Dana Beyer Files Complaint Against County After Inept "Investigation"
Dana Beyer, Senior Assistant to Montgomery County Councilwoman Duchy Trachtenberg and candidate for Maryland state Delegate, held a press conference today to announce that she has filed a complaint with the county's Human Rights Commission against the county Ethics Commission. The Ethics Commission has just finished a clandestine, seven-month bogus investigation into Beyer's actions in which they secretly searched at least one County Council staff computer, failed to interview important and obvious witnesses, and leaked information about the investigation to uninvolved parties. The Ethics Commission last week concluded that Beyer had acted in her capacity as a County official to "intimidate, threaten, or discriminate against" a person collecting petition signatures at the Arliss/Piney Branch Giant in Takoma Park on February 17, 2008. This conclusion was formed on the basis of statements by the Citizens for Responsible Government (CRG) volunteer who was allegedly harassed, a statement by the president of the CRG, Ruth Jacobs, who was not present at the scene at all, and a statement signed by the Giant manager submitted in Ruth Jacobs' handwriting. It should be noted that I was at the scene of the alleged incident, along with several other TTF members, and none of us were contacted for any statement. You can read a description of our visit to the Arliss Giant HERE. Scroll through the February 2008 archives of this site for descriptions of similar encounters with petition handlers. Any real investigation would have included a Google search that turned up these Internet narratives about the incident and the names of potential witnesses.The Citizens for Responsible Government, or "shower-nuts," as they are known locally, were gathering signatures for a petition to re-legalize discrimination on the basis of gender identity after the passage of a bill by unanimous vote of the County Council. They were doing this by lying to people, saying that the new law would allow men to go into ladies showers and rest rooms. A number of us went to the sites where they were gathering signatures and told potential signers what the bill really said. In some cases we were able to get the shower-nuts to go home, some store managers kicked them off their property, and other times people decided not to sign after we talked to them. Call it democracy in action, free speech going both ways. In the end, a state appeals court threw out the referendum effort, as there so many fraudulent and irregular signatures that the group did not meet the threshold to get the issue on the ballot.
Dr. Beyer's complaint states that the ethics commission searched her office computer for evidence that she had communicated with activist groups including TeachtheFacts.org, Equality Maryland, and the Human Rights Campaign, and searched her computer for evidence of activism in promoting the nondiscrmination bill. None of that is of course against the law or improper in any way. They also investigated whether she had posted County Council emails on activist web sites, meaning, I assume, whether she had posted some emails on this blog (for instance, letters I posted HERE and HERE), where nutty people threatened the Council and the citizens of the county. Those emails are public record and the Ethics Commission found no evidence that Dr. Beyer had posted any Council correspondence on any web site. In fact all the charges but one that were initially investigated were dismissed.
The complaint also asserts that information about the investigation was leaked to other county officials, which is a violation of the ethics law, and called for investigation of the Ethics Committee itself by the Human Rights Commission of Montgomery County. The statement says, "The only conceivable purpose of this leak -- and its certain effect -- are to compromise my effectiveness as a staff member for Councilmember Trachtenberg, make my job much more arduous and difficult, and embarrass me in the eyes of my colleagues and superiors. And these actions have not been taken with respect to any other employee other than one who is transgender." Dr. Beyer is a transgender woman; this appears to be, ironically, the first case invoking the county's new gender identity nondiscrimination law.The complaint does several times point out the unprecedented nature of the investigation, including rummaging through a county official's computer and leaking information about the investigation -- these things have never happened before in this county. The conclusion was based on the statement of the alleged harassment victim, Steven Harold Schaal, who said “[h]er exact words, ,… I don’t remember the exact terminology…..I can’t quote her directly.” Still, it is alleged that Dr. Beyer said she was acting in her role as a county official in talking to the CRG volunteer about the petitions.
Dana Beyer is an LGBT activist, and has been as long as I have known her, going back before she worked for Councilwoman Trachtenberg -- in fact, I'd venture to say she was hired for the position because of her activism. She is a retired eye surgeon whose reputation as a spokeswoman for gay, lesbian, and especially transgender rights is recognized all over the world. It is not rare in the political arena to find people who hold strong views and act on them, and it would be nonsensical to prohibit those people from serving in the public interest. The Ethics Commission here appears to be functioning as a political entity to shut down the activism. The charge of intimidation of a citizen by a county employee acting in her official capacity is ridiculous and unsupported by evidence or testimony, and the fact that the commission failed to interview people -- me, for instance, and other TTF members -- who were obviously on the record as being at the scene of the incident tells you that the so-called investigation was entirely incompetent. We blogged photographs of the alleged harassment victim and other shower-nuts at the Giant, and a detailed description of all interactions that I observed; none of this was included in the investigation. The investigation was requested by the CRG and was inappropriately influenced by them; the Ethics Commission failed to interview anyone with information that may have exonerated Dana Beyer, and did interview individuals who had nothing beyond a purely political connection with any of the alleged incidents that were investigated.
Dana Beyer will be running in 2010 for a Delegate seat in the Maryland legislature. The timing of this investigation and its finding are clearly calculated to inflict maximum political damage on Dr. Beyer's campaign as well as that of her boss Duchy Trachtenberg, who is also running for re-election in 2010. The investigation itself is easily seen as an act of harassment against Dr. Dana Beyer because she is a transgender woman in an environment where gender identity became a focal issue. The political background to the investigation and its findings is not pretty, the commission leaked information to political rivals in order to allow them to spread rumors, and the blow-back is going to be intense as we head into the 2010 election season.
posted by JimK at 4:28 PM
61 Comments:
What was unprecedented was for an County Councilman's assistant to visit sites where people are trying to petiton to overturn a law that was authored by that Councilman and try to discourage this exercise in democracy.
I will grant that Dana may have simply become over-zealous and not thought through the implications but this kind of behavior should not be considered acceptable.
For a person in Dana's position to be at the site proclaiming the petitions are illegal and calling on store owners to discourage them from allowing the petitioners is so blatantly improper that not a lot of evidence is really necessary to establish the character of the act.
She simply didn't belong where she was even if all she did was give petitioners the evil eye.
The perception alone is outrageous.
Duchy should go. Dana should not be elected.
She simply didn't belong where she was even if all she did was give petitioners the evil eye.
The perception alone is outrageous.
And what perception are you trying to create with the evil eye here?
When she's off the clock at work and on her own time, Dr. Beyer is a private tax-paying citizen with the same right same as you to present your opinion to the public.
Presenting both sides of a petition issue to potential supporters is the epitome of democracy. Thank goodness the dedicated folks at TTF went around to the CRG sites and presented the other side so citizens could be fully informed in their decision.
