Charles "Chuck" Turchick responded by email to my October 23 blog post about him, which discussed his felony conviction for breaking into a draft office in Alexandria, Minnesota and speculated (not without firm basis) that Chuck's criminal conviction and incarceration over that early 1970s incident is why he's so...
Well, so Chuck Turchick.
Chuck didn't ask for the email to remain private and, though he didn't ask, appears to have intended it for publication. So I am printing his entire email, below, fair and square. Along the way I will respond to Chuck's written assertions to prevent his unique and hippy-esque form of self-delusion from further propagating itself into the blogosphere without correction...
The boldface headings were added by this blogger and are not part of the original email.
Oh, No, It's A "Dear John" Letter
Dear John,
I've read your October 23, 2012, post about me, and I found it absolutely delightful. Unfortunately, it's a classic example of someone who manufactures a conclusion and then finds some historical facts that will explain it.
The conclusion I am talking about is that I am a "rabid anti-police critic." If you are familiar with my statements to the Minneapolis City Council Public Safety Committee, or with several emails I have written them -- some of them posted online -- you would realize that simply isn't true.
Quote-Gate! The SHAME!!!
Might I point out first, however, that you put this phrase in quotes in your October 23 post. I tried to figure out whom you were quoting, so I went back to part one of this two-part post, which was posted on October 13, 2012, and I found the phrase "rabid police critic Chuck Turchick," but not in quotes. So in part two, it seems you were quoting yourself from part one, but trying to make it look like these were someone else's words. I'm sure you'd agree that practice is not the height of good journalism or even good blogging.
(JNS blog says: WRONG. But I'll get back to you on that, below)
Chuck Turchick, Model Of Reasonableness (Eye Roll)
Anyhow, getting back to what my criticism actually were and are, I have both written and testified to the Public Safety Committee that I am not one who believes police brutality is rampant in our community. I am not one "who loves to constantly attack the cops." What I have been critical of has been the more than 20 years of Chiefs of Police in Minneapolis -- not just Chief Dolan, who got high marks from some community organizations I have great respect for -- being reluctant to discipline officers against whom the CRA hearing panels have sustained complaints of officer misconduct.
That is not a radical position. Every member of the CRA board for its last three years has agreed with it. Even Don Bellfield, the former chair of the board who is about to be appointed to the Police Conduct Review Panel, said the CRA could not function if the Chief continued to be unwilling to discipline in CRA-sustained cases.
I have also been critical of the Chief not following the previous CRA ordinance. It called for him to base his disciplinary decisions "on the adjudicated facts as determined by the civilian review authority board" (see page 13 of the old ordinance, section 172.130, which is available here). Chief Dolan, who was required by the ordinance to give the CRA board reasons for no-discipline decisions in CRA-sustained cases, would regularly give as a reason his "disagreement with the facts as determined by the civilian review authority board."
Now, one doesn't have to be a rocket scientist, or even a lawyer, to see that that reason given by the Chief was not in compliance with the then-existing ordinance. So I even filed a complaint against the Chief for violating the ordinance in this respect. (Section 172.130(d) said the Chief could be disciplined for not complying with that section, so I thought it was reasonable to assume non-compliance constituted misconduct.) That was the only complaint this "rabid anti-police critic" has ever filed against a Minneapolis police officer.
Chuck Dishes Up Criticisms Of Lawyers, Occupy Movement, And Molly Ivins
Austen Zuege, the last lawyer who served on the CRA board, and Lee Reid, a lawyer and the last Assistant Civil Rights Director assigned to the CRA, and probably every lawyer in the city who doesn't work in the City Attorney's Office, agrees that the Chief's reason is not consistent with the ordinance. But the City Attorney unbelievably says it is consistent. And no Public Safety Committee member ever raised a stink about this. So yes, I was critical of the City Attorney's Office and of the Public Safety Committee too. I once challenged Deputy City Attorney Peter Ginder to find me a single attorney in Minneapolis who didn't work in the City Attorney's Office and who would say the Chief's reason was consistent with the ordinance. He asked if his brother would be okay, and I said, "Yes, have him call me." I have yet to hear from Peter or his brother.
