Hello Richard. I usually agree with you and I know you have read my ramblings as well, so I hope you will consider this:

I know Scott Ballard and have for many years. I know him professionally and casually. I like Scott Ballard. I do NOT know 'Git'.

Scott Ballard is a darn good defense attorney that I have sent people to that needed one and should I need one, I would go to him tomorrow. You are also right that he has good character and is an honest man. I have not heard anyone say anything to the contrary including Git.

I will not even bother to address what we can both agree was politically naive at best. We could argue whether his ethical obligation was to the 'alleged child molester', now 'convicted', or to the victim and society as a whole - but I won't.

What I have heard from many law enforcement officers HERE in Fayette is that Scott "talks too much", works too many "deals" (plea bargains I assume) and that they do not like him for a host of reasons. I do not ask for specific details from these men when I talk to them and it is always 'off the record'. Some of that disdain for Scott may be due to what I am told is somewhat low morale in the department - perhaps it is the 'perfect storm scenario' who knows. All I can promise you is that if the men on the street aren't happy with him - neither am I.

So, whenever you are probing 'Git' to find out why he is so opposed to Scott, please realize that although we do not make it a 'bottom of the blog link' (mine is on media bias), several of us want the officers on the beat and those that are investigating and busting those 'rental houses with green leafy plants' you were talking about to be happy with the man that carries their cases through to completion.

If Scott gets out of politics, he gets a pay raise and we get a good defense attorney back. If these cops leave, I have a hard time thinking we can replace them with the caliber of cop I am referring to.

I like Scott. I like the men that have told me these things just as much. The kicker is this: The guys with the badges are dodging bullets not bloggers.

Thanks for listening.

Mixer

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

Thanks guys. I've been trying to get on for a couple of hours and my Sprint Wireless Service just flat out stinks. So much for high speed wireless nationwide access. Anyways. Well put gentleman.

Mixer, Thanks for pointing out the fact that my issues are not of a personal nature in regards to Scott Ballard as a person. It is safe to say that they are rather intense in my views of him as our District Attorney.

One needs to look at where Scott's defense is coming from. Primarily those within his tight knit circle, predators he's defended and naturally the Trial Lawyers.... past and present. Richard Hobbs (respectfully) is one of these lawyers. Richard would like to think that ole Scott must have busted me on drug charge, DUI or some other odd charge that would cause Git Real to desire his demise. Unfortunately, for their camp this is not the case. Now if Richard would do his homework and keep up with my posts he would no that my issues deal with my desire to see predators, crooks, and other vestiges of evil dealt with in the most severe manner our law will allow. This is not happening under the leadership of our current DA, regardless of who he is and how nice of a guy his friends testify to him being.

I really don't give a rat's orifice as to whether Scott, his bride, or his supporters despise me, go off on me, and threaten me. I'm up to it. If Richard were as studious as he pretends to be then he would know without any uncertainty that my concerns and cares are for the innocent victims of the perpetrators that he has defended and now is going "soft" on. I'm am outraged that we have a DA who hails from this community, negotiates stinky plea deals, thus weakening the cases our law enforcement officers have put together, while putting the citizens of Fayette County at further risk from these evil Sons Of Satan. You would think that Scott would put the interests of the victims past, present and future over the leniency that he has provided to his supporters.... I mean the bad guys he has been entrusted to deal with in a severe manner.

I Lock 'Em Up, Thanks for locking them up. You see on a daily basis, first hand how the damage these evil pieces of human debris wield on the often times defenseless people in our community. In spite of the fact that many of the cases you guys bring up to be prosecuted never make it because we have a bunch of bureaucrats more interested in disposing of cases rather prosecuting them, I'd like to encourage you to keep up the good work and please do not abandon us. At the very least your efforts are the only defense we have against the rising influx of the violent and predatory crimes we are experiencing in Fayette County. Thank you, thank you, thank you, for the job you and your fellow Law Dawgs to every day. Again thank you and know that most of us are sick of the "soft" approach to crime our judicial system seems to be administering.

