|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
If there was nothing wrong with what Jackie did, why did she return the money?
Revise the charter, how?
I dumped comcrap years ago & went to Directv. |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
Wed Oct 28, 2009 12:54 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Ted- Iam tired of listening to your bull about Jackies motives. The bottom line is she is a public official who was refusing to approve liquor licenses unless the party store owners paid her $500 a year. The owners had a right to the licences and all of their legal requirements were met.
The crime is called "Under Color of Position" or sometimes "Under Color of Law". IT IS A CRIME! A public official cannot deny services or require payment of services for which an individual is legally entitled to. She did not qualify for the special treatment she got fom US Attorney Haviland.
Jackie would have had a tremendous benefit in public relations. Her ward would have been beholden to her for the money she handed out.
She never set up a legal entity to funnel these so-called charitable contributions. Dave is right. In her required statement she had to tell the public that the federal officials told her she was violating the law and she had to make restitution.
I sincerely hope that you are not one of those individuals that believes her actions were justified because her victims were of middle eastern descent. Look at how many party store owners are in her ward and calculate her take if each had to pay $500 a year to stay in business. You are a fool! This is nothing but extortion. |
|
|
|
Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:42 pm |
|
|
back again
F L I N T O I D
|
whoa!!!!!! the plot thickens!!  |
_________________
even a small act of goodness may be a tiny raft of salvation across the treacherous gulf of sin, but one who drinks the wine of selfishness, and dances on the little boat of meaness, sinks in the ocean of ignorance.
P.Y. |
|
|
Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:36 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
untanglingwebs schreef:
Ted- Iam tired of listening to your bull about Jackie’s motives. The bottom line is she is a public official who was refusing to approve liquor licenses unless the party store owners paid her $500 a year. The owners had a right to the licenses and all of their legal requirements were met.
Again you misrepresent what happened, how and why. Intent and motive have a lot to do with whether there was a crime or not.
quote:
A public official cannot deny services or require payment of services for which an individual is legally entitled to.
Please explain how she did that???? That's another reason it wasn't seen as a crime!
1st, Before she did anything She checked with Legal (Trachelle Young) to make sure what she proposed was KOSHER! She got approval.
2nd. She did not TAKE OR REQUIRE that those business owners give her money! No money went to her! Not a dime went to her campaign or her pockets. you said it! She had to require it. She didn't require they give money before she would approve their license. She had already been on record pre election and after she was elected that she wasn't going to approve or vote for liquor licenses because she felt there were too many problems with all the liquor stores we have. Mainly we have too many.
After she was elected She soon discovered BEFORE any of this ever happened that should had to have a good reason not to approve licenses. The State told her that. Thus there needs to be significant complaints or police issues with that business. She demanded, required, held hostage, NOTHING that she wasn't going to have to do anyway. She asked that they support the community that they are doing business in.
Amazing, but all of a sudden that became a crime.
Oh and your right, she didn't have a 501C3 to funnel those funds. But, she never proclaimed they were tax deductable or even charitable donations (to my recollection) either. Nor did she keep any part of what they gave. Nor did she take credit for the money that was given to the students. The students Sent Letters thanking the business owners and if memory serves me correctly. They received Thank yous from Jackie also. So what your saying is it is illegal to give someone 500 bucks call it a scholarship unless you are a charitable organization. Oops alot of people giving money at graduation time in big trouble.
What is the asinine comment about the owners?? Why do you bring that up? Not even an issue. You’re just looking for ways to spread more misinformation??? Why bother to discuss facts when you can skew them with false accusations.
I must be a fool. To think that it was a good idea to ask that liquor stores be asked to give back to the community. Good idea I think. Although it was blown out of proportion. But, having dealt with our legal system here in Flint and the county. It’s amazing how many laws you can break and not know it is illegal what you are doing. But, I’m waiting to see if they decide to do something. |
|
|
|
Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:30 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Ted- Go back and read the original story and read Poplar's apology. If I rob a bank to save my child's life, I am still a criminal. You are saying you were in her head and you know her intent.
The federal government had tapes and her demand for $500 a year was linked to the renewal of the party store owners liquor license. In her apology, Poplar admitted to breaking the law.She was given a special diversion program that was for first time offrnders and was not entered into the system. However if you researched it you would see that she did not meet the criteria,
I have spoken to several long time attorneys and the common remark is: "Who did she snitch out?". And this is from attorneys who work in the system,
Your defense is not based on the facts. She asked about donations for a scholarship. Trachelle would never have approved had she known thee donations were linked to services these individuals had a legitimate right to.