I have also been critical of Occupy folks who have claimed "police brutality." I have told them that to claim being nudged by the head of a horse is "policy brutality" is an insult to people who actually may have been abused by police tactics. I told Polly Kellogg of WAMM that when she used the words "charged in on horses" in a speech she gave, the audience would naturally assume the horses were actually "charging," which was patently false. I have told occupiers who have complained that Chief Dolan stepped on one of them who had been sitting with linked arms surrounding a house that the civil disobedience tactic they were using was designed to achieve precisely that result.
So I have hardly been a "rabid anti-police critic," as you so eloquently quoted yourself as saying.
(JNS blog says: Wrong again, Chuck, but I'm saving Quote-Gate for dessert)
Police officers do a difficult job that I would never want to do. But sometimes, yes, an officer does engage in misconduct. And the system that was set up to allow civilian oversight of those complaints was never allowed to work. And that was because of four Chiefs of Police, the Mayor, the City Attorney, and the City Council. That's whom I have been critical of.
(JNS blog says: RABIDLY critical. And those four chiefs of police were all police officers. How many different ways would you like to kind of, sort of CONCEDE you are a rabid anti-police critic while saying you are not?)
Even when Lt. Mike Sauro issued a statement justifying police work in a video that showed someone being kicked in the head -- I think he was handcuffed at the time too -- it was the Chief whom I criticized in comments to the CRA board, not the Lieutenant. I asked how, given the previous attempts by the City to fire Lt. Sauro for excessive use of force, could the Lieutenant have been selected as the person in his precinct to instruct officers on the proper use of force and that what the video showed was not proper police procedure.
(JNS blog says: Oh, my goodness, citing a videotape that supposedly exists. Please link to the videotape in a comment so I can make my own judgment of what it allegedly shows. Otherwise, when you say there's a videotape and you've seen it but I can't see it too, well, hmmmm, who does that remind me of? JILL CLARK. I'm sure you know her, Chuck, either personally or through "one degree of separation" via Dave Bicking and Spanky Pete Rickmyer who sat next to you at a hearing with plenty of empty chairs in the room. More on that in a bit)
There are so many other errors in your post that I can't mention them all.
(JNS blog says: You can't because they don't exist or you are categorizing a matter of mere opinion as an error because you have a contrary opinion)
But I was never a "hippie" -- ask people who were around at that time; I didn't go bald when I got old -- I was going bald in my 20s; the conviction was in 1970, not 1971; in the portion of my CRA board application available to the public, I did mention my law school attendance, but in the portion not available to the public, I am quite certain I did write that I was a law school graduate.
(JNS Blog says: No error here. Your conviction was UPHELD in 1971 when you lost your appeal. Kindly quote any sentence from my blog that contains a fact error about the date your conviction. You can't find one or you'd be quoting it in your email. In fact, I have gone out of my way to say "early 1970s" to deal with the fact your conviction was in one year, and then the conviction was upheld in another year. I did this so the writing would be clear and not chunky by tedious and repeated explanation of the fact the conviction was one year, but it was upheld the next. You are really stretching, Chuck, to try to twist fact error out of what I wrote, which contains no fact error.
As for whether you were a hippie, Chuck, you broke into a draft office during the Vietnam War era and became one of the famed Minnesota 8. The judgment made in the lower blog court that you were a "hippie" is hereby upheld by the higher blog court. "Hippie" is a broad label and I would think you'd respond by wearing it proudly on your head, which would give you something up there in place of hair.)
Other errors aren't your fault, in that you quote from Frank Kroncke or Molly Ivins. I graduated from North High School, not St. Louis Park which I never attended; and while I did play tennis in high school, I was once ranked 3rd in the state not in tennis but in table tennis.
(JNS blog says: I will go back to the October 23 post and insert your comments about where you graduated and your table tennis ranking. But there's still no fact error on my part, because I cited my source properly.)
Chuck Is Ready To Forgive But Never Forget
As for the pardon issue, I think it was during President Carter's -- maybe it was President Clinton's -- administration that I got a letter inviting me to apply for a pardon. I returned it with a note informing them that they must have been mistaken, but no, I was not yet ready to offer them a pardon. But you might be right. Maybe it has been long enough, and after the election, I should write the new President offering the U.S. government a pardon. Keep on writing, but please try to form your conclusions from the facts rather than vice versa.
