Mariano (where to begin....)
You gotta love Philadelphia city government. Though I now live in a city
whose municipal government makes Philadelphia politicians look like a
bunch of hacks at corruption and whatnot.
g
Bill Connors
councilpeople that you can lump in with him.
Senator Palpatine <darth_s...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:c10ac907.0111...@posting.google.com...
Pete
http://members.aol.com/StatutesPA/75PA1501.html ). So a summary offense is
enough to lose your city council seat?
Pete
--
Sounds of Tomorrow: http://www.DrugMusic.com
Over 24 hours of musical medication all the time
Launch the latest webcast: http://phobos.simpletone.com/losafa/show.ram (32kbs)
http://phobos.simpletone.com/losafa/showh.ram (96kbs)
McQ
"Pete" <pe...@delanet.com> wrote in message
news:3BEAF3FB...@delanet.com...
> That's a summary offense with a $200 penalty (
> http://members.aol.com/StatutesPA/75PA1501.html ). So a summary offense is
> enough to lose your city council seat?
>
It is not ONE summary offense. It is one summary offense, PER time he
drove...since 1976. Also, during the period that he drove a City car without
a license he was subjecting the City to a risk of a HUGE lawsuit. More
importantly, he is a City leader and supposed to set an EXAMPLE for the
residents of the City, not to mention City employees. He has also sat in
judgment of police officers and other city employees, demanding
ACCOUNTABILITY. Well, ALL police officers, firefighters and other City
employees who operate City vehicles as part of therir duties MUST have a
drivers license to maintain employment. He violated that rule. He also
IGNORED state law for decades. He (along with Mayor Street and other
members of City Council) has IMPEDED the enforcement of state law which
allows the police to SEIZE the vehicles of unlicensed or uninsured drivers.
So, he has violated City workrules, city ethics rules, and the LAW. If he
has an ounce of dignity left in him, he should resign. But, this is
Philadelphia, so I am not holding my breath.
Pete
So I guess your answer is yes then lol. I was hoping for someone to point out a
rule in the city charter addressing what offenses would require removal. I
would think it'd be at least misdemeanors and not summary offenses. But then
again lyin about a blowjob is grounds to get rid of a prez for some lol.
Me
"DA66" <da...@aol.complete> wrote:
>
> Lynne Abraham might be going after him. If this were a city police officer,
> and he had been driving his patrol car without a license, then got around to
> getting one, do you think Timoney would be saying the same thing that he has
> said about Ortiz? That officer would have been suspended, and if not fired, he
> or she would have been transferred to the bowels of the department as
> punishment, just like Capt. Brady. But since it is Ortiz, Timoney states that
> there is nothing that can be done about it now. Personally, I don't think he
> should be fired. After all, Mariano wasn't fired when the citizenry found out
> that his staff was delivering cookies while on the city's dime... and nothing
> happened to Mariano when one of his aides was arrested for buying drugs while
> using a city vehicle. Anyway, like we didn't already know that some on Council
> think that they are above the law?
This is silly. Lynne Abraham is not going to go after Ortiz. He would need
to have been caught in the act in order to see any legal punishment.
Comparing Ortiz to a police officer makes no sense. Last I checked, police
officers are not elected, City Councilmen are elected. The people who will
decide this are the voters if he runs for election again. Yes, what Ortiz
did was wrong, and he should resign, but unless he does so voluntarily, the
only way Ortiz will be ousted from his position is if he is voted out of
office.
Me
<M...@domelights.com> wrote:
>
> "Pete" <pe...@delanet.com> wrote in message
> news:3BEAF3FB...@delanet.com...
>> That's a summary offense with a $200 penalty (
>> http://members.aol.com/StatutesPA/75PA1501.html ). So a summary offense is
>> enough to lose your city council seat?
>>
>
>
> It is not ONE summary offense. It is one summary offense, PER time he
> drove...since 1976.
Not quite. Its a summary offense only if he was caught driving unlicensed. I
think Ortiz is totally in the wrong here and his excuse is lame, but
compared to his colleagues in City Council, Ortiz's law breaking is bush
league.