You always claim to research so let your fingers search the keyboards and find the answer. |
|
|
|
Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:26 am |
|
|
Elias12
F L I N T O I D
|
| Untanglingwebs,, you may do your research and prove this Poplar woman did crooked things but that doesn't matter. Here in Flint ,it seems, the people like crooks running their city. She is a crook, plain and simple. But with a wave of magic wand, POOF, now as pure as driven snow. I got soundly thrashed when I said the people of Flint deserve better . Walling has a city of unemployed people who may also have degrees in the same area as she has, but is a general search for a qualified candidate made? NO! got to chose this unrepenant and angry woman because of her politcal connections and having to pay her back for her getting her cronies to vote for Walling. Still bothers me, and yes, I know it is "done deal' but I am still disgusted with her being in the position, Nothing will change in this town until we see totally different (and hopefully,unindcited) faces at city hall. |
_________________
You fool all the people all the time,if you control the press. By pass the "offical channels" and see what is really going. |
|
|
Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:31 am |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
She had to write an apology admitting what she did was wrong. I did some more checking. Because she didn't have a 501C3 she couldn't solicit funds. Illegal. you can give your own money but not ask others for theirs.
And see again, You misrepresent the Facts. A Memo was sent to the City Attorney and she did give her blessing. I reconfirmed that just the other day. And do I know her intent. All's ya had to do was listen to her before and after her election to that office. She isn't complicated enough do like professional politicians do and set up their own PAC's and their Own 501C3's and their own Campaign committees so they play around with "CONTRIBUTIOINS" For someone who was being so much criminal intent. She sure spent a lot of time talking about what she was doing ON THE RECORD in front of Council and the city attorney. Not one person (including myself) saw anything wrong.
That would be like a bank robber waling into a bank, First handing the teller their ID Filling out a withdrawal slip , pulling out a gun and then demanding the money.
Actual Criminals just don't do that.
It just don't happen that way. |
|
|
|
Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:07 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Ted-Her apology said she was informed by the federal officials that she had committed a crime!
She linked the so-called contributions to the renewal of their licenses which is illegal!
She entered a diversion program which if she successfully completed after on year she would not be prosecuted. Diversion programs are not for people who do not commit crimes.
She can tell you all she wants about her intent, but someone's alleged intent does not matter when it comes to a blatant violation of the law.
The party store owners filed complaints against her because they were being extorted. that is not a voluntary contribution. How do you think the feds got the tapes? They got them because the party store owners cooperated.
The only one's misrepresenting the facts are you and Poplar. I spoke to Trachelle and as an officer of the court she stated she would never have told Jackie it was o.k. if she had known the contributions were linked to the licenses. And you notice the federal officials never came after Trachelle. Trachelle never had to make a public apology.
Look at Jackies response when two or her fellow council wanted to take action against her. She dragge up the DUI's of Gonzales in the past and tried to paint Hill as a racist. Hill's work associates at Mott college came to her defense and refuted Jackie's baseless allegations. Allegations that came originally from the same source that tried to state Peggy Cook asked for a bribe. And can you remember how that turned out! The Sheriff Departments investigation said the two individuals behind the allegations were dishonest and cleared Cook. |
|
|
|
Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:40 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Ted-my point exactly. She did state on the record something about what she was doing. Council leadership did not act on it and several council members tried to squelch any movement against her.
(see my previous comment about her race-baiting)
Council members build voting blocks and try to keep them intact. The group that controls their five votes will not jeopardize their position of control. They needed Jackie's vote to support what they wanted passed. Haven't you watch council repeatedly pass on resolutions because the councilperson in the affected ward requested it. No questions asked.
There needs to be a strong outside watchdog to monitor both the administration and the council.
The Ombudsman is under attack because she took complaints on some council members. they only wanted to investigate the administration.
Once again Ted, the crime was requiring legitimate business people to pay for services that they had a legal right to without payment. Where the money went does not apply to the law.
Research the web and look up federal prosecutions for "under color of position" and you will see similar cases. Take your blinders off! |
|
|
|
Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:56 pm |
|
|
Elias12
F L I N T O I D
|
| What Poplar did was wrong, illegal, plain and simple and if the then city attorney gave her " blessing" then that lawyer should be disbarred. Officals can not attach conditions to things like liceneing renewal like she did. Plain and simple, Why the hell is Ted defending this is beyond me. It isn't a past issue, it would be if she was no longer serving in any capacity for the city, but she is. Fire the woman and get a better person in that position, she should have never been hired in the first place . I wonder if Mr Jankowski would be so willing to forgive and forget if a police dispatcher told him " we would send car out to your address , but you have been critical of the police in the past so we don't want to send a car unless you NOW give us an over the phone contribution the Police Athlectic League (PAL) " , same principle there Ted, as a citizen of Flint you are supposed to have services offered to you , and people going thorugh the legal and demanded license process so they can continue to operate their business should not have to do what I see as "payola" to make officals do the job they are already being paid to do. The licenesing process is , sorry to say, something the owners of businesses like that are required to go through because of laws and regualtions. There are hoops to jump through,fine, that is part of the price of doing business. But adding anything they want to because of some whim should not be left to the officals who are supposed to do certain prescribed functions. |
_________________
You fool all the people all the time,if you control the press. By pass the "offical channels" and see what is really going. |
|
|
Thu Oct 29, 2009 3:18 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
No blinders whatsoever. She could not REQUIRE them to give. She did not require them to give. So what is your definition of a PAC? What do they do? Explain to me what the difference is when the same thing is accomplished, and yet one is considered legal and another isn't?