Yours, Chuck Turchick
JNS BLOG RESPONDS FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:
Clinton, Carter, Um, One Of Those Presidents Who Liked Hippies
Let me get this straight, Chuck. You got a letter inviting you to apply for a pardon from the office of the president and you can't narrow it down to the Clinton or Carter administration?
In your long email I notice you didn't respond to the way I tossed around the quote from your father about how you weren't one of those kids mixed up with drugs. So let me ask you this. Do you use drugs, Chuck? Did you drop acid during the hippie era? Have you been a heavy pot user at any time? Did you use that letter inviting you to apply for a pardon as a surface on which to separate your weed from your seeds?
Also, here's another question I have and feel free to consult with "rabid anti-police critic" Dave Bicking before you respond. What is the nature of the relationship between Level Three Sex Offender Peter Rickmyer and the various folks who show up every time there's a meeting about police conduct issues? I mean, obviously Spanky Pete is going to show up where he likes and comment about whatever, but it seems like your "crazy train" faction more or less accepts him. I was surprised to see you sitting right next to Peter Rickmyer at the hearing when there were plenty of empty chairs in the room, at least after the very first part of the meeting.
Me, I would have gotten the hell up and MOVED. I think most people would, knowing the man is a child molesting Level Three sex offender. But apparently your faction is quite open and accepting of the man. I mean, at least he's not a COP, right? What's up with that? To what degree is Spanky Pete invited into the core of your faction to contribute his ideas?
Break-In At The Quoter-Gate Hotel!
And now, Chuck, to answer what I consider your most damning criticism: that I deliberately misused quote marks with the phrase "rabid anti-police critic." Speaking as a member in good standing of the Grammar Nazi Party, nothing else you accuse me of could really upset me as much as THIS.
So here is my answer. You have only managed to prove how HONEST I am with quote marks. I am very conscious of sonorous turns of phrase invented by myself versus original and creative turns of phrase I read or hear from other people. If I hear a nice turn of phrase I am apt to make it my own, but I often warn people first.
Oh, I will say, what a nice turn of phrase. Did you come up with that? Do you know who did? I really want to make use of that.
Sometimes I use Google to see if the turn of phrase is already extant anywhere on the internet. If nobody else is using that exact combination of words, I get excited because I'm in possession of something colorful and expressive and I'll be the first one to put it out in the world even if I didn't invent it myself. I recently published the phrase "a buzzy feeling of oneness with the earth" but I put quote marks around it. Why?
Because I didn't invent the phrase. Another student at the University of North Dakota whose first name was Cassandra (I don't remember her last name) came up with the phrase and I've carried it around as part of my personal verbal lexicon since about 2004.
As for the phrase "rabid anti-police critic," I was quite aware it wasn't my own original coinage. I wasn't sure where I got it, but I knew it wasn't mine and so (honest grammarian that I am) I put quote marks around it. Do I sometimes cop a "sonorous turn of phrase" (William Safire) without quote marks or attribution? I'm sure it happens all the time. Sooner or later a "sonorous turn of phrase" slips into common usage to such an extent nobody uses quote marks anymore, kind of like quotations that can be traced to famous people with names eventually become attributed to "anonymous" even while the quotes become more pithy and morph their form a bit.
But in that split second when I was banging out the Part Two of that story, I knew I'd copped that phrase somewhere. And the phrase was so direct, expressive and well constructed that to deny it quote marks would be, well, shoplifting at the lexicon store. (That last phrase was my original coinage, all mine, and I'm taking credit)
AND HE'S DOWN! CHUCK IS DOWN!!!
But to sum up and get right to the metaphorical kick in the teeth I'm going to deliver you, well, put the phrase into Google with quote marks. "Rabid anti-police critic" was used by somebody at an "alt crime" Google group on April 7, 2003. It shows up in the search but it's buried somewhere deeply in the discussion. However, I am certain I've heard the phrase used by other people in Minneapolis. Who exactly? I'm not certain, but my strong impression is city people, public officials, people standing on the other side of the aisle from Chuck Turchick, Dave Bicking, and other rapid anti-police critics.