Richard.... I just cant' help but believe you have more vested in his demise than this one single example.

Want me drop another bomb or two? I'll kick back a bit and hopefully others will be bold enough to expose a couple of other instances that need to be mentioned. As for me... I like to wait until my target is directly in my sights before I drop my next bombs. Why waste a shot? You have to ask yourself why these guys have gotten so nasty and threatening towards me. Do you suppose they know what I'm going to drop next?

If not, then what has he done to cause you some much consternation?

Ask that to the parents of some of the victims that are infuriated that our DA has gone soft on, or defended the predators that either severely damaged or destroyed their children or their families. View me, if you will, as "Voice" or the "Ghost Of Victims From The Past". As for me and my agenda.... I expect and demand the harshest penalties available for anyone who commits a violent or sexual crime against a child or any other innocent citizen of our community.

Did he raid one of your rental properties that had a farm of green leafy produce being grown in the basement?

That my friend was a great line. Well done. The answer is that my target is not only our DA but several other offices of government that I feel people are doing an inadequate job at or are using their positions to profit themselves either politically or monetarily.

Later guys... Hopefully my connection out here on this deserted island will improve so that I may respond in a more timely and efficient manner. Git without a good Wi-Fi connection is like Git having his mouth duct taped. To some that sounds like a great idea. To a couple of others on here I'm sure the duct tape would be accompanied by cement shoes if they had the chance. Just keep that one lady away from me please.

**** GIT REAL TOUGH ON CRIME ****

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY

Mixer, Thanks for pointing out the fact that my issues are not of a personal nature in regards to Scott Ballard as a person. It is safe to say that they are rather intense in my views of him as our District Attorney. You say they are not personal, but your comments come across extremely personal, whether that is your intent or not.

One needs to look at where Scott's defense is coming from. Primarily those within his tight knit circle, predators he's defended and naturally the Trial Lawyers.... past and present. Richard Hobbs (respectfully) is one of these lawyers.

I'm not defending Scott, just curious and concerned that a snowball doesn't roll into a huge avalalanche. Again, I'm not swimming in those circles any longer, so I only hear what I hear, and you hear what you hear. But I rarely trust the opinions of people who don't know the big picture. There is more to wheeling and dealing out cases than you or I or the arresting police officer/deputy knows. The way you describe the process, it sounds as if you want no defense lawyers, and only a single person to arrest, convict and sentence all of these bad guys. Fortunately, our system is adversarial, and sometimes, cases that Scott, or any DA for that matter, might want to throw the book at, are stopped by some fact or rule of law that prevents them from doing so. Again, your overall opinion of Scott may be true, but I have no evidence other than the apparent comments of a few. If some didn't disagree with how he was handling his job, then that would be a surprise.

Richard would like to think that ole Scott must have busted me on drug charge, DUI or some other odd charge that would cause Git Real to desire his demise. C'mon Git, you use TIC often, I just gave a bit back to you. Now I know you can dish it out, and I know you can take it, so don't pretend if you believe this literally.

I really don't give a rat's orifice as to whether Scott, his bride, or his supporters despise me, go off on me, and threaten me. I'm up to it. If Richard were as studious as he pretends to be then he would know without any uncertainty that my concerns and cares are for the innocent victims of the perpetrators that he has defended and now is going "soft" on. I'm am outraged that we have a DA who hails from this community, negotiates stinky plea deals, thus weakening the cases our law enforcement officers have put together, while putting the citizens of Fayette County at further risk from these evil Sons Of Satan. You would think that Scott would put the interests of the victims past, present and future over the leniency that he has provided to his supporters.... I mean the bad guys he has been entrusted to deal with in a severe manner.

