Can't tonight. Twas there at a February meeting. See you at one soon. Nice try Greg/Janet/Sixth Commissioner

what happened to your cat...he looks like he's sick...?

Uh Oh, you have better watch out. You are gonna' make the king of the jungle mad. This cat is not sick. All LIONS look this way. You know, big mane, bushy tail, etc. The coloring is a little off, but he is getting there.

whatever it is, it still looks sick to me... or maybe it is just embarrassed. Yea, that's it...

Thanks for the support their Wake Up. Uh Oh...Cat's...I mean Lion's stomach gets a little upset trying to digest RINOs.

Is this it? This is the best people can come up with? My goodness why waist your time with the typing? Get real, get a life.................................................................................

I do have a life. I'm a celebrity. Now that you've mentioned me I am somebody. Thank you Sam. The reason some of us "waste our time typing" is because we are concerned. We all have different ways of expressing it. Nothing wrong with mine. I like to poke fun at it while making a point. Heck...if one takes these government hacks and politicians too seriously one just might go postal. So yuck it up a bit and STOP WASTING YOUR TIME. Our political system has been corrupted by all these lifetime dependents who have lived their lives feeding off the taxpayers dollars. That goes for both sides of this issue. Ain't one of em ever made a payroll off the sweat of their own brows. I'm paying for all this {{{{{EDITED}}}}} and no matter how involved I've been or try to get every one gives the "accountability issue" nothing more than lip service. Again that goes for both sides. Now Sam....either you get a life and move on or shut up and quit trying to silence the frustrated opinions of the taxpayers.

If you would like I could change my name to "Time Waster".

Sam uses the word "waist" instead of "waste" because he is sensitive about his formerly girlish figure.

As a shaved cat (yea I know, hamster is still here looking over my recently waxed and perfumed shoulder) you may want to consider that Sam has a good chance to be a county commissioner and he's a dog person (not that there's anything wrong with that)
meow

The Sheriff does not control the money any more than I can fly! The Sheriff tries to do the best job with what he has but someone keeps going behind him messing things up! I agree with the Commisioners hiring the Fraud investigators because they WILL be able to uncover what the county audit did not. what about all the plasma tv's that were bought and new phones that were not necessary. Why does the Sheriff need a plasma tv in his offices??????? What about all the "trips" for so-called law enforcement purposes with First Class Seats? These are the things that will be brought out and can not be hidden.

The sheriff and deputies are doing a great job making the drug cases, but as soon as the money comes in Lt. Colonel Bruce Jordan spends it. He thinks that the money is his to spend and SPEND it he does. We should wait and see what the fraud investigators find from their investigations. We may all be surprised and Bruce Jordan might find himself in a pickle... or worse! At least now he can't get to the money without the sheriff and the commissioners knowing what he is spending it on. No more cookies in the jar for Bruce!

Hey Wannabeme2 & uh oh. Two new names signed in within minutes of each other and posting the same beat up Bruce garbage. I guess you took such a beating being The Natural that you moved up North and re-invented yourself. How transparent.

Uh oh.. you really don't want to go there do you? I have been reading your blogs for some time now and you really don't want to tangle with me! Your ignorance to subject matter is as big as the picture of that stupid cat! You should just tuck your tail (if you have one) and slither away!!!

You've been reading my postings as Uh Oh for a whopping 4 hours and 44 minutes as of 7:40 p.m. Thursday evening. Be woman enough to admit who you were before that. I dooooo want to go there. That's why I'm here. Let's talk about it. My so called ignorance is your title for someone who's got your number.

Mr. Get Real--- if you cannot display a better sense of decorum I will have no choice but to report your abuse to The Editor.

Don't threaten me. Go for it. That's the only way your able to silence someone you disagree with because you can't handle the heat in an open and free forum. I guess if we were in China and in charge you would have your goons beat me and then imprison me. Go to the mirror and smile at yourself and try to cheer yourself up.

Many bloggers to this site will post whatever comments they feel like. The topic "Get Real" is referring to, about someone's identity, has been tossed around for weeks; since this part of the site was started. Most everyone, including yourself, use an alias and the users play around guessing who's who.