"And what perception are you trying to create with the evil eye here?"
that the government is trying to suppress dissent
and, in the case of Dana and Duchy, an investigation has now found that it was more than a perception
as has be noted many times, gay advocates always believe they are above democratic processes
they will do anything to prevent citizens from voting on their issues of advocacy
"Presenting both sides of a petition issue to potential supporters is the epitome of democracy."
no, it isn't: a debate leading to a vote is
the petition was not to change the law but to allow a vote on changing the law
Very interesting, "Anonymous", that you persist in advocating your position that the voters should vote on any individual's civil rights, much less vote on any and every piece of legally enacted legislation. ("... the government is trying to suppress dissent", "as has be [sic] noted many times, gay advocates always believe they are above democratic processes...they will do anything to prevent citizens from voting on their issues of advocacy").
Which group or individual will be next on your agenda? Who will be the target of your next bogus petition drive? Anybody you perceive to be an "illegal immigrant"? Moslems... because they don't accept your particular religious views? Canadians because you believe they don't have a right to criticize our government?
Laws that would guarantee protected civil rights for citizens?
The list could go on and on, given your proclivity to express your hatred and fear of anybody who is different or who opposes your narrow view of rights guaranteed and protected by the Constitution.
Perhaps you need to sit in on a civics class to learn the difference between a direct democracy and a republican form of government. Why not just be open and honest about your desire to change our system of government if you don't like it because you don't get your way all the time? It is easy to see the chaos that would result from having every piece of legislation put up for a direct vote by our citizens.
This constant warfare you are inflicting against particular individuals and on the citizens of Montgomery County is a failed strategy. Tea-bagger tactics will loose every time.
Citizen
"Call it democracy in action, free speech going both ways. In the end, a state appeals court threw out the referendum effort, as there so many fraudulent and irregular signatures that the group did not meet the threshold to get the issue on the ballot."
LIAR.
A total of 80 signatures outs of 31,000 collected and 26,500 validated were thrown out for fraud. The original target number of signatures was 25,001. The fraud was alleged but never proven. Most appeared to be husbands signing for wives and vice versa, but no investigation was ever done.
After the petition was validated for the ballot, the MD supreme court UPPED THE NUMBER of signatures required to 27,000+ and changed the rules Maryland has had on accepting signatures for 30 years. The new standard makes MD the only state requiring a triple validation, which may very well be unconstitutional.
Wow, Jim, how do you look at yourself in the mirror when you post such trash ?
LIAR. LIAR. LIAR.
Why don't you post a link to the original ethics complaint against Dana, in the interest of allowing citizens to make an informed decision ?
"you persist in advocating your position that the voters should vote on any individual's civil rights,"
that the issue is a matter of civil rights is an opinion and a fringe one
"much less vote on any and every piece of legally enacted legislation"
the local jurisdcitions have steam valves allowing the citzens to intervene when legislators fail to represent them
"Which group or individual will be next on your agenda?"
don't have an agenda
I was fine with the status quo
"Who will be the target of your next bogus petition drive? Anybody you perceive to be an "illegal immigrant"? Moslems... because they don't accept your particular religious views? Canadians because you believe they don't have a right to criticize our government?
Laws that would guarantee protected civil rights for citizens?"
I think all those people and gays all deserve civil rights.
I don't sexual deviance should be a special protected behavior or that the definition of marriage should be recast.
"The list could go on and on, given your proclivity to express your hatred and fear of anybody who is different or who opposes your narrow view of rights guaranteed and protected by the Constitution."
haven't express any hatred or fear of anyone
"Perhaps you need to sit in on a civics class to learn the difference between a direct democracy and a republican form of government."
Did you have the, ahem, flu, the day they discussed the referendum process?
It's here, it's clear, get over it!
"Why not just be open and honest about your desire to change our system of government if you don't like it because you don't get your way all the time?"
I'm fine with our way of government. You seem to have trouble accepting our democratic processes.
"It is easy to see the chaos that would result from having every piece of legislation put up for a direct vote by our citizens."
nobody suggested that
"This constant warfare you are inflicting against particular individuals and on the citizens of Montgomery County is a failed strategy."
I'm not engaging in warfare. The pro-family agenda has, however, defeated the gay agenda in 31 states so far.
"Tea-bagger tactics will loose every time."
Tell Pelosi and Reid.
Their grandmother got run over by a reindeer.
They believe.
Anonymous said:
"don't have an agenda
I was fine with the status quo"
THAT is one of the funniest things I've ever seen! Big high five to you, Anon!
Why is everyone so disrespectful and hateful? Yikes. I find it completely odd and frightening that Dr. Beyer was singled out for a formal and extensive ethics investigation. This seems entirely awry and smacks of improper motives. Who is on this Ethics Commission anyway? Are we ok with them using their power for political motives or because they have trouble with a transgender state employee and her activism? I really hope that this is not the case. It would be scary and truly outrageous. Computers scanned, secret interviews, etc.? Why not simply ask Dr. Beyer what happened directly? This is a crazy waste of taxpayer dollars.
"I find it completely odd and frightening that Dr. Beyer was singled out for a formal and extensive ethics investigation."
Dana wasn't singled out in this bastion of gay tolerance.
She acted in a dubious manner and was investigated on complaint.
Would have happened to any other Council aide who had acted similarly.
No one else has done this.
We need to prevent it from happening again.
Any investigation, based on a citizen complaint concerning particular conduct at a particular place at a particular time, that does not include interviews with those who were present is not a legitimate investigation. Rather, such circumstances strongly suggest (indeed, definitively demonstrate) incompetence and/or prejudgment on the part of the investigator(s)and the decisionmakers.
If members of the Commission take conclusions of the staff at face value without inquiring as to the scope of the investigation, then they have no business being on the Commission.
Shame on the CRCrazies.
"Any investigation, based on a citizen complaint concerning particular conduct at a particular place at a particular time, that does not include interviews with those who were present is not a legitimate investigation."
that's up to the judgment of the investigators, david
they may have concluded that they already had sufficient evidence
that they didn't bring TTF apologists for Dana in, with their known adeptness at spin and word games, doesn't make the investigation meaningless
Today's Gazette
Transgendered aide turns to law she helped pass:
Beyer files complaint against council Ethics Commission
Today's WaPo
Ethics watchdogs face complaints in Montgomery:
Council staff member, her boss seek probes in separate matters
Anon blathered:
an investigation has now found that it was more than a perception
What investigation? Do you think asking Ruth Jacobs -- who was not at the Arliss Road Giant -- and the accuser what happened constitutes an investigation? Doesn't the accused have a right to speak in her defense? And what about the TTF people the Vigilance blogs from February 2008 prove were at the Arliss Road Giant that day too? Why weren't they asked about what they saw and heard in this investigation? Jim told us why: the so-called investigation was entirely incompetent.
no, it isn't: a debate leading to a vote is
the petition was not to change the law but to allow a vote on changing the law
In this case, signing the petition was, in effect, a vote in favor of having the issue decided by referendum.
