Neil, that really doesn’t answer the question

Neil Derry

I saw your response to someone else that you are not a paid consultant to anyone involved in the Colonies scandal.  Okay, I believe you.  But that leaves a ton of other possibilities. Are you an employee of anyone involved in the Colonies scandal? Are you a subcontractor for anyone who is a consultant or employee of anyone involved in the Colonies scandal?  Is your firm, if incorporated, the actual consultant, subconsultant or employee?  Are you paying back debt from the $300,000 the Colonies partners spent on your election campaign?  Are you a volunteer in a capacity for anyone involved in the Colonies scandal?  And there are a gazillion other possibilities.

Why do I doubt your sincerity in all of this?  Well, I can’t answer that except to say that San Bernardino County may be the largest county in the contiguous United States, but when it comes to certain things, we are still a Mayberry.  Word travels fast and your actions and deeds say otherwise.

Then when you tie in what happened with Gutglueck’s paper along with the fact that the paper was used to promote your re-election (and Grover Merritt’s too if I remember correctly), something is fishy.  We can also add to that Lou Desmond, who you work(ed) for as well and who seems to be in the back pocket of the Colonies defendants.  Then there is Steve Lambert.  And the list just keeps growing.

Of course, to all of that we can add all of threats and intimidation that continues to go on over on the other blog.  And it is all one big cluster.  I ask again, if they are all so innocent, why do they have to stoop to these methods to try to influence the potential jury pool?

If your account of being able to discuss what happened in closed session is correct, you’ve had a long time to discuss it.  Why now?  I think that answer is obvious.

36 thoughts on “Neil, that really doesn’t answer the question

  1. If you are so connected to the fifth floor Sharon get one of those mentioned in the articles and let them call bs on Derry publicly. When you talk about tainting a jury pool what would you call your commentary? Your hypocrisy, double standards is obvious. Who is paying you? This everyone being paid by Burum has become laughable. This case is in the toilet.

  2. No one is laughing about Burum buying everything and everyone. Isn’t that the crux of this case? Of course it is–a wealthy developer who buys whatever he wants, legal or not, whether it is prostitutes or settlement agreements or PR consultants.

    As to Derry, I don’t think the average person cares what he has to say. What we all care about is that he is trying to sway public opinion, using his former position as county supervisor, to aid criminal defendants in a case in which he has personal ties without making all of those personal ties public. It’s a waste of his time and only makes him look foolish. He will never be elected to public office again.

    Josie is the only one currently on the fifth floor who sat through all closed door sessions. She is a witness in this case. She cannot make a statement, and to suggest she can, shows how ignorant you really are. At least she can’t without it being approved by and probably prepared by County Counsel. Janice and Greg sat in at the tail end. It is hardly appropriate for either one of them to make a comment. And certainly county counsel is not going to make a comment with the approval of the CEO and BOS.

    Rather than suggesting the county agrees with Neil, what their silence suggests (other than what was stated above) is how inconsequential they consider Neil Derry to be. He has no friends up there. He was hated when he was there and that has not changed.

  3. Remember something before you call this case toast. Ramos only has to get one juror to agree with him for a hung jury. Then he can put these four through it all again for another year or two. That’s what he did with Rex and we will see it here too, if necessary.

  4. A headline of a story asks: “Is Neil Derry on Jeff Burum’s Payroll?” Neil Derry responded on the record as follows: “I am not a paid consultant for the Colonies, Jeff Burum, or anyone else involved with the case.”

    I guess the argument could be made that Mr. Derry is not specifically denying that he is on “Jeff Burum’s payroll,” but in a case with a lot of abstract theories, such as payments made six months after the fact being bribes or Mark Kirk influencing Gary Ovitt’s actions, that seems like a fairly specific response to me.

    I too have been accused of being a paid consultant of Jeff Burum. There is never any evidence provided to support that claim, the most likely reason being because it isn’t true. However that hasn’t stopped some people from continuing to make that contention, often when I bring up a fact they don’t like.

    If there is any evidence that Neil Derry is “on Jeff Burum’s payroll” or “a paid consultant of Jeff Burum or any one involved in the case,” I would like to see it.