I don't always like what "Get Real", or "Aggre Progr" posts, but he did not break any rules. Others have and they have been booted.

As far as reporting to the editor, don't bother. He reads and edits posts almost as quickly as someone posts and he has done a great job at keepping the content above board and eliminating some horrible content.

Get used to it and enjoy the board.

Bruce's Cookie Jar ? That's a big assumption. Loose expenditures ? Perhaps...But how successful do think mere CPA's will be in finding the "cookie jar" with Bruce in control ?

UH OH! There you go bad mouthing Bruce- better be careful what you say. He has "people" looking out for him. From the article, there aren't mere CPA's looking into the "cookie jar" they are fraud investigators. I do not think that the Sheriff should be investigated for fraud, but as for Bruce Jordan- well that is a different story. I have seen blogs about skeletons in his closet. One of these days it's gonna look like that movie Night Of The Living Dead and it will all hit the fan. The old saying goes the bigger they are the harder they fall and he's not in control as much as he thinks he is. The Sheriff needs to put a stop to him.

Do you really think that the auditors will ever know what property is seized in drug raids ? No way. Because everything should be either reduced to cash or placed in service in the war against drugs. Why do all these investigators have such nice jewelry and cars?

Looks like someone needs her meds adjusted.

Do it. You'll thank me later.

Who said anything about fraud? You are another one who doesn't know what the hell they are talking about.

Looks like we have to keep it simple for simon. So simon, go back and read the story John did such a fine job stating. Then ask "who said 'fraud'"!!

By the way, simon, one wouldn't hire forensic auditors to look for compliance, ordinary auditors do that.

Read up and catch up, simon!

Who was that highly placed county employee Robert m? Could it have been the since dismissed county manager who himself was dismissed for illegal use of county purchasing cards? All the county employees I know are solidly behind Greg and Linda. Look, this is simple, this is not a witch hunt. It is a desire to have the sheriff comply with the rules. The court has already said that he must, so what is the problem here?

TN
GET REAL!
I bet all the county employees YOU speak to are "solidly" behind Greg and Linda! (ha, ha) DO YOU REALLY THINK they would tell you anything else? Greg didn't get the reputation of "KING DUNN" without casting out employees from his empire that disagreed with him...
FR

FR and Motown. This is an ongoing issue. Do you believe that the county would spend money on this auditor just to "get back" at the sheriff? To make him look bad? To what end? Who would take on the power of a 30 year incumbent on a whim? It has been a long standing practice for records requests to be denied when a suit is involved.
Cal just has his nose out of joint because he was told no. Let this play out and you will see that there is merit to what the commission has been doing. The commission should be applauded for having the guts to do this.

I assume the "Cal" for whom "The Natural" holds such animosity is the editor of this paper, Cal Beverly. This article was not written by the editor - it was written by a news reporter. He is a very gutsy reporter, especially if his boss backed Commissioner Dunn in the last two elections. I hope Mr. Beverly backs his man on this matter. I will be watching with great interest.

I find it very interesting what you can surmise from these anonymous comments. Points I have found interesting after logging on today and reading them: When someone named Robert M quoted someone high in government as saying Commissioner Dunn and others were on a "witchhunt" for the Sheriff, another writer, "The Natural", defended them and softened his word to "whim." Robert didn’t say "whim" he said "witchhunt." I also found it interesting that this person knew who had made the witchhunt comment and that this person was at one time a County Manager. That sounds like a whistle blower who was silenced with accusations. This person "The Natural" sounds like a County Commissioner or insider. "The Natural" also insinuated that the audit the Sheriff produced was biased. Didn’t I read that it was an audit conducted by the County? If you are an insider are you suggesting your own audits are biased?

(Snip from TheNatural): "The commission should be applauded for having the guts to do this."

Actually, it's cowardly for the commission to hide behind the lawsuit. It would be brave of them to provide a copy of the audit.

That's why the raspberries are flying instead of applause.

The law DOES NOT force the commission to keep the forensic audit secret. It is their CHOICE.

Mr. Munford: I appreciate your column particularly knowing that your boss endorsed Mr. Dunn twice in the past. Still, you spoke your mind in a well-reasoned way and "ya done good." It is impressive that the paper allows for a complete diversity of opinion.