TL
against the "Live Stop" program being expanded into his constituents'
neighborhoods.
He truely leads by example by "being an example" of his average
constituency who along with no license, probably don't have voter
cards either. Didn't get around to that either, I guess...............
On 8 Nov 2001 10:13:23 -0800, darth_s...@my-deja.com (Senator
McQ
"Me" <sr...@home.com> wrote in message news:B810B9D7.43A83%sr...@home.com...
Traffic tickets and summary citations do not require that you be "caught in
the act." Put your trash out two days early in certain neighborhoods and
you'll get written proof of this in the mail--despite the fact that no cop
witnessed you putting out your trash. But you are correct saying that
Ortiz should not be compared to a police officer. He should be held to a
HIGHER STANDARD than a police officer because he is an elected official.
Since when does being ELECTED make you LESS ACCOUNTABLE? There is also a
very clear indication that he acted unethically, because he, and certain
other Council members, have hindered police efforts to crack down on
unlicensed drivers. As an unlicensed driver, he should have recused himself
from any debate on this issue.
McQ
"Me" <sr...@home.com> wrote in message news:B810BE5E.43A85%sr...@home.com...
Incorrect. One does not have to be CAUGHT committing a crime to be charged
with it. Now that Ortiz has admitted that he drove without a license since
1976, ANY police officer who has seen him drive in Philadelphia(including
me) could prepare a traffic violation (a "ticket") against him (assuming
that the statute of limitations has not expired). A confession via the
press CAN be used as evidence in a court case. But, the reality is that
Lynn Abraham is the most appropriate official to take action against Ortiz,
since HER position is an elected one...which offers her position a layer of
protection which cops don't have.
DA66
>to have been caught in the act in order to see any legal punishment.
He was, it's video. Timoney stated that he just wasn't going to believe what
Fox caught on video. Wanna bet he would have something to say if one of his
officers were caught doing something on video or in a picture? Oh yeah, he did.
Police are not allowed to smokke while in uniform anymore because of a picture
in the Daily News. Now there is a rule that needed to be implemented.
>Comparing Ortiz to a police officer makes no sense. Last I checked, police
>officers are not elected, City Councilmen are elected. The people who will
>decide this are the voters if he runs for election again.
I wasn't comparing Ortiz to a police officer. I was comparing Timoney's
reaction to what Ortiz did with what his reaction would be if an officer did
the same thing. Someone driving a city-owned vehicle should be held to the same
standards of someone else driving a city-owned vehicle. Timoney made sure that
he was not criticizing Ortiz in his statements, but he would have blasted an
officer in the same situation. The man who is supposed to be a free thinker and
not a politician sure seems to be kowtowing to one.
>Yes, what Ortiz
>did was wrong, and he should resign, but unless he does so voluntarily, the
>only way Ortiz will be ousted from his position is if he is voted out of
>office.
Personally, why should Ortiz resign, it isn't like he was the first one to
screw up. I'll give you odds he won't be the last either.
Labrea
attention to you.
--
Hollywood Liberal Elitists Association
Pete
McQ wrote:
>
> Incorrect. One does not have to be CAUGHT committing a crime to be charged
> with it. Now that Ortiz has admitted that he drove without a license since
> 1976, ANY police officer who has seen him drive in Philadelphia(including
> me) could prepare a traffic violation (a "ticket") against him (assuming
> that the statute of limitations has not expired).
There is a 30 day time limitation on summary offenses involving vehicles:
http://members.aol.com/StatutesP1/42PA5553.html
McQ
>
>
> McQ wrote:
> >
> > Incorrect. One does not have to be CAUGHT committing a crime to be
charged
> > with it. Now that Ortiz has admitted that he drove without a license
since
> > 1976, ANY police officer who has seen him drive in
Philadelphia(including
> > me) could prepare a traffic violation (a "ticket") against him (assuming
> > that the statute of limitations has not expired).
