Charlie Beck LA County Board of Supervisors LAPD LASD

Populating the LASD Oversight Commission….LAPD Chief Recommends Charges in Officer-Involved Shooting….and More

LA COUNTY SUPES TO DISCUSS WHO SHOULD SIT ON AN LASD CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT PANEL

On Tuesday, the LA County Board of Supervisors are expected to discuss the makeup of a civilian commission to oversee the LA County Sheriff’s Department.

In previous talks about the oversight commission, one important topic of discussion has been whether retired sworn personnel could serve as commission members, or whether that would create a conflict of interest.

Supervisors Ridley-Thomas and Hilda Solis have submitted a motion to only allow former LASD personnel to serve on the nine-member commission after they had been disconnected from the department for one year.

Mark Anthony Johnson of Dignity and Power Now argues ex-deputies should not serve on the board at all. Johnson says that even former personnel like Bob Olmsted, who testified about corruption and misconduct within the department to the Citizens Commission on Jail Violence, could serve as advisors to the commission but not as commissioners, arguing that ex-cops on the commission could potentially harm the group’s credibility.

KPCC’s Frank Stoltze has more on the issue. Here’s a clip:

“Fundamentally, we don’t think law enforcement should be policing law enforcement,” said Mark-Anthony Johnson of Dignity and Power Now, a group that formed to protest deputy-on-inmate violence in the jails and pushed for the new commission.

“It doesn’t make sense,” Johnson said. “The community needs to know that they can go to a place where the people they are talking to have not been entrenched in a practice of law enforcement – one that protects law enforcement.”

But L.A. County Sheriff Jim McDonnell and the powerful Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs argue excluding former deputies from eligibility would be unfair and also exclude people who know the inner workings of the department.

Supervisors Mark Ridley-Thomas and Hilda Solis agree — and have introduced a motion that would allow former deputies to serve on the commission after a one-year period away from the department. They argue an ex-cop’s perspective could be valuable on a panel charged with looking for problems at the Sheriff’s Department.

“There is no question that it could have a lot of value depending on who the person is,” said Ridley-Thomas. He points to the late Jesse Brewer, a former LAPD assistant chief who became a strong voice for reform on the city’s civilian police commission in the 1990s.

“In my view he was one of the best commissioners to ever serve,” said Ridley-Thomas.

Johnson agrees that former officers can be valuable, citing ex-Sheriff’s Commander Bob Olmsted. He was one of the few sheriff’s officials to testify about problems at the department at the Citizens Commission on Jail Violence.


FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, LAPD CHIEF CHARLIE BECK RECOMMENDS CHARGING OFFICER IN FATAL SHOOTING

Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck has recommended that the LA County District Attorney’s Office charge police officer Clifford Proctor in the fatal shooting of Brendon Glenn, an unarmed homeless man in Venice.

Video and other evidence from the May shooting led police investigators to determine that during an altercation, Proctor shot 29-year-old Glenn twice in the back while Glenn was lying on his stomach on the ground.

It’s now up to LA County District Attorney Jackie Lacey as to whether Proctor will be charged. This is the first time Chief Beck has ever recommended charges for an on-duty fatal shooting by an officer.

ABC7 has the story. Here’s a clip:

Proctor’s attorney said the officer saw Glenn reaching for his partner’s gun. However, Beck said that after reviewing video, witness accounts and other evidence, investigators determined Glenn was not trying to take either Proctor’s gun or his partner’s weapon at the time of the shooting.

Glenn was among 21 people fatally shot by Los Angeles police in 2015, when the overall number of officer-involved shootings in the nation’s second-largest city increased by 52 percent.

Mayor Eric Garcetti said in a statement that he hopes Beck’s recommendation is “considered with the utmost gravity.”

“As the District Attorney reviews this case, my hope is that Chief Beck’s recommendation is considered with the utmost gravity. No one is above the law, and whenever use-of-force crosses the line, it is our obligation to make sure that principle is upheld,” he said.

The police union, however blasted Beck.

“Chief Beck should never be involved in this,” said Craig Lally of the Los Angeles Police Protective League. “He should just hand over the investigation and let the people that are actually going to either file or prosecute this case – with the evidence at hand – let them decide.”

Meanwhile, there was rare praise for Beck from civil rights activists.

“It is so unprecedented,” said Earl Ofari Hutchinson of the L.A. Urban Policy Roundtable. “When in living memory can you remember a local police chief saying ‘an officer messed up. An officer abused his authority.'”


WINNING A CONVICTION AGAINST AN OFFICER IN A FATAL USE OF FORCE CASE IS DIFFICULT, TO SAY THE LEAST

Between 2005-2015, there was only one officer charged with murder or manslaughter for an on-duty fatal use of force. While the number of officers charged in the deaths of civilians has risen across the nation, it is still very difficult to convict an officer in an on-duty shooting, point out the LA Times’ Jack Leonard and James Queally, who have compiled a list of recent charges against California officers and their outcomes. Here’s a clip:

Despite California’s sheer size, officers rarely face charges for on-duty shootings, according to Phillip M. Stinson, an associate professor of criminal justice at Bowling Green State in Ohio who is tracking murder or manslaughter charges against officers nationwide.

From 2005-15, only one California officer was charged with murder or manslaughter in connection with an on-duty shooting, said Stinson. Nationally, 65 officers were charged with murder or manslaughter in connection with their role in on-duty shootings in that time frame, Stinson said.

Last year saw a noticeable spike in the frequency of such serious charges across the country, he said.