There are always two sides to every story. I'm not particularly mindful of these examples of which you speak, and although you might think I have the time, I don't read each and every article that you might post. Not because I don't want to, but because often the posts get lost in the mix. I've only heard one example of a deal that went bad, and the complaint was that he was too tough on the defendant. I'll not mention names publically, but privately I would. So, when you start dropping your bombs, I'd be ready for some potential reasons of which you are not fully aware. Again, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until I know better.

I Lock 'Em Up, Thanks for locking them up. You see on a daily basis, first hand how the damage these evil pieces of human debris wield on the often times defenseless people in our community. In spite of the fact that many of the cases you guys bring up to be prosecuted never make it because we have a bunch of bureaucrats more interested in disposing of cases rather prosecuting them, I'd like to encourage you to keep up the good work and please do not abandon us.

This has me very perplexed. You're comments tell of a DA that has closed the jails down, where every criminal runs free. . . I just can't believe this is happening. I do know that for whatever reason, sometimes facts and circumstances come about that causes a case to go down the tubes. I've seen it many times. And for what its worth, the judges that reside over these cases can either accept or reject these offers. In the years I did practice before these and other judges, I had many offers rejected by the trial court. Some that came back and bit 'em on the behind when I won at trial, after offering to plea, and some where my guy took a longer sentence. So, Scott's supposed lax treatment of criminals still has to be approved for some reason by the presiding judge. (The DA can decide which cases to indict that are brought to the court, but once they are indicted, he has to go through a process that includes some overview of the superior court judges.) So you have a few officers telling you that Scott doesn't prosecute, what about the Judges? Are they agreeing that Scott is soft on crime too? I'd suggest to you that they have more of an insight into reasons why cases are handled a certain way than does the arresting officer.

Want me drop another bomb or two? I'll kick back a bit and hopefully others will be bold enough to expose a couple of other instances that need to be mentioned. As for me... I like to wait until my target is directly in my sights before I drop my next bombs. Why waste a shot? You have to ask yourself why these guys have gotten so nasty and threatening towards me. Do you suppose they know what I'm going to drop next?

I don't know who has gotten nasty toward you. Again, I'm not a regular to this blog, just a routine visitor. The person that says she is his wife, probably shouldn't be posting comments. She is emotionally vested and more easily stung by criticism in the newspaper, so to highlight her comments is a bit unfair. She's upset over the attacks and you relish them. So don't pick on her comments, instead prove up the facts rather than the conjecture of your opinion that Scott isn't doing a good job. If you choose to wait until months before the election, well so be it. I'll not tell you how to attempt to hurt his re-election.

Ask that to the parents of some of the victims that are infuriated that our DA has gone soft on, or defended the predators that either severely damaged or destroyed their children or their families. View me, if you will, as "Voice" or the "Ghost Of Victims From The Past". As for me and my agenda.... I expect and demand the harshest penalties available for anyone who commits a violent or sexual crime against a child or any other innocent citizen of our community.

Again, these parents are emotionally vested in the punishment of these criminals. They care not about the rule of law or the facts or evidence that was available to Scott, they just want complete and swift justice, as they define it. I'm sorry for these folks, but their opinions are again often without the full knowledge and appreciation of what is necessary in prosecuting a case.

I've been there done that. The DA's chair is a damned if you do, damned if you don't position. If he pushes hard on extremely violent cases that have weak fact patterns, then he will lose more of those at trial. So a balancing act developes. You have to use some prosecutorial restraint and weigh each case against the totality of the big picture. The stories I could tell about clients that were railroaded by the DA's offices in this state compared to those that would quickly plea bargain down a serious crime to a minor one, could fill a book. The fact is, its not always easy to determine those facts from only listening to one side of the story.

Again, I'm indifferent right now. I have no dog in this fight. Until I learn more of what is transpiring in his office, I'll waive judgment until I do. You know alot of officers, and so do I. But everyone, including and especially me, have perspectives that are different. So, I'm just a bit more patient before I make up my mind. I need more than a few disgruntled people telling me how bad he is before I'm ready to give up my sence of fairness in allowing him the opportunity to explain and defend his actions.