    If not, let’s focus on what Mr. Derry said in his stories. I feel that there is information in the stories that has not been disclosed before and comes from a legitimate source. I found the stories very persuasive.

    • Of course you think Derry’s commentary is persuasive, as you are clearly just another cog in the Colonies PR machine, just like Steve “my scruples are now for sale” Lambert and the long line of other PR hacks before him like Steve Sullivan, former editor for the Daily Bulletin, and political spin doctor Ric Grenell. All paid Burum bitches.

      Hey Observer of the Facts: Don’t you find it funny that for all the attacks on The Sun and Daily Bulletin you and the Colonies mafia bring, that Burum keeps hiring their former editors to be his spin doctors? LMAO!

      Derry is also Burum’s and Erwin’s bitch, whether paid or not. He is always angling for some way to stay within the political arena and do damage to people’s reputations at the expense of his own. Derry’s foul stench lingers for miles, and his toxicity oozes from his pores.

      These people are ALL manipulators, liars and just downright deplorable scabs that need to be picked clean.

      • Observer of the Farce:

        1) You are welcome to your opinion that I am “just another cog in the Colonies PR machine.” I call them like I see them, and your criticism will not change that fact.

        2) For the record, I have never heard of Steve Lambert or Steve Sullivan, but it was once suggested that I am really Richard Grenell.

        3) Assuming that it is true, perhaps the reason Jeff Burum hires former Sun and Daily Bulletin editors is to give them an opportunity to cite actual facts, something they may not have been able to do in their former positions.

        4) I have no idea what Neil Derry’s motivation was in writing those 3 stories, and don’t really care.

        For many years I have based my opinions in The Colonies case on the facts as I see them, and I noticed that Mr. Derry seems to do so as well.

        For example, he placed a lot of weight on Judge Warner’s ruling, which took place after an 18 day trial where the county was represented by 9 attorneys. I also consider that to be key factual element of The Colonies prosecution, while many Mike Ramos cheerleaders seem to ignore it altogether.

  5. What is actually hilarious is that 95 percent of the population don’t understand the complexity of this case and probably don’t care. The defendants are spinning this case to try and “influence the jury pool” but the average person who will be on the jury don’t know anything about the case or care so their plan is futile. It just makes them feel better before being jailed.

    If my beliefs are correct, the jury will hear the evidence and defense will try to muddy up everything as best they can, as that is what they are paid to do. The jury will see through it all and the next thing that will be heard is, “Will the defendants please rise.” The rest is yet to be told. But before any of this happens, we keep hearing about the prolonged continuation of this case coinciding with DA Ramos potential future political endeavors. Let’s not forget the request for continuance asked for and granted by defense for every reason under the sun. I can assure you there will be many more defense continuances than prosecution. God bless.

    • James Mills:

      1) For over five years The Sun and Daily Bulletin ran slanted stories that I feel were intended to deceive.

      For example, they kept mentioning what might have happened if the county “had gone to trial and lost,” clearly implying that a trial never took place.

      They also typically didn’t mention that the alleged bribes were paid many months after the settlement took place, and implied that The Colonies wanted the County to pay for all the flood control improvements on their property.

      They also stereotyped the developer by referring to the project as “sprawling.”

      Now, after a 3 part story in a low profile newspaper over the course of week, you feel that it’s the defendants who are doing the “spinning?”

      2) You claim that the prosecution requested and were “granted” continuance’s “for every reason under the sun.” Can you identify some of those requests and the reasons?

      My recollection is that by far the longest delays in this case were the prosecution twice appealing rulings they didn’t like.

  6. You are absolutely right about that James. Imagine being a juror with no clue about this case and going on a field trip to a big hole in the ground and being told it was worth $102 million. Well, really $300 million so they will be told to show the county got a bargain.

    I would not even bring up the concept of trying to influence the jury pool had Erwin and I not had many conversations about just that and juror misconduct. He expects jurors to read his blog during the trial, plain and simple.

    One other thing I might mention is that over there they think what is being said is indicative of the public at large. As you point out, 95 percent of the population doesn’t care. Ninety percent of the population never heard of it.