Eighteen officers were charged in 2015 with murder or manslaughter for an on-duty shooting, according to Stinson’s data. From 2011-14, just 16 officers faced similar charges.

Stinson said it’s too early to tell if there is a link between increased national scrutiny of police actions and an uptick in the number of murder or manslaughter charges filed against officers.

California prosecutors who have brought such cases in the last few decades have sometimes struggled to win convictions.


NO MORE CONTROVERSIAL STRIP SEARCHES FOR VISITORS TO CA PRISONS

Thanks to a change in state law, visitors at California prisons will no longer be subjected to strip searches.

Under the new regulations, visitors will now incur a year’s worth of heightened scrutiny if drug sniffing dogs or scanners detect illegal substances. And the penalties for those who refuse a clothed pat-down after being flagged by dog or machine will face increasing penalty levels for each refusal.

The Associated Press has the story.

It’s the first time visitors will be scrutinized by dogs that previously have been used to search inmates, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation spokeswoman Dana Simas said Monday.

Visitors who are spotlighted by a dog or ion scanner but refuse clothed searches face an increasing range of penalties under the revised regulations the department proposed on Friday and will take effect after a public comment period.

A first refusal means no visit that day. A second refusal could bring a loss of visiting privileges for 30 days, while a third could mean no visits for a year. A fourth refusal in a year could result in the permanent revocation of visiting privileges.

The progressive penalties will encourage visitors to submit to the searches, the department said in outlining the new regulations.

Even if a visitor submits to a clothed search and no drugs or other contraband is found, the visitor can’t have physical contact with an inmate during that day’s visit and must go through the process again the next time he or she visits an inmate within the next 12 months.

112 Comments

  • Taylor Walker, author of this story “Who can serve” mentions “ALADS as powerful”……..
    The fact of the matter is that the only “powerful” thing about ALADS is the membership dues that are collected every month. ALADS existence is ONLY due to Agency Shop. Make no mistake, most deputies in the know, does not respect ALADS. This may sting, however it is true. I guarantee you that a poll would validate my statement.

  • I do agree that Bob Olmsted is duly qualified to be on any reform panel concerning the Los Angeles County Jail System. After all, his observations were key in reporting and exposing Tanaka along with his Terror Dome of Henchmen. Unfortunately Sheriff McDonnell ignored the voices to bring Olmsted back as part of his administration. Maybe this time, the Board Of Supervisors will listen and take heed.

  • Old School I agree with you. Bob should have been the first person to get called back to fix the problems. As I recall, the Sheriff wasn’t going to run against Baca. However, he quickly jumped in once Baca announced his retirement. Hopefully the Sheriff thanked Bob for all of his hard work and paving the way for his new position. If Bob was assisting the makeup of the executive ranks would be a lot different.

  • @ 1. & 2.
    I concur with both posts. Deputies are paying the price for the inaction of ALADS. Deputies and the entire Sheriff’s Department are still suffering the repercussions for not listening to Olmsted as well as many others who were ignored when they spoke up.
    We’re still at square one with no relief in sight. Truly a sad state of affairs.

  • Yes, Olmsted would have been a great choice to bring back. Yet the Sheriff chose to continue on with those that had run against him, those that still have deep deep ties to the Little Mans people. In fact, even in the last year, there have been people (who matter) that have reached out to the Sheriff and recommeded Olmsted’s return. It only falls on deaf ears. The Sheriff has been led down a one way street, and those driving his new car are not being truthfull. Sorry Sheriff, but sometimes the truth hurts. We only post this stuff because we care. Try stepping outside of your little circle and absorb what is said.

  • It is quite disappointing that McD did not utilize Olmsted’s unique perspective into the corruption within LASD. After all, Olmsted had what, 30+ years on LASD and McD had what, no time on LASD. Olmsted is the ONLY reason McD is the Sheriff at this moment. Seems very shortsighted and quite small of McD not to use Olmsted’s experience and expertise to expose the Tanaka drones on the EPC and command positions. The very people, like Rothans as an example, are the ones who worked hard to keep Olmsted away from McD. The same Tanaka drones McD has retained and promoted since taking office. I’m going to keep beating that drum. McDonnell is the Obama of LASD, campaigned with a line of shit regarding reform and “fresh eyes,” and once he took office did nothing but turned his back on the good people who have suffered under Baca/Tanaka. McDonnell is now the new poster boy of Hope and Change; he’s led by the hand by Tanaka surrogates, pathetic.

  • One year of FAILURE! That’s what the men and women of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department received when McDonnell became the new sheriff. Not one person on the Los Angeles Times “editorial board” nor anyone in the LA County Board of Supervisors really understands the reform issue at hand. Only past/present victims of Baca/Tanaka can truly give you folks the insight you so obviously need.

    I agree with the other posts here, so, to you Mr McDonnell – no disrespect intended, but we will not go away. We survived the extreme corruption of the Baca/Tanaka machine – and we will be heard eventually. Most likely “we” will be heard in court, because that seems to be the only option at this point, to force legitimate change within the “leadership” of the LASD.

    By “Baca/Tanaka” – I am referring to the “Allowing/Conspiring” attributes of our past “leadership.”

    The good people who suffered for more than this past decade under the Baca/Tanaka corruption, are all still around, and it seems we are going to be the key to the future of this once great LASD.

    To truly effect reform, as Sheriff, you need to make the hard decisions. The Tanaka loyalists can simply be spotted by looking at the Tanaka for “Mayor of the City of Gardena” campaign donation lists. Could not be more clear on this one.