Debate most certainly is warranted when you are trying to convince citizens to put minority rights to the popular vote. Had the states voted on the Civil Rights Act back in the 1960s, we'd still have Jim Crow laws and poll taxes.
Why don't you post a link to the original ethics complaint against Dana, in the interest of allowing citizens to make an informed decision ?
Now we see your true colors, you want publicized all the items in the complaint. Well in this case I agree with you because what that would do is inform the public of how much fiction the CRG obsessively creates. The evidence of that creativity is the fact that all but one of the "charges" were thrown out because they were unfounded.
Once there's a real investigation that interviews actual witnesses to the events, we'll learn the truth of what happened that day. Until then we only have the CRG's bogus complaint and the ethics investigator's incompetent report.
I think all those people [Moslems and Canadians] and gays all deserve civil rights.
Correction, you think gays deserves SOME civil rights. You have no objection to Moslems and Canadians marrying, even each other.
that's up to the judgment of the investigators
The investigator's judgment is highly questionable here. Why were only 2 people from the CRG questioned and why were actual witnesses to the event not questioned?
that they didn't bring TTF apologists for Dana in, with their known adeptness at spin and word games, doesn't make the investigation meaningless
The fact that the investigator brought in only a CRG apologist (a man so full of hate he told Andrea she should have been aborted) along with the CRG President who wasn't even at the scene of the alleged incident, in order to investigate the incident, but did *not* bother to bring in actual witnesses who were present at the Arliss Road Giant that day for questioning, says it all.
The so-called investigation was totally bogus.
After the petition was validated for the ballot, the MD supreme court UPPED THE NUMBER of signatures required to 27,000+
The MD Supreme Court most certainly did not up the number of signatures required. The number of petitions signatures required was and remains 5% of registered Montgomery County voters, not 5% of active registered Montgomery County voters. The MD Supreme Court corrected the MoCo Board of Election's error in calculating the number of petition signatures required because they based the number on "active registered Montgomery County voters" rather than on "registered Montgomery County voters," as required by law.
We see who is the LIAR here.
...and changed the rules Maryland has had on accepting signatures for 30 years
The MD Supreme Court upheld the laws of Maryland. They confirmed the fact that petition gathering procedures written and approved by the Maryland State legislature and signed into law by Maryland's Governor must be strictly followed.
Again, we see who is the LIAR here.
http://maryland-politics.blogspot.com/2008/02/crg-alleges-intimidation-by-dana-beyer.html
have you seen this blog ?
complete with the video.
it's you, anon-B
the BOE told CRG what it had been telling people for years
whether there was some legalism that made that incorrect, the court should have ruled that the least harm to the democratic process was done by allowing the referendum to go forward and making a new appliucation of the law going forward
"The investigator's judgment is highly questionable here. Why were only 2 people from the CRG questioned and why were actual witnesses to the event not questioned?"
There was filmed evidence. Dana boasted about her activities on the internet and her COUNTY-OWNED computer hard drive was examined.
It's likely that sufficient evidence of her guilt was readily available and no further corroboration was necessary.
As I recall, this well-known aide to the author of the bill was filmed telling petioners their petitions were illegal and repeatedly bragged here how she was contacting store management to convince them not to allow the petitioners.
As far as I'm concerned the case is closed.
Dana appears to think there is biased involved. She'll have her day in court and will have the burden of proof.
I think the reaction of TTF if the court doesn't decide in her favor is a foregone conclusion.
What I fail to see is what motivation the investigator would have had to attack Dana.
some commentary on the video of Dana approaching petitioners form the time this was happening:
"There is little question that this video will be a propaganda boon to CRG. They can now expand their argument beyond the narrow confines of the legislation and into the realm of civil liberties.
CRG will ask what business a County Council employee had in enforcing Giant’s solicitation policy.
Trespassing on Giant’s property is a matter for company management and the police.
Throw in the fact that the council employee in question was a known advocate for the bill and an employee of its lead sponsor and CRG will claim political targeting by the government.
Many people who support the transgender bill will be uncomfortable with the idea of county employees – especially the personal staff of council members – seeking to get petition collectors ejected from store premises.
Civil liberties questions are now going to arise."
these questions are completely appropriate and the investigation is now complete
as I said before, Dana lost control and didn't think through what she was doing
even from a TTF perspective, her actions were simply not smart
this should elimnate the possibility she will elected to statewide office and should get Duchy thrown off the county council
"County policy allows for searches of council members and their staff's county-owned computers, as long as the department head, County Council Staff Director Steve Farber, gives his approval. Farber said he has never been asked, nor given approval, to have any employee or council member's computers searched."
The Examiner.
There was filmed evidence.
No there wasn't. That video was not taken at the Arliss Road Giant on February 17, 2008. The title says it was recorded on February 18, 2008 at the Westwood Shopping Center Giant.
Look at Rhetta Brown, she doesn't even look up from what she's doing and appears oblivious to Dana, not intimidated by her. And Steina Walter rubs her nose and does not appear to be intimidated either.
MPW reported "...CRG has two things going against it. First, its video clip is only six seconds long. It does not have any context associated with the events before or after the video was taken. That context, along with testimony and evidence about any other events at other locations, will be relevant in any lawsuit. Second, the organization has a history of distorting the content of the legislation. Given that history, CRG’s version of events cannot be trusted as the entire truth.
..."
Oh excuse me, in the interest of full disclosure and honesty, the video title says:
Westwood Shoping Center Giant
Thanks for the tip, Derrick.
Here's the link to the Examiner's article.
what she was filmed doing, she has also admitted doing:
telling petitioners their petitions were illegal and trying to encourage store owners to not allow the petitioners
this is quite different from an ordinary citizen doing this- it was an aide to the County Council
you're defending the indefensible, anon-B
"County policy allows for searches of council members and their staff's county-owned computers, as long as the department head, County Council Staff Director Steve Farber, gives his approval."
irrelevant
Dana should not be able to hide violations of ethics rules on a county-owned computer
this was not a criminal investigation but an ethics one
When she's not on the clock, Dana's a private tax-paying citizen with the same rights as you have.
The police were called to the Arliss Road Giant as Jim's photographs prove. No charges were filed or arrests made at that location on that date. Now here you are trying to confuse things with a film of another day at another location that does not show Dana saying she's acting as a staffer of the County Council, but rather shows her legal actions as a private citizen.
Also, the investigation covered all the CRG's complaints against Dana. The only one they didn't throw out was on February 17, 2008 at the Arliss Road Giant.
