[mccookgazette.com] Fair ~ 38°F  
High: 58°F ~ Low: 28°F
Thursday, Nov. 27, 2014

Law firm: City Council members should resign

Monday, December 19, 2011

McCOOK, Nebraska -- A law firm hired to give an opinion on two McCook City Council members convicted of minor crimes says they should resign immediately.

The legal opinion goes on to state that even speeding tickets would constitute a crime within the meaning of the statute.

Simmons Olsen Law Firm will present the opinion and field questions tonight, 7:30 p.m., at Memorial Auditorium.

Read the opinion here.


Fact Check
See inaccurate information in this story?


Comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on mccookgazette.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

REALLY McCook?? I have known BOTH of these guys for a VERY long time and I cannot even begin to believe that this is a issue! I understand what the "law" says but really...disturbing the peace and harboring a dangerous dog?? This is the exact kind of stuff that I DO NOT miss about the McCook area! There are many more things that should/could be addressed and dealt with then spending time and...oh taxpayer money...on trivial things like this! I am sure that EVERY council member has received a speeding ticket at some point in their lives so does this mean you ALL will be resigning immediately??

-- Posted by FormerMcCookie on Mon, Dec 19, 2011, at 5:16 PM

Very well said, and exactly why our young adults move on from here. Yes I do believe that no one is without some kind of "crime" but I bet only two will take the fall. Well done again McCook......will we ever get past the good ole boy system. I think not.

-- Posted by ruby4 on Mon, Dec 19, 2011, at 5:27 PM

Please do not make this a McCook issue. The state made the statute and the two were convicted. i agree the law is poorly written. But again it is not the fault of "McCook" .And if another council member even is convicted while still in office of a traffic violation, it looks like they forfeit their seat too!

-- Posted by dennis on Mon, Dec 19, 2011, at 5:29 PM

Ruby, why do you think it is an age issue? Who or what is the"good ole boy" system? If no crime or conviction happened then McCook would not be in this mess...or if the state had done a better job of writing this law.

-- Posted by dennis on Mon, Dec 19, 2011, at 5:34 PM

I didn't expect to see that coming and I'm disappointed with the opinion because I do like the Councilmen; however.... Just because you're really really liked, doesn't mean the law doesn't pertain to you.

If this case is just pushed aside, wouldn't THAT be construed as "the good ol boys network" as well?....not to mention breaking the law.

Its true that anyone with ANY infringement will need to go which may leave us with no council members so this statute truly needs to be amended to better serve the public. If it is not however, can we see this type of statute put into effect at the higher levels of government please? There are more that a few of those in Senate and Congress that have really done some no nos that DO effect the public.

What the public, specifically the citizens of McCook have to understand is that the law can't be ignored JUST because these guys are really good people. Its not a judgment call for the City or Mayor to make. They can no more make that call than they could validate traffic tickets. I know these guys are well liked, they were voted in, I voted for both of them but really..... People..... This is beyond the realm of approving a special liquor license or deciding if the City of McCook should allow fireworks on New Year's Eve.

Keep in mind that this is only an opinion; however, with that opinion given, the City would be foolish NOT to follow that direction for risk of possible repercussions that may follow should these two Councilmen vote the unpopular side of an issue one day.

Its stupid, but if they weren't liked by many, would the disgust be voiced so loudly? Think about that. If those of you that support the Councilmen on the hot plate had the tables turned and there was a member of council that was driving this City into the dirt, would you fight so diligently? The matter can't be based on popularity, it must be based on non-emotional, non-personal fact, not opinion. Justice is Blind.... Its the only way it works or the next problem that crops up will use the "Really Good Guy" precedence..... And maybe, it will be the guy that wants to drive the City into the dirt.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Mon, Dec 19, 2011, at 5:51 PM

Hope no one steals a stone to throw

-- Posted by exmccookie on Mon, Dec 19, 2011, at 5:55 PM

no one will run for these. not worth the hassle

time for a second opinion, imo...

-- Posted by norm on Mon, Dec 19, 2011, at 6:09 PM

sorry, but after reading that opinion i can't believe anyone would ever make that ruling. the can of worms that would be opened across this state for every city council would be so gigantic this would put any ruling made in jeopardy.

-- Posted by norm on Mon, Dec 19, 2011, at 6:18 PM

Clearly the statute needs to be amended.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Mon, Dec 19, 2011, at 6:29 PM

I think I'd write my letter and make them file suit to remove me. Clearly the only way to solve this is to force the courts hand as to what they meant by crime.