  • @ 1) The decision to free deputies from the “biggest scam ever” which is ALADS is coming soon. The Supreme Court will have a decision in June regarding unions. Basically Christmas will come six months early. The riches bestowed upon Dick & Company will cease. Should be interesting. No more Maserati’s for the likes of ALADS past presidents who were coin holders (Hayhurst) who wined and dined at their leisure off the deputies dimes and dollars.

  • @ 10. The normal instinct would to identify you as an undercover Tanaka Flunky. Other posts by you also drew me NEAR that conclusion. I don’t know you or what you may know, so I’ll save my initial thought.

    Taking the civil approach,I’ll begin by asking you to express why you feel that Olmsted is a snitch. Also curious if you ever went by the pen name of “Boomer”

  • @ “I Know Tom,” pretty ironic you calling Olmsted a snitch when in fact Tom is going to have to do just that!

    @ “No more rip-off,” be careful what you wish for. A reversal of “Agency fees” is going to make things worse. Divide and Conquer is what that is all about.

    I have been paying close attention to ALADS, and yes, they with Shinee are a disaster. The problem is, I see very few members trying to fix things, but many whining that things are broken. A Union is only as strong as the involvement of it’s membership.

  • The members depend upon their constituents that they voted into the Board of Directors to make strategic moves in addition to the regular business as usual . I’ll be perfectly real with you and any deputy who reads this. Alads Board of Directors turn a blind eye to Dick Shinee. NOT ONE them has the guts or nuts to make a proposal to axe Dick. I get your point as far as banding together, however SOMEONE on the board has to make that first move.

  • Been around for a minute. Carey is a rat just like Olmsted. I believe you clean your own backyard. End of story. A rat is a rat. And no, I don’t and have never supported the little guy.

  • @ I Know Tom:
    Granted your opinion about Olmsted is how you feel, which is your right. Cool. Without a story (front or back) I query your statement.
    Anxious to hear whether or not, Tanakanites put a “green light” on Olmsted for snitching.

  • @ 10, all sworn report criminal behavior. What’s the diffrence between reporting criminal behavior perpetrated by civilians or sworn? At what point do you become a snitch? If you had knowledge a deputy was sexually assaulting women or children on duty would you intervene? Or would you look the other way out of fear of being labeled a snitch? Or fabricating reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Where do you draw the line?

    As far as Olmstead goes, maybe the Sheriff feels threatened by him. The Sheriff knows or has a very good idea of who the players are from his time on the CCJV and a year in office. I feel he is taking the easy road by keeping those players in place. And those players for sure feel threatened by Olmstead.

  • I’m curious to know how “I know Tom” would propose to clean our backyard without holding personnel accountable to the rule of law. I’m going to venture a guess that #10 was in a car that no longer exists, and blames his plight on Olmsted. Without the intervention of the feds, Olmsted, the CCJV, WitnessLA, we would still be suffering under the Baca/Tanaka evil empire. Now we have the same game, different names.

    I believe Thomas Jefferson once said, and I could be wrong, that “on matters of style, swim with the currents; on matters of principle, stand like a rock.” I think “I Know Tom” has that backwards.

    Oh Well, I get your hypothesis that McDonnell is now the Grand Pumba and center of the Los Angeles political universe. I still don’t buy your argument that his position is as immutable as the laws of physics. Somehow Richard Riordan, a Republican, became the mayor of LA. I don’t take for granted voter sentiment, for as the saying goes, the mob is fickle.

    Rather than leave the entire fate of the department on whether or not McDonnell is sheriff is very short sighted. There are many reform efforts that can be made to department polices and practices that negatively impact ethics, reform, or promote corruption. There is a very receptive audience towards transparency, accountability, and ending corrupt practices.

    Both PPOA and ALADS, worthless as the day is long when it comes to using the bully pulpit, have the ability to use it with the press, the Board of Supervisors, and with other unions. Maybe they need to put their money where their mouth is and do a nationwide search for a candidate to run against McDonnell and fund him/her. Votes of no confidence, crafting a package of reform proposals and present them straight to the BOS, press conferences, anything to raise the heat on McDonnell to make him rethink his strategy. Maybe the upcoming SCOTUS decision on agency shop fees will be that watershed moment when the unions have to actually earn membership dues or they will simply walk away. I believe LASPA still has the framework of a very successful legal representation plan. Nothing like competition to keep a man honest.

    McDonnell inherited a mess, no doubt. Rubber-stamping and giving a clean slate to the same management team that destroyed the department is unheard of in the history of successful reform efforts. McDonnell’s refusal to dismantle the political patronage machine of the previous administration should be his albatross. The system needs to change, and McDonnell can be encouraged to do so with a sustained effort from key stakeholders.

    Conversely, perhaps McDonnell measured the backbone of the department’s personnel and concluded the same as Tanaka did: soft, easy pickings, who will do as I please as long as I hold out the carrot, and lack the backbone to stand up and fight for their careers when they get kicked in the teeth.

    Our future is what we make of it. Nothing ever changed because people believed there was nothing that could be done to change it.

  • @ Frank: From the flip phone void of of any damaging information to the FBI raiding the deputies homes which basically sent a “Who’s yo Daddy” message to LASD. The movie should be very entertaining to say the least. I never in my wildest dreams would ever think that LASD would become frazzled over something so miniscule in comparison to major stings and busts by the Feds. Remember the television pilot 1979-81 240 Robert ? Most do not. Many WILL remember this movie.