Mr. Munford, in follow-up says:

"The law DOES NOT force the commission to keep the forensic audit secret. It is their CHOICE."

AMEN !!! I am so sick and tired of politicians and lawyers saying "just trust us." Unless the Commission was prevented from accomodating the Citizen's request (maybe some employee file or something) then the Commission should cooperate.

Badge of Honor to The Citizen !!!

Nobody on the commission has said "Just Trust Us". What they have said is...we cannot divulge the information right now....it is still a pending suit in court. Put yourself in their position. If you had a suit pending would you share it with a third party if it meant you may comprise the result? I doubt it. So why are you criticizing someone for doing what you would not do yourself.

When the sheriff complied with the request for information, the Citizen was gullible enough to think that the information was complete and without bias. Yeah right!

You said "When the sheriff complied with the request for information, the Citizen was gullible enough to think that the information was complete and without bias. Yeah right!" Are you suggesting the sheriff was hiding something from the Citizen--or the citizens--when when he answered the open records request? That the sheriff was less than complete? Do you have proof of that, or are you just trying to deflect attention from Dunn's lapse in openness?

Until now you have always maintained that you respected the sheriff and were not implying any wrongdoing on his part. Yet this comment suggests you DO suspect him of some kind of wrongdoing. If you've got proof, let's hear it. Otherwise, please refrain from throwing around this type of innuendo.

John, my "guts" comment was directed at the willingness to take on a 30 year incumbent sheriff and actually have the audacity to question him. That takes intestinal fortitude. I have always wondered why The Citizen has not been more aggressive in pursuing this story.
You will surely read my comment previously posted so I will not repeat myself.

Your cowardly comment is disingenous. You are so willing to use the "your right to know" as a battering ram to breach the wall of attorney client priviledge when it comes to this suit and it is to your advantage. But you and Cal would be the first to use the same concepts to protect your "sources" even at the expense of the public good when it suits you to do so. Do not preach to your readers about being cowardly when all the commission is doing is following the lead of the county attorney, just as you would follow your legal advice. You too have a choice of divulging your sources, but you choose not too. Don't criticize the commission for protecting a legal position that has not yet been resolved in court because you would not do it either.

Silly me, I thought you needed at least three out of five votes to get something done on the county commission.

Sounds like all you need to do is convince the County Attorney it needs to be done.

And we don't even get to elect the County Attorney.

Flippancy does not become you. Let's assume that you were sued by someone for something you said in print. Suppose your attorney said, "the case is coming up in court, there is no need to comment now, it may harm our case." Cal would fire you if you did not follow legal advice that jeopardized the Citizen. Why do you try to castigate a group for following legal advice that is backed by well established precedent? The controversy with the sheriff is a very thorny issue, that seems to be heading to a conclusion one way or the other. It would be simple and prudent to let it play out in court.

TN,

There is no basis to assume an entity required to follow the open records act and the media have the same obligation to provide "sources". The media will always have sources they won't release. This is protected by our Constitution. The commission is required, under the open records act, to provide information. Anyway, what harm is there in at least knowing what the cost of this "investigation" is?

As for the "right to know". That is the law and John, Cal and myself have the right to know. If there are criminal actions of the sheriff being investigated, they would be private. That is not the case here.

Wakeup,

The common issue here is one of legality. As far as I know there is no constitutional requirement that the press protect their sources. It is a long standing tradition not a constitutional issue. There have been examples where the press has been forced to disclose sources when the greater common good outweighed the right to confidentiality. If the open records law were allowed to pierce attorney client priviledge then the justice system would go to hell.

I cannot quote the open records act, but it appears that the county attorney's office was able to quote sufficient case law to support the refusal.

By the way, I believe that there is a difference between a forensic auditor and a fraud investigation. Nobody has said anything about there being criminal wrongdoing. Not following the proper procedure and profiting from one's position are light years apart. The headline suggests that there is a fraud investigation,but funny thing is there is no hint that any fraud is being pursued. Rather it is clear from the article that the firm, is review records and that is it. The headline, which sometimes happens with the Citizen, does not match the information in the article. But it is an attention grabber is it not?

