Watch out for Tyler
Watch out for Tyler
view story
Tags:
Tue Oct 30, 2007 06:02:55 CDT
Viewed 811 times
0 responses 18 comments
| Reply or Comment | Send to a Friend | Report a Violation |
Wed Oct 31, 2007 23:09:52 CDT
Just FYI to "those" ie; elzrccvi, ALS, sureursmart, atticus finch, etc. who feel the need to attempt to disclose information with the intent of harming the VICTIM with misuse of "Official Information":As a public servant, you may have access to information that has not been made public. Chapter 39 of the Penal Code restricts your use of such information in the following ways:A Guide To Ethics Laws For State Officers And EmployeesTexas Ethics Commission Page 7 Revised 01/03/2006
You may not use the information to acquire or help another person to acquire a pecuniary interest in any property, transaction, or enterprise affected by the information. Penal Code § 39.06(a)(1).
You may not speculate or aid another to speculate on the basis of the information. Penal Code § 39.06(a)(2).
You may not disclose or use the information with the intent to obtain a benefit or to harm another. Penal Code § 39.06(b).
Wed Oct 31, 2007 19:22:41 CDT
ALS, don't overload yourself. I think YOU should go back and do some rereading. Tyler found out about the investigation after he OFFERED the job to Ratcliff, and BEFORE he took office. Tyler had no authority to hire ANYONE PRIOR to taking office. Do you have a problem understanding that?Now, as to whether or not Ratcliff allegedly pointed the gun at the victim. If there were evidence that he had done so, the charge would have been "Aggravated Assault With A Deadly Weapon", a second degree felony. Instead, he was charged with Introduction of a Handgun, a lesser charge. Law enforcement ALWAYS charges the highest crime they have evidence of. That's where I am "getting" it from.
Tue Oct 30, 2007 21:15:07 CDT
Go back and read the articles, Bundy. Mr. Tyler became aware of the investigation after Ratcliff was hired. You are the same person who said Ratcliff didn't point a gun at the victim. Again, I ask you, how did you come to that conclusion? It is not stated anywhere in the charges and certainly nowhere in any Advocate article. Only two people actually know that to be fact or not!!
Tue Oct 30, 2007 20:53:04 CDT
The assertion of this ordeal being politically motivated is absolutely ludicrous. Puhhhhleeeze!!! If this were politically motivated then why didn't they go after Ratcliff when he was actually "in office"? Why did the investigation begin 14 months ago when Ratcliff wasn't acting as sheriff or chief administrator in the DA's office, but practically working in obscurity from the public? In reality, if this were politically motivated then allegations such as these would have surfaced long before now, while Ratcliff was in the midst of his tenure, as an attempt to keep him from continuing his service. The suggestion of this being politically motivated is just another attempt to cover-up and make excuses for corruption while vilifying the opposition.
Tue Oct 30, 2007 20:26:14 CDT
"innocent until proven guilty". Time will tell who is the victim. I don't know the facts, do you? Have you offered to testify before the grand jury.
Tue Oct 30, 2007 20:21:02 CDT
If this were a political situation, the good ol' boys would have taken care of it. Maybe the other dominant group of high powered officials in Victoria who have the pull to manipulate the Federal Bureau of Investigation into gathering evidence for an indictment, did some talking. WRONG!!!! Someone (alleged victim) had some compelling evidence to make these accusations. Most of the people who are indicted with assistance from the FBI, have been so for good reason. Political nothing. This is a criminal investigation fueled by some substantial evidence.
Tue Oct 30, 2007 20:09:43 CDT
Obviously, you must work downtown. You office at the Old, New or Annex? I don't think politics means a hill of beans to the grand jury or the DPS. Any time a big head threatens to roll, it is blamed on "politics". About the only thing political in the situation is those in power scrambling to make sure that big head doesn't roll too far and topple their little towers.
Tue Oct 30, 2007 20:02:59 CDT
Maybe he thought the charges were political. I do.
Tue Oct 30, 2007 19:46:00 CDT
Perhaps I was giving Tyler the benefit of the doubt when he said he was aware of the investigation, was warned by O'Connor, yet hired Ratcliff anyway.
Tue Oct 30, 2007 19:08:01 CDT
Where does it say Tyler hired Ratcliff to keep an eye on him? I missed that part.
Tue Oct 30, 2007 19:05:21 CDT
I have a question. Tyler says he knew Ratcliff was under investigation, so he hired him to keep an eye on him. He spent TAXPAYER dollars on Ratcliff's salary while "keeping an eye on him". I know that taxpayer funds are spent to conduct investigations by various law enforcement agencies, but isn't this a bit much? Couldn't this be considered a misappropriation of county funds?
Tue Oct 30, 2007 18:02:12 CDT
"Kendleton South"
Tue Oct 30, 2007 15:28:07 CDT
This just goes to show that corruption exists on both sides of the aisle! How quickly one forgets how they get into office and who it is they represent!
Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:51:45 CDT
The current elected officials in Victoria with any pull are trash if they are not doing their best to get a special prosecutor for this case. The guy that hired the guy who is being indicted (for molesting someone) is actually going to be the one to try and prove he did it? Steve Tyler, I believe that you are a crook and your friend is guilty if you are the prosecutor for this case. What other reason is there for you to be involved? Hopefully Ron Paul (I am calling his office today and emailing), the representative of this congressional district will stand up for something here. Please email Ron Paul, mail@ronpaul2008.com , if you are angry too and want something done. At least if he does nothing to solve this situation, there is an election ahead and we can do something about it. The reason we are here in the first place, is because we failed ourselves by not electing the right people.
Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:43:15 CDT
This opens the door people who were found guilty and convicted of crimes while Ratcliff worked for the DA, to claim that their cases were "tainted" and demand new trials - all of which will require taxpayer dollars to help pay for.Way to go Tyler - your enormous ego scores again! At election time, "Remember the Ego"
Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:35:06 CDT
People with robes INTERPRET the law. People with badges ENFORCE the law. Trust me, Tyler DOES NOT know the law nearly as well as he thinks he does.I submit that Tyler is guilty of breaking the law. He admitted that he was aware of the Ratcliff investigation before he took office, yet he appointed him anyway. I feel that he placed the citizens of the County at risk by doing so. Ratcliff was privy to investigations, he was able to handle evidence, and he occupied an administrative position, from which he could steer investigations in the direction he wanted them to go.
Tue Oct 30, 2007 09:45:09 CDT
ALS,
I thought it was the job of the judge "to interpret the law"
Tue Oct 30, 2007 06:06:38 CDT
In order for a prosecutor to enforce and uphold the law, he or she must "know" the law. It seems through all of this turmoil, the District Attorney is the only one who "interpets" the law correctly.Out of curiosity, where did you go to law school, Matthew?