>
> There is a 30 day time limitation on summary offenses involving vehicles:
> http://members.aol.com/StatutesP1/42PA5553.html
>
>
> Pete
Based on the statute cited...Lynn Abraham has 30 days from the
violation...or 30 days from the DISCOVERY of the violation:
"...offenses under Title 75 (relating to vehicles) must be commenced within
30 days after the commission of the alleged offense or within 30 days after
the discovery of the commission of the offense or the identity of the
offender, whichever is later, and not thereafter."
So, Ortiz will be subject to prosecution for numerous summary offenses for
the next 30 days. Of course, we should remember that there may be offenses
involved that are GREATER than summary level, if the crime (driving without
a license) is related to a perceived abuse of his office. He DID use a
city car to commit the offense, after all. Also, I KNOW that in the case
of public officials, the statute of limitations is extended for acts that
are committed in relation to the office held. Regardless of what happens,
he is a disgrace to Philadelphia, Latinos and his constituents.
Senator Palpatine
> Lynne Abraham might be going after him. If this were a city police officer, and
> he had been driving his patrol car without a license, then got around to
> getting one, do you think Timoney would be saying the same thing that he has
> said about Ortiz? That officer would have been suspended, and if not fired, he
> or she would have been transferred to the bowels of the department as
> punishment, just like Capt. Brady. But since it is Ortiz, Timoney states that
> there is nothing that can be done about it now. Personally, I don't think he
> should be fired. After all, Mariano wasn't fired when the citizenry found out
> that his staff was delivering cookies while on the city's dime... and nothing
> happened to Mariano when one of his aides was arrested for buying drugs while
> using a city vehicle. Anyway, like we didn't already know that some on Council
> think that they are above the law?
I lived in Mariano's district before I left. I think Mariano is a clown!
Senator Palpatine
of a hypocrite!
Pete
McQ wrote:
> So, Ortiz will be subject to prosecution for numerous summary offenses for
> the next 30 days.
That is if he's stupid enough to keep driving w/oa license.
Of course, we should remember that there may be offenses
> involved that are GREATER than summary level, if the crime (driving without
> a license) is related to a perceived abuse of his office. He DID use a
> city car to commit the offense, after all. Also, I KNOW that in the case
> of public officials, the statute of limitations is extended for acts that
> are committed in relation to the office held. Regardless of what happens,
> he is a disgrace to Philadelphia, Latinos and his constituents.
>
OK officer hypothetical, he could've been pickin up hookers and buyin crack rock
in the car too sheesh. Instead of goin on these flights of fancy how bout
finding out what the rules are for city council as they pertain to removal due
to violating the law. Try stayin in reality with us here sparky OK? lol
Pete
Art Clemons
writes:
>It is not ONE summary offense. It is one summary offense, PER time he
>drove...since 1976. Also, during the period that he drove a City car without
>a license he was subjecting the City to a risk of a HUGE lawsuit. More
>importantly, he is a City leader and supposed to set an EXAMPLE for the
>residents of the City, not to mention City employees. He has also sat in
>judgment of police officers and other city employees, demanding
>ACCOUNTABILITY. Well, ALL police officers, firefighters and other City
>employees who operate City vehicles as part of therir duties MUST have a
>drivers license to maintain employment. He violated that rule. He also
>IGNORED state law for decades. He (along with Mayor Street and other
>members of City Council) has IMPEDED the enforcement of state law which
>allows the police to SEIZE the vehicles of unlicensed or uninsured drivers.
>So, he has violated City workrules, city ethics rules, and the LAW. If he
>has an ounce of dignity left in him, he should resign. But, this is
>Philadelphia, so I am not holding my breath.
The problem is that he wasn't ever ticketed for any of the offenses, implying
that if he now has a valid PA license, nothing can be done. Absent some proof,
the DA is blowing political smoke, the same DA who can't be bothered to
investigate or prosecute misbehaving cops is now going after something she
can't even prove. She can try for an arrest, but it's doubtful that John Q.
Citizen would be prosecuted in the same circumstances. It's incidentally only
chargeable if a police officer observes or other good evidence exists,
something that Abraham doesn't have. Sorry, but she's demonstrating that she's
incompetent again.
-art clemons-
Nikola Sizgorich
responsibility, something liberals like you always have a problems with,
which is why there are so many quality of life problems in Philadelphia and
why business and residents continue to leave Philadelphia.