Dana should not be able to hide violations of ethics rules on a county-owned computer
Today's WaPo reported:
Investigators did not find anything improper in the computer search, according to county records.
this is a great week:
-gay agenda found to violate democracy by investigator in most gay-friendly county in America
-gay newspapers put out of business
-Sarah Palin book comes out
-and the country is waking up to the disaster of the Obama presidency
the Post yesterday:
"PRESIDENT OBAMA'S central message to the Chinese government during his first visit there as president has been a remarkably positive one. Acknowledging and occasionally marveling at the country's rapid ascent toward superpower status, Mr. Obama has been saying that not only does the United States "not seek to contain China's rise," but "we welcome China as a strong and prosperous and successful member of the community of nations."
Is "welcome" really the appropriate word? Mr. Obama's description of the new superpower, after all, did not contain the word "democratic." And throughout its history the United States has found it difficult, at best, to cooperate with non-democratic powers; the brief collaboration with Stalin's Russia against Hitler's Germany is the extraordinary exception that proves the rule.
China's behavior around the world during the past decade has often departed dramatically from that of the world's democracies. It has unblushingly backed dictators, including Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe and the genocidal regime of Sudan; it has crudely sought to lock up sources of natural resources in Africa and Latin America; it has repeatedly threatened Taiwan with war; and it has systematically taken advantage of the West's attempts to pressure rogue regimes -- vastly increasing its trade with Iran, for example.
The president cast the fundamental differences between the United States and China as ones that can be overcome by "cultivating spheres of cooperation." The notion that China would need to embrace democratic values in order to become a true American partner was missing from Mr. Obama's pitch. "My hope is that the United States and China together can help to create international norms that reduce conflict around the world," he said.
It's important to remember that China's government, which continues to suppress, sometimes brutally, freedom of expression, religious practice and minority rights, will never be much help in confronting other undemocratic regimes. Nor is it likely -- or even desirable -- that the United States and China will agree on new "international norms," since Beijing will not support any that flow from democratic principles. "Welcome" a dictatorship to global influence? It's hard to see why that is a necessary or sensible stance for the U.S. president."
half of Americans say they approve of Obama but down the line, on each issue, they express a different than the one he holds
if you're a liberal, this can't end well
President Barack Obama's job approval rating is 48 - 42 percent, the first time he has slipped below the 50 percent threshold nationally, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
Anonymous, I am going to delete off-topic political copy-and-paste comments on this thread. We have something here of interest to our community, and people would like to discuss it without your disruptions.
JimK
I see Anon-blather thinks it's time to change the subject again.
What's the matter, cat got your tongue?
yes, the cat's got my tongue, explaining why I've made ten posts on the topic since 8:30 last night
I thought I was giving you a break changing the subject
Dana is so clearly wrong here that I assume your comments are simply in the nature of backing up an old friend
Dana's probably a nice enough person and certainly intelligent but she acted inappropriately and if she wants any shot at winning an election next year, she should just admit that she overacted in the support of her cause and move on
her lawsuit is a reminder of what is wrong with the gender discrimination bill to begin with
now, every time a gender is found guilty, or loses a job, or can't find an apartment, the law suits fly
her lawsuit is frivolous
she has made statements on this blog that she tried to convince petitioners that their activities were illegal and that she tried to persuade store owners to ban the petitioners from their property
this is improper activity for an employee of the bill's author (assuming Dana wasn't the actual author)
the case is closed
she was not targeted because she's a trans
she was targeted because of the unprecedented nature of her activities
The CRG is the one over-reacting here, once again costing MoCo taxpayers money to investigate their bogus charges.
I sincerely hope that no one in the investigator's office turns out to be a shower nut, but they sure acted like one, only seeking one side of the story.
"once again costing MoCo taxpayers money to investigate their bogus charges"
Dana's the one suing.
"Troll Anonymous":
You hurled the charge: LIAR, LIAR, LIAR, LIAR. The response to that is: LOSER, LOSER, LOSER, LOSER.
You said: "that the issue is a matter of civil rights is an opinion and a fringe one." Of course you would say that; we all know your intense dislike of extending civil rights and protection of the law to those people you personally don't like. The Maryland Court of Appeals is more than well-aware of the rights of so-called "fringe" groups.
Again: "the local jurisdcitions have steam valves allowing the citzens to intervene when legislators fail to represent them" In Montgomery County, the Council did represent the majority of citizens who elected them. You and your opinions are in the minority. The voters here are pretty savy to your opinions and tactics...that's why you keep losing.
Again: "It's here, it's clear, get over it!" That's exactly what we have been telling you over and over and over for the past year - the law is here, it's clear, GET OVER IT.
And again: "I'm not engaging in warfare. The pro-family agenda has, however, defeated the gay agenda in 31 states so far." What, exactly is this infamous "Pro- Family" agenda? Does it have anything to do with passing a Constitutional Amendment that would ban divorce in this country?
Does it work vigorously to eradicate the child abuse and incest found in too many families? (Doesn't it make you want to vomit to hear about the mother who recently sold her 5yo daughter into "Sex Slavery"?) Does the Agenda address the issue of thousands upon thousands of unwanted and tossed-aside chidren placed under the care of state, taxpayer supported, institutions? Does it advocate the right of all citizens, not just Christians, to have access to civil and legal rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution?
"Dana's the one suing". Dana is merely exercising the same right you had to sue the Board of Education. But because she is a member of a minority group of citizens you seem to assert that she doesn't have that right.
Your whining and sniveling here are becoming very tiresome. Why not just put some energy into reviving your own moribund web site?
Citizen
Dana's the one suing.
And just who do you think she's suing? You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
Dana isn't suing anyone. She filed an ethics complaint against the county Ethics Commission through the Human Rights Commission, which would not have been necessary if the Ethics Committee had conducted a real investigation on which to base their findings. For example, during the many months they investigated Dana, the Ethics Commission people might have bothered to interview some of the actual witnesses who were at the Arliss Road Giant on February 17, 2008, in order to determine what actually happened there.
And of course none of this could have transpired without the vindictiveness of Ruth Jacobs and Theresa Rickman, the leaders of the CRG, who lost their battle to maintain discrimination against transgenders.
"In Montgomery County, the Council did represent the majority of citizens who elected them. You and your opinions are in the minority. The voters here are pretty savy to your opinions and tactics...that's why you keep losing."
Really?
then why do you resist a vote so desperately
if you're right, that would prove it
but of course, you're wrong
"Dana is merely exercising the same right you had to sue the Board of Education. But because she is a member of a minority group of citizens you seem to assert that she doesn't have that right."
I didn't say she didn't have that right. I was merely pointing it out when Dana's minion was whining about CRG wasting the taxpayers' money by suing.
"What, exactly is this infamous "Pro- Family" agenda?"