  • I agree with #10 in some respects. Both Tom and Olmstead are damn snitches. I’m sorry, but unless the posters on here are current or former spineless brass members, no one likes a rat. I did not support tall Paul, but I will say, he supported hard working street cops and couldn’t stand lazy folks who were hanging around waiting for that golden ticket. He also ensured that people got the resources they needed to get the job done. I’ve got a few years to go, but morale is the lowest I’ve ever seen it. I don’t miss Tanaka, but I wish some of his ideals could have been passed on to a Sheriff most respected.

  • Let me ask each and everyone retired or current deputies. What is the reason to be loyal to one person. You should be loyal to the organization. Why would anyone take the rap for tanaka?, I sure wouldn’t. So don’t call someone a rat unless your are sitting in their seat. I would have no problem sending PT to prison and wouldn’t have a problem sleeping. That is the problem with the Department. When I became a deputy I would have no problem escorting a dirty deputy to booking front. Crooks are crooks and they don’t belong in law enforcement.

  • Re: Snitch Factor 》 #10 & #2 appear to be partners in the “radio car of trust”, which by the way crashed and burned. The getaway car left. Maybe that’s a good thing.

  • @ LATBG. You hit several key points. The masses and money make things happen. The masses (deputies) and their money (ALADS & POPA) are in a position to make monumental moves within the local political realm. Reelection is looming over the horizon in Los Angeles County. Only problem is that there are no leaders on Alads Board of Directors. The deputies have to be inspired and motivated. Remember the sick out that received major attention. Balls! I tell you, are needed.

  • #22: Hello, this is Ken, you may know me best as “mr. Chow” from the Hangover movies. I would very much like to play a role in this upcoming movie! Contact my agent please. Chow!

  • LATBG,
    I admire your willingness and desire to continue fighting the good fight. I truly do. It’s an honorable trait.
    Here’s where our thinking differs. I think there’s a time to make a decision to retreat and live to fight another day, in a different battle. I think there’s a time to make a realistic judgement based on the circumstances you find yourself surrounded by.
    LA County and the city of LA are not the same place they were when you were a young man. The demographics have changed. The political power brokers have changed. Richard Riordan would have no chance being elected mayor now.
    The D machine has LA locked down. They DON’T turn on their own simply because they’re incompetent. They never have.
    I don’t think ALADS, PPOA, and the disgruntled voices of the men and women of the LASD will change that.
    Minus a major scandal involving McDonnell, it would take a MONUMENTAL effort to get McD defeated in an election. If LASD personnel didn’t do it with Baca, do you really think they will do it with McD?

  • #10 is on point. This place is full of rats. Olmstead, Carey, let’s not forget that insider who turned outsider Mc Corkle. Another softie being rewarded for ratting. This Department is not what many signed up for. Unfortunately when you have a lot of time invested, you can’t just bail. It’s sad what LASD has become.

  • Can’t wait to drop ALADS. The decision by the Supreme Court to dissolve Agency Shop can’t come soon enough. Myself and several other ALADS members have our drop cards ready. Since when is it a bad idea to have the option of more than one Law Firm for legal representation. This last contract that ALADS was so proud of was a joke. ALADS needs to promote other agencies that offer better pay and benefits to new academy graduates and send a message to both the BOS and the Sheriff. It’s time ALADS start earning our dues.

  • @ Oh Well, I agree with what LATBG saying what could and should happen, however your comments re: the sign of the times (in the Los Angeles region) are truly accurate. Everyone affected has to live with it or DEMAND positive results and accountability. This includes everyone from the deep pocket unions to the city/county governing bodies.
    People,along with entities & associations only get away with shit until they’re “called out”.

  • #24 Frank Says: Glad that for you Tanaka was such an upstanding guy who could not abide lazy people and got you what you needed. Meanwhile, other bureaus did not have the personnel,equipment or training that they needed to do their jobs properly. They had to sit through a meeting with him where he insulted a bureau and told them they were not important and their jobs were not either. He was an ass who helped ruin a department. As far as the new sheriff is concerned, evereyone says he is personable and very nice to everyone. Hurray, we need nice, but he won’t clean house of those executives still sucking on the cow and it will take another 15 years before this mess is over.

  • Yes Tanaka was selective as to the hard workers he supported. Generally those that worked hard on his campaigns and wrote checks got the lion share of the support and resources.

  • @ 32 – Common Sense. That last contract was indeed a joke. We had a better chance at a craps game to secure a better contract than with the so called “Negotiation Team” which supposedly consisted of a Professional Negotiator……were they serious?

  • Open question to Ron Hernandez on ALADS Board of Directors. The deputies that voted for you are waiting for articles from you in the Dispatcher. Are you prohibited from submitting articles due to your admission of putting pressure to oust the flagrant & unflattering past president Floyd Hayhurst to resign from ALADS. Most are aware that you are in the midst of Hayhurst former boys & girl who held him in high esteem. If such is not the case, we look forward to your articles.

  • @ “Ashby Klein,” sure, I can write an article, every month about how I would like things to change, or I can spend my time helping to change them.

    If you have something in particular you would like me to write about I would be interested in addressing it, if I can do it inteligently.

    I was actually planning to write one regarding my disappointment in the fact only 1080 members bothered to vote out of 7400, less than 470 of which were cast for me, and yet I still plan to help facilitate change.

    @Happy @LASPA; I was part of that Negotiation Team and although it was not what we were hoping for, it wasn’t the worst contract in the world. My personal opinion is that we were beat from the get go by some “possible” undermining and the fact we are not unified.

    What are you two doing to help?