Angel Ortiz: RESIGN!
Sssscold
finding out what the rules are for city council as they pertain to removal due
to violating the law. >>
As much as I would like Ortiz to resign as a matter of integrity, I don't think
driving without a license should be sufficient grounds for removal from office
from a legal perspective. After all, a former president we all know and love
lied to the entire world and was caught doing so.
Pete
least misdemeanor severity. But I don't know what rules they actually have.
Yeah lied about cheatin on his wife - not like he was covering up a break in he
orchestrated or anything.
Sssscold
he
orchestrated or anything. >>
No argument here. My only point is that if what Clinton did doesn't merit
removal from office, it's hard to make an argument for removing Ortiz,either.
But my point is that some things are matters of integrity, not law. Even those
of us who generally approve of his job performance realize that Clinton has no
integrity; I was just hoping that Ortiz might be different.
Bill Connors
Sssscold <ssss...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011109164405...@mb-ft.aol.com...
McQ
"Art Clemons" <artcl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011109150926...@nso-ch.aol.com...
Incorrect. The only "proof" of almost EVERY traffic ticket is the
observation of a police officer OR A witness. Ortiz has been seen driving
hundreds of times during the past year. He CAN be prosecuted for these
offenses. Will he be prosecuted? It is unlikely. As far as the DA's lack
of investigating "misbehaving cops." Please enlighten us with a few recent
examples.
McQ
>
>
> McQ wrote:
>
> > So, Ortiz will be subject to prosecution for numerous summary offenses
for
> > the next 30 days.
>
> That is if he's stupid enough to keep driving w/oa license.
Wrong! He is subject to prosecution for offenses DISCOVERED during the past
30 days. During the past year, I would imagine that police officers have
seen him driving HUNDREDS of times.
> Of course, we should remember that there may be offenses
> > involved that are GREATER than summary level, if the crime (driving
without
> > a license) is related to a perceived abuse of his office. He DID use a
> > city car to commit the offense, after all. Also, I KNOW that in the
case
> > of public officials, the statute of limitations is extended for acts
that
> > are committed in relation to the office held. Regardless of what
happens,
> > he is a disgrace to Philadelphia, Latinos and his constituents.
> >
>
> OK officer hypothetical, he could've been pickin up hookers and buyin
crack rock
> in the car too sheesh. Instead of goin on these flights of fancy how bout
> finding out what the rules are for city council as they pertain to removal
due
> to violating the law. Try stayin in reality with us here sparky OK? lol
>
> Pete
Flights of fancy? Let me simplify it to 2nd-grade level for you: The
reason Lynn Abraham is looking into the conduct of Ortiz is that it is seen
by many as an ABUSE OF POWER. Whether he is buying crack, picking up
hookers or driving without a license, if he does it in a City vehicle, THAT
makes the crime more serious. Just as serious are the ethical violations
I've cited in prior posts. I entertain no ILLUSION that Ortiz will get
kicked out of City Council. But, that is only because our City government
is corrupt to the core--the direct result of unchecked DEMOCRATS in power
for decades. His conduct was shameful and inexcusable. Stop trying to
defend the indefensible.
Senator Palpatine
Do you
really think a cop is going to ticket a council member?
I think if he was asked to resign he wouldn't do it anyway. you would
have
Jesse Jackon, Al Sharpton and Jerry Mondire comming out of the wood
work
screaming he is being oppressed because he is a minority.
Also, If Lynn Abraham is incompetent, I dont think she would have been
involved with the phildelphia judicial system. You dont like her
because she doesnt take shit
off of anyone.you sound bitter that Abraham was elected again! Why is
it that liberals hate
anyone that goes after the people doing the real crimes?