-- Posted by npwinder on Mon, Dec 19, 2011, at 6:58 PM

Years ago I arrested a Nebraska State Senator for DWI. He was sentenced and lost his license and got a driver to get him to the legislature. He definately could have hurt himself or someone else. The councilmen may have broken the law, but I would bet they can still function just fine as councilmen.

-- Posted by Pierre on Mon, Dec 19, 2011, at 7:42 PM

The law is vague but for crying out loud people quit blaming the city of McCook. McCook didn't raise the issue nor did McCook write the law. I don't know who presented the issue to the city attorney but it was presented; the city attorney and the city council have an obligation now to deal with the situation.

If councilmen Kircher and Hilker have to resign based on the ruling, then that is what needs to be done. If Mr. Kircher and Mr. Hilker want to file suit then they should but on their own dimes. Both were convicted of a crime, unfortunately they have to live with the consequences of their actions, whether anyone agrees with the law or not.

-- Posted by citizen1976 on Mon, Dec 19, 2011, at 9:27 PM

WOW!!! So glad I moved away from McCook! Let's continue to stack the council Mr. Berry. If they are not your friends, get rid of them right?!?

-- Posted by youngneighbor on Mon, Dec 19, 2011, at 10:11 PM

Does anybody else realize that this opinion made by the law firm just declared open season on any council member in a city-manager style government? If you don't like em? Find out if they have any minor violations. They can't even use the "infraction" slip. It states in the opinion why that might not be valid.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Mon, Dec 19, 2011, at 10:18 PM

"I am sure that EVERY council member has received a speeding ticket at some point in their lives so does this mean you ALL will be resigning immediately??"

Statute says while committing the crime while a council member.

"The legal opinion goes on to state that even speeding tickets would constitute a crime within the meaning of the statute."

No kidding? That's because speed limit is a violation of a statute not an ordinance.

-- Posted by bberry on Mon, Dec 19, 2011, at 10:27 PM

Holy crap. I must say if this law firm is right and ordinances fit under the criteria this could get ugly across the state real fast.

Oh crap was a couple days late getting dog tag renewed and got a ticket I have to resign.

Dog got out and got a ticket have to resign.

Crap was gone a couple weeks on vacation and forgot to hire someone to mow. Got a ticket for weeds better resign.

And then you even have the minor state laws.

Dang it. I was a couple seconds slow on slowing down coming into town better resign because I got a ticket.

Crap forgot that stop sign and got caught better resign.

I could got on but I think you get the point.

Yet we allow people of the highest office to take bribes, insider trade, use prostitution, commit war crimes and on and on and on. Does anyone not see the insanity of this?

-- Posted by carlsonl on Mon, Dec 19, 2011, at 10:47 PM

Will be interesting if this makes national news and if it does what kind of conversation will start because of it.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Mon, Dec 19, 2011, at 10:52 PM

The lawyer is an idiot. I'd seek a second opinion.

Nebraska Statutes 28-104 - Offense; crime; synonymous

Nebraska Statutes > Chapter 28 > 28-104 - Offense; crime; synonymous

Current as of: 2010

Check for updates

The terms offense and crime are synonymous as used in this code and mean a violation of, or conduct defined by, any statute for which a fine, imprisonment, or death may be imposed.

Neither of these crimes were under a statute, but an ordinance.

-- Posted by bberry on Mon, Dec 19, 2011, at 11:02 PM

lol, i mean neither of these "violations" were under a statute.

-- Posted by bberry on Mon, Dec 19, 2011, at 11:05 PM

Hunt down the author of the statute from 1920.... He / she's the one that started this issue. There is nothing anyone at the City government level can do to "bypass" the statute. The League of Municipalities has the ball rolling to update the statute but that won't happen quickly. This isn't a local decision to be made.... You understand that right? Laws designed for the early 1900s certainly don't fit in these modern times but this isn't an isolated event. Be it right or wrong, the television and radio franchisers went to court to change the laws and regulations regarding the use of certain words on public stations. They didn't first air the profanity then complain because they got jabbed for it, or perhaps they did, but the point is, they had to go through the proper channels to amend the laws and regulations. Its just the was it goes.... Mayor Berry has little, actually no say in it, in fact, by this taking place, he has now found himself, just as do the other council members, walking on thin ice. Do you really think this is something they would have wanted to see happen? I don't think so.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Mon, Dec 19, 2011, at 11:58 PM

You all realize the tremendous power this gives to law enforcement and the county attorney, not only in McCook, but across the state? Disagree with a city councilperson? Ticket him or her for running a stop sign. Council person suggests cutting the police force? Cite him or her for jaywalking. And it really ties the hands of the county attorney. If he/she drops the charges, they are accused of favortism. If he/she prosecutes, they are playing politics. Senator Christensen needs to lead the charge to get this law changed during the upcoming legislative session.