  • My help was the “vote for you” to address the discrepancies beginning with the discombobulated Board of Directors who are not transparent with 90% of what’s going on behind the doors of the offices on Cupania Circle. There’s a reason why most deputies don’t give a damn about ALADS. To my understanding, anyone going against the grain are looked down upon and castigated for speaking their mind. Do you honestly think the majority of deputies are wrong. Same game different names.

  • @ 38. You’re in a position to request and get (with opposition of course) a FORENSIC AUDIT. Everything revolves around the almighty dollar. Your job Ron, should you decide to accept it, is not to play it safe but to grab the bull by the horns. You will accomplish more credibility with the deputies that actually matter, more than you could with an opinionated article. You’re there on the board (we’re not) therefore understanding that it’s easier said than done. Deputies Matter.

  • @ 37 & 38……..It all begins at #15 which sums and sizes up the problem and the equation. Save your breath.

  • @ #38 and #40 – A forensic audit may be too much to ask, so how about a yearly review of finances which should also include money spent on Legal Defense. Ron > You will either be an enabler or an enforcer. Trust and believe…….everyone and everything at Alads is being watched more than ever.

  • Ron, I’m a supporter of yours, but I won’t sugarcoat what is going to happen. If the SCOTUS rules against agency shop, ALADS will lose the majority of their membership for two simple reasons:

    1) ALADS lacks any proof their contract negotiations efforts led to a better contract. You got exactly what the county said they were going to give you, period.

    2) ALADS legal defense is fundamentally inferior to just about every single large law enforcement union in California, and more expensive to boot. A corrupt law firm with hands in every pocket and a conflict of interest, that is all you have to offer. I could round up a handful of fools who just passed the Bar and get a better track record.

    These are the only two items members care about, and you’re 0 for 2. No one cares about hospitality suites and Raging Waters. PPOA is not far behind. Let’s see what happens from this point forward – will both unions rely on forced membership, or will they try to earn the dues the honest way?

  • While legal defense is fundamentally inferior and selective it is also corrupt. ALADS has spent over 1 million yes ONE MILLION DOLLAR$ (tab is still running) going after former ALADS PRESIDENT for the (Hayhurst generated) attendance debacle over 2 years ago. Ron Hernandez spearheaded that (ask him), which is a total waste of memberships money. ALADS Board of Directors doesn’t want this to come out. They went to the DA’S office to file charges which were rejected. Ron….SHAME ON YOU.

  • The “overkill” for Macias is the “overbill” for the Alads attorney’s . I knew Macias to express himself at rep meetings, but the civil assassination attempt on him is ridiculous while costing a pretty penny. Looks like some individuals on Alads board lost a pissing contest
    If what Shad 49 says is true. 7000 plus deputies are on the hook for payment. That money could absolutely be used for a more serious cause or for deputies that could use it. Sad

  • @Shad 49; if your’e going to make accusations at least post you’re real name so that I/we can at least determine if you are person who can back up your accusations or just attacking me because you have an ax to grind.

    You are totally incorrect. My partners an I proved that Mr. Macias was not qualified to hold office because of his attendance records, as stated by the Bylaws. We pointed out, according to law, backed by our Bylaws, they simply had to recognize that fact and remove him from office. This was pointed out because I/we feared that there would be “more” miss spending of funds (by him as President) and Mr. Macias had no independent ideas how to go about fixing ALADS. He was good at pointing out the wrongs, but never fixed anything.

    The Board, at that time, chose to “muddy” a simple fact, by seeking counsel, which started the whole process of Mr. Macias believing he could use ALADS funds to defend himself against ALADS. You can blame me if it makes you feel better, but I will challenge you and anyone who blogs on this, or any other site, to prove that I am doing anything self serving or that we are not making progress.

    Show up and watch! All members have the right to attend the meetings, but it appears some are more inclined to be “snipers” than “infantry!”

    @LATBG; I appreciate your support, but if you’re going to state that “I’m” 0 for 2, then I have to throw out a more important ratio, less than 500 votes out of approximately 7000 unhappy members, who supposedly want people going to bat for them. Hardly inspiring!

    And, you too are incorrect! The rumor was, the county knew they only wanted to give us 9%, so 10%. Don’t forget 78% of the ballots returned stated they wanted the contract.

    There are allot of details to all of the past “shenanigans,” of which I am still discovering, but this is hardly the place to discuss those details.

    Like “Shad 49” said, you want to “really” know, just ask me, but I prefer to explain things or debate, in person. I welcome being proven wrong, it makes me a better person and points me in the right direction, but if you can’t do that then get out of the way.

  • Waking up to my morning cup of joe to view the latest on WLA. Truly appears that the “thorn in Alads side”…Macias is long gone but the “hand spending the money” is still there. No way in this world that anyone can substanciate a million bucks to go after a former member short of murder. It’s not a brain teaser to see why Alads is so vehemently hated and despised. The accountability of money being spent is haphazardly at best. June can’t come soon enough.

  • @Shad 49; and you side stepped the fact that I asked you to post your true name, so that this can become a fair discussion. For all I know you are one of the parties involved and you’re are trying to undermine anything I’m trying to do to help fix things.

    That being said, I was not a Director when this legal spending started, for this situation, and I am not a full time Director, so there is only so much I can look into. If you say ALADS has spent more than a million dollars on this, I sure would like to know where you got your information, discuss this and address this, if it is in fact true.

    If you can’t give me your real name then I’m going to dismiss you as an agitator and a coward. You know who I am, so seek me out if you don’t want to post your name here.