It's a strategy to thwart the many attacks on the family such as abortion and gay "marriage".
We're doing pretty well, thanks.
"which would not have been necessary if the Ethics Committee had conducted a real investigation on which to base their findings"
that's an allegation
the Ethics Committee believes it had sufficient evidence to make an assessment
again, this is the trouble with the anti-discrimination bill
the Board of Elections, the Ethics Committee, all of our institutions are suspect any time a gay loses
here was Jim's statement:
"Dr. Beyer is a transgender woman; this appears to be, ironically, the first case invoking the county's new gender identity nondiscrimination law."
sounds like he was implying that Dana was suing
the Ethics Committee believes it had sufficient evidence to make an assessment
The only explanation can be that there are shower nuts are on that commission. Nobody else in the entire world would believe that reviewing only one side in a dispute, particularly only the complaining individual, his group leader, and a store manager's statement that was written by the group leader, constitutes a proper investigation on which to make any assessment. Nobody.
When you are investigating a charge about an incident, you talk to **actual witnesses** when there are some, before you make any assessment.
here was Jim's statement:
"Dr. Beyer is a transgender woman; this appears to be, ironically, the first case invoking the county's new gender identity nondiscrimination law."
sounds like he was implying that Dana was suing
"Invoking" does not sound like "suing" to me.
Here's Jim's lead-in line:
"Dana Beyer, Senior Assistant to Montgomery County Councilwoman Duchy Trachtenberg and candidate for Maryland state Delegate, held a press conference today to announce that she has filed a complaint with the county's Human Rights Commission against the county Ethics Commission."
Clear as day.
"The only explanation can be that there are shower nuts are on that commission. Nobody else in the entire world would believe that reviewing only one side in a dispute, particularly only the complaining individual, his group leader, and a store manager's statement that was written by the group leader, constitutes a proper investigation on which to make any assessment. Nobody."
Me and everybody else who is not a TTF partisan believe the Commission was comfortable enough with the evidence they examined to make an assessment.
I've yet to see any statements from county leaders, including, tellingly, other Councilmen, that they believe the Commission acted improperly.
It was actually fairly inflammatory for any of you to be out there confronting petitioners. That a paid employee of the bill's author was there is simply outrageous, regardless of what you might have wanted to say to the investigator.
Does Dana deny that she went to the site of the petitoners and tried to convince that their activity was illegal or that she tried to persuade stores to ban the petitioners?
If she did either (and I seem to recall her boasting about doing those things here), she should be reprimanded.
I don't blame the Commission for not wanting to talk to a bunch of TTF hotheads if there were other ways to ascertain the facts.
November 2009, Dr Dana Beyer:
guilty as charged
the Commission was comfortable enough with the evidence they examined
That's the problem -- they were comfortable without obtaining or examining evidence that was easily available from actual witnesses. Instead they relied on the alleged victim and his political leader. The evidence the Ethics Commission examined did not include any statements from actual witnesses who were at the Arliss Road Giant on February 17, 2008.
If the Ethics Commission staffers are comfortable with the evidence they examined, then they are sadly mistaken, because reasonable people think that an "investigation" means you investigate the evidence, which you obtain from witnesses. Witnesses to the event that day have been easily identifiable from the Vigilance blog since February 2008, but were either carelessly overlooked or intentionally ignored by the Ethics Commission.
It was actually fairly inflammatory for any of you to be out there confronting petitioners.
That's absurd! First of all, it was a lot less inflammatory than showing up at a Presidential event carrying a loaded firearm and a sign talking about spilling blood. Secondly, speaking with the public about a referendum issue is the epitome of democracy.
It's telling that you find free and open public debate of ideas, the very backbone of American freedom, to be "inflammatory."
That a paid employee of the bill's author was there is simply outrageous,
When government employees are off the clock and on their own time during the weekend, they have all the exact same rights that every other citizen has. Saying otherwise -- that a government employee on her own time does not have the same rights as every other citizen -- is what's outrageous.
Seems to me that CRC/G/W, having failed to enact their referendum, are engaging in a personal attack on the people on the other side.
Having been the subject of an online discussion of my health by CRC, and a letter-to-the-editor campaign on my integrity by PFOX,
I am not the least surprised.
The hate has spread from groups, to individuals, as it always does.
"That a paid employee of the bill's author was there is simply outrageous"
The anonymi never said it was outrageous for paid GOP Congressional members and staffers to attend Bachmann's protest.
Hypocrite!
"The evidence the Ethics Commission examined did not include any statements from actual witnesses who were at the Arliss Road Giant on February 17, 2008."
It's not the only kind of evidence. And it's not necessarily necessary.
Dana has publicly admitted she did things that are unethical. No one needs to hear you argue about your interpretation of the law.
"because reasonable people think that an "investigation" means you investigate the evidence, which you obtain from witnesses"
You keep repeating this falsehood but, alas for you, it remains false.
"Witnesses to the event that day have been easily identifiable from the Vigilance blog since February 2008, but were either carelessly overlooked or intentionally ignored by the Ethics Commission."
Apparently, your credibility isn't considered at a high level.
"speaking with the public about a referendum issue is the epitome of democracy"
actually, a true believer in democracy would be saying, "let's have a debate and a vote"
still, I have no problem with "speaking with the public about a referendum issue"
my problem is going out to the sites and trying to confront the petitioners and prevent them from speaking
"It's telling that you find free and open public debate of ideas, the very backbone of American freedom, to be "inflammatory.""
It's telling that you find your incivil tactics to be "the very backbone of American freedom".
How have we survived all these years without petition harassment?
"When government employees are off the clock and on their own time during the weekend, they have all the exact same rights that every other citizen has."
Actually, they are in a unique position because when they walk into a grocery store and tell the manager that petitioners are doing something illegal, it is implied that this is the position of the government.
Dana abused her authority and received the appropriate reprimand. The work of the Ethics Commission is vital to democracy. Elected officials and their employees need to be held accountable for how they use or abuse their postition.
"Seems to me that CRC/G/W, having failed to enact their referendum, are engaging in a personal attack on the people on the other side."
Robert, an independent agreed with their complaint. Your statement is baseless.
"The anonymi never said it was outrageous for paid GOP Congressional members and staffers to attend Bachmann's protest."
don't know what you're talking about
please elaborate
"The evidence the Ethics Commission examined did not include any statements from actual witnesses who were at the Arliss Road Giant on February 17, 2008."
It's not the only kind of evidence. And it's not necessarily necessary.
I see, so you support one-sided, witness-free ethics investigations.
"because reasonable people think that an "investigation" means you investigate the evidence, which you obtain from witnesses"
You keep repeating this falsehood but, alas for you, it remains false.