-- Posted by Linda1547 on Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 7:27 AM

Pheasant hunt, quail hunt, deer hunt and now a witch hunt. McCook it's all here!!!

-- Posted by exmccookie on Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 7:47 AM

If I were Kircher and Hilker, I would find a "like-minded" citizen to agree to serve on the Council and then resign and ask the Mayor to appoint the person I suggested. If he choses to appoint someone else, then he is really going against the will of the voters. And, I would then begin my campaign for re-election. I don't think the legal opinion says that being convicted of a crime would preclude them from serving in the future. My hunch is that they would win by a landslide (provided they keep their noses clean between now and then).

-- Posted by Linda1547 on Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 7:58 AM

Youngneighbor, all the appointments made by the mayor to the council were also approved by the council and then all were later elected. Mr. Hilker was appointed by the mayor before his election to the McCook Housing Board and Mr. Kicher was appointed by the mayor to the MEDC Board by the mayor. Age or youth has nothing to do with the law. If you are looking for somebody to blame then look to the ones that wrote the law or to the ones that broke the law. Some have also posted about all the council being removed. That could happen if they are convicted of a crime while in office. Also please consider a different point of view when witch hunting the folks that brought the issue to the city attorney--note that he said it was NOT a council person or staff person--whoever did it may have had the best of intentions to help save the city from huge future bills and problems if they did not know the law and act upon it. Maybe those people should be thanked not spanked.

-- Posted by dennis on Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 8:04 AM

I did not mean to imply that just because these gentleman were upstanding citizens and well liked that they should be allowed to stay on the council. I simply meant that I have know them for a long time and that their "crimes" have been blown out of proportion. I understand that this is a state issue and not one of the city of McCook. I just don't understand the EXTENT that the city is going to for this trivial issue. As in several smaller towns, as I suspect, the city council is and always will be a popularity contest. I firmly believe that it would not be above the "fine men in blue" to give out "warnings" rather than actual tickets because of "whom they are". The entire town is a "who you are and who you know" town and unless you "rub shoulders" with the correct people you are not worth much. It is just too bad that in this form or city government that there can not be a mayoral change for the better rather than one that has been "ruling" for long enough! The mayor speaks from BOTH sides as his mouth depending upon whom he is speaking with much as do most of the council members. It is too bad that Aaron and Shane are going to be "made and example of" in this situation...because they may be two of THE MOST deserving HONEST council members your little town has! Take a look around the council chambers and see how many of the council members are there because they DESERVE to be and whom is there because of WHOM they are!

-- Posted by FormerMcCookie on Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 8:49 AM

"There is nothing anyone at the City government level can do to "bypass" the statute."

They don't have to, statutes already provides the definition of the term crime. It also gives the qualification of a member of the council.

Why are they struggling with what is already defined within the state statute?

"Pheasant hunt, quail hunt, deer hunt and now a witch hunt. McCook it's all here!!!"

No, it isn't a witch hunt.

I guess it comes down to how much money the city of McCook wants to spend to retain these two.

The lawyer stated the only thing they could do is find relevant rulings pertaining to the word crime. Yes, lets ignore that it is already defined by state statute.

Oh well, I guess McCook has a decision to make. Good luck!

-- Posted by bberry on Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 8:59 AM

Why did the city attorney suddenly decide to talk about this law now? Is it a brand new law? If it is not a brand new law, how did the city of McCook ever have a City Council in the past?

-- Posted by Grandma B on Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 10:20 AM

Crime - an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited.

All are crimes. The difference in criminal offenses lies between infractions, misdemeanors and felony offenses. The ordinance does not distinguish between the different levels. Therefore, I am going to venture to say they will be forced to vacate their position. I'll take that $1,000 dollar.

-- Posted by blueCollarWorker on Mon, Dec 5, 2011, at 11:36 AM

.......could have kept the money local

-- Posted by blueCollarWorker on Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 10:29 AM

The terms offense and crime are synonymous as used in this code and mean a violation of, or conduct defined by, any statute for which a fine, imprisonment, or death may be imposed.

It's all in Chapter 28 of state statutes.