    People think that those they surround themselves with are representative of the public at large. I’ve seen Kenny mention Facebook comments and newspaper comments as though they are are statistically significant and a representative sample. If that were true, Paul Schrader would be sheriff, Grover Merrit would be District Attorney, Mitt Romney would be president, and Tim Donnelly would be governor.

    There are those over there that are in desperate need of a statistics class. The sad thing is that Erwin knows all about political polling. But he plays to the “unwashed masses” that is his audience rather than scientific research.

    Totally off subject, but Donald Trump is not going to be the Republican Presidential nominee any more than Schrader was going to be sheriff. Unless this whole thing has really caused Jim to completely lose it, he knows that.

  7. Mr. Derry’s treatise stakes its premise on “The county lost twice in civil court in front of two separate judges on this matter. The decision by Judge Christopher Warner can be read online and is damning. There is no question that the county directed flood control onto private property where the county had no legal easement.”
    This is the flaw with his analysis.
    Easements, ones for flood control, did exist on the Colonies property. Not one easement, but three. The county did not lose twice. In actuality, the judge hearing the case before Judge Warner, Judge Peter Norell, ruled that the easements had been abandoned. That ruling was reversed by the appellate court. So, the easements did legally exist. Judge Warner later ruled that the easements were not abandoned but extinguished. Judge Warner’s ruling was in defiance of the appellate court and would not have stood. This is the same appellate court that gave the Colonies the favorable ruling relating to the dismissal of the civil suit to recover the $102 million that Mr. Derry references in citing the defensibility of the settlement. Read Judge Warner’s ruling side by side with the appellate court reversal of Judge Norell and this will become clear.
    One of the three entities Mr. Derry cites as being co-responsible for this debacle – the city of Upland – was likewise responsible for giving the Colonies Partners an entitlement to construct a large project in a flood control plain. Surely the Colonies would have needed to mitigate the flood control issues related to its own project. The county designed the flood control system that, in Mr. Derry’s words, “directed flood control onto private property” at the behest of the city of Upland within the larger context of the approval of the Colonies project. This contradicts Mr. Derry’s assertion that “The county, as a government agency, was guilty of an unlawful taking of private property and forcing private citizens to pay for improvements that were never the property owner’s responsibility.” It was the property owner’s responsibility to provide flood control, otherwise the property could not be developed.
    Mr. Derry complains about “hired public relations hacks” commenting on this issue. He fails to disclose that he is a “hired public relations hack” himself. He wrote this piece, while employed by the public relations firm Desmond & Louis. Apparently he denies that Desmond & Louis is working for the Colonies Partners. Let us take him at his word. But we do know the Colonies Partners provided him with more than $20,000 – directly and indirectly – when he ran for supervisor in 2008. Are we to believe he authored these editorial pieces simply to inform the public of the true facts in the matter? Or does he, too, have a bias?

    • Your explanation of what happened with the easements, court decisions, etc., is a perfect example of why a jury is going to look at a big hole in the ground and say it is not worth $102 million. Juries are not made up of planners, attorneys, engineers, etc. They are made up mailmen, teachers, grocery story clerks, college students, retired truck drivers and the like. I don’t think even a $800-an-hour attorney can simplify this to the point of an average juror being able to look at and understand all of legalities. That is especially true since it will hardly be cut and dried as the prosecution will muddy up the waters with their own version of what happened and their own legal mumbo-jumbo.

      I think the jurors will find the prostitutes (Erwin was not the only one Burum bought prostitutes for in all of this), Rolexes, $400,000, planned extortion mailers, and all the rest is far easier to understand and more convincing.

      After six months of testimony that is extremely boring and complicated, I don’t see a unanimous “not guilty” verdict. They are going to know something doesn’t pass the smell test, whatever that may be, and vote against the arrogant, wealthy developer and government hacks who abused all of us tax-paying citizens with their greed.

      For all of the grandstanding on the other blog about the case being toast, the defense would not be going to the extremes it is going to if they really thought they had a “not guilty” verdict in the bag.

  8. Administrator:

    As usual, I agree with most of what you say.

    But I think many potential jurors are going to have an easy time understanding the concept of being bullied by bureaucrats.