    Rest assured I will be asking questions about that dollar amount, but I will not be posting my findings here. If any of you readers want to know what I discover and/or an explanation. Come and ask these questions at the meetings. Everyone who knows me, also knows I was doing just that, prior to becoming a Director, and will continue to do so as a Director.

    If continuing to take pot shots at me, while hiding, makes you feel better, then have at it. I’m just glad I never had to go 10-8 with you.

  • I challenge you, Ron Hernandez to expound upon the ridiculous amount that is in the aforementioned. Don’t distance yourself from the real issue at hand. Is that reality or rumor? I’ll be blunt. Alads Board of Directors under the tutelage and guidance of Dick Shinee screwed James Sexton over. Going to the meetings at alads are is nothing but a pretentious show just going through the motions. You want to be effective? Then I suggest that you “Keep it Real”

  • Hey Ron, power down, I’m on your side on this. If you read “you” in the 0 for 2, that is because once you became a member of the board of directors, you should know that you have to own everything ALADS does, including bad practices, bad legal representation, you name it. If only 500 members voted out of 7,000 its easy to point a finger at the membership. The more important ratio is 1 out of 7, as in your position on the board of directors. What are you going to do to bring the membership back into the fold and participating in union activities? There’s a reason for the dismal voting record, and boards past loved to blame it on apathy. The answer was always in the mirror, but not a single director was willing to ask the question. Will you?

    Since you are using this forum, use it to your advantage. Inform the readers, which probably dwarfs the Dispatcher, that you approached the other directors at the next board meeting to move and second a motion to remove Green & Shinee as legal counsel of ALADS. It’s a simple idea, the time for half measures and bullshit are over. He is the cancer, get rid of him. If you fall short, post the results with the names of the directors who voted against the idea or refused to second it. Let the members know who is on their last term in office for being part of the problem.

    Take the step McDonnell refuses to take for the LASD, clean house, starting with Dick Shinee. You can do this Ron, now is your time…

  • In case you forgot Ron, you were also a part of the meeting sitting with the lynch mob when they “muddied” the facts seeking counsel. You and your friends gave George Hoffstetter a pass on his attendance. Records indicate that he did not meet qualifications as well. The process to remove was not proper per the bylaws which also states that a retiree {Floyd Hayhurst} does not have voting power on the Board. Many flaws were apparent but they were ignored by those to get rid of Macias.

  • Ron, any funds used in the Macias matter should come out of your pocket, not mine. As for the legal councel provided by alads for members, it’s crap. Look how many brothers and sisters are still relieved of duty under this draconian regime. You get an F Ron. Sad but true. I’ll be gone soon, and I’m glad I’ll no longer be paying dues.

  • @52, Please explain in more detail re: Hoffstetter’s attendance record. If you have facts, please share them.

  • My limited understanding is that ALADS suffered NO monetary damages, only damaged egos and bruised feelings. With no dog in that mess, I do agree that if any money, even a third of purported money that was spent on legal fees, it shows gross mismanagement of funds. That issue will definitely come up at the next rep meeting. I believed Ron being a director will be on the forefront to address the issue. I say Ron because sometimes the reps questions fall on deaf ears. seriously

  • @Friend of Sexton; pretty ironic that a person using an anonymous screen name is tell me, who is using my real name, to “keep it real.” Yes, I heard Sexton got screwed, but it is not my job or mission to right all the wrongs of the Directors past. I’m trying to make them not repeat the past. If Sexton has a legit gripe that needs to be, or can be corrected then he needs to come and address the “current Board,” so I can get up to speed and help him.

    @LATBG; so you’re telling me that I have been a Director for less than 3 months, so I need to take responsibility for all the years that ALADS has been dysfunctional. Not going to happen. We, the membership need to own that issue.

    You guys need to ask yourselves this question, why is the guy who could retire this March, with time and age, suppose to fight this battle as one voice. None of this is going to benefit me.

    There are actually other Directors who are open minded about “fixing things,” but rumors are not facts and it is not my job to chase every rumor. As a Detective I have never presented a case to a DDA/Court based on rumor alone. If you want me to bring your gripes to the Board, bring me some facts!

    @For the Record; go back and read the Bylaws, a Directors qualifications have to be addressed at the beginning of their current term (Section 6.12; 2; vi), so no George was not given “a pass” by me and my friends, his attendance should have been addressed when he was elected, not to mention it is up to the Board to vote on the removal or more than 50% of the voting members (fat chance of that happening). Floyd is a whole other matter, of which you clearly do not know details.

    Ok, guys I’m a sucker for a good argument/fight, but it’s useless and tiring to continue to fight with anonymous people who can’t even get their facts straight. If any of you would like to continue these discussions lets do it at a Rep or Board meeting. So you can challenge my effectiveness as a Director and I can challenge your accusations, just like I did with Directors.

  • @ Ron Hernandez: Both of your posts @ 46/49 not once is Dick Shinee mentioned. Should Macias been represented as President of Alads by Alads. Where was Shinee at? Something is off kilter if there was no indemnification or representation for him. Just wading in for the puzzle in my mind. I know you’re fighting an uphill battle at Alads. Good luck to you.

  • @ 50. Friend of Sexton. Not surprised how ALADS “destroys their own”. The only similarity between Sexton and Macias is that they were duped by Alads. Why do we pay dues and rely on Alads when we need them? This has to stop. I don’t go to Baker 2 Vegas events nor do I attend Raging Waters. I do expect assistance when I need it, be it legal or otherwise. My brother at LAPD says that ALADS is a running joke among POA’S and I see why.

  • Two things wrong with the subject matter within the latest posts.

