Corpus Christi Daily Digital: Mike Hummel: "I don't know anything about whats going on at the Caller Times".

Corpus Christi Daily Digital: Mike Hummel: "I don't know anything about whats going on at the Caller Times".

Corpus Christi Caller Times: After we finish with (this issue), Mr Mike Hummel will always remember to read the local internet and to give credit where credit is due.

This morning I got a call that took me out on the streets. I needed a little punch so I put it on a Classic Rock Station expecting maybe some Hair of the Dog or War Pigs or maybe even Lovin You Sunday Morning or Proud Mary but it wasn't to be. I hear the end of a discussion with our Corpus Christi City Council Member stuck smack dab in the middle of that damn river.

WATT River?...........

Some begin to ponder, while there are others who know exactly where I am going with this River issue; after we finish with (this issue), Mr Mike Hummel will always remember to read the local internet and to give credit where credit is due.



You know with the Memorial Coliseum I have not the sentimentality or passion like many of you guys possess and concurrently I dont believe it needs to be torn down. I was against anything that TRT wanted to bring to this town in light of what they left us upon departure.



Some events and it might even be many events; cannot afford to use ABC Center; so it is not really a public arena like the Memorial Coliseum operated. Heck, many of us cannot afford to attend an event that is held in the ABC Center. So, tell us Mr. Hummel, Mr Burns and Mr Solis, will you make it affordable at least for our Local Goodwill Organizations like the Shriners to hold an event?




Currently, the ABC Center is out of our Local Goodwill Organizations reach because of price?


Now the Point at hand,

The discussion was about the Memorial Coliseum and specifically about the hiring of a consultant and if the City of Corpus Christi is going to follow WATT ever the Consultant recommended.

Corpus Christi City Councilman Hummel answered that the people have been included in the rounds of community input and public meetings.

The host asked if the Corpus Christi City Council was going to ask the consultant to include the input or if it will factor in.


Corpus Christi City Councilman Hummel quickly affirmed that the community's input has already been included.

The host then connected like Barry Bonds, Hank Aaron and the Great Bambino Himself; he asked Hummel if the Corpus Christi City Council is considering the input from all of the people at the Caller Times on the Coliseum issue?

Mike Hummel answers "I don't know anything about whats going on at the Caller Times".

The host says you dont know, you haven't read the article at the Caller Times about the Memorial Coliseum and the internet input and suggestions from the public, you arent going to consider that input?

Hummel studdered 3 or 4 times and then a couple more times and then he said we got, we got people, we got other people on that, I think, I'm not a computer guy , but I think they are calling them something like blogs, Im not a computer guy, or something like that. Then continued the D NILE of the POWER OF THE INTERNET and the reality that the People are beginning to Engage themselves in the Formulation of Public Policy. Since you cant hear us Mr Hummel, let me yell a little louder and maybe everyone else will as well.

Mr Hummel, that River's name; we call it D Nile, get out of it. In fact a big part of your electability came from the web community. Power of the Pen Mr Hummel. When coupled with facts only an idiot would be so ignorant to be unaware of what some people are calling blogs. The credibility (or not) is right there in black and white for everyone to read. Do you still want to claim that you havent tread the input at the Caller Times Community Input Forum? Although censored slightly it can give there are many souls participating. They are already pissed off and to think that our City Council is trying to act like they are unaware of our presence. That is unbelievable Mr Hummel.

Nothing Personal MR Hummel, but I do believe you have a little bit of homework to do.

"Engaging the average citizen in the formulation of Public Policy" is our mission @ Kenedeno & Associates. "The Net is a powerful force for change -- and a dynamic tool for citizen education and action. Read the latest research on citizen participation (ENGAGEMENT) online, the stories and experiences of coalitions, corporate clients, and others working in the cyber trenches, and discover the potential to become an active participant in online democracy.

Sonias makes PRO CHOICE Statement to Censor instead of Admitting her wrong and Apologizing

This sub thread was deleted at the Democratic Underground because SONIAS found herself in checkmate. In poor taste she chose to flip the board over in the interest of Censoring her defeat.