And your right, The city attorney should have been disbarred. But, Those that police refuse to police their own. Look at all the Campaign Violations The Don was involved in, and the illegal overspending he did. What ever became of that? He finally resigned. But we never got our 14.5 million back he blew.
Keep watching the alternative papers. The flint journal refuses to cover other stories I've dug up on Just that premise. We will be tackling that once there is a new city council. Dealing with the 68th district court. Failure to follow the law. Let's see if you find Obvious and intentional violations of the law as fascinating as your vendetta against Ms. Poplar. She at least got a slap on the wrist because of the lack of criminal intent. Oh and who was it that tried to say something about what Ms. Poplar was doing??? Now I’m sure your fantasizing, No One stepped up and said a thing. I would be interested to know which person you are sitting at city council meetings every week that you would be so well informed as to what is happening down there. I have only missed three meetings in 4 years. Because my Grandmother was in the hospital. How many you been at?
The whole thing is complicated. But to become obsessed as you are isn’t conducive to progress. The mistake was made and the State didn’t find it as big a deal as you do. I guess the voters of her ward will decide. Oh and I’m sure that with our new Mayor and New City attorney that when she requests guidance on an issue she won’t be set up as she was in the past. |
|
|
|
Thu Oct 29, 2009 3:39 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
You keep repeating the same thing over and over. They had a right to their licenses. No one disputes that. She had to vote for them anyway... Yeah or nay but couldn't vote Nay without good reason. WHATS YOUR POINT.
They didn't PAY HER!!
They didn't have to pay her!
They never did pay her!
THey gave money to Kids.
They didn't have to give money to the kids.
Why didn't they say something sooner? Go back and come before council publically and say We want our License and Ms. Poplar won't give it to us unless we give her money???
It was a set up! That's why!
You know as well as I (well maybe you don't) that people come down to council meetings all the time to complain about their council person. I have a few times with ms Hill But I don't believe its ever been anythig to this magintude. Tell me what would have happened had they done that?
Only one of the business owners was upset. Because the state screwed up with his license. The other didn't want the money back. But when Big brother tells you have to do something you do it. People in the city in our justice system plead guilty to stuff they didn't do all the time. Mostly because of our poor legal system.
Had someone spoke out before all this went down. Had the City Attorney said something. Had they said something. None of it would have happened. You’re too stuck on looking at an incident. And not looking at the big picture. |
|
|
|
Thu Oct 29, 2009 3:51 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
You keep repeating the same thing over and over. They had a right to their licenses. No one disputes that. She had to vote for them anyway... Yeah or nay but couldn't vote Nay without good reason. WHATS YOUR POINT.
They didn't PAY HER!!
THey gave money to Kids.
Only one of the business owners was upset. Because the state screwed up with his license. The other didn't want the money back. But when Big brother tells you have to do something you do it. People in the city in our justice system plead guilty to stuff they didn't do all the time. Mostly because of our poor legal system. They take raps for others.
Had someone spoke out before all this went down. Had the City Attorney said something. None of it would have happened. You’re too stuck on looking at an incident. And not looking at the big picture. |
|
|
|
Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:45 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
December 2, 2006
Flint Journal, The (MI) Section: LOCAL NEWS
Edition: THE FLINT JOURNAL FIRST EDITION Page: A02
Section: LOCAL NEWS
Councilwoman writes letter of apology
By Jackie Poplar CONTRIBUTING WRITER
Here is the text of the letter written by 2nd Ward Flint Councilwoman Jackie Poplar, apologizing for coercing money for a scholarship fund from two businesses seeking a transfer of liquor licenses. It was sent to The Flint Journal as a letter to the editor.
Dear Sir or Madam:
This letter is written as a public apology to two business owners who asked me to approve transfers of liquor licenses in the 2nd Ward, where I am the city councilperson. I initially disapproved these transfers. However, after two meetings, I expressed my concerns against approving the transfer of liquor licenses in my ward and agreed that if they would agree to contribute $500 (each), annually, towards a scholarship fund that I initiated for the top 10 high school graduates in my ward, then I would approve their transfer of a liquor license request.