    1. Common denominator is Alads legal counsel.
    2. Cops vs Cops in the same department.

    The lawyers win, the cops (deputies) lose while the department looks totally shitty to other cops and the public. For every commentor on this blog, thousands read it.

  • @Ole School; bye, enjoy retirement or wherever you’re going. It’s obvious by your post that you don’t know enough about me or the facts surrounding the Macias mess, for your opinion to matter.

    @Cowboy; if you want to know why Mr. Shinee is not mentioned you’ll have to contact me via my ALADS email. We have already aired too much on this public blog. And, thanks for the good luck whishes, I’m going to need it.

    @Another Cop; you make 3 good points in your post, the main one being this is the wrong place for this discussion. I hope more of you, who this directly effects, get more involved.

  • Ron, you are missing the point badly. Don’t get defensive, I’m merely pointing out the fact that you are in charge. The issue is Dick Shinee, the cancer. What are YOU going to do about him? Don’t hide behind meetings at the union hall, just answer the question!

  • @ 54. Hoffstetter did not meet attendance requirements for the 2012 Alads election. While targeting Macias three months into his 2013 term, George’s attendance record was with all other records and was not addressed. Other than selective pick for Ron & friends. It was no fault of Hoffstetter or Macias. The fault is the office manager who never checked. If she did her job properly, neither Hoffstetter or Macias should have been on the ballot to begin with. Go figure.

  • Maybe this should be aired out on this blog. Any true verbage through ALADS would not be addressed anyway. Seeing that ALADS is a non profit organization I think that any corruption should be addressed, just like Pandora’s Box. The bottom line is that deputies are fed up with failed past practices and throwing money away.Granted, you can’t make changes by yourself, you CAN address that membership be brought up to speed on COSTLY & WASTED LAWYER FEES just to smite Deputy Macias.

  • Hey Ron, nice sidestep away from the question “Ole School” had. What is ALADS doing for these people that are relieved. I know some of them. They say ALADS is doing nothing.

  • @LATBG: I’m not missing the point. Tell me something I don’t already know or suspect. But I’m just a Deputy who chose to take on a task I set for myself. I’m not some politician who is worried about getting re-elected! So when you ask, “What are you going to do about him,” I’m not going to answer, especially not on this site, I’m just going to try and do “something,” which is more than the rest of you can say.

    You tell me not to get defensive and then you turn right around and accuse me of hiding behind meetings in the “Union Hall.” My biggest problem, as you can all see, I never have and never will run from a good fight or debate. The Rep meetings and now the Board meetings are open to be witnessed and participated in, by members, but you guys would rather complain and attack on this site.

    @For the Record; once again a misleading post, most likely for your own agenda. I explained myself in #56. According to the Bylaws, you have to address a Directors qualification at the beginning of his term and George was already a year into his term when we looked at the records and discovered that Macias did not qualify to continue as a Director.

    Let’s get one thing straight! This is not a one man show. I am more than happy to “help” you guys make this a better Union, from the inside, where I can. But, I will not address your gripes if you are going to make them anonymously, unless of course it’s something I already know about and can prove on my own.

    You guys are acting like a bunch of school kids giving me anonymous notes telling me to go beat up the “big bad bully!”

    @Another Cop; Sorry, I had told myself I would not respond, but like I said, my weakness is not being able to turn away from the fight, especially when people try and make false claims.

  • @ 54. By the way, time had lapsed after the “certified” election count to dispute it. To be fair and unbiased, both of them should have remained or both taken out, not just Macias. Diplomacy did not prevail, only vindictive venom which quite naturally is costing. Records will validate my statement. Ron has his story, others have there story and the “facts” backed by records tell the whole story.

  • Getting financial information should not be hard, considering your friend David Gaisford is the assistant treasurer. Ron…knock it off with the “what’s your name ” spiel. Only the facts matter. No one is hiding from you or picking on you. If you plan helping the majority of deputies. It can only start with transparency. The trial date for Macias Et Al is in October. What will the tab be by then. Keep in mind that the trial will not be held in a broom closet.

  • Thank you for acknowledging the obvious Ron, I wish you well. I understand you cannot state what you are going to do on this forum, however many a good intention died at the rep and board meetings. The solution will have to be out of the box, outside the forums the ALADS bureaucracy controls with an iron fist. This site is a prime example.

    You can champion the cause of cleaning ALADS’ house, and you will not be alone. Conversely, the SCOTUS may do it for you by eliminating the house altogether.

  • Enough of the tap dancing by Ron. Google Los Angeles County Court Case BC540789. Scroll case information , party information, documents filed and proceedings information. Scroll everything and add it up for yourself. It’s more than a million. Stupid is what stupid does. That why I’m happy at LASPA.

  • If you guys are unhappy with my progress, then don’t re-elect me, lol! SCOTUS, be careful what you wish for, I won’t be around for it to effect me, which means you guys might actually have to come out of hiding and take up a “cause” in real life.

    @For the Record, really, I need to break it down for you. Ok, lets see if you can follow along; although the Bylaws are vague (most likely by design) one could surmise that the beggining of ones term is shortly after they have been elected, or at least the first few months of their two year term. That being said, I don’t believe a person (George) more than a year into their two year term could be referred to as “the beginning” of their term. And, more importantly, this is really Macias’ fault he had one job and that was to show up to meetings and make a difference. Not only didn’t he make a difference, but he couldn’t even show up to make the bare minimum attendance requirements. Probably too busy going 10-8 and hook’n and book’n!