On a sour note, I submitted Git Real to the PTC City Council as a candidate for the open position, they rejected it. Apparently when they did a background check, they say your static IP is coming from some island in the south pacific. Specifically the address is some hammock that is adjacent to a long white and sandy beach. The satellite photos show a old fat pudgy man with a red glow coming from the top of his large and baldling head. It looks like a mint julip is in his hand along with a copies of about a dozen local newspapers from all over the country. . . . man, you do have too much time on your hands....

I find it very interesting how some bloggers will demand answers, proof and evidence but fail to any answer any questions put to them on the issues. The DA debate is a good example. No Ballard supporter has provided anything of substance just "feelings".

Here comes Richard with another longwinded law firm infomercial about how much he knows. He's the legal expert thats smarter than Matlock, F. Lee Bailey and Judge Andrew Napolitano combined. And yet when I answer his questions and pose 5 questions, he answers none of them although his blog is a country mile long.

SWMBO (and now JoyB) do the same thing. Castigates and doubts but will never really come out and answer the questions and debate the issues. Disappears when the evidence is stacked against her.

Tell you what--- you guys really remind me of Fox Chairman Roger Ailes comments after the Gore fiasco in Florida in 2000. The issue was the effect exit polls might have on precincts not yet closed and how the exit polls could be so wrong. Ailes had an explanation. He said that it is the Democrats who like to talk and tell you how they feel in these exits polls and go on and on but that they did not really reflect how the majority voted.

Guys---- quit demanding answers and professing expertise when you won't answer the first question put to you. Give Dollar credit--- he/she responds to the debate.

No one has yet to prove anything about the Subpoena Caper. Can you say smoke screen ?

SWMBO (and now JoyB) do the same thing. Castigates and doubts but will never really come out and answer the questions and debate the issues. Disappears when the evidence is stacked against her.

Whoa! Ilockemup, I've been nose deep in work and I said so, up front. I took a 20 minute break to look in on the blogs this evening before going to bed and find you're making assumptions that just aren't true. Git Real can back me up on this; I haven't run from a good debate. I'll get a response up by mid-week.

-------------------------------
If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is likely armed and dangerous.

Where is the subpoena ? The news story said it was never served and filed. Is that true ?

I have no idea if it was or wasn't served. I'd suggest that was an important part of the story but I honestly don't know whether it was or wasn't. I do know that all he had to do was put it in the mail with a certified return receipt and thats it. So I don't quite understand why this question raises so much concern.

If Jeffrey Allen was of such high character, was his former criminal lawyer (paid to represent him and the recipient of a campaign contribution of Allen's mother) the only character witness he could find?

I never suggested he was of high quality character. Why put words in my mouth? I merely said that Allen apparently thought that since he knew Scott through some counseling program, maybe he would have more sway with the trial court. I think it probably was over the top, but he had the right to subpoena all witnesses that he chose to.

So is it that you think Scott should violate this man's constitutional right to subpoena witnesses on his own behalf, or that you don't like people to volunteer in these counceling programs in attempting to help others?

Why didn't Ballard object to the subpoena rather than waste a whole day in South Georgia when he could be back in Fayetteville prosecuting criminals like he is paid to do ? Thats a question that I suppose he has answered. I suggested that the politically easy thing to do was to fight it, but maybe just maybe, he felt an ethical duty to honor the rights the constitution gave this guy. Then again, if I believe what many of you seem to think, Scott was attempting to help this guy remain out of jail so he could molest more children. I am just not comfortable in assuming the worst in a person's character over the best in it. Again, I don't know why he went down there, but until I know better, I'll assume it was basted upon what he felt he had to do.