Pete
"McQ" <M...@domelights.com> wrote in message
news:9skorf$e26$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> Flights of fancy? Let me simplify it to 2nd-grade level for you: The
> reason Lynn Abraham is looking into the conduct of Ortiz is that it is
seen
> by many as an ABUSE OF POWER. Whether he is buying crack, picking up
> hookers or driving without a license, if he does it in a City vehicle,
THAT
> makes the crime more serious. Just as serious are the ethical violations
> I've cited in prior posts. I entertain no ILLUSION that Ortiz will get
> kicked out of City Council. But, that is only because our City government
> is corrupt to the core--the direct result of unchecked DEMOCRATS in power
> for decades. His conduct was shameful and inexcusable. Stop trying to
> defend the indefensible.
>
> M...@domelights.com
>
>
>
OK how is driving without a license an ABUSE OF POWER? ( lol you alway yell
on those words? ) Anyone can do that if they don't have a license. Or are
you accusing him of something more?
Pete
Pete
McQ wrote:
> Ortiz has been seen driving
> hundreds of times during the past year. He CAN be prosecuted for these
> offenses.
OK let me put this in kindergarten terms so you can understand lol. There are
365 days in a year not 30. The time limitation is 30 days.
Sure hope you really aren't out there enforcing laws...well not traffic ones or
any others that you really don't comprehend anyway.
McQ
"Pete" <pet...@home.com> wrote in message
news:mnAH7.205379$5A3.76...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
investigating. If Ortiz drove a City car without a license because he knew
that he was effectively untouchable as a member of City Council that IS an
abuse of power, not to mention unethical. It is AMAZING that anyone is
even trying to defend him on this. There is no defense. He knowingly acted
illegally for decades while passing laws regulating the conduct of the
citizens of Philadelphia. He should resign.
McQ
>
>
> McQ wrote:
> > Ortiz has been seen driving
> > hundreds of times during the past year. He CAN be prosecuted for these
> > offenses.
>
> OK let me put this in kindergarten terms so you can understand lol. There
are
> 365 days in a year not 30. The time limitation is 30 days.
>
> Sure hope you really aren't out there enforcing laws...well not traffic
ones or
> any others that you really don't comprehend anyway.
>
> Pete
Listen Einstein...if you look at the statute...which was previously cited
here, you will see that the limit applies 30 days from the date of offense
OR 30 days from the date of the DISCOVERY of the offense, whichever is
later. This means that offenses that were observed six months ago are
prosecutable NOW because they were discovered last week, when Ortiz admitted
that he did not have a license for the past 20 years. I've only said this
three or four times here. Get it yet? I'll write it in crayon in my next
post, if that's all you can understand.
Sssscold
even trying to defend him on this. >>
I haven't heard ANYONE defend Ortiz. The debate is about whether he should or
should not face some kind of criminal prosecution (the primary debate); whether
or not he should resign (not likely); or whether his colleagues on Council
should try to bounce him (it's not clear that there's a legal mechanism through
which to do this but it's a moot point: the members of Philadelphia's City
Council wouldn't know integrity if you wrote it on a two-by-four and hit them
all over the head with it).
Pete
there barney so what discovery are you talking about? You are splitting hairs
like a g-damn liberal lol.
Pete
Pete
McQ wrote:
If Ortiz drove a City car without a license because he knew
> that he was effectively untouchable as a member of City Council that IS an
> abuse of power, not to mention unethical.
Hmm well you must know best about who the police police I suppose. Seems like a
problem with you leos. Afraid to ticket a city council member? What kind of
power are c.c. members wielding over you folks?
D.F. Manno
(Sssscold) wrote:
> I haven't heard ANYONE defend Ortiz. The debate is about whether he should
> or should not face some kind of criminal prosecution (the primary debate);
> whether or not he should resign (not likely); or whether his colleagues on Council
> should try to bounce him (it's not clear that there's a legal mechanism
> through which to do this but it's a moot point: the members of Philadelphia's City
> Council wouldn't know integrity if you wrote it on a two-by-four and hit them
> all over the head with it)
There's no provision in the city charter that gives City Council the authority
to remove a member from office. The voters can't do it, either; the recall
provision was ruled unconstitutional in the '70s (after Rizzo sued to block a
recall election aimed at him).
The state constitution provides that "All civil officers shall hold their
offices on the condition that they behave themselves well while in office, and
shall be removed on conviction of misbehavior in office or of any infamous
crime." I doubt that driving without a license constitutes an "infamous crime,"
but whether it is "misbehavior in office" is less clear.