    I heard that, in one of the trials, a Colonies attorney held up a basketball, and asked the court if it was fair for a government agency to throw 240,000 of them on somebody’s property every minute, and tell them its their problem to deal with. I think most jurors would get that message.

    Also, there may be jurors who dislike government and their attorneys even more than they dislike developers.

    Anyway, it will be interesting; I wish the trial would finally get started.

  9. Harold Chiles fills in some, but not all, of the gaps continually, and obviously intentionally, excluded by Observer of the Facts in his slant pieces. The trial never concluded, and Warner’s and Norrel’s rulings were tentative – tentative. Here’s the Webster definition of “tentative” so Observer of the Facts knows his “facts”: not done with confidence : uncertain and hesitant, not definite : still able to be changed.

    Observer of the Facts always excludes this information. Why? The case was settled in arbitration, not at trial and not by a judge or a jury, but by an arbitrator whose credibility has come into question several times and was brought up during the grand jury proceedings. I know, I know, Observer of the Facts – exculpatory evidence that would have completely vindicated Burum and the rest of the defendants had the grand jury seen it was not presented. How many times are you and the Colonies clan going to rehash that? That has been argued several times already in court, and the judge poo pooed it each time. Study the law and learn about grand jury proceedings and evidence presented, which the newspapers have already done on a couple of occasions. But why let the “facts” get in the way of your continual bullshit spin doctoring.

    The Colonies civil litigation would’ve continued to drag on at the appellate court level, and Burum and Colonies stood to continue losing millions of more dollars. Could this be a motive to get this case settled by any means necessary, while Burum’s development was languishing on the floodplain and investors – Colonies Partners – with a stake in the project were likely breathing down Burum’s neck to get this litigation done and get the project done? I know, it’s a hard scenario to imagine and completely ridiculous, right? Any more ridiculous than what Observer of the Facts has been spinning from day one.

    So maybe Observer of the Facts should stop bitching about the newspapers slanting things and start “observing” his own slants and exclusion of pertinent details surrounding this case. After reading his last post above I can’t help but roll my eyes and chuckle. Does this guy realize how ridiculous he sounds? He complains that the press “stereotypes” Burum by calling the Colonies development a “sprawling” development and other nonsense I won’t bother to recycle here. But I guess calling “sprawling” a 434-acre housing development and shopping center built on a floodplain along a major freeway extension project, which necessitated all these infrastructure improvements, one of which served as the crux behind the Colonies litigation, is quite the stretch, huh? Unreal!!

    And all this talk regarding Derry being a paid consultant for Colonies: Just because Derry is not being paid by Colonies now doesn’t mean he wasn’t paid handsomely by Colonies during his campaign for supervisor in 2008 and hasn’t been promised financial rewards and political endorsement in the future if Derry continues to use his PR skills to spin and advocate for Colonies in the press during the pretrial process. Doesn’t this sound like the same exact scenario that went down with Postmus that influenced him to vote in favor of the settlement?

    Remember this: Colonies was partially, if not more so, responsible for Derry getting elected county supervisor, with major help from Jim Erwin getting Derry the SEBA endorsement. Colonies contributed heavily to SEBA’s campaign coffers, and that money passed through to Derry’s campaign coffers. Erwin subsequently went to work for Derry as his chief of staff when Derry was elected supervisor, a “thank you” of sorts and reward for getting Derry elected. Erwin helped cultivate Derry’s relationship with Colonies so Colonies could be a potential future major donor for Derry’s political campaigns, whether as a supervisor or for higher office. Derry is likely hoping for that same courtesy in the future if Colonies wins the criminal case and Burum is vindicated, which could happen.

    It’s as easy as pie to establish the connections and relationships in this case, and anyone with one iota of knowledge on how politics really works can figure this out with 5 minutes of critical thinking.

    As Deep Throat says, “Just follow the money.”

    • Observer of the Farce:

      Wow, that’s quite a lengthy comment. When I first saw it I was afraid is was going to resemble one of Little Stevie Wonder’s rambling comments. I was pleasantly surprised to see some valid points being well articulated.

      My response is as follows:

      1) Judge Warner’s ruling was titled “Statement of Intended Decision.” I don’t see where the word “tentative” is used, or that there is anything “tentative” about it.