Why couldn't Ballard write a letter to the Judge instead ? Well I really don't know. Perhaps the Judge might believe that the rules of evidence might not allow such things to occur in his court, since they are inadmissible in general. Its sort of hard to cross examine a letter.

Obviously Ballard had zip for impact, because the South Georgia Judge sent Allen back to prison for the max. This "subpoena" story is just political cover for a political payback to a campaign contributor.

Well now thats a leap of faith right there. I don't know how much was given to him by Allen's mother in the campaign, if any. But driving to South Georgia is no easy thing. As I mentioned its a pain in the rear end. So if you think Scott's character is one that would go out of his way to help someone who subpoena's him merely because of a campaign contribution, then I'd have to agree with you that he shouldn't be out DA. I am just not ready yet to think he is that stupid to do such a thing. Plus Scott was not lacking for money. He took a big pay cut to become DA, I can't imagine that a campaign contribution would sway him that much, of course, I'd admit I could be wrong. Depends on the amount I suppose, and the lack of integrity that he might have.

I think, Mr. Hobbs, you are just sucking up to fellow lawyers.

I answered that earlier. Either you believe that I have no dog in this fight or you don't.

Lock'em up, you commented in this blog later--down below, that you have answered my questions about biases. I'm sorry to say that I'd disagree. A bias is a personal opinion, unique to you, that causes you to have a positive or negative opinion against or on behalf of someone. You suggested you didn't like Scott because he wasn't doing a good job visa via some list of generalized accusations. Thats not a bias, thats your opinion. I'm curious as to your bias, what causes you to have so much vested in this particular issue. Did he fire you, not get you off from a prior crime, prosectute your sister, or do something personal to you and this is just payback? Are you involved in the other person's campaign in some capacity? Or are you truely just so very concerned with this particular campaign over all the others, that you had to have your voice be heard.

My bias is very simple. I have a curiosity about why several have such heated comments about him. I'm biased against slanderous and unfounded accusations that can not be proven. I'm biased against people who don't tell the entire truth, but only those things that tend to support their preconcieved positions.

I'm not on Scott's side. I'm currently indifferent at this time. I'm just wondering what got you all so stirred up about him. To be honest, you all might have valid and credible evidence to support ousting Scott. But all I hear at this time is conjecture and generalizations. When you get some real proof, then my ears are open. But before I sign onto the "anybody but Ballard campaign", I'd like to know who these people are, why and how they came to these facts and then after some investigation whether what they say is true, or nothing more than partisan politics.

So until then, I'll hold my judgment. Hopefully this answered your questions, but in light of your apparent support of the Gore people, I would question your reasoning capacity.

To be mentioned in the same context with Al Gore is sort of like sticks and stones, buddy. Take it easy. And I believe I did not disappear; I believe I suggested I was easily contacted. Why can't you folks read? And who has gone off on "feelings" here? WE have read the newspaper. In fact some of us LIVED the blooming story, and you have the facts. Whatever. Once again better things beckon.

Please allow me to respond for myself regarding, Git's statement and your comment to MY statement that: "... the issues are not of a personal nature in regards to Scott Ballard ..."

and your opinion/response that:

It is safe to say that they are rather intense in my views of him as our District Attorney. You say they are not personal, but your comments come across extremely personal, whether that is your intent or not.

Richard, I must say that I do not feel that Git's comments are personal, or that they come across as personal. I do think the four responses/attacks he has received this last week are personal. What I see is that the man has an OPINION that he is certainly entitled to have and that he feels strongly about his right to have and express his formulated opinion. Hell, I felt that way about Basmati and RetArmyMaj. What's the problem?

