The Defense Calls....Jeffrey Schwartz?
Interesting observations on the ongoing Arkley/ Glass saga in a My Word column by Jeffrey Schwartz- the very same fellow who recently left the district attorney's office. Unfortunately, that piece isn't available online yet (that seems to happen a lot on Sundays), so you may want to go out and buy a hard copy of today's Times- Standard.
Anyway, Schwartz goes on to say, among other things: "...Arkley therefore did not threaten Glass. I see just the opposite.....Arkley never had Glass' vote and never needed it. The only logical thing Arkley could have been doing is threatening ruination of other council members through Glass....If you leave alcohol out of the equation, nothing else makes sense."
There you have it, folks. An anti- Arkley, Glass fan and past prosecuting attorney for the district attorney's office has said that Arkley didn't threaten Glass, although he supposedly threatened other council members.
Of course, he's basing all this on suppositions and trying to suggest Arkley's motivations which he can provide no solid evidence for. He then goes on to refer to leaving alcohol out of the equation. Why should we leave alcohol out of the equation?
Rob Arkley is innocent of threatening Glass, according to Schwartz. If the investigation is to proceed, we'll have to see if the remaining council members felt threatened by Arkley's confrontation with Glass.
I know. A rather convoluted mess based on guesses that no reasonable jury should convict on.
The defense rests.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 9:31 AM
50 comments
50 Comments:
LOL! yougofree.com Schwartz strikes again!
Why, Fred! You finally posted about Rob's attack on Larry. Good boy.
Gee, thanks. I was so worried about not having your approval.
Hey, like I said before; I do my best to avoid subjects other bloggers are dealing with, at least on a given day. I usually check some of the other blogs before I post anything and make sure they haven't already used what I'm planning on using for their subject.
Most of the time. Not always.
So if someone says they are going to ruin someone by bringing out illegal actions they did in order to make money in their youth, is that a threat or just good reporting? Because,, if that's a attack, it looks like Larry Glass is getting attacked by a lot of people now. Is he going to file charges on them all or is he going to address the charges?
Are they doing that in order to get him to vote a certain way on city business?
All this speculation is so unnecessary. Each side, back and forth, without much more evidence than an preconceived political bias.
It comes down to wether you believe Mr. Glass's interview testimony, or you believe the printed testimony of Arkley's SN rep. It's really that simple.
Why the constant speculation? You're just making each side look even more ridiculous by the minute.
Give it up, and let the investigation tell the true story.
Well said.The back and forth stuff has run out of steam,let the investigation run its course.
...and at least mention Schwartz' intent if you're going to (mis)quote him. His piece was about how local law enforcement should deal with the charges against Arkley.
On second thought, why not wait until you can at least provide a link to the text, before you try to fashion twisted talking points?
The case is not based on "guesses", it is based on witnesses. What's up, Fred, have you found a way to make some dough, shilling for Arkleyville?
Schwarze's case is based on guesses. He claims Arkely was deliberately trying to intimidate the other four councilcritters by "threatening" Glass. He's simply speculating that Arkley had this all figured out from the get- go.
One of the things missing in his case is that Glass approached Arkely, not the other way around, so it would be hard to say the incident was planned by Arkely.
But, for Schwarze's sake, let's assume Arkley did have this all planned. Let's ask the other four council critters if they felt intimidated as a result of what happened that fateful night. Maybe Arkely did plan it all and it worked?
Asking a councilperson if they feel intimidated and expecting a true answer is ridiculous.
If they are actually intimidated, they would deny it for fear of retribution by their intimidator. If they aren't intimidated they would say so. In either case they give the same answer, "I'm not intimidated".
As always Fred puts forth inane drivel that he says settles a question. The people who would agree with Fred also can't understand why he's unemployable, impoverished, and on welfare.
Anonymous said...
Asking a councilperson if they feel intimidated and expecting a true answer is ridiculous.
If they are actually intimidated, they would deny it for fear of retribution by their intimidator. If they aren't intimidated they would say so. In either case they give the same answer, "I'm not intimidated".
As always Fred puts forth inane drivel that he says settles a question. The people who would agree with Fred also can't understand why he's unemployable, impoverished, and on welfare.
3:45 PM
Then they are a pussy and need to get out of office.
If only we had someone like Fred on the City Council. He could threaten Mr. Arkley with his hedge trimmer, or with his bottle of RoundUp. Please Fred, please run! We need some entertainment in this city.