      As Neil Derry said in his three part story, it was a “damning” ruling for the county, and clearly imposed liability on them for their actions.

      What remained was the damages portion of the case. In other words, it had been decided that the county owed The Colonies money, but not how much.

      I guess it’s technically accurate to say that the trial “never concluded,” which you are now doing, but that sure sounds like the type of “spinning” you have accused me of.

      2) The settlement was not arbitrated, it was mediated. You have criticized me for my understanding of legal procedure; perhaps you should learn the difference between an arbitration and a mediation.

      3) The mediator was a retired Supreme Court Justice with substantial experience. Both the County and The Colonies agreed to allow him to serve as a mediator. How has his “credibility come into question several times?”

      4) I have never said that exculpatory evidence would have “completely vindicated” anybody. That’s pure speculation, and it serves no purpose.

      5) I do think that the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence from the Grand Jury. To their credit, they were so far able to get away with it. I even complimented Melissa Mandel for her legal skills in clearly misleading the Grand Jury.

      According to court transcripts, she established motive for the alleged bribery by claiming that The Colonies were losing their lawsuit again the county. That was after Judge Warner’s ruling. How can any reasonable interpretation of the facts lead to a conclusion that The Colonies were losing?

      5) You claim “The Colonies civil litigation would have continued to drag on at the appellate court level.” That’s more speculation; see comment #4.

      6) I’m not sure that any portion of The Colonies project was in a designated “flood plain.” But even if it was, development can occur on flood plains, as long as you mitigate the potential effects.

      7) I don’t believe that Mr. Burum’s development was “languishing.” In fact, Judge Warner’ decision states that The Colonies took steps to insure that it did not languish, including constructing the detention basin that was the counties responsibility.

      8) In my opinion, there was absolutely no reason for a newspaper article to refer to The Colonies project as “sprawling” except to stereotype and cast aspersions on the developer. I think that the Mike Ramos / Jerry Brown press conference to announce The Colonies prosecution was textbook political grandstanding. If the local media would have labeled it as a “grandstanding press conference,” do you believe that it would have demonstrated impartial and objective journalism?

      9) You claim that Neil Derry could have been “promised financial rewards and political endorsement in the future” and tell us what he is “likely hoping for.” See comment #4 regarding speculation.

      Thank you for your comment; after a couple of days of responding to Repairman and hearing his silly theories, I appreciate the opportunity to debate somebody who at least makes an attempt to be factual.

      • Obers
        What silly theories? just because you can’t answer them doesn’t make them silly. All I said was he could have gotten another passport in an attempt to fool some one, like a reporter. Now, it’s your turn, why do you think it is such an absolutely impossible thing to have happened?

  10. Repairman:

    The Jeff Burum passport issue is not an attempt to “fool” a “reporter;” it’s an issue in a Superior Court criminal prosecution.

    Josie Gonzales has testified that she saw Jeff Burum in China at a specific point in time. Jeff Burum has produced a US Passport that does not show him leaving the USA or entering China at the time Josie Gonzales claims she saw him there.

    The passport is documented, third party evidence, one of the highest standards of proof.

    Your theory suggests that Jeff Burum really was in China at the time, and after he came back he claimed that the passport that showed him leaving the USA and entering China and vice versa was “lost,” and he obtained a new passport, and that’s what he produced.

    There are numerous flaws in that theory, but here’s one:

    If he claimed that a passport was “lost” and obtained another one, the “new” passport would bear the date it was issued, not a date in the past such as the date that the “lost” passport was issued. On that basis, it would be clear that it didn’t cover the applicable time period.

    That’s why your theory is so “silly.”

    By the way, your theory that the voluntary court appearance by Neil Derry is the same thing as his being arrested is equally “silly.”

    • Obers
      Who said he got the passport after he came back from China? BTW why do you think Josie Gonzales would lie about some thing like that? that’s the problem with your theory, for it to work, other people have to be liars.

      • Repairman:

        OK, so you are now saying that Jeff Burum could have pretended that he lost his passport and obtained the replacement passport BEFORE he went to China.

        First, why would he have done so? Did he predict the future and realize he would need another passport to produce if anybody claimed they saw him in China and he wanted to act like he wasn’t there?

