Last login: Tuesday, May 7, 2013
This comment was removed by the user.
Flag this comment
To the Advocate and the Council:
It is NOT, I repeat, NOT a "learning curb."
It IS, I repeat, IS a "learning curve."
Thank you Advocate for correcting the Class year. And for a very nice story.
We are proud to have a child who graduated from St. Joseph High School. It is a wonderful school with solid academics that prepare its students well for their career choices.
Very good comments SpeakUp. Especially the last paragraph.
The Advocate should publish the photo. I would prefer it be online only, but if it is to be in the print edition, an inside page would be more suitable. If it chooses not to publish these pictures, those of us who wish to see them can find them in many national and international newspapers found at www.ipl.com (internet public library).
An of state reader has commented to me that it appears someone on this blog is very demented. I agree. I stand squarely in The Advocate's corner on this one.
To all of Tyler’s supporters:
You have been extolling the DA’s “virtues” but you’ve ignored again his deceptions that have become the hallmark of his term of office. I’ll quote one of his recent lies made to the Victoria Advocate.
Tyler’s responses to the Advocate when questioned about his expenses in the Ure case were provided by the newspaper to all of us for examination. Here I quote from his answers to the Advocate's numbered questions.
3. How much in total, did the four cases-against Armstrong, Ure, Buentello and Smith-cost the DA's office?
"As records of the county auditor can confirm, I paid Ruth Kollman $6,000.00 for appellate work, $2,000.00 of which was for filing a Writ of Mandamus in this matter."
5. Now that all the cases are dismissed, what does Mr. Tyler say to taxpayers who might worry these efforts were a waste of time and their money?
"I paid Ruth Kollman $2,000.00 of money forfeited from criminals not taxed from citizens."
In his comments, Tyler defines forfeiture money as “not taxed from citizens.” What he conveniently does not tell us is that those monies are public funds.
Now, let’s examine the forfeiture funds record from the County Treasurer whose report is an open record for all to see who request it. For the year of January-December, 2009, here are Tyler’s actual payments to Ruth Kollman:
10/26/09…Chk: 291283…Ruth A Kollman, Attorney $30,000.00.
In my opinion, there’s quite a difference between $6,000.00 that Tyler says he paid her and the $30,000.00 he actually paid her from forfeiture funds (public funds). And his statement further ignores the cost of having the record transcribed by the court reporter.
I have only one small correction to make to this otherwise excellent editorial. These four good men will not lose their reputations. Their reputations will be that they were the heroes in this very sordid drama. The reputation that is lost is Tyler's. He will be forever associated with Ratcliff - that's the guilt by association that will linger as long as their names are uttered in this community.
While I agree with you Zero that he needs to apologize for his misdeeds, I do not believe that is enough punishment. Tyler has abused the powers of his office and betrayed the trust that the public has placed in him. He should be removed from office for official misconduct.