For a guy who passed the bar....I think Schwartz should have left one earlier before he wrote this nonsense.
So is there a point?
Oh...the rest of the council will roll over for fear of an Arkley tirade?
Puhleeese
Anonymous said...
If only we had someone like Fred on the City Council. He could threaten Mr. Arkley with his hedge trimmer, or with his bottle of RoundUp. Please Fred, please run! We need some entertainment in this city.
4:41 PM
I'd be willing to put my money down on Fred over you, I think Fred has some spirit and some anger, where you have a fear of lawn equipment.
One of my favorite comments from an anon:
yougofree.com "who has freed more people as a prosecutor than he did as a defense attorney..."
Now advertising his services on Craig's List.
Oh please Mouse. Fred does have spirits though, and lots of them. His wife buys them for him in hopes that Fred will pass out before Dr. Phil comes on.
A pox upon you 8:17.
"Welfare Libertarians and the women who love them, on the next Dr. Phil."
Fred, your out-of-context lifting of Steve Glazer's opinion from Schwartz's My Word piece ("...Arkley therefore did not threaten Glass.") shows extreme intellectual dishonesty on your part. Why are you trying to pretend as if Glazer's words came out of Schwartz's mouth, as if to pronounce judgment on the matter? Instead you seem to betray your obvious bias toward sweeping under the carpet the very serious charge of threatening a public official. IMO, Schwartz is certainly off-the-mark in his suppositions and ideas about Arkley's motives, which doesn't particularly surprise me, since he's a relative newcomer to the area. Rob's long anecdotal history around town of booze, verbal abuse and power-tripping provide a perfect context for his Avalon outburst, which was well-described in Larry's detailed, riveting first-person interview (the only such account publicly available to this point). http://balloontrackwatch.org/GlassvsArkley_full.mp3
What I want to know is, what does Rob have to hide that he can't speak to the public himself? Or is he afraid his real self will come out again?
The interview referred to above was featured live on KHUM the morning after the Avalon incident. KHUM had a prominent link to the mp3 interview at its website for about a week afterward, but I could not find it in its archive recently. However, typing the URL listed above will get it to you.
Here is a link to the KHUM Larry Glass interview from the TS website. I saved it on my favorites list. I hope it works.
4oo plus employees 30000 loans to handle I dont know Arkley but dont all rich people have spokesmen to handle petty situations like this??
Thank you Fred:
Schwartz could do no better in convincing us that he is an absolute waste of a lawyer than by writing this drivel. Now I see why he drew so much criticism during the short time he bilked the county and why he NEVER went to trial in the year and a half or so he pretended to be a deputy D.A. and came up with those ridiculous plea bargains.
What an idiot and an embarrassment. Thanks to the TS for forcing us to see what a deranged lunatic this guy is.
Fred,
Did the article ever get printed online?
I didn't see it earlier today. Seems to me that's happened before. It might be they don't bother putting the Sunday opinion pieces online. Perhaps a way to encourage people to buy the hard copy?
So this poses quite the conundrum for Rose: If she says that Arkley didn't threaten Glass, then she is agreeing with Schwartz. If she says that Schwartz is out to lunch, then she is tacitly agreeing that Arkley threatened Glass. Oh, the agony!
So Fred,you need throw this guy and his "opinions" in the trash heap. He is a nut job who preaches the 9/11 conspiracy theroy with every other breath.
spelling error.(THEORY)
8:09,I'd like to see some evidence backing that up.I've never read any of his letters on that subject,and don't remember much of that coming out during his run for city council.
Ha Ha, 7:04 - does that mean you were able to decipher what the F--K yougofree was talking about? Seemed a little all over the map to me - oh the dilemma, no wonder he couldn't go to trial. It seems Schwartz can't just go into private practice, he's going to keep sticking himself into the limelight.
Mark, I believe he went into that at great length on a radio show or a forum. I forget, but I heard about it. He didn't put it in print that I'm aware of.
Push me, pull you: The glass half full (or empty) by Jeffrey Schwartz
Arkley is a rich guy, and we all like to hate rich guys, especially the ones who inherit their money from their rich, hate-filled good old boy daddies.
Even so, Rob is a pretty pale imitation of the real villains we've had around here in years past.
I'm thinking about city council members like JW and CS. There are others, too, who dripped with undisguised malevolence toward people of whose politics or lifestyle they disapproved.
