Saturday, June 06, 2009

The Record Shows...

I don't usually do this. In fact I never do it . When someone criticizes my work without actually contradicting it, I just let it lay. If you don't have counter facts, or equal style, why should I ? I don't argue with people who just say I'm wrong, or mean, or ...something. And threats don't work either. But since so many of you still may not get it, or don't read ANY newspaper, and since, after putting off finishing that last Walter-like fog-bowl response of journalistic parvenu, I felt perhaps some parallel facts may be in order.

He accused me of judging others wholly on the basis of their having opinions differing from my own. I assume that he assumes that other local citizens who have run from the CHCA like Bambi's family from the forest fire has nothing to do with them seeing exactly what I saw. I also assume that he assumes that the oversight committee, made up of two attorneys and a former banker made up all of the report that was never contradicted by the board before, during, or after it abolished the oversight committee before its term expired.

But perhaps my accuser, who may or may not have a law degree, or be a member of any city democratic infrastructure, would listen to some others who, after a little investigation, have come to ally themselves with my "personal" agenda.

I called Trustee Chip Butler dishonest and a bad liar. In print. In the Local. I presented corroborated facts. Within months, he was arrested, charged, convicted, and sentenced by the Eastern District Court. I had no prior knowledge of this. But I wasn't shocked.

I called John Capoferri some similar things in the Local. He has been arrested on multiple charges and will appear in the Dock on June 11.

The Pennsylvania State Attorney General, who, at last look, doesn't investigate organizations because their opinions "differ" from my own, or their own, or from anybody's own. They investigate on FACTS. Some of the facts I, and others have given them, are the same ones I have written about in the Local, and here.

So Walter, or whomever, or whomever is telling you to threaten me or Scott with legal action because of what I accuse you and your masters of, know that three different law enforcement agencies have found precisely what I have .

That the board is dirty. That the trustees can't be trusted. That those who the board has harbored and defended are, by the LEGAL definition of the word, CRIMINALS.

Want me to call the same law enforcement officials who investigated, arrested, charged, and sentenced the same people I accused first to the witness stand? I'd like that.

We can also discuss Dina and the ballots, Richard and the signs, and Walter and the vote count electing him to the CHCA presidency, that he pretended not to know at the meeting, but was actually told about before the meeting, before the vote was taken. I guess he confuses the big "D' in the the Democratic committee he belongs to with the little "d" in democracy that secret ballots are supposed to represent. We could talk about that too.

That the emperor has no clothes has long been known around the hill. What the emperor has been doing with a certain portion of his exposed anatomy is a matter of record.

Labels: , , , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Feldman, the assumption, obfuscation, and hypocrisy set forth in this and the next post you published are typical of the "style" of your "work," but change neither the facts nor the law. Continue at your own risk.

Tue Jun 09, 06:34:00 AM EDT  
Blogger Ed Feldman said...

I see you're following my advice about brevity, honey.
Now all you have to do is file suit and we're off to the races.
My publisher tells me that if I can't get sex or violence into the story, I should try for a trial.
Since the boards collective testosterone/estrogen count approximates that of steel wool, the courtroom is the best climax I can get.
Bu first ask your masters how they feel about being subpoenaed, then we can finally get them under oath, and in all the newspapers and on TV.
Earl Stanley Feldman

Tue Jun 09, 02:25:00 PM EDT  
Blogger Ed Feldman said...

PS-You're not who I'm after.

Tue Jun 09, 02:32:00 PM EDT  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Given the sheer numbers in your trail of targets, it is not surprising to others that your insight and assumptions about what is happening would be quite skewed in ways that would be surprising to you indeed. Your meandering rants, though amusing as always, betray the vaccum in your understanding of the legal and procedural limitations on the affirmative defenses and evidentiary pursuits that would be available to you; clear evidence that you have elected not to consult with competent counsel to this point. Simply put, Mr. Edward Lewis Feldman, the rules of the game have changed.

Tue Jun 09, 08:15:00 PM EDT  
Blogger Ed Feldman said...