Relax, I heard the suit was going back to court in the first week in May. I am sure we will find out what we need to know then and everyone will be satisfied.

the commission and their position of not releasing the audit results? Something Sounds Fishy to me!

Its absurd to think that releasing the results would "Jeopardize" their lawsuit. Once an Audit is performed it's all on paper. Is releasing it going to change the outcome? Is Sheriff going to be able to change the records to refute the findings of the Auditors? Believe it or not, the Forensic accountants know what they are doing, and they look for things that a normal accountant wouldn't necessarily look for. So the chances of the Sheriff's office being able to cover up or change anything are slim and none.

One would think that if something were found, the commission would want everyone to know since their main objective is to Dis-credit Sheriff Johnson.

A week ago, Greg and Janet were strutting around, having read the paddling that Randall took in the AJC. Now, after months of accusing Randall of hiding information, The Citizen calls the Commission's hand on a Sunshine Law violation.

What a difference a week makes !

Thanks to the Citizen. Without you guys, the questions never get asked.

The sunshine law has nothing to do with this discussion. Did you mean open records? It is really amusing to see these blogs by folks who don't know what the hell they are talking about.

simon, please tell us bloggers that you are being silly and that you're really not that ignorant!! Please!

The conflict between the Sheriff and the Commission has recently involved a refusal by the County Attorney and Greg Dunn to share an audit with the Citizen. Old Simon castigated a poster for referring to the "Sunshine Laws" as ignorant, as though somehow the concept did not apply. It prompted RobertM to ask Old Simon "please tell us bloggers that you are being silly and that you're really not that ignorant!!". When I saw Old Simon's post I, too, winced at his hateful hyperbole.

So, take good notes and Cogito will teach. Look at any generic dictionary and you see that Sunshine Laws is a term which includes meetings and public records:

INVESTOPEDIA.COM:

"“U.S. federal and state laws requiring regulatory authorities' meetings, decisions and records to be made available to the public.” http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sunshinelaws.asp

WIKIPEDIA.COM:

These “ [Sunshine Laws] may also be described as open records or (especially in the United States) sunshine laws (alluding to "letting light shine" on the process). A related concept is open meetings legislation, which allows the public access to government meetings, not just to the records of them. In many countries, privacy or data protection laws may be part of the freedom of information legislation; the concepts are often closely tied together in political discourse.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_laws

So you see, Old Simon, your declaration that everyone is ignorant on this subject but you was, shall we say, a tad embarrassing. The Georgia Secretary of State website has Georgia law,too, if you are interested.

Most interesting for this subject (and a source of consternation for Mr. Dunn) is the generally recognized notion found in Wikipedia.org that "A basic principle behind most freedom of information legislation is that the burden of proof falls on the body asked for information, not the person asking for it. The requester does not usually have to give an explanation for their request, but if the information is not disclosed a valid reason has to be given."

I hope that this has been enlightening. And Old Simon--- to improve that disposition you might want to try a nice bowl of prunes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_laws

B.S. Who is running the show, the Commission Chairman or the Lawyer ?

The commission...not the chair is unananimous in pursuing this suit.
The lawyers are providing good advice. Just because the Citizen does not like it they are using it to get people stirred up.

Ok. You are not Greg Dunn. Sooooo...that leaves one of two other options. You are either Janet or possibly [[[[[[[EDITED]]]]]]. No one else would bother to defend someone that radically unless they were lovers or their livelihood or dependency depended on it.

The one who edits advises this and other posters: Careful about your name-calling. You will get booted from the site if you persist in cheap shots. -- Cal Beverly

Sorry Cal. I'll consider myself spanked

I am grateful to Cal for his editing. These issues are important, but if it results in name calling then I am out of here. I have never called anyone a name, demeaned,or slandered anyone. As my old dad use to say...if you cannot speak without cursing or name calling, your command of the English language is lacking. Sad.

I do not consider my comments radical at all. In fact, I believe that my comments are directed at the side of the issue which has it's basis in fact and hopefully will be backed by the law soon.

By the way, neither livelihood nor anything else rides on this election. I just believe that what the commissioners are trying to do is legal and right.

What Name????? Huh???

Get Real,

You know I appreciate your comments, along Aggressive Progressive (I sure do miss him/her )

But the [[[[[[EDITED]]]]]]bit is a little over the top. I agree with the thought, just not the delivery.