Know what I mean? If any of them are still alive, maybe we could have a roast. Torment them in their old age. We'd better hurry up and do it soon. It's no fun to poke fun at somebody who is dead.
It's not about hating rich guys, or even about Arkley. It's about whether our vote has more influence than someone else's threats. It is a felony to threaten an elected official, whether you're a pauper or a prince. People sure do want to pull this one off topic.
HAHAHA - Schwartz is on this blogging anonymously. hahahahaha!
It's always funny when an anonymous rips on someone for posting anonymously.
I'd expect that from you mark. The difference is not ragging on an anon for blogging anonymously but ragging on the fact that the subject of the blog/posts is posting anonymously and defending himself instead of using his own name. Reminds me of R.Trent and Sara Salzman.
Put down the "medicine" and maybe enjoy the subtle difference.
Fred's claim that Schwartz said Arkley didn't threaten Glass is bogus.
From the T-S My Word, "PR man Glazer told the Times-Standard that if anyone thought Rob Arkley would change Glass' vote on the Marina Center, they would be crazy, meaning that Arkley therefore did not threaten Glass. I see it just the opposite. It makes sense that Arkley would threaten Glass if in doing so he was able to intimidate the rest of the city council." As is clearly shown, Schwartz says "just the opposite" of Glazer.
Shame on you Fred. Once again you demonstrate either functional illiteracy or intellectual dishonesty. Which is it?
I am guessing deliberate lying since he took Schwartz' statement out of context and changed what he actually said with the use of ... in place of Schwartz' words.
Liar Liar Fred
Fred attempted to decipher the gobbledegook that was Schwartz's "My Word" from memory - the Times Standard took a few days to post it online.
I'm asking if anybody can figure out what yougofree.com was actually saying, and why he appears willing to prosecute THIS case, but none of the cases he was assigned as a highly paid Deputy DA. For that matter, there are alot of other questions - like if he was such a successful SF atty, why come take a low paying job in the Humboldt. Co, DA's Office - why once here he made no effort to make improvments, and what if anything he did as the DDA assigned to the CAST team.... got any idea what it cost you to have him on the payroll?
It is only gobbledygook for the functionally illiterate. Why come you don't know how to use proper grammar, Rose?
He deliberately took Schwartz' quote out of context, leaving out the most important part and made a claim that was the opposite of what Schwartz actually said. His dishonesty is obvious.
"It is only gobbledygook for the functionally illiterate.".
Then 8:45 writes, "WHY come you don't know how to use proper grammar,".
Is this an attempt at parody?
Nope. I didn't take Schwartz out of context, since his commentary was so scatterbrained, there was no real way to do that.
Are you one of those who thought Gallegos' My Word pieces he had published a while back were hard hitting commentary?
Actual quote from Schwartz' My Word column?
"PR man Glazer told the Times-Standard that if anyone thought Rob Arkley would change Glass' vote on the Marina Center, they would be crazy, meaning that Arkley therefore did not threaten Glass. I see it just the opposite. It makes sense that Arkley would threaten Glass if in doing so he was able to intimidate the rest of the city council."
Your post:
"...Arkley therefore did not threaten Glass. I see just the opposite.....Arkley never had Glass' vote and never needed it. The only logical thing Arkley could have been doing is threatening ruination of other council members through Glass....If you leave alcohol out of the equation, nothing else makes sense."
It is obvious to anyone with a brain that you deliberately misquoted and left out parts of his statement to mislead. You are a lying creep, Fred.
Newspapers are written at a fifth grade level. Apparently DA's write at a higher level and that is why the intellectually challenged are unable to understand what Schwartz was saying.
Hey Yougogfree.com - just use your damn name instead of blogging anonymously trying to defend yourself.
Who in the hell is yougogfree?
If you are implying that is the person taking Fred to task for dishonesty, you are wrong. That is me, Fingersfly.
If you are opposed to people posting anonymously then you shouldn't do it yourself, HYPOCRITE.
Fred has been proven a liar by his own posts compared to the published My Word of Schwartz. But that seems to be a common failing in "conservatives" along with a generous helping of hypocrisy.
Fingersfly
yougofree.com aka Jeff Schwartz, the lamest of the lame. A pathetic piece of shit lawyer.
He is part of Paul Gallegos' legacy.
Wheres Rex Bohn when you need him??????
Post a Comment
<< Home