What kind of nut thinks it's a falsehood that investigations include studying evidence and witness testimony? You'll say anything!
"Witnesses to the event that day have been easily identifiable from the Vigilance blog since February 2008, but were either carelessly overlooked or intentionally ignored by the Ethics Commission."
Apparently, your credibility isn't considered at a high level.
It's the credibility of the Ethics Commission that's at question. Why did they not bother to seek witnesses to the actual event when they were so easily found with a simple Internet search? How credible is it for an investigative body to ignore contemporaneous reports that include named and photographed witnesses?
a true believer in democracy would be saying, "let's have a debate and a vote"
We did have a vote and it was even confirmed by the highest court in the State of Maryland. An insufficient number of registered Montgomery County voters affixed their legal signatures to the petitions to get the referendum on the ballot.
my problem is going out to the sites and trying to confront the petitioners and prevent them from speaking
You obviously weren't at any of the sites because no one was "prevent[ed] from speaking. That's why interviewing *witnesses* about what they saw and heard is so important to a good investigation.
Actually, they are in a unique position because when they walk into a grocery store and tell the manager that petitioners are doing something illegal, it is implied that this is the position of the government.
Only if the person says they are acting as an agent of the government. Again, the testimony of witnesses who were present and can report what they heard and saw is important to get at the truth. The question is why were witnesses not sought and interviewed so the facts could be determined.
The work of the Ethics Commission is vital to democracy.
I couldn't agree with you more. And an Ethics Commission study that was conducted unethically by ignoring witnesses, violating workplace privacy without approval, and leaking its actions, which are supposed to be confidential, is highly suspect and should have its own ethics evaluated by the HRC.
"Seems to me that CRC/G/W, having failed to enact their referendum, are engaging in a personal attack on the people on the other side."
I agree, Robert. Here's a little excerpt from FreeStatePolitics about that:
From the Washington Post: "Ruth Jacobs, the president of [Citizens for a Responsible Government] said her concerns about the transgender law have been borne out by Beyer's complaint. 'That was our concern, that that law was to give special rights to certain people and to ignore other people's rights. This [complaint by Beyer] shows that the law does what we suggested it would do,' she said."
Really? That was MCRG's real "concern?" So Ms. Jacobs admits this was never about men in the girl's showers, ladies' rooms or all that other scary stuff she used to be "concerned" about. What a relief! This was really always about "special rights"? Note: this law actually protects the not-so-special rights of TG people to housing, employment, public accommodations, taxicabs and cable TV. And--if Dr. Beyer is vindicated--the right not to have your computer, phone and desk searched pursuant to a smear campaign and groundless accusations.
Now that Ms. Jacobs mentions it, the only person whose rights have been "ignored" is Dr. Beyer! Maybe Council Member Trachtenberg's as well. So this is all really about the Constitution and not men in girls' locker rooms. After all this, Ms. Jacobs reveals it's not about showers and lockers? As Gilda Radner's Saturday Night Live character Emily Litella used to say, "never mind!"
Hey Citizens for a Responsible Government! Thanks for telling us that your real fear is TG people would enjoy equal protections under the law--the same Constitutional protections everyone has--not anything else. Maybe we should start a new group: "Citizens for Responsible Citizens?"
How exactly did Dr. Beyer "intimidate" the "Responsible Citizens?"
From The Examiner: "Dr. Dana Beyer improperly tried to stop people at a grocery store last year from signing a petition to have a referendum on a 2007 law banning discrimination against transgender people in housing, employment, public accommodations, and taxicab and cable service."
From the WaPo report: "One man who signed the petition [to overturn the human rights law] said in an affidavit that he 'was starting to experience heart palpitations' after a run-in with Beyer."
"Palpitations?" Really? Brings to mind the protestations of a delicate southern belle: "Oh mah stahs an' gah-tahs! Ah do believe Ah'm havin' a spell of thuh vapahs." As anyone who knows Dr, Beyer can attest, she is not one to physically threaten anyone, no matter how disingenuous that person may be!
"I see, so you support one-sided, witness-free ethics investigations.
What kind of nut thinks it's a falsehood that investigations include studying evidence and witness testimony?"
Investigations include witness testimony when necessary.
It wasn't necessary here.
Dana admits what she did.
The Ethics Commission concluded those acts violated the ethics rules for assistants to elected County officials.
Those are rules those assistants have to follow that don't apply to other TTF miscreants.
"It's the credibility of the Ethics Commission that's at question."
Not that I've heard. This hasn't been brought up in the press. No Council member has backed Dana.
The nations prisons are filled with convicts who claim they was framed.
Dana's just fortunate her misdeeds don't have any criminal penalties.
"Why did they not bother to seek witnesses to the actual event when they were so easily found with a simple Internet search?"
Maybe they had already concluded thay had sufficient evidence.
Happens in court all the time.
"How credible is it for an investigative body to ignore contemporaneous reports that include named and photographed witnesses?"
If it was on Dana's hard drive, they probably read the TTF drivel.
"We did have a vote and it was even confirmed by the highest court in the State of Maryland. An insufficient number of registered Montgomery County voters affixed their legal signatures to the petitions to get the referendum on the ballot."
If you mean the petition drive, that was not a vote.
CRG was mislead by the Election Board but shot for the goal they were given.
"You obviously weren't at any of the sites because no one was "prevent[ed] from speaking."
Dana admitted she tried to get store owners to banish the petitioners.
"Only if the person says they are acting as an agent of the government."
wrong
"I couldn't agree with you more. And an Ethics Commission study that was conducted unethically by ignoring witnesses,"
Whether it's necessary to interview witnesses is up to the judgment of the Commission.
"violating workplace privacy without approval,"
Worker don't have privacy on employee-owned computers unless that was an agreed part of their employment contract.
"and leaking its actions,"
There was really no big secret released and no way that would have changed their conclusion.
Dana is guilty, guilty, guilty.
Anon asserted:
“Dana is guilty, guilty, guilty.”
Guilt of what exactly Anon? I have found no information that Dana was even charged with anything, much less found guilty in a court of law. In fact, according to court records, as indicated in the Washington Post article Aunt Bea referenced earlier:
“Investigators did not find anything improper in the computer search, according to county records.”
I don’t know what they thought they would find searching her computer… it’s not like you need one to find a Giant grocery store. They’re all over the place.
So that leaves the ALLEGATION of intimidation. It is telling that this ALLEGATION apparently wasn’t put forth by alleged intimidation victim, shortly after the alleged intimidation took place, but OVER A YEAR AND A HALF later – with the complaint hand-written by Ruth Jacobs, not the alleged victim. He supposedly did sign the complaint though, but given all the controversy surrounding CRG collected signatures, I don’t know if that can be trusted.