-- Posted by bberry on Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 10:43 AM

I would agree that this definitely needs amended to exclude minor traffic violations and some other offenses. I would still have disturbing the peace in there though. That is a total lack of respect for others, and an action that may be deemed that the person isn't really serving the people or doing what is best for them.

-- Posted by blueCollarWorker on Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 10:49 AM

Minor traffic violations aren't city ordinances. Disturbing the peace is and isn't a state statutes. It is a provision for cities to mandate the ordinance.

Glad we didn't pay you the $1000.

-- Posted by bberry on Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 11:05 AM

The punishment should fit the crime and it looks like these guys just got handed life sentences!!!

-- Posted by nebraskamike on Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 11:48 AM

blue collar worker do you realize that the police had been called a small handful of times to Aaron's residence and there were not and citations issued due to "lack of evidence"?? Could this simply be a matter of noisy and crabby neighbors that may not like Aaron?? Possibly also maybe the police that responded this particular evening had an issue with Aaron also?? I know that Aaron NEVER would have had excessive noise causing any distress to his neighbors! I lived in McCook for 27 years and I know first hand about noisy and crabby neighbors that have nothing better to do than cause issue for the neighbors! I too know that the fine "men in blue" at times have "slow evenings" and are simply looking for something other to do than sleep in their cruisers listening to the scanners!

-- Posted by FormerMcCookie on Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 12:07 PM

WOW, this is absolutely rediculous. What we have here, is a law, that says a councilman can have a criminal past as long as he did it before he was on the city council. For example, someone who imbezzled money or commited fraud, could in fact be elected to city council.

On the other hand, a very respectable person could get a speeding ticket while on the council and be forced to resign.

I guess if the city were smart they would let the voters of our local democracy decide what is a crime and what isn't.

This is so stupid I can't believe educated people are making these decisions.

-- Posted by Justin76 on Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 12:10 PM

And how many victimless crime laws do we have on the books since 1920? Did they even have speeding tickets and vicious dog ordinances in 1920? DO you suppose what people classified as criminals in 1920 is not what dopey lawyers are classifying as criminals now.

I just cannot believe that someone who gets a speeding ticket or a noise violation is now a criminal. That just changed the world right there.

I guess we should go back through the history of the city council and find all the "criminals" and reverse ALL the decisions that were made by these criminals.

I also think that criminals shouldn't be allowed to be cops or fire fighters. Maybe we should ban criminals from being teachers as well. I don't want my children to be taught by criminals!

We could really clean up this town by eliminating the criminals from society. I'm glad we have smart lawyers in Nebraska to help find these criminals in disguise!

-- Posted by Justin76 on Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 12:22 PM

Justin,

I think it partly assumes that people wouldn't elect a criminal to begin with. Just my thoughts though.

-- Posted by bberry on Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 12:28 PM

The law is certainly outdated, but what do they call it again? Oh yes, a law. The City of McCook can't drop this.

If you are a landlord and one of your rentals has a leaky roof and the tenants don't inform you of this, you don't know about it and it doesn't get repaired. The tenant better not complain about furnature getting wet. If the tenant DOES tell you however, you are under full obligation to rectify the problem or you can be held liable.

The City of McCook was informed that they had a leaky roof, they can't just walk away from it. They can't say "Hey, it's my property, I'll do what I please." The City is obligated to deal with the issue, BECAUSE it was brought to their attention. From what I gather, the City Attorney was NOT the one that brought it to attention but instead, someone brought it to HIS attention.

Question: Can the City Attorney ignore this issue? Is he obligated to act on this information? How many people out there really think this could be swept under the carpet? If someone introduced the issue, then someone other than the City Attorney knew about it, and yes, they probably did it for a reason.

Who out there would risk their job and livelyhood by sweeping this under the carpet? Former, exmccookie, Linda, Grandma B? Is it alright to not disclose this information and by extension put on your judge and jury outfit and make the decision for yourself? The Statute isn't a suggestion or a guideline.... Its a law, which, by the way, cannot just be amended by the City level government. A stupid law? Perhaps, certainly poorly written, but that doesn't change a thing.

I think what I am hearing is why can't this all just disappear?.... The answer, because there are those out there that know the issue exists, the City is obligated to follow the law. Just as is expected of the Council Members.... And let us not forget about everyone else that the law applies to, which includes myself.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 6:31 PM

Nick not everyone is saying that it should be ignored. Some are saying that their offense under state LAW definition doesn't break the law. Others are pointing out the law is stupid and that the councilmen shouldn't step down but fight it. Others are asking if this opens up problems from past decisions of the council, if during that time period someone was serving illegally due to this law.