        Second, he would have had to use the new passport when he reentered the USA. Otherwise he would be trying to pass through US Immigration control using a passport that was reported lost. Therefore, the passport he produced to the court would have to be the one he previously reported as lost!

        Sorry, but this new theory even sillier than the old one.

        As I have told you before, I never said that Josie Gonzales was lying. Perhaps she was just mistaken. Perhaps she was jet lagged and hallucinating. I don’t know what she saw or didn’t see, but I do know that she testified to the Grand Jury that she saw Jeff Burum in China, and Mr. Burum has produced a US Passport establishing that he was not in China at the time she claimed she saw him there.

        As to a motive if she did lie, as I said the last time you asked me that question, perhaps she was afraid that if she didn’t Mike Ramos would target her with of his selective prosecutions.

        • obers
          Who said he got it before he went to China? It seems like you and anonymous are claiming Ramos was extorting Josie Gonzales into bearing false witness against burum , if not how do you explain your comment of “Mike Ramos would target her with of his selective prosecutions.” if she did not lie?

  11. Repairman:

    First you said “Who said he got the passport after he came back from China?” Now you are saying “Who said he got it before he went to China?”

    I guess that means you feel that he got it when he was in China?

    Hey, maybe after he saw Josie Gonzales noticing him, he immediately tracked down a Chinese forger and had a fake US Passport prepared to have on hand in case Josie Gonzales made a claim several years later that she had seen him there.

    Or perhaps he only has one Passport like I do, and your theory is silliness taken to the nth degree. That’s my feeling.

    I can’t speak for “anonymous,” but you have asked me twice to explain why Josie Gonzales would lie, and I have twice given you a possible reason. Now you are suggesting that I am stating that the possible reason is true. I didn’t say that it was true, just like I didn’t ever say that she lied.

    Sometimes I am amazed at how you can totally misinterpret clear and precise comments so that they fit your agenda. But then I remember your stubborn refusal to admit that Neil Derry was never arrested, and it becomes clear.

    • obers
      I don’t know if he got it before or after or at all,all I have ever said was it was possible.

  12. Repairman:

    HUH?

    We have listened to you perpetuate this preposterous theory for several years, and now that you are cornered by the facts, you are claiming that you only said it “was possible?”

    For the first time ever, I wish I would have saved some of your old comments that I could refer to.

    OK, here are some other things that are “possible:”

    1) Commercial airlines will soon begin service to the San Bernardino International Airport.

    2) Mike Ramos will admit that The Colonies prosecution was filed in order to retaliate against a private party who successfully sued the county.

    3) Mike Ramos will admit that he and Kamala Harris threatened FPPC members to get them to only fine him the three times they caught him lying in his campaign contribution reports.

    4) Mike Ramos will admit that he bribed the Supreme Court Judge’s who overturned the Appellate Court ruling.

    5) You will admit that Neil Derry was never arrested.

    You are welcome to continue to base your opinions on things that are “possible,” but I will continue to base my opinions on facts.

    • Obers
      Actually your the one who keeps bringing it up. And what I said was the second passport could have been used to fool a reporter or help soothe nervous investors or wives that had been lied to, hoping that what they have been hearing is not true and that this is nothing more than a political prosecution (for some unknown reason).
      what did you mean when you wrote ” she was afraid that if she didn’t Mike Ramos would target her with of his selective prosecutions.” how does that not sound like extortion? .
      Jet lagged? hallucinating? is that really what you believe? because it sounds like nonsense to me.

    • Here’s an example how you’ve been able to find comments when you want to, “However, here is a comment you made on the other site on June 18, 2013: ” that was just the other day, you were able to find a 2 year old comment, and now here you are today, “For the first time ever, I wish I would have saved some of your old comments that I could refer to.” what happened? . What happened was , you could find no other comment as you were searching both sites and your computer.

      • Repairman:

        Wrong again.

        I have NEVER saved any of your comments. There is a difference between my saving your comments and my finding them in the archives on the other site.

        I don’t have the time or the interest to research the archives for your old comments about Jeff Burum’s second passport, but I do not recall you ever mentioning the “fool a reporter” theory until last week.