23. I would normally say welcome to DU dannoynted1

But seeing that you have disabled your profile, i.e. hiding like a coward, combined with your support of republicans on a Democratic board makes you stick out like the troll you probably are. Go back to freeperville dannoynted1!

dannoynted1 (14 posts)

Sat Jul-14-07 09:45 AM Response to Reply #27

38. you are...................

joking right?Not unless you state that phrase to every "disabled profile" person you are a joke. Besides i knew I should have registered underground using Karl Rove's name....I bet you would suck his ass. Delete me like you do to all those other profiles you delete. Quit posing like you aint an admin.........searching......my profile? What? why NOW? I guess since I aint a donor and I was still able to access the search you get your poor meatball trolled off the table and on to the floor...... All you had to do was say "God Bless you" when somebody sneezed! Instead a processed motion caused your poor meatball and now Faux pas'd your self RIGHT out the door! KNOCK, KNOCK.. Whose there..... skip skip who Do you not remember ....skip tracer ROTFLMAO

Sonia

36. How is it.......

you call my Lioness names from behind a keyboard and of all things; because her profile is disabled?



We are here with our real identities acknowledged, our good name precedes us. Support of republicans? Maybe you mistake us for our elected Democrats who support the Delay Brothers and are frequently absent when it is time to vote on bartered legislation trade outs. Now back to the ad hominem attack, your reasoning is fallacial as it implies we are hiding our identities as if we have something to fear. Ridicule and attempts to discredit are only last resort attempts of futility. Sonia, you are wrong and you should apologize.
"For the Lord will not forsake his people; he will not abandon his heritage; for justice will return to the righteous, and all the upright in heart will follow it."

Lisa0825 (1000+ posts)

Sun Jul-15-07 11:59 PM Response to Original message

50. dannoynted1...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... "There's nothing you can do about being born liberal - fish gotta swim and hearts gotta bleed." Molly Ivins

Is there really a Texas Solicitor General? Why does the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Ignore SCOTUS?

----
CONFESSING ERROR
By EDWARD LAZARUS
----

Friday, Jun. 16, 2000

Earlier this month, Vincent Saldano, one of the 468 inmates on Texas' death row, had his death sentence vacated. This development was duly reported in the press. But accounts of Saldano's good fortune uniformly failed to appreciate what makes his reprieve truly newsworthy and potentially a landmark.

Saving Saldano: Texas Confesses Error

Saldano was not freed from the prospect of execution by the actions of a court or even, as occasionally happens, by the clemency of a governor. His death sentence was erased because Texas, through its newly created office of the solicitor general, "confessed error" in his case -- that is, it admitted, despite defeating Saldano's initial appeals in court, that his death sentence was illegally obtained. Quite simply, this never happens, either in Texas or in the dozens of other states with active death penalty laws. It is thus worth pausing to consider the value and potential implications of Saldano's case as well as the notion of confessing error.

Saldano had received a death sentence in part due to profoundly troubling testimony by a state expert witness at the sentencing phase of his trial. The expert, a clinical psychologist named Walter Quijano, suggested that Saldano should be executed because, as an Hispanic, he posed a special risk of future dangerousness to society. To support this astonishing conclusion, the expert pointed out that Hispanics make up a disproportionately large amount of Texas' prison population.

It does not take a tenured professor of constitutional law to realize that linking racial identity with a propensity for violence was not only bizarre but also a violation of the equal protection clause. Indeed, that it should take a confession of error by the state to correct this problem highlights at least two problems in the current administration of the death penalty. First, in seeking the death penalty, prosecutors sometimes overlook glaring illegalities. The same flaw identified in Saldano's case infects at least seven other Texas capital cases. Second (and perhaps even more distressing), courts, especially state courts, are too often willing to overlook even obvious constitutional flaws when reviewing death penalty cases. After all, before the state's confession of error, Saldano had lost all of his appeals.

Under these circumstances, one might think that confessions of error would be, if not commonplace, at least occasional. On average, the Solicitor General of the United States confesses error in two or three criminal cases every year -- even though it is a safe bet that federal prosecutions, conducted by better trained lawyers with greater supervision, are less likely to contain obvious legal errors than their state counterparts. As the Supreme Court recognized when endorsing the practice in 1942, "the public trust reposed in the law enforcement officers of the Government requires that they be quick to confess error, when, in their opinion, a miscarriage of justice may result from their remaining silent." But as a practical matter, states never confess error in death penalty cases (even though courts overturn roughly two-thirds of all death sentences as legally infirm) -- and some states candidly admit that their policy is never to confess error.