The business owners contributed to the scholarship fund. At the next scheduled City Council meeting, I stated my reason for retracting my earlier position of not approving the transfer of liquor licenses in my ward relative to my Give Back to the Community initiative and they voted unanimously for approval. I presented the top 10 graduates with $100 (each) during a high school honor graduation ceremony in my ward.
However, I was advised by the United States attorney's office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that my actions violated federal law, because I had used the power of my public office to coerce contributions to the scholarship fund. I have consulted with my attorney, and now understand that my actions, although well intended for a good cause, did indeed violate the federal law. I have assured the United States attorney's office that now that I have a clear understanding of the law governing my power of public office that I will no longer use my governmental authority to coerce contributions of any person or entity (no matter how deserving), other than payments owed to the city of Flint.
Moreover, I have entered into an agreement with the United States attorney to make this public apology and to repay to the two business owners the $1,000. scholarship contribution that I coerced them to contribute that violated federal law. I also agreed not to retaliate against the two business owners for having reported my wrongful actions. If I abide by all terms of this agreement, I will not be charged with violating the federal law.
I sincerely apologize to the business owners, and pledge to all persons that I will hereafter consider their requests appropriately and within the allotted time set by the charter.
Sincerely,
Jacqueline Poplar, councilwoman |
|
|
|
Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:47 pm |
|
|
Elias12
F L I N T O I D
|
Ted,
What point am I missing? She, as an elected offical ,wasn't aware that making her vote or approval for renewing licenses for these business owners want improper? If that she is imcompetent, certainly not an attribute we want in elected officaldom. She , I think, had to know what she was doing was questionable at best. IF she didn't she is stupid (sorry for those really sensitive people out there,but some people are stupid, it is fact of life) . AND if the attorney for the city didn't raise this, the pairing of the two events,(renewing of a license request AND her asking for money for her cause AT THE SAME TIME may be make the renewal contingent upon their making this "contribution" ) as having the apperance of being inproper then this attorney should have never been in the role they were hired to be in. I don't care if they gave the money to the kids", the fact is she ( Ms Poplar) had to know she had a precived sense of leverage over these business owners and it is unlikely she would have asked them for some sort of "contribution" had she not been in the position she was in. So her cllaim of her not knowing it was unethical to do this seems to be simply not true. The process to gain a license or renew one is spelled out, and any variance of this process by an indvidual by requiring more from other business owners would , to me , be a flashing warning sign ( figuratively speaking) that I was being singled out. Sorry Mr Ted, this is clear case of corruption or stupidity and neither should be allowable for a person in a position of authority. I guess you are happy with having stupid and/or corrupt people running the city. But from past posts you seem to be saying quite the opposite. So when people do decry a serious breach in ethics you seem to be saying that you are fine with it because they were "doing it for the kids" , right? And you point about it being a "set up" , ahh, what is your point? Are you saying that the whole city council and the city attorney were in on this? All around ,IF all these people INCLUDING THE CITY ATTORNEY were aware of her plans and none objected or saw anything wrong with themm we go back to point about incompetence. But that is a topic for posts in the future. Two things that be counted on coming from the people of this city, corruption and incompetency.
And ,Mr. Jankowski, what is the "big picture"? We have a failing city,run by either incompetent people or corrupt people ,the people of the city claim to want change so their can be a chance for the city to simply exist in the future. What it the "big picture" that you are looking at? And what color glasses are you wearing while looking at this?
You keep repeating the same thing over and over. They had a right to their licenses. No one disputes that. She had to vote for them anyway... Yeah or nay but couldn't vote Nay without good reason. WHATS YOUR POINT.
They didn't PAY HER!!
They didn't have to pay her!
They never did pay her!
THey gave money to Kids.
They didn't have to give money to the kids.
Why didn't they say something sooner? Go back and come before council publically and say We want our License and Ms. Poplar won't give it to us unless we give her money???
It was a set up! That's why!
You know as well as I (well maybe you don't) that people come down to council meetings all the time to complain about their council person. I have a few times with ms Hill But I don't believe its ever been anythig to this magintude. Tell me what would have happened had they done that?
Only one of the business owners was upset. Because the state screwed up with his license. The other didn't want the money back. But when Big brother tells you have to do something you do it. People in the city in our justice system plead guilty to stuff they didn't do all the time. Mostly because of our poor legal system.
Had someone spoke out before all this went down. Had the City Attorney said something. Had they said something. None of it would have happened. You’re too stuck on looking at an incident. And not looking at the big picture.[/quote] |
_________________
You fool all the people all the time,if you control the press. By pass the "offical channels" and see what is really going. |
|
|
Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:01 pm |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