Perhaps if every day someone wasn't here blasting away at his 'opinion' the topic would not be raised; however, this is not the case. You are but number four or more in a steady stream of Ballard defenders who are attempting to paint Git_Real as a fomenting anti-Ballard crusader. For all I know he is one of the cops I have spoken with. You know what's so ironic about this? He had that link on the bottom of his blogs for months before someone finally decided he wasn't entitled to his opinion. It's a newspaper article. It's either true - or it's not true. That alone may be enough for him to decide we can do better - so freaking what - maybe we can. Maybe he's as full of fecal matter as a Korean rice patty. So what? It's HIS OPINION and I'll support it until the end of time....that's why I spent my time in the military - Jeezus H. Jose Freaking Christmas.

Again, I have not read anything that personally attacks Ballard on here from ANYONE. On the other hand, I have seen personal attacks against Git_Real for having the audacity to make a change in the DA a priority. One of the worst was from 'joyb' who, if it is his wife, may have committed a crime by implying Git_Real would need 'protection' from her should she meet him in person. Real classy lady or impostor, wouldn't you say Hobbs? She would be a big help in changing minds.... oh yea.

This is politics, just like those plea deals you refer to, all political. If Scott doesn't like politics, he should stay in private practice. That from a man who knows Scott - and LIKES the guy.

By the way, your statement to ilockemup that "So you have a few officers telling you that Scott doesn't prosecute, what about the Judges? Are they agreeing that Scott is soft on crime too? I'd suggest to you that they have more of an insight into reasons why cases are handled a certain way than does the arresting officer." is disturbing to me.

If it's important for you to know what the judges think, then YOU ask the judges Richard(I have spoken with two of them by the way and they would not say much). You should have done that before you passive-aggressively attacked Git-Real (although since you don't care what the cops think why would you care what a judge thought?).

But please, whatever you do, if you don't think the police opinion is absolutely hands down the most valuable, and should carry the most weight than please, NEVER run for DA, we have one like that now apparently.

And finally, an experienced cop knows a rock solid legal case with good evidence when they have one Richard ... and they also know which bad guys need to be run through the system and have the full wight of the legal system to bear. (By the way, you and I both know that judges sign off on cases and pleas without knowing all of the facts of the case on a very regular basis.)

Good cops also know when they are told not to talk - that means don't talk, but the DA apparently runs his mouth which further demonstrates that he has no concept of or appreciation for the job they do in bringing cases forward.

Apparently, more than one local case has been blown by a leak of information to a defense lawyer in an ongoing investigation. Can you smell what I am cooking Richard?

Regardless, why doesn't this recent group of defenders, including you (Thou Dost Protest to much, me thinks), who are angry at a man (Git)for telling the truth (the 'link') and expressing his personal opinion, put some effort in to making the DA better at what he does by holding his feet to the fire and let the jury and the voters decide.

In conclusion, talk to the cops on the street, THE VICTIMS and parents of VICTIMS (that you summarily dismiss as "Emotionally Vested in the punishment of these Criminals ... that just want swift and complete justice..." ((You didn't really say that did you? Those VICTIMS and the public safety is who/what the DA serves Richard! Ballard represents the state and our laws - NOT the defense unless and until the state is the defendant)) and then YOU decide ... but for heavens sake Richard - let the man have his own opinion without be badgered beyond belief by the minions of the declining legal system in an area experiencing a rapid increase in crime.

Fred Thompson:Apply Directly To The White House

Fred Facts

Actually sir, I was quite well brought up, and I did not imply that the person would need protection from me, only that he would probably want it considering his identity crisis. I am not a physical coward but I am also not a ravening lion walking up and down the earth seeking whom I may devour, for crying out loud. If he is a policeman, than I owe him that much respect--how can I give it if I don't know? And as for you, thank you for your service (something we low-castes always say to military folks). I wish people had been taught to read with comprehension.

I'm over.

If this is a threat:

"I'm often in the courthouse parking lot around lunch, and one of the big strong deputies can point me out, and help protect you from me.

Fred Thompson:Apply Directly To The White House

Fred Facts

I saw some of those "big strong" deputies, one time! Boss Hog bosses them, you know? He also got a healliicopter, you no?
They are shore enuf mean!