Ooops. Look, mom, no quote marks.
That was just me putting the phrase into common usage, Chuck. Because people in Minneapolis need that phrase to describe the crazies who show up at these meetings to bash (recently retired) Chief Dolan and other brave police officers. But any way you slice it, whether I can figure who BESIDES me was using the phrase prior to October 23, 2012, the phrase is not my original coinage and the quote marks are oh-so-proper and SCRUPULOUSLY honest.
A Fond Farewell To Chuck Who Couldn't Hold His Own In The Debate
Thank you, Chuck, for your eloquent albeit wrongheaded email. It didn't require any editing or correction at all from me. (There was one rather clumsy sentence, but it couldn't be characterized as a typo)
Chuck, I get the feeling if I'd been in jail with you I would have gotten into that weird word game you played for hours. But, alas, we were born in different eras. You broke into a draft office during the hippie era and I served both during the First Iraq War (stateside) and in Afghanistan.
You know, Chuck, when the office of the president hints you might apply for a pardon, it's not just all about Chuck, Chuck, Chuck and what painful things happened to him because of wild and stupid stuff he did as a young man in the name of idealism. It's also about healing our country after a divisive period in our history.
You might put that in your metaphorical joint and smoke on that, Chuck.
16 comments:
I'm not sure which is more amusing: John Hoff holding himself up as the model of gammaticism, or his clear outrage over feeling he had to publish an email by someone whose writing skills far outshine his own. Of course, you won't publish this comment, John, because you never publish comments that are critical of your writing skills (or, really, the lack of them). But it still brings us great pleasure to know that your face is turning red as you read this!
By lack of writing skills I assume you mean critically acclaimed published author while still in my 20s and most famous blogger in Minneapolis?
By the way, that's some real slop in the sentence with the parenthetical comment. It makes me want to vomit in my throat a little just looking at it.
Personally, I think you are both a couple of mentally disturbed war veterans who need to check into a VA psych ward and have the electrodes hooked up to your temples for a few rounds of ECT.
If we're lucky maybe Chief Bromden will put a pillow over your face.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSWxlaYKoMw
Turchick forwarded the following email.
-----------------------------------
Subject: CRA cases already in the pipeline
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 17:21:02 +0000
Dear Public Safety, Civil Rights and Health Committee Members:
It has come to my attention that due to the recently passed amendments to the CRA ordinance, CRA board members have been informed by letter from Michael Browne that the board has been disbanded, effective September 29, 2012.
This may cause problems. It seems that no provision has been made for cases that already were in the investigation or hearing stage of the process. Maybe there are potential legal problems here for someone who made a complaint expecting under old process but now being thrown into the new one. Did you inquire of the City Attorney's office whether there might be legal implications for the City with respect to those cases?
The rush on instituting this new process -- with no public discussion, let alone consideration, of what to do with the cases already in the pipeline -- is stunning, to say the least. Maybe the previous board, which was so abruptly disbanded, could have played a role in the period of transition to the new process.
Yours,
Chuck Turchick
And he forwarded this email, too.
---------
Subject: Unresolved CRA cases
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 21:58:55 +0000
Dear Public Safety, Civil Rights and Health Committee Members:
A month ago, I wrote you the email included below concerning complaints that had already been filed with the CRA before it had been disbanded. I was concerned that you may not have paid attention to legal issues that may arise with respect to people who had filed complaints under the old CRA ordinance.
I did receive a response to that email, not from anyone on your committee, but from Assistant Civil Rights Director Browne, whom I had copied on the email. He wrote: "Please be assured that management is well aware of the changes that need to be put in place to operate this office; we are taking the appropriate steps to do so."
Mr. Browne's statement was part of an email in which he seemed to be exasperated with my having pointed out several inaccuracies in information about the new process posted by both Internal Affairs and the Office of Police Conduct Review. Because of that, I did not point out any more of these errors on Civil Rights Department or Internal Affairs websites, even though I did notice other mischaracterizations of the ordinance changes, one of which still remains inaccurately posted.
Given that inhospitable history of communicating with staff, even though this email might be more appropriately directed to Mr. Browne, I feel compelled to send it to you.