WU

The commission...not the chair is unananimous in pursuing this suit.
The lawyers are providing good advice. Just because the Citizen does not like it they are using it to get people stirred up.

Now you've really messed up John. Greg Dunn...oops...I mean The Natural is going to get you audited next.

the natural is not Greg Dunn, it is Janet Dunn. Know that and your writings will be better.

I'm trying very hard not to make fun of the shaved cat, please be patient. It is just a reaction to the photo.

I am not Janet Dunn. We have had this discussion before. But I do have good news and bad news for you. The good news is that I am being transferred back to my home town to be near my elderly parents. The bad news is that you and the other folks here will not get the pleasure my company and my commentary. I have to leave and go find a place to live, leaving the wife and kids here till the end of school. Such is life. I will be reading how things progress with the suits, the election etc. but I do not believe that I should comment on things that I can no longer impact. Say good bye for me to that ugly cat(who would eat you given half the chance) my buddies, Fayette Resident (hope he gets well), Dalmation, Robert M and RW Morgan. It is has been fun, but all good things must come to and end.

It was fun while it lasted. I would like to have met you in person, but with a little investigative work I was able to find out your true identity. You have been a worthy adversary, even if you have been on the wrong side of this issue.

I hope your family is well, and keep up the comments from the distance.

Have a great life!!

See Ya!

We're gonna really miss you Janet. Pleae let us know what your new screen name is.

TN,
I'm sorry to hear you are leaving, especially under these circumstances.
Well, I guess you're really not Janet... BUT you still have to be getting the "inside info" from somewhere. It's been fun conversing back & forth and I will miss your comments! You have always had a lot to add to the conversation and have done so with dignity. Eventhough you have been the #1 target lately on this site, I hope you haven't taken it personally. I was off the computer for a while because I was letting it get to me (blood pressure stuff), but I'm learning to not take this or anything else too seriously anymore. (Another "life lesson")
I guess I'll never know your TRUE identity... that will remain a mystery? As for me, I'm a "she", retired but under age 50 with a couple of precious grandbabies!
Check in with us once in a while... Take care & God Bless!
FR

Greg Dunn / Janet Dunn same camp. Kind of like Lane Watts / Marilyn Watts....you get two for one and that makes a Marilane Watts. Thanks for the editorial tip. I can use all the help I can get for sure. But you've got to understand something. The cat is not shaved. That is the natural hairdo of a lion. For you see that cat measures 4' from head to toe in a sitting position.

Get real...this is a stupid and ill placed comment. If you have nothing to contribute but feeble attempts a humor...save it.

TN,
"The Commission should be applauded for having the guts" to do what??? It's not a matter of guts or anything else commendable so don't even try to make this look like something "good for the taxpayers". It is a matter of EGO! This all started because Greg & Linda wanted control over the drug forfeiture funds and were denied.

This lawsuit is CRAZY! The Commissioners are using MY tax dollars to sue the Sheriff over drug funds that are being used to enhance law enforcement! The drug funds came from DRUG DEALERS, but the Commissioners are using OUR TAXPAYER money to fight over it!! HOW STUPID!!!

Between the high paid lawer's fees and "Forensic Auditors", there will likely be no money left for law enforcement!!! The Commissioners act like they are the "good guys" fighting the "bad guys"... If the voters can't see what is really happening here we are all in trouble!
FR

Janet or Janet Clone asks: "Do you believe that the county would spend money on this auditor just to "get back" at the sheriff?"

Yes !!!

I was sympathetic to both sides until Mr. Beverly properly raised the light of day on this issue. If Dunn and Wells were interested in (1) finding the truth and (2) resolving the conflict, then they would most certainly release all public information. Note: those second rate lawyers would never say that Dunn and Wells CAN'T share the info--- they can ! They just want to hide it. Why ? To keep running up the fees. Those lawyers are probably in a prayer meeting right now hoping that The Citizen does sue over the records and they'll have a banner month with billable hours.

When you say "It has been a long standing practice for records requests to be denied when a suit is involved" you sure sound like a lawyer or a press consultant yourself !