Your spelling is getting much better, I knew that 8 year old tutor would help, keep up the good work.

I yam what I yam...Popeye

Where is the subpoena ? The news story said it was never served and filed. Is that true ?

If Jeffrey Allen was of such high character, was his former criminal lawyer (paid to represent him and the recipient of a campaign contribution of Allen's mother) the only character witness he could find?

Why didn't Ballard object to the subpoena rather than waste a whole day in South Georgia when he could be back in Fayetteville prosecuting criminals like he is paid to do ?

Why couldn't Ballard write a letter to the Judge instead ?

Obviously Ballard had zip for impact, because the South Georgia Judge sent Allen back to prison for the max. This "subpoena" story is just political cover for a political payback to a campaign contributor.

I think, Mr. Hobbs, you are just sucking up to fellow lawyers.

. . . and I am neither an artist nor a scientist.

You are right, maybe in my social circles, I am doing nothing more than patting a friend on the back. You have nothing but my word that this is not the case, and since that word is coming from a lawyer, well, its probably not worth very much. I will say Scott seems rather amicable and easy to speak to, but I know very little about him. The last time I saw him, we were most definetly in opposite political camps within the Republican Party, so he's not on my Christmas Card List.

Again having prefaced my opinion with those facts, I say that actually, it was not particularly bright to subpoena a DA to come and testify because the shock value overwhelms the real value of the testimony.

Since I've been subpoendaed to drive down to South Georgia typically by prosecutors--who have no qualms about taking up my entire work day for my limited and irrelevant testimony, I have personal knowledge of what a P.I.T.A. that it is. I did it. not because I wanted to, by no means, I did it because it was required of me. I had an ethical duty to testify whether I wanted to or not.

Again, this is political fodder as far as I can tell. This one example does not exemplify nor decry one D.A's first term of office. I believe there are more examples that are appropriate, both good and bad, that better reflect how the electorate should weigh their decision when the next election rolls around.

Then again, I rarely vote in contests in which I only have limited knowledge of the candidates. If all I have to decide upon for my vote is some anonymous blogger's repeated comments about a matter that seemed rather insignificant in light of all of the other things that a DA can be critqued upon, then I start wondering "out loud" as I have done here, as to what all the fuss is about.

What has Scott done that is so gosh darn wrong? I know others have their own opinions, but I'd prefer facts rather than hyperboles. Substance over symbolism. Truth over emotional reactionism.

Give me something solid, and then I'll make up my mind based upon the truth rather than conjecture and tongue in cheek comments from people that refuse to use their real names in a public forum.

I'll ask you to disclose publically your potential biases. Mine is obviously that I'm a lawyer and I might have hidden away some ties to Scott. What are your biases that cause you to be opposed to him. Whats good for the goose, ought to be good for the gander.

(Oh, and I did not become a lawyer because I liked lawyers. I have very few lawyer friends. I generally do not care for most lawyers. They think they are almost as good as doctors, and we all know thats not true. And they carry with them the aire that they are better than others. True, we might be more experienced and knowledgeable about certain subjects, but we still are no better or lesser than anyone else.)

"I'll ask you to disclose publically your potential biases."

Very simple, Mr. Hobbs---- Mr. Ballard is compromising our public safety and he is unrepentant about it. I would love nothing more than to see a native son aggressively prosecuting crime here. That ain't what's happening.

Take notice: the Mixer lunch....The numerous instances in which Ballard has tried thugs as juveniles, dismissed cases, given up an infinite number of bad plea deals.

That is my bias. If Ballard would apologize and turn over a new leaf I would forgive him. Don't look like that's gonna happen.

And like a typical lawyer you babble on and don't answer the questions about the subpoena which, for you, is perfectly good political cover. Why didn't Ballard call the other DA and warn him? How does that factor in to "character"? Before your next babble, now you answer my question just as I answered yours.

Remain anonymous.

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.