The state legislature could impeach him and remove him from office, but they're
not about to bother to kick out a city councilman on traffic offenses.
--
D.F. Manno ............................................. domm...@netscape.net
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay
any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any
foe to assure the survival and success of liberty." (John F. Kennedy)
Pete
"D.F. Manno" wrote:
>
> There's no provision in the city charter that gives City Council the authority
> to remove a member from office. The voters can't do it, either; the recall
> provision was ruled unconstitutional in the '70s (after Rizzo sued to block a
> recall election aimed at him).
>
> The state constitution provides that "All civil officers shall hold their
> offices on the condition that they behave themselves well while in office, and
> shall be removed on conviction of misbehavior in office or of any infamous
> crime." I doubt that driving without a license constitutes an "infamous crime,"
> but whether it is "misbehavior in office" is less clear.
Well the whole thing has become somewhat infamous you could argue. Misbehavior
in office could cover a lot of things though - potentially far reaching wording
there. If he farts at a news conference is that misbehavior? But thanks for
some pertinent info - between the Evil Emperor and John Wayne here the
signal-to-noise ratio is pretty low.
>
> The state legislature could impeach him and remove him from office, but they're
> not about to bother to kick out a city councilman on traffic offenses.
> --
Yeah they're too busy trying to get those cameras installed at traffic lights.
They're just salivating so much over the forthcoming revenue that Harrisburg is
under a flood alert... is this thing on?
Bandit
DA66 wrote:
A police officer or a fireman would have been fired by not having a license,but
when
it comes to other city employees like City Council and trash collectors they have
another
set of rules........
Sssscold
government
there >>
How do you know this?
Sssscold
license,but
when
it comes to other city employees like City Council and trash collectors they
have
another
set of rules........ >>
That's just a load of horseshit. Last year, a high-ranking cop was in an
accident while on duty and was loaded at the time, so his colleagues rigged the
accident reports to protect him. All involved got off with a slap on the
wrists.
Senator Palpatine
He probably already did in the last 25 years he has been driving w/o a license.
God only knows all he has to do is cry that and all the bleeding hearts will
come out of the wood work!
Art Clemons
writes:
>Incorrect. The only "proof" of almost EVERY traffic ticket is the
>observation of a police officer OR A witness. Ortiz has been seen driving
>hundreds of times during the past year. He CAN be prosecuted for these
>offenses. Will he be prosecuted? It is unlikely. As far as the DA's lack
>of investigating "misbehaving cops." Please enlighten us with a few recent
>examples.
Finding a witness with sufficient details would be difficult indeed, and I
pointedly note that finding a police officer with sufficient records to issue a
ticket to Ortiz for driving would also be difficult. You ignore that the
record of the ticket issued by an officer is supposedly enough for an officer
to refresh his or her memory about something that happened in the past.
Abraham is an incompetent, if she's incompetent enough to try for a conviction
on a summary offense based on no records, well, I guess the citizens of
Philadelphia County are getting even less than they were before.
-art clemons-
Pete
member of city council (aka the government) when in fact he's not. Why do you
ask? You doubt he's in the government?
Art Clemons
writes:
>A police officer or a fireman would have been fired by not having a
>license,but
>when
>it comes to other city employees like City Council and trash collectors they
>have
>another
>set of rules........
But having a license is a condition of employment for police officers, and some
firefighters. It's not a condition of employment for an elective office as far
as I can tell.
-art clemons-
DA66
>some
>firefighters. It's not a condition of employment for an elective office as
>far
>as I can tell.
But it is a condition to driving, especially when you are driving someone
else's vehicle. The fact of the matter is that Verna's office sent a letter to
all of those sitting on council that they must submit a copy of their driver's
license to her office. Here's a surprise, Ortiz knew of this requirement from
the president of council and chose to ignore it. Of course, it doesn't help
that Verna's office never followed up, but the truth is that Ortiz is the one
who screwed up and Verna's office shouldn't be blamed for Ortiz thinking that
he doesn't have to abide by the rules of the state of Pennsylvania.