To come on here and repeat yourself about how it is the law and how people just want to make it disappear is quite stupid. It serves no purpose other then to point out that your comprehension of the discussion is rather low.

The fact that you think you need to hammer home this idea of yours leads me to believe you might possibly have been the one to bring this to attention.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 8:16 PM

"The law is certainly outdated, but what do they call it again? Oh yes, a law. The City of McCook can't drop this. "

There was really nothing with the statute as it states if they commit a crime while in office.

The statute in chapter 28 defines the words offense and crime.

Both ordinances that were violated were not crimes because they do not appear in any state statute, at least none that I found. Feel free to prove me wrong.

The lawyer is a chucklehead and so are those that believe him.

-- Posted by bberry on Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 8:57 PM

Bingo carlson1. You have wisdom beyond comprehension!

"Why did the city attorney suddenly decide to talk about this law now?". I replied "From what I gather, the City Attorney was NOT the one that brought it to attention but instead, someone brought it to HIS attention."

"WOW!!! So glad I moved away from McCook! Let's continue to stack the council Mr. Berry. If they are not your friends, get rid of them right?!?".... Carlson? This sounds like someone is accusing the Mayor of something to me, makes it sound like he has the ability to change the direction that this is going.

"REALLY McCook?? I have known BOTH of these guys for a VERY long time and I cannot even begin to believe that this is a issue!"

That sounds like someone feels that this is a City driven option, as though it doesn't HAVE be addressed. My repeated response was its a law, not a suggestion.

"Oh well, I guess McCook has a decision to make. Good luck". This guy thinks there are options huh?

Carlson1, what are you talking about? I think the law is outdated and needs to be amended, not specifically to save any Councilmen's seat, but to assure that the City Council won't become an endangered position.

I'm troubled that there are people that are making comment that reflect that they are under the assumption that someone here can discontinue the path. There is no such person.

By the way carlson, before to proceed with your attempts to make me appear foolish or an annoyance, make sure that you are at least quoting me properly, I certainly DIDN'T say that "everyone was saying it should be ignored." That is your little paraphrasiment. I may well be annoying to those which only wish to look past the black and white of the law and peer into the gray area of " I have known BOTH of these guys for a VERY long...." OPINION based statements as though they are facts.

Try this one on for size carlson:

"This is so stupid I can't believe educated people are making these decisions." Do people know that educated people can't MAKE any decisions regarding this? That last quote would indicate, NO.

If you're reading what I'm reading, it certainly appears that there is continued confusion about this out there, maybe you're all about emotion though..... (Sob sob) and it's NOT fair! (Sniff sniff). Cry to someone that has the ability to change it carlson, I don't have the power, write your Senator, but enough with the feelings in regard to a poorly written statute, dumb or not, that's the rule as it now sets.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 9:30 PM

What is a crime? hmmmm! Selling a 3 million water wish for 2 million, a waste treatment plant with never ending updates, voting on and approving a city building to house what is already housed and the crime of not getting what was voted on and then to have the county think about a competing jail. The IDC should court a costume store so all the clowns can dress alike, might take 2 stores. That will jump start this ol' community.

-- Posted by exmccookie on Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 9:48 PM

"Oh well, I guess McCook has a decision to make. Good luck". This guy thinks there are options huh?

Since when wasn't there an option?

The chucklehead that they hired only gave a recommendation.

-- Posted by bberry on Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 10:31 PM

What's the option bberry? The City pays for the court proceedings to show that is unconstitutional with hopes to amend the law?

The League of Municipalities is on that already. What are the options?

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 10:46 PM

For both council members to remain on the council, or to resign or be removed (according to the chucklehead they hired).

Why else would they challenge the law?

But it may not matter as one has already resigned.

Or do you not think either council member was worth the cost of court proceedings?

-- Posted by bberry on Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 11:11 PM

According to the statute, they don't have a say regarding whether they stay. If they choose to refuse to forfeit their seat, it becomes a County Attorney issue. How is it that you think they can decide if they remain or not? This of course isn't a council decision, that decision is made by the individual Councilmen.

So far as the money to foot the cost of court proceedings..... You're referring to "Tax Payer's" money?

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Tue, Dec 20, 2011, at 11:32 PM

This is where we differ our opinions Nick.

The attorney they hired gave an opinion based on rulings which now fall under a revised statute. State v Carlson. This defines sexual assault of a child.