This is your final warning. If you do not come out from under you nanny blanket of anonymity, I won't play with you any more. Then you can just talk to the wind.
C'mon, be brave. Are you afraid to have these opinions in public, or are you "just following orders" to stay secret? Just how much DO they control you?
You have until tomorrow, that's June 11, when John Cappoferri gets arraigned at Broad and Champlost.

Wed Jun 10, 03:14:00 PM EDT  
Anonymous Walt Sullivan said...

Ed Feldman: You are so far off base.
FIRST. NEVER in my life have I ever written anonymously, and I NEVER will.
SECOND. Out of what dank place did you pull that nonsence about "Walter and the vote count electing him to the CHCA presidency?" Ask any candidate, for me or not. None of us at that meeting knew the vote count. (Phil and Kathy Jones did because they counted the secret paper ballots.) I think that the actual tallies for each office should probably have been announced then, not just the results. I guess that they were not to spare embarrassment to some because the vote spreads were so great. I learned those tallies only the next day. If anyone wants to know them, see the minutes.
THIRD. How stupid and how irresponsible to write that I "was told before the meeting, before the vote was taken" the vote count! (Were that true, it would have spared me and others much agita.) Who exactly, besides me, did you mean to defame? Or am I just the most recent person you want to call CRIMINAL? Enough already. Hit hard if you will. But write facts, and support them. These are people's reputations you're screwing around with.

Thu Jun 11, 12:11:00 AM EDT  
Anonymous Walt Sullivan said...

Ed: My thanks to you too. I guess. You "see no criminality" in me. I should hope so. You can't hold me in the same comtempt you have reserved for others. Master of the ultimate left-handed compliment, aren't you? You write that I am "neither secretive ..., mean, sinister, pathological, or profit minded." You're right. You speak of my ethics and my standing in the community. I thank you.
You can see in my eyes what I think of you "intellectually, ethically, and artistically." Intellectually? Yes, you're a smart guy. Artistically? A bit out of my expertise, but I guess so. But ethically? I'm not so sure. You rehash, "the vote count, and the reason for [my] election," saying that your source of information for what you wrote before and repeated here was what you heard "all over the street." You're better than that. You can hear all kinds of things all over the street, including things about yourself which I never believed. I spoke the complete truth on this blog on June 11. Fair election, fair count, nobody had any idea of the count until after the meeting, no scandal here. Be ethical and give it a rest. I don't think that it was very ethical when on June 1 you wrote what you had to know was not true, "the community government defrauds the community ..." And there are many things trashing many reputations which you have written on this blog which give me pause when it comes to your past ethics. But let's leave all that behind us. I have faith that you at bottom are an ethical person who will hit hard where you believe that is warranted but shoot straight and try to be fair.
Your implication that I was somehow in the closet and that your June 10 challenge flushed me out is ludicrous. I had drafted what I wrote June 11 well before June 10. And your suggestion that I may have been "Anonymous" before then is equally ludicrous. It was you who posted June 5, "Sounds like Walter." No offense to Anonymous, whoever he or she may be, but he or she does not sound like me at all. He or she is free to construe that as a compliment.

Thu Jun 18, 01:47:00 AM EDT  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Northwest Notebook,
Chestnut Hill Notebook,
Pointed Observations,
and NADAWeb.

The Crew

Look for the signature at the end of the post.

We accept donations in support of our work.
E-mail us at Northwest Notebook.

Readership since
January 28, 2006

Powered by Blogger

Rules on Posting

To make comments on a post, hit comments. Don't be a wanker, though. No name, no play. Ain't life a bitch when you can't hide behind something?

Save the Internet

Keep an eye on legislation affecting the Internet.
Go to Save the Internet

Visit the West Mt. Airy Neighbors.
Check Out Adult Education Classes Philadelphia.

Northwest Notebook (formerly Chestnut Hill Notebook)
This site is part of the
Philly Future community.
Don't forget Germantown Radio.
Check out other Philadelphia weblogs in our region.

Blogtalk Radio br Site Feed

Earlier posts are in the Archives by Month.

Powered by Blogger