Why does this have to be about Ego. This is not about Greg Dunn. Get over it. I am not a lawyer, nor a press consultant. But I have been around the block a few times and I do know that the request by the Citizen is grandstanding on Cal's part. He thinks that he is entitled to know everything, all the time. It is his divine right as a member of the Fourth Estate.
The problem is that attorney-client priviledge takes precedent. It would be foolish to disclose this information just days before the suit is to be adjudicated and Cal knows it. He just wants to make headlines so people would read the paper. The sheriff is willing to comply with the request, but refuses to provide data to the county. It has been his practice during this entire process to use the press to convey a part of his story. The part that makes him look good.
Neither paper in Fayette is willing to tackle the real issue here and do some serious investigation.
Why is that? Perhaps we will find out.

The lawyers running up fees argument is getting old. This part of the ongoing suit. It would all have ended months ago had the sheriff not appealed every decision that the court has rendered, simply because it went against him. Ask him why he keeps running up the bills for attorney fees for appeals (which the county is obligated, by law to pay) when the court has already found him to be wrong. It is because he is more interested in protecting his little kingdom instead of doing what is right and saving your tax dollars.

What other paper? You have to have meaningful and thought provoking content to be considered a Paper. The Natural might not like what he/she reads here so unfortunately for them they are getting challenged by those who are not their Yes People. COMMISSIONERS please hear this. Stop wasting OUR money. Be productive. The only people who are benefiting from this are the lawyers. And I know another one who will benefit if you don't knock it off. I'll give you a hint...he's your opponent. As it stands I'm gonna hold my nose and vote for you over the trial lawyer but you ain't making it easy to do. THE CITIZEN IS THE ONLY PAPER!!!!!!

Get Real is right. The Natural is Dunn's Press Secretary. I voted for Dunn. I won't say I like him. He is not a good listener, he does what he wants and fights with other officials. His loyalty has been questionable.

But--- and here it is ---- he has stood up to developers and apparently his opponent won't.

Will Dunn wake up and start listening to the voters rather than the lawyers and accountants? Me and The Twins wonder.

Neither paper in Fayette is willing to tackle the real issue here and do some serious investigation.

I think this paper just did.

The sheriff is willing to comply with the request, but refuses to provide data to the county.

What data is he not providing?

Over the last few years the sheriff has refused to provide sufficient support information that would allow the county to certify (as required by law) that the drug forfieture monies are being spent according to the rules. The most recent example was the three vehicles that the sheriff tried to trade in. The problem is, the sheriff never owned them. The sheriff decided to dispose of the equipment without informing the county as the law requires. The county has to own the equipment, even if it is purchased with drug money. The court again recently ruled that according to GA law, the sheriff cannot own anything. Anything that he buys has to be procured through and disposed of according to a long standing county policy that the sheriff has chosen to ignore.

This whole thing has taken on a life of its' own. If the sheriff complies with the rules the suits, the legal fees, and the animosity disappears. Ask yourself....why does the sheriff so steadfastly refuse to cooperate with the commission. What is going on over there?

Over the last few years the sheriff has refused to provide sufficient support information that would allow the county to certify (as required by law) that the drug forfieture monies are being spent according to the rules.

You're still claiming that? According to this article, the county has already certified it.

Since when does attorney-client priviledge take precedence? The audit was done on behalf of the commission. I don't think AC priviledge applies in this case. The commissioners are acting as their own investigators and then hope they can turn their findings over to a real authority for resolution.

TN,
Stop trying to bash the Sheriff, it's not getting you anywhere! It's amazing how you keep saying the Sheriff doesn't "comply".. BUT when he was requested by the AJC, he complied with the Open Records Act... and this was DURING this litigation... So why won't the Commissioners "comply" with The Citizen and reveal the requested information? Why should the Commissioners be treated any different from the Sheriff?
FR

That's right, Windy, the commissioners were not correct when they said the sheriff wouldn't show them the records. The sheriff has shown them his purchasing records repeatedly over the years and has cooperated with many requests for audits. The county's claim that they need a court order so the sheriff will be "accountable" for how he uses the federal forfeiture funds is a bunch of boloney. The sheriff has nothing to hide, and I'm sure the forensic audit the county paid for will show just that.