        Perhaps you have the time and interest? To give you incentive, if you can produce a comment of yours that was made before August 15, 2015 where you claimed that Jeff Burum’s second passport was to “fool a reporter,” I will agree to put a 60 day moratorium on mentioning your stubborn refusal to admit that Neil Derry was never arrested.

        And no, I don’t “really believe” that Josie Gonzales was “jet lagged” and “hallucinating;” I think she was either mistaken or lying.

        Finally, based on my interpretation of “extortion,” a person taking certain actions because of concerns about possible consequences if they do not does not quality.

  13. Repairman:

    Wow, that comment is almost as insightful as your James Ramos first year report card.

    Is it safe to assume that you are not going to produce a comment of yours that was made before August 15, 2015 where you claimed that Jeff Burum’s second passport was to “fool a reporter,” and I can continue to mention your stubborn refusal to admit that Neil Derry was never arrested?

    Speaking of “pitiful,” that is a good word to use in describing your flip flopping on the Mike Ramos campaign contribution reporting violations.

  14. Repairman:

    You have expanded your comment, and it now matches the word count of your James Ramos first year report card, two.

    The level of insight you have provided remains the same.

    • Obers
      Judging by your propensity to bloviate on all things, it’s obvious how important word counts are to you, and probably your paycheck, but I believe in cutting to the chase. I still think James Ramos is doing “just fine” ( if you have trouble with the meaning of that, just let it go), and your last few excuses and explanations were “just pitiful.” sorry.

  15. Repairman:

    1) I don’t have any trouble with the meaning of “doing just fine.” It has the same meaning as me saying that Mike Ramos is “doing a lousy job.” Without any support, they are both empty statements.

    2) If your statement “probably [my] paycheck” is an inference that I am being paid to post comments, you are wrong once again.

    3) In the past when you were cornered by facts, you would try to deflect it away by mischaracterizing my statements and/or claiming that I was copying and saving your comments. Now you are a just saying that my comments are “pitiful,” and not responding at all. That’s fine with me; I get to read less of your writing, with the same result.

  16. I have been reading a long time and I have never read the explanation offered that Burum had a fake passport to “fool a reporter”.

  17. Anonymous:

    Don’t hold your breath waiting for an “explanation.”

    When confronted with facts that demonstrated how idiotic the Jeff Burum had two passports theory is, Repairman suddenly claimed that he only said it was “possible” and to “fool a reporter.”

    When I challenged him to identify a comment where he said that it was to “fool a reporter,” he called my offer “pitiful” and ignored the challenge.

    He’ll probably respond to you by saying he never claimed the passport was “fake.”

    A few months ago, when I cited the comments that showed his clear flip flopping the Mike Ramos campaign contribution violations, he first tried to deflect attention away from it by ridiculing me for ostensibly copying and saving his old comments. When I contradicted that allegation with facts, he disappeared for about a month.

    If we are lucky, that might happen again.

  18. I commented a long time ago how ridiculous I thought the two passport theory was. As if our government would just say “hey you lost one, here is another”. I imagine Costco doesn’t even have such a simplistic system. I think I got a comment as well, but no “fool a reporter” explanation, like I said, this is a first that I have seen.

    From what I have witnessed from the dimwitted Josie, it could be any number of explanations, and I look forward to her testimony. She sits up there on the board relatively immune from face to face scrutiny, she deserves to have to answer to somebody. If this goes to trial, she will have to explain her China declaration. Like I said, looking forward to it…

  19. Anonymous:

    I remember it the same way.

    Repairman brought up the two passport theory in response to a passport that was produced in a criminal prosecution in Superior Court. The “fool a reporter” theory came up much later, during his back peddling when he was confronted and cornered by facts.

    I too look forward to Josie Gonzales testimony. I do not know much about her, but I do not recall seeing any County Supervisor criticized by so many different people for having limited intelligence. Usually when many different people make a similar observation, there is validity to it.

    I am also looking forward to ANY testimony. As I have said many times before, the prosecution has enjoyed slanted media coverage of this case for over 5.5 years, all while not having to take the first step in proving their allegations in a courtroom. It’s time that they started doing so.

Leave a Reply