GEORGE WASHINGTON STATED

Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty teeth.



First Inaugural Address of George Washington...April 30, 1789

The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Abraham Lincoln said:

"In this age, and in this country, public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; against it nothing can suceed. Whoever molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes, or pronounces judicial decisions."

James Madison Declared

The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the PEOPLE altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY, wherever the derivative may be found, RESIDES IN THE PEOPLE ALONE. (Federalist Papers, No. 46, p.294; emphasis added.)

Saturday, June 28, 2008

HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE?

It took the Justice Department of the Federal Government over 5 years of legal shenanigans, delaying tactics and probably hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars of legal costs to realize that they were on the wrong road in trying to connect Mr. Steven Hatfill with the 2001 anthrax attacks. On June 27, 2008 the Justice Department agreed to pay Hatfill a settlement valued at $5.85 million just to drop a lawsuit against them. The scientist Mr. Hatfill stood his ground against the might of of Feds and won . He contended that his privacy rights were violated in the rush to solve the heinous crimes.

Some contend and allege that a similar situation (except we are not talking criminal) is brewing in the City of Woodstock's Police Department and with its Chief of Police, Robert W. Lowen Jr. and the City's own Board of Fire and Police Commissioners and now co-defendant with the Board Sergeant Steven R. Gorski. Lowen contends and alleges that the Board of Commissioners along with its experienced attorney were wrong in finding that Lowen and his City's attorneys did not make their case and present the burden of proof that was needed to make the Chief's case for dismissal. Some even allege that this further legal action of asking for administrative review was taken to lessen the trauma to the Chief's ego and alleged sense of full power and control over his department. He allegedly wants to be surrounded by team players, could that be another name for "yes" men and Sergeant Gorski is a team player for the citizens of Woodstock and his fellow officers and has been for over nineteen (19) years but perhaps not allegedly enough of a "yes" man for the Chief.

Nowhere in the City's initial argument does it mention an in the line of duty injury on two occasions to his spine or his assisting a fellow officer with a question that allegedly "ticked off" the Chief .The in-line of duty injury caused the Sergeant to use his sick days and assisting a subordinate minority female officer may have been instrumental in causing the Chief and City some further legal problems with said minority officer when I was told she allegedly filed a federal complaint against the Chief and City. When he assisted said officer it was in his capacity as her sergeant after a lawful question was asked of him.

When is the City going to realize that continuing to go down this long wrong road is only making their position more tenuous and costly....using tax payer dollars to allegedly assuage some one's feelings is the wrong way of approaching this problem.

2 comments:

Gus said...

I recall being asked by a previous employer whether I was a “team player.” I answered that I was, but then I told him that there was no team there.

“Team play” means play for the team. It doesn’t mean following orders blindly down any path, when they don’t make any sense or when the order is illegal or coercive.

A good example of an illegal order is when soldiers in a war zone are ordered to shoot women and children who are not a clear threat to them.

Another example is when an employee is told to sign the form and that he will be fired, if he doesn't.

Richard W Gorski, M.D. said...

I remember you mentioning the team player story when we had coffee.