So even if you have been privately advised that there is no legal problem in changing the process midstream for people who filed complaints with the CRA, I must ask if you think that is fair. Please think about the following questions:
1. For complainants whose CRA complaints had reached the hearing stage, with the expectation that a) their case would be heard by a panel of three civilians; b) they would have a right to address the panel; c) they would have a right to ask for a reconsideration hearing, without a requirement of bringing forth new evidence, is it fair now -- after they may have put considerable time and energy in seeing their complaint go through the investigative process -- to say, "Sorry, the rules have changed"?
2. For complainants whose CRA cases are in the investigation stage, presumably the CRA investigator will remain on those cases. But since, at the time of the ordinance changes, the CRA investigators had a backlog of cases and IAU may not have had such a backlog, does that mean that for some time all new cases will be going to police officer investigators? Or does it mean that some of that backlog -- even if the investigation had begun -- will now be transferred to police officer investigators? If it's the latter, is that fair to people who had filed complaints under the old process, and maybe in fact would never have filed their complaint if they thought it would be investigated by a police officer? And if some of those already filed cases might be transferred to officer investigators, have those complainants been given the opportunity to withdraw their complaints? And if they have, wouldn't the number of those withdrawals give us some preliminary evidence as to whether this new process is actually going to increase public confidence, as its proponents have claimed, and so shouldn't those numbers be made public?
3. What about those currently in the mediation stage? If mediation is unsuccessful, will those complaints be investigated under the new system? If so, is it fair to have asked someone to try the mediation process in good faith, and then, if mediation fails to resolve the case, inform them that the rules have changed about who investigates, who hears, and who reconsiders?
-------
CONT BELOW
CONT
--------
I've been trying to pay attention to what has been discussed by your committee and to what has been released to the public by the Civil Rights Department and the MPD Internal Affairs Unit. But I have yet to run across anything about how pending cases will or should be dealt with. No one from your committee has asked anything in this regard when Assistant Director Browne or Director Korbel have been before your committee on Office of Police Conduct Review-related matters.
I encourage you to consider these questions in a public manner. If you want the new procedure to get off on the right foot in terms of credibility with the public, it won't help if it seems that all the complaints that had been filed under the previous process are either being swept under the rug or that the complainants are being told, "Tough, we've changed the rules in midstream." You should at least inquire what is happening with cases filed under the old process.
Sincerely,
Chuck Turchick
And he forwarded this email, too.
---------
Subject: Unresolved CRA cases
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 21:58:55 +0000
Dear Public Safety, Civil Rights and Health Committee Members:
A month ago, I wrote you the email included below concerning complaints that had already been filed with the CRA before it had been disbanded. I was concerned that you may not have paid attention to legal issues that may arise with respect to people who had filed complaints under the old CRA ordinance.
I did receive a response to that email, not from anyone on your committee, but from Assistant Civil Rights Director Browne, whom I had copied on the email. He wrote: "Please be assured that management is well aware of the changes that need to be put in place to operate this office; we are taking the appropriate steps to do so."
Mr. Browne's statement was part of an email in which he seemed to be exasperated with my having pointed out several inaccuracies in information about the new process posted by both Internal Affairs and the Office of Police Conduct Review. Because of that, I did not point out any more of these errors on Civil Rights Department or Internal Affairs websites, even though I did notice other mischaracterizations of the ordinance changes, one of which still remains inaccurately posted.
Given that inhospitable history of communicating with staff, even though this email might be more appropriately directed to Mr. Browne, I feel compelled to send it to you.
So even if you have been privately advised that there is no legal problem in changing the process midstream for people who filed complaints with the CRA, I must ask if you think that is fair. Please think about the following questions:
1. For complainants whose CRA complaints had reached the hearing stage, with the expectation that a) their case would be heard by a panel of three civilians; b) they would have a right to address the panel; c) they would have a right to ask for a reconsideration hearing, without a requirement of bringing forth new evidence, is it fair now -- after they may have put considerable time and energy in seeing their complaint go through the investigative process -- to say, "Sorry, the rules have changed"?