Art, I wonder, if Ortiz had plowed into you while he didn't have a license,
would you have sued the city for allowing them to let an unlicensed driver be
given a car?
Senator Palpatine
the point is that the average person would have been fined and
whatever for driving without a license.
The Land of Ambiguity
>responsibility, something liberals like you always have a problems with,
International law notwithstanding.... It's all right to break that and ignore
the penalty, right?
Aaron
(oh, sure, lawbreaking is such a *liberal* act....)
***
www.freezerbox.com/archive/2001/09/why/
***
"Even if you don't believe in gravity, gravity believes in you."
from "The Gravity Foundation Addresses Merge/Sort Junior High School"
by C.arol M.agary, at mcsweeneys.net
(my address is Am. OnLine)
Sssscold
>responsibility, something liberals like you always have a problems with, >>
Where do you get your ideas about liberals - the fascist handbook?
Art Clemons
darth_s...@my-deja.com (Senator Palpatine) writes:
>the point is that the average person would have been fined and
>whatever for driving without a license.
Absolute nonsense. Without some ticketable offense, the average driver
wouldn't have been stopped or fined or detected. This frankly is much ado
about very little. I'm sure there are lots of unlicensed drivers throughout
the Delaware Valley who go years without coming to the attention of the police.
If you don't speed, drive drunk, tailgate or run red lights, your chances of
getting police attention are minimal.
-art clemons-
Art Clemons
(DA66) writes:
>Art, I wonder, if Ortiz had plowed into you while he didn't have a license,
>would you have sued the city for allowing them to let an unlicensed driver be
>given a car?
Actually, it wouldn't matter much if he had a license or not, since it is a
city vehicle and the city is self insured. Now if Ortiz had a lousy driving
record, and the city knew that, I might have a better claim, but just the
driver being at fault in an accident is probably as good as one gets in such
situations. The other mediating factor incidentally is that I have insurance
and that places limitations on what claims one can or cannot make.
-art clemons-
Sssscold
the Delaware Valley who go years without coming to the attention of the police.
If you don't speed, drive drunk, tailgate or run red lights, your chances of
getting police attention are minimal. >>
Well, as we've all learned from today's Daily News, Angel is no angel: he's
been racking up tickets at a fast and furious rate. He HAS come to the
attention of police - and to the attention of City Council President Anna
Verna, who clearly knew what there was a problem with Angel - the tickets - and
who just as clearly chose to do nothing about them.
DA66
>city vehicle and the city is self insured.
Wrong. You can claim that the city was negligent in giving a vehicle to an
unlicensed driver and sue for more in punitive damages.
> Now if Ortiz had a lousy driving
>record, and the city knew that, I might have a better claim, but just the
>driver being at fault in an accident is probably as good as one gets in such
>situations.
Wrong. Your claim is very good in the fact that the city didn't check when it
gave one of their vehicles to someone who was not allowed to drive under the
atatues of Pennsylvania.
> The other mediating factor incidentally is that I have insurance
>and that places limitations on what claims one can or cannot make.
Wrong again. You are 0 for 3. Your having insurance doesn't limit you to how
much you can sue. If Ortiz is at fault, you don't claim your insurance and sue
the city for reimbursement. It happens every day when people are in accidents.
The person at fault ends up getting charged for the accident and that person's
insurance carrier is obligated to pay the damage. You can then name the city as
a co-defendant because they allowed an unlicensed driver behind the wheel of
one of their vehicles.
Art Clemons
(Sssscold) writes:
>Well, as we've all learned from today's Daily News, Angel is no angel: he's
>been racking up tickets at a fast and furious rate. He HAS come to the
>attention of police - and to the attention of City Council President Anna
>Verna, who clearly knew what there was a problem with Angel - the tickets -
>and
>who just as clearly chose to do nothing about them.
Parking tickets are an entirely different situation than moving violations.
-art clemons-
citizen
their city vehicle was parked wherever it was and POOF the ticket disappears.
They have such priviledge and can't even do the paperwork...
In article <20011115011736...@nso-fi.aol.com>, Art Clemons says...