Ruth’s note initiated an INVESTIGATION. So far I have not heard any news that Dana has been charged with anything she could be found guilty of.
Last time I checked, I still live in country where people are presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty. They’ve already searched her computer, and I don’t think there are any laws against reminding Giant store managers that certain petition gatherers were collecting signatures outside of the limits set by their own company policy. I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t charge her with anything.
Cynthia
Cynthia:
"Guilt of what exactly Anon? I have found no information that Dana was even charged with anything, much less found guilty in a court of law."
Jim:
"The Ethics Commission last week concluded that Beyer had acted in her capacity as a County official to "intimidate, threaten, or discriminate against" a person collecting petition signatures at the Arliss/Piney Branch Giant in Takoma Park on February 17, 2008."
"The political background to the investigation and its findings is not pretty,"
you could say the same about certain TTFers
"the commission leaked information to political rivals in order to allow them to spread rumors,"
leaked information? how could that be? who ever heard of such a thing happening in civilized society?
sacre bleu!
"and the blow-back is going to be intense as we head into the 2010 election season"
hopefully this is not some kind of warped gay joke but let us know if hear of any intense blow back
"Only if the person says they are acting as an agent of the government."
wrong
Sorry Charlie, but you are wrong. A person cannot be found to have "acted in her capacity as a County official" if she did not say, "I'm here in my official capacity as a employee of the County Council." Dana was off the clock and on her own time, with the same right to speak about this issue as any other citizen.
No Council member has backed Dana.
Councilmember Duchy Trachtenberg most certainly has supported Dana.
The Gazette reported:
"...Trachtenberg, meanwhile, is supportive of Beyer.
"The fact that the ethics commission has allowed itself to be used for brute political purposes is simply outrageous," Trachtenberg said.
"The integrity of the legislative process has been compromised as well," she added. "The use of KGB-type tactics to undermine the function of my council office is chilling."..."
And the Examiner reported:
"...Trachtenberg said she and Beyer were being targeted by the Ethics Commission at the behest of Maryland Citizens for Responsible Government, and took issue with the commission's investigation.
"The use of KGB-type tactics to undermine the function of my council office is chilling," Trachtenberg said in reference to a memo from the County Attorney's Office showing that Beyer had her e-mail records searched without her consent as part of an investigation.
Trachtenberg told The Examiner she was worried her computer and phone records may have been searched as well, and had plans to have the matter investigated.
"It's very possible is what we'll discover is that a sitting elected official had their computer and phones swept," Trachtenberg said. If true, such a search would have "far-reaching implications of the functions of the legislative branch," she added..."
And Steve Farber, County Council Staff Director, has supported both Dana and Duchy on the impropriety of the search of Dana's (and possibly Duchy's) work computer(s). The same Examiner article reported:
"...County policy allows for searches of council members and their staff's county-owned computers, as long as the department head, County Council Staff Director Steve Farber, gives his approval. Farber said he has never been asked, nor given approval, to have any employee or council member's computers searched..."
The search of Legislative Branch computer(s) was conducted by the Executive Branch without the required approval of the County Council Staff Director, a gross violation of county law.
"The Ethics Commission last week concluded that Beyer had acted in her capacity as a County official to "intimidate, threaten, or discriminate against" a person collecting petition signatures at the Arliss/Piney Branch Giant in Takoma Park on February 17, 2008."
And they mysteriously reached that conclusion without hearing reports of what occurred from the many witnesses who were there that day other than the accuser and of course Ruth Jacobs, who was not at the Arliss Road Giant on February 17, 2008.
The more you defend this hatchet job "investigation," the more you convince me somebody on the Ethics Committee is a shower nut. Who's your buddy there?
obviously, Duchy backs Dana
they're partners in unethics
any impartial Council members defending Dana's outrageous behavior?
indeed, any record of any assistant to a Council member ever engaging in this type of behavior before?
the Commission is supposed to use its judgment about what evidence to collect
they felt their examination of the computer files was sufficient
Dana Beyer, an assistant to the author of a bill, tried to interfere with the right of citizens to collect petition signatures to call a referendum on the bill
she hasn't denied it but instead runs around complaining about the Commission
case closed
they're partners in unethics
What unethical thing are you accusing Duchy of doing?
any impartial Council members defending Dana
Are any of them singing the praises of the Executive branch Ethics Commission's secret and later leaked invasion of the privacy of a Legislative branch County Council member's office without required approval of the County Council Staff Director?
any record of any assistant to a Council member ever engaging in this type of behavior before
Almost every Council staffer is a community activist of some sort or another and virtually all of these employees have continued their community activism on their own time without ever having been investigated for it. Only Dana Beyer, the only TG staffer had her computer secretly searched without the required permission of the County Council Staff Director for engaging in TG activism on her own time. We may never know what the suspected ethics infraction was that necessitated her work computer be searched, but we do know nothing out of order was found on her hard drive.
How about you Anon, if your boss checked your work computer's browser history, would you pass inspection with all the business hours you spend here at Vigilance or are you a professional Internet troll?
the Commission is supposed to use its judgment about what evidence to collect
they felt their examination of the computer files was sufficient
It's their judgment that's being called into question and it appears to be biased in a shower nutty way. The Ethics Commission's judgment and conclusion may or may not be corroborated by the County Attorney and HRC. Let's see what these other bodies say about the "sufficiency" and "judgment" of the Ethic Commission's investigation with its failure to speak to witnesses who were at the Arliss Road Giant on February 17, 2008, yet could have been readily found by a simple Internet search since that day.
Dana Beyer, an assistant to the author of a bill, tried to interfere with the right of citizens to collect petition signatures to call a referendum on the bill
That's not what the Ethics Commission said. Were you a witness to some "interference?" What, when, where?
she hasn't denied it but instead runs around complaining about the Commission
She categorically denied it and filed a complaint about the Anon/shower nut approved investigation.
case closed
You wish the case was closed, however, the MC Attorney and the HRC will not close their cases until they get to the facts.
"What unethical thing are you accusing Duchy of doing?"
She knew what her assistant was doing and acquiesed.
"Are any of them singing the praises of the Executive branch Ethics Commission's secret and later leaked invasion of the privacy of a Legislative branch County Council member's office without required approval of the County Council Staff Director?"
That wasn't the question. Do any Council members, other than the benficiary of her actions, Duchy, support Dana's activities in the petition drive? Have any supported her claim of bias?
"Almost every Council staffer is a community activist of some sort or another and virtually all of these employees have continued their community activism on their own time without ever having been investigated for it."
So none of ever tried to prevent people from petitioning against their boss's legislation by telling businesses that people were petitioning on their property illegally. Right?
None others have gone to such a site of petition collection and confronted the petitioners with charges they were acting illegally. Right?