2. For complainants whose CRA cases are in the investigation stage, presumably the CRA investigator will remain on those cases. But since, at the time of the ordinance changes, the CRA investigators had a backlog of cases and IAU may not have had such a backlog, does that mean that for some time all new cases will be going to police officer investigators? Or does it mean that some of that backlog -- even if the investigation had begun -- will now be transferred to police officer investigators? If it's the latter, is that fair to people who had filed complaints under the old process, and maybe in fact would never have filed their complaint if they thought it would be investigated by a police officer? And if some of those already filed cases might be transferred to officer investigators, have those complainants been given the opportunity to withdraw their complaints? And if they have, wouldn't the number of those withdrawals give us some preliminary evidence as to whether this new process is actually going to increase public confidence, as its proponents have claimed, and so shouldn't those numbers be made public?
3. What about those currently in the mediation stage? If mediation is unsuccessful, will those complaints be investigated under the new system? If so, is it fair to have asked someone to try the mediation process in good faith, and then, if mediation fails to resolve the case, inform them that the rules have changed about who investigates, who hears, and who reconsiders?
-------
CONT BELOW
In response to having those two emails forwarded, a moment ago I sent the following email to Chuck.
-------
Dear Chuck,
Even though I hardly even mind having this email forwarded to land atop the large pile of more pressing things in my
inbox, please feel free to copy and paste stuff like this to my blog on postings appropriate to the subject, for
example, the two blog posts about you or the "Crazy Parade" posts about police conduct review
reform efforts, etc.
Then again, it's not like you don't write on the internet YOURSELF so you could just publish it by writing
for Daily Planet or whatever.
In my blog post today in which I published your recent email and commented on it (extensively) I asked
aloud some questions. Those questions were not merely rhetorical devices; I am sincerely interested in
any answer you could provide. Also if, by some miracle, you still have the letter suggesting you might
apply for a pardon I would be extremely interested in that document as a PDF. The presidential pardon
process is fascinating and newsworthy. The mere existence of a letter like that is a story all by itself, even if
it's as old as the Carter administration.
Or the Clinton administration.
One of those democratic administrations that was fond of hippies.
John,
I only sent you a copy of my most recent email to the Public Safety Committee because it was typical of my past statements and emails to the committee, viz., they concerned the CRA and the Police Conduct Review Panel, not the conduct of police officers themselves.
"critically acclaimed published author" and "most famous blogger in Minneapolis?"
Really?
Thank YOU, Hoff for causing me to heft up part of my PB & J sandwich I was eating when I read that part and couldn't control my laughing attack.
PLEASE, I beg of you to tell us how you came to believe that you are a "critically acclaimed published author?"
Where did you come up with the notion that you are the most famous blogger in Minneapolis? I don't see how being named best blog by a publication that is known more by parrot shit than human readers translates into famous? Was there a city-wide poll that I missed? Seriously, back your bullshit up with more than "because I said so, that's why!"
I thought it was funny that you said most people would have gotten up and moved if they were seated next to Rickmeyer because, if you went to a who's who in journalism convention and the one empty seat you could sit in was between Jerry Springer and Morton Downey Jr. (yes, I know he is dead), there would be an empty seat on your left and right as soon as you sat down!
That anti hoff was right because, you are a yellow journalist!
So which of you made the higher mark on the wall?
I see my first comment didn't go through -- or maybe was rejected -- so I'll repeat the gist of it here.
I don't really want to spend much time responding to John's rebuttal post, but here are a few points:
1. John seems to think the fact that I have been critical of the Chief of Police demonstrates that I'm a "rabid anti-police critic." But that would mean that since the Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis has from time to time also been publicly critical of the Minneapolis police administration, they too are "rabid anti-police critics."
2. John wrote: "Kindly quote any sentence from my blog that contains a fact error about the date your [sic] conviction." Okay. From your October 23 post: "...interesting back story behind activist Chuck Turchick and his 1971 conviction...." As I wrote previously, the conviction was in 1970. A conviction occurs when a judge or jury finds a defendant guilty of a crime, not when an appellate court upholds the conviction. A minor error; no big deal, but an error nonetheless.