Mutual Distrust

Why? One crucial and usually overlooked factor is the deep antagonism that has grown up over time between state death penalty prosecutors and the death penalty abolitionist lawyers who seek to foil them in every case. The abolitionists, prosecutors know all too well, never concede that their clients deserve the death penalty or that the death penalty was legally imposed -- no matter how flimsy their arguments in a given case. Rather, they use every procedural and substantive trick in the book to delay executions.

There can be no denying that such abolitionist tactics have angered and frustrated state prosecutors. And one response to these understandable emotions has been for prosecutors to mirror the fight-to-the-bitter-end approach of their opponents.

The problem with this reciprocation, however, is simply that the ethical duties of prosecutors and defense attorneys are vastly different. Defense attorneys are duty-bound to scratch and claw to win for their clients. Prosecutors, by contrast, despite striking hard blows, must never lose sight of their ultimate obligation to do justice in every case.

That may sound trite and perhaps overly idealistic, but it has a practical side as well. Prosecutorial confessions of error -- knowing when to fold them, as it is known -- establish credibility. They create trust in the system, a sense that someone is being careful and exercising sound judgment, that extends far beyond any single case. And that can make a world of difference for someone like me, who is not morally opposed to the death penalty but skeptical of how it is imposed.

Death Penalty Politics

In addition, the reluctance of state prosecutors to confess error is a clear reflection of how politics affects the death penalty. Up until now, anyway, undoing a death sentence was akin to political suicide for an elected district attorney or state attorney general, or for any state official with ambitions for re-election or higher office. And yet the willingness of Texas' new solicitor general to confess error in the Saldano case suggests a possible turning point. With the current groundswell of death penalty opposition based on the possibility of executing an innocent person, elected officials may now find some advantage in approaching capital cases (even those where innocence is not an issue) with a greater degree of care and honesty.

case will start a broad trend. But there is reason to believe that the tide is indeed turning. On June 9, Texas Attorney General John Cornyn announced the results of an investigation into other death penalty cases involving testimony by state expert Walter Quijano. Cornyn acknowledged that Dr. Quijano had provided testimony in six other death penalty cases similar to his improper testimony in the Saldano case. Cornyn's staff has advised defense lawyers for the six inmates now on death row that his office will not oppose efforts to overturn their sentences based on Quijano's testimony. In response, a pessimist might note that Texas is appealing a ruling in another capital case that the defendant received inadequate counsel -- when, indisputably, his lawyer slept through much of the trial. But doing the right thing has a contagious quality to it. Or at least so we can hope.

Edward Lazarus, a former federal prosecutor, is the legal correspondent for Talk Magazine and the author of Closed Chambers: The Rise, Fall, and Future of the Modern Supreme Court.

When this institution, DMC Executives and Agents give the community its word; does it have no meaning?

• The Community is watching. We know we were lied to.

• When we accepted the President’s resignation, we asked that all pending litigation against DMC (due to allegations against the DMC President) be dismissed.

• When this institution, DMC Executives and Agents give the community its word; does it have no meaning?

• We have asked for the Board to place this President on Administrative leave pending the outcome of ongoing proceedings. Even in the slightest of allegations our City Police Chief has set a perfect example and a working example of what one does when in a sensitive position and he is accused of impropriety.

· “Why leave now?” We’re all familiar with the expression, “When the time’s right, you’ll know it.” I can say to you with absolute conviction that now is the best time for me, both professionally and personally.

· http://delmarhousekeeping.blogspot.com/2007/02/dr-carlos-garcia-bows-out-gracefully.html

• Why is he still here?

• Where is the accountability of this board to its constituency, to our community?

• The Del Mar President represented to the community his resignation.

• The community accepted the resignation.

• Why is he still here?

• Why were the contracts renewed?

• Were the contracts short or long term?

• And with this cavalier mentality DMC can forget about any successful Bond elections in the near future.

Who is Pinocchio?

More importantly how long is the nose?