Nebraska Revised Statute 28-320.01

Their State V. Palmer argument says this under Nebraska State Constitution Article I-11

Defendant's right to demand the nature and cause of accusation does not require State to specify upon which aggravating circumstances of section 29-2523(1) the State intends to rely. State v. Palmer, 224 Neb. 282, 399 N.W.2d 706 (1986).

So we go back to whether they committed a crime for their forfeiture of office.

In which we can now refer to:

Nebraska Statutes > Chapter 28 > 28-104 - Offense; crime; synonymous

Current as of: 2010

Check for updates

The terms offense and crime are synonymous as used in this code and mean a violation of, or conduct defined by, any statute for which a fine, imprisonment, or death may be imposed.

So if we use this argument, they do indeed have a say whether they stay or not. The violations they committed do not fall under a statute. Any statute relating to the matter are provisions to establish the ordinance of a primary city.

Remember Nick, what the lawyer gave was an opinion.

-- Posted by bberry on Wed, Dec 21, 2011, at 12:03 AM

There is certainly a difference of opinion, I'll agree there. I'm no lawyer, but where did you see that the hired attorney based his opinion on those cases that you referenced? I didn't see that anywhere. If you are a lawyer, perhaps you might do the Councilmen a favor and represent them. If you're not, you may consider caution regarding the legal references as they might cause the Councilmen additional costs if it should lead them to chase waterfalls.

Now, you have made the following statement:

"The terms offense and crime are synonymous as used in this code and mean a violation of, or conduct defined by, any statute for which a fine, imprisonment, or death may be imposed".

Again, I'm not a member of the legal bar association, but in simpler terms, your referenced statement says that a crime and offense is the same, or closely similar (synonymous). Either of the two or both can be defined by imposing a penalty and in both the cases of the Councilmen, a fine was paid, ergo, a crime, or by any other name, specifically "offense", must have been committed and conviction applied.

Soooooo why, do you claim that they have a say when indeed, the statute requires forfeiture of council seat upon conviction of a crime? I'm not following this logic. I apologize if your point is out there for all to see, and I'm too dense to pick up on it.

Nick

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Wed, Dec 21, 2011, at 1:20 AM

http://www.mccookgazette.com/files/legal...

"Our opinion as follows"

"If you're not, you may consider caution regarding the legal references as they might cause the Councilmen additional costs if it should lead them to chase waterfalls. "

Why should I be catious while providing information from state statutes? I am not practicing but I do not need to be a lawyer to know or study the law.

This would be like saying I should not brush my teeth because I am not a dentist. Or because I am not a lawyer, I should not challenge my rights.

I admust admit Nick, I am somewhat surprised you'd mention this. I am pretty sure you're just reaching to make your point now.

Whether or not they choose to follow someone on the mccook gazette website is entirely up to them.

The statute refers directly to violation of a statute. Not anything you pay a fine for.

Hence a violation of a statute for which a fine, imprisonment, or death may be imposed.

And again, neither ordinance violation were in state statute.

So, this is where I applied the logic that the chucklehead they hired is wrong and continuing further is in my opinion they have the option to stay.

Chucklehead used 25 year old rulings (I actually couldn't even find where the excerpt he used in the ruling) and the definition of crime from a dictionary that is 85 years old.

I would take his argument to court anyday due to "plain and ordinary meaning". This is subjective to whatever definition you happen to pull out. But why bother? It's already defined for us in state statute.

Which is likely to be correct, a current state statute or the older rulings in which I have already provided under the revised statute?

They can make the decisions for themselves, but it probably won't matter since one has already resigned.

Have a good one Nick.

-- Posted by bberry on Wed, Dec 21, 2011, at 7:10 AM

i never question my doctor either. /sarcasm

-- Posted by norm on Wed, Dec 21, 2011, at 8:57 AM

It leaves one to wonder how he's administering the prostate exam with both hands on your shoulders.

-- Posted by bberry on Wed, Dec 21, 2011, at 9:25 AM

Hmmmm. That's kind of gross bb. It does make you wonder though.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Wed, Dec 21, 2011, at 10:59 AM

I agree it is completely gross.

But I have to joke, seeing it as kind of gross implies there is some favorableness in it.

-- Posted by bberry on Wed, Dec 21, 2011, at 11:51 AM

The action is completely gross, the joke is kind of gross.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Wed, Dec 21, 2011, at 10:40 PM


Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account on this site, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.

Related subjects