3. I assumed John was aware of the much-publicized video of Derryl Jenkins being kicked by Minneapolis police officers. Maybe he was out of the country at the time. Here's a link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9Fxu0Y42sI. Minneapolis settled the case for $235,000. As for Lt. Sauro's statement saying he saw nothing wrong with the procedures used in the video, that statement is also available online. I'm sure you can find it.
4. No, I have never been stoned on marijuana; never even been drunk. Did try acid once, though. Nice try, John.
5. I was surprised, given his legal education, John didn't respond to my claim that Chief Dolan violated the CRA ordinance several times in the reasons he gave for not issuing discipline in CRA-sustained cases. That was the more substantive portion of my email to John.
6. No, I hadn't intended my private email to John to be posted. That's why I sent it as an email rather than making a comment here. I have no problem with his posting it, though. But it does seem that John believes that effective argumentation is attacking one's opponent personally and writing things like "AND HE'S DOWN! CHUCK IS DOWN!!!" That might be entertaininig -- probably mostly for him -- but it's not a serious way of discussing an issue.
7. John's rebuttal on his use of quotation marks was way over my head, but then I am pretty short.
Chucky said: “Now, one doesn't have to be a rocket scientist, or even a lawyer..”
CBS: You will be neither Chucky.
Chucky said: “So I even filed a complaint against the Chief for violating the ordinance in this respect.”
CBS: If you were a lawyer (or rocket scientist) you’d know that was crazy. This fact supports JNS’s theory that Chucky is a "rabid anti-police critic."
Chucky said: “Even Don Bellfield, the former chair of the board who is about to be appointed to the Police Conduct Review Panel…”
CBS: Chucky no likey Don Bellfield. Second thinking that “complaint against the Chief” yet?
Chucky said: “…probably every lawyer in the city who doesn't work in the City Attorney's Office, agrees that the Chief's reason is not consistent with the ordinance.”
CBS: How do you like those speculations? Now is that "every lawyer" living in Mpls. or just working in the city to qualify?
Chucky said: “And no Public Safety Committee member ever raised a stink about this.”
CBS: You mean farted in the general direction?
Chucky said: “I once challenged Deputy City Attorney Peter Ginder to find me a single attorney in Minneapolis who didn't work in the City Attorney's Office and who would say the Chief's reason was consistent with the ordinance. He asked if his brother would be okay, and I said, 'Yes, have him call me.' I have yet to hear from Peter or his brother.”
CBS: [Doing that spinning index finger thing next to my ear with my lips puckered out trying to figure out if this should go in the category of “rabid” or just “crazy.”]
Chucky said: “Police officers do a difficult job that I would never want to do.”
CBS: Or could do because you’re a FELON and too old to get hired as a cop.
Chucky said: “I am quite certain I did write that I was a law school graduate.”
CBS: Which law school Chucky? What year? Before, during, or after you went to prison? We want to see the graduation picture. Are you a jail-house lawyer?
Chucky said: “I was once ranked 3rd in the state not in tennis but in table tennis.”
CBS: PING-PONG!!!!
Chucky said: “I think it was during President Carter's -- maybe it was President Clinton's -- administration that I got a letter inviting me to apply for a pardon.”
CBS: I find it hard to believe that Presidents fan through decades of federal convictions to send out little personal invites for pardons. Like there’s a lack of convicts using THAT process. I say cough up the letter Chucky or be call out for this bull shit.
Chucky said: “Keep on writing, but please try to form your conclusions from the facts rather than vice versa.”
CBS: Take your own advice!
So here we have Chuck who can't remember whether his invitation to apply for a presidential pardon was under the Carter or Clinton administration, but he is quibbling about when he was convicted versus the year the conviction was upheld.
If the conviction had NOT been upheld, wouldn't Chuck be saying "I was convicted in 1970, but then the conviction was reversed in 1971"? Would you still be saying you were CONVICTED that year if it was subsequently reversed?
But fine. I have changed 1971 to 1970 in the October 23 blog post. Try as he might to twist and push at my words, that's the best Chuck came up with.
John,
Any bets on that letter, John? Let's make this worthwhile.
Or do you just like to write things you don't know about?
And I still haven't seen your response to the substance of whether Chief Dolan was violating the City ordinance.
Hmmm.
Chief is part of the process so you file a CRA complaint against him. Duh!
Post a Comment