"Only Dana Beyer, the only TG staffer had her computer secretly searched without the required permission of the County Council Staff Director"
Oh, we don't know that. Could be that no one found guilty of unethical behavior has ever complained before.
"for engaging in TG activism on her own time."
I personally don't have any problem with her activism but the interaction with petitioners was over the line.
My understanding is that certain types of activism are against Council rules, however.
I don't know where you draw the line between activism and abuse of position but most people think Dana crossed that line.
"We may never know what the suspected ethics infraction was that necessitated her work computer be searched, but we do know nothing out of order was found on her hard drive."
Really? How?
"How about you Anon, if your boss checked your work computer's browser history, would you pass inspection with all the business hours you spend here at Vigilance or are you a professional Internet troll?"
I am, like anon-B, anonymous.
Dana surfing the net or commenting on blogs is not the issue however. The issue is her activities specifically pertaining to the petitioners. If they looked at her hard drive, they were looking for evidence she was going to petition sites and telling petitioners and business owners that the petitions against her boss's legislation was illegal.
"It's their judgment that's being called into question and it appears to be biased in a shower nutty way."
Only by TTF. No elected county offical has expressed a concern.
"The Ethics Commission's judgment and conclusion may or may not be corroborated by the County Attorney and HRC."
Actually, they won't be corroborating evidence concerning Dana's unethical behavior but instead will be responding to her charges that the investigation was handled differently because she was transgender.
Dana will have an uphill battle establishing this considering the high level of support for the gay agenda in our county government.
"Let's see what these other bodies say about the "sufficiency" and "judgment" of the Ethic Commission's investigation with its failure to speak to witnesses who were at the Arliss Road Giant on February 17, 2008, yet could have been readily found by a simple Internet search since that day."
Witnesses aren't necessary when a target of investigation confesses.
"That's not what the Ethics Commission said. Were you a witness to some "interference?" What, when, where?"
It was discussed here. I only was at one site, when I signed the petition, and there were no TTFers around.
"She categorically denied it and filed a complaint about the Anon/shower nut approved investigation."
I only know what I read here and none of the stuff posted here shows her denying telling petitioners and business owners that petitions against her boss were illegal.
If Dana has made other statements, by all means, post them.
"You wish the case was closed, however, the MC Attorney and the HRC will not close their cases until they get to the facts."
The bias complaint is different from the ethics investigation.
The ethics matter has concluded.
While the bias complaint is being considered, as is proper, the case isn't strong.
Common sense would hold that TTF's actions were inflammatory and Dana's were over-the-top.
Keeping the matter open for the election is about as smart as Deeds publicizing McDonnell pro-life record for him.
You guys should cut your losses and move on.
So is the Ethics Commission “conclusion” an actual “charge,” or will it be used as the basis for a charge against Dana?
Does Dana have the opportunity to defend herself against her accuser, Mr. “[h]er exact words, ,… I don’t remember the exact terminology…..I can’t quote her directly.” I’m sure he’d make a great case on a witness stand.
Or does the Ethics Commission act as investigator, judge, and jury in cases like this?
If that’s the case, it seems like anyone with a bad political grudge and a hand-written note could “investigate” who ever they wanted. Whether or not anything turned up or not would be irrelevant. Just leaking word of the investigation might be enough to ruin someone’s career.
Cynthia
like everything else, it's a system that works fine until gays get involved and then we've got to turn the whole process upside-down and rethink everything
criminal charges were not brought against Dana and the determination is more a question of ethics than facts
as far as I know, Dana agreed she told petitioners and business owners that the petitions were illegal as a ruse to get the petition-taking stopped
the only question is whether that is permissible activity by a government employee to defend their boss's legislation
the Commission decided it wasn't and their decision has been made public
Dana can publicly disagree
Keeping the matter open for the election
Anon finally got around to exposing the shower nuts' ultimate goal, which is to stir up the 2010 local elections and ruin the political careers of Duchy and Dana.
like everything else, it's a system that works fine until gays get involved
There you have it, the anti-gay bigotry of our local tea baggers proudly proclaimed and publicly posted for all to see.
Anon & company are Bigots Against Dana & Duchy, BADD!
The BADD shower nuts lost their petition battle. Then, a month after the Maryland Court of Appeals rendered its decision against them and 8 months after the BADD bullies of CRW met the mature women (and Jim) of TTF at the Arliss Road Giant, the shower nuts filed an ethics complaint about allegations of something that had happened 8 months earlier.
Why?
Because they couldn't accept their loss so they decided to try "to turn the whole process upside-down" and into a vindictive vendetta.
You guys should cut your losses and move on.
Yes, the BADDies should have cut their losses in 2008 and moved on to their next crusade. Instead, the incompetent and leaked Ethics Commission investigation will now be investigated so that finally all the witnesses can be deposed and all the facts about what happened at the Arliss Road Giant will be uncovered.
you've really done it now, anon-B
your response is so lame and dull that I really feel no need to respond
I repeat:
"as far as I know, Dana agreed she told petitioners and business owners that the petitions were illegal as a ruse to get the petition-taking stopped"
if Dana would like to deny this, I'm sure not stopping her
hate to ask, but what is BADD?
your response is so lame and dull that I really feel no need to respond, Anon responded.
I repeat:
"as far as I know, Dana agreed she told petitioners and business owners that the petitions were illegal as a ruse to get the petition-taking stopped"
You can repeat that falsehood until the cows come home, but it has nothing to do with the Ethics Commission report.
hate to ask, but what is BADD?
Reading comprehension is still a problem apparently.
"You can repeat that falsehood until the cows come home, but it has nothing to do with the Ethics Commission report."
No one here has denied it.
btw, I guess the Washington Post is a bigoted paper.
Today they joined BADD by denouncing the wicked Duchy Trachtenberg who has introduced legislation whose purpose is to encourage more women to have abortions.
Duchy needs to retire and devote herself to a hobby she's interested in, like torturing small birds.
When the public starts hearing about the determination of the Ethics Commission last week, she should not expect to find herself on the apple ballot.
Yes, yes, come here and tell the world all about your vindictive vendetta to keep Duchy and Dana from winning their elections next year. The more hate and bias you display with comments like retire and devote herself to a hobby she's interested in, like torturing small birds, the better for your cause.
< eye roll >
So who are the shower nuts going to run against Duchy for her at large seat? Rhetta, Ruth, Theresa?
"Today they joined BADD by denouncing the wicked Duchy Trachtenberg who has introduced legislation whose purpose is to encourage more women to have abortions."
No they didn't. They agreed with Duchy that
"No woman -- especially the young, poor and uninsured woman who tends to seek free pregnancy services -- should ever be given false information about her choices. Providers should be transparent about what services they do and do not offer."
Post a Comment
<< Home