    If you think this is vindictiveness go find Macias and see if he’ll admit to you that I was one of very few who initially backed his play, until I saw he had no idea how to fix things, after several years on the Board.

    @Shad 49: What is your idea of transparency? Me becoming your personal research monkey an reporting back to “you!” I have an idea, why don’t you get off your butt, request the records, like I did, and then act on that information. If you’re “stone walled” let me know and I’ll help you out.

    @I know Tom; more importantly, what are they doing to help themselves. You think when I was elected they gave me a list of “unhappy customers!” I have an email.

    Man this is tiring, and entertaining, but you guys really need to show up to the meetings.

    Membership apathy is like the chicken and the egg, what came first. Well seeing as I’ve been around for over 31 years I’m going to have to say initially ALADS started by well meaning Deps who would band together and be vocal, but it evolved into “some Board members” realizing not many were watching, so they concentrated on their own agenda.

    I was guilty of not watching “them,” but not anymore. Can you say the same. Don’t hide behind social media, do it “old school!”

  • Ron: The dialogue that has been transferred simply shows fustration concerning a change to an organization which obviously has gotten away with too much by a select few. I leave you with this quote from Mother Teresa. “I alone cannot change the world, but I can cast a stone across the waters to create a ripple effect.” That, Ron Hernandez is you applied to ALADS. Deputies believe based on your work ethic and reputation that you are the one qualified casting the stone.

  • @ 70.It would be in ALADS best interest to have a risk management team in their organization after looking at court information that you provided. Interesting to say to least.

  • It is crucial that EVERY DEPUTY obtains a current copy of bylaws which have not been updated in years. Ron is right that he can do only so much ( the quote by #72 starlight scope was spot on). The unit reps who are not aligned with Hayhurst’s people [prez, v.p. secretary and treasurer] has to get off their culo and keep the deputies informed. Other than putting pressure on the”Sinister Shinee” [Dick], the past practices of concealing Alads finances should cease ASAP.

  • @ 72. I agree. Don’t take it personal Ron. WLA provides a sounding board for many who would not be heard otherwise. I’m willing to bet that the content of the majority comments have much truth. Judging by the southernmost comments, at the bare minimum, ALADS has some explaining to do for members regarding finances and how/why its spent. In detail, mind you. One again Ron, you’ve been known (by others) to open up some things. I along with many others deputies will back the truth.

  • As far as the bylaws go. The attendance clause was instituted by Floyd Hayhurst. Any deputy of the 7,400 should be able to run for election. That was a catch all to thin out the selection process. You can’t tell or prove to me that only those on ALADS Board of Directors are the only ones qualified. One also should not have to be a rep for 2 years. That too, is hog wash. Hayhurst “coin holder” took notes from “Paul” to insulate himself and not be accountable for his actions.

  • Little does ALADS know that in addition to those who already know {including ALADS board of directors} is that the expenditures of lawyers fees will go viral via social media if not addressed and handled at next Rep & Board meeting. Watch!

  • @Johnny G; do you feel better. Lol. Good thing no one knows who you are because you can still walk around and “act” like your not a coward!

  • @ 80. Money Train: Ironic how the exposure of Pandora’s Box recieved a kick start from WitnessLA and became National News. Wonder if ALADS Board of Directors share the same feeling of cockiness and arrogance….for now.

  • @ Alads Rep 》Not many knew that Hayhurst was a coin holder in Tanaka’s camp. Floyd was doing his best to fly beneath the radar. Only because of his grubby paws in ALADS, did he catch Paul”s attention. Why else would he have a coin flipped to him? He caught hell from Sacramento when he pushed the endorsement (2010) for Meg Whitman. He pulled out at the last moment saving Alads from embarrassment for picking eventual loser in which Governor Brown won. Lessons learned.

  • What you guys need to realize is, I welcome you guys getting more involved and showing me things I may be missing or don’t quite understand. I don’t have the luxury of being down there everyday or being privy to “everything” that goes on. So, when someone says, “wonder if ALADS Board of Directors share the same feeling of cockiness and arrogance,” I have to assume you are out of touch or not as involved as you would like people to believe.

    @Money Train; I hope you actually show up and ask for an explanation of whatever fees you are talking about. Remember the morning meeting has better attendance, if you want people to hear what you have to say.

  • Bottom line is ALADS needs to disolve and the Deputies must form another union and method of legal representation. Green and Shinee are as corrupt a law firm as I have ever seen and are millionaires as a result of it. @Money Train, you can waste a morning and try and be heard at an ALADS meeting by maybe two lumps with a pulse, or you can post the ALADS legal expenditures here and be heard by 250,000? Also, young Deputies do not be intimidated by Ron Hernandez’ persistent talk of calling people cowards for not posting their real names on this site, or stating, if you just tell me your real name we can meet and discuss this “Old School” style. It is all TALK! Believe me!

  • Depending upon your tenacity to work unselfishly for the deputies, you can be at the office full time, come the next election. 95% of the deputies cannot attend the meetings due to work schedules. All Unit Captains are not aware that some deputies attend the rep meetings while on duty, which is a no-no. There is a contingency of deputies who are paying close attention to the goings-on at ALADS. Sad to say that ALADS does not the deputies as the number one priority.

  • Happy @ LASPA & 86. Stuff…..Suffice to say looking at court case of Macias Et Al,I’m willing to bet that it has to be the expenditures mentioned. All anyone has to do is ask at the meeting.
    Ask Dick, Hoffstetter and White. Put on your knee length rubber boots and plug your nose because it’s gonna get deep. To pay the attorney’s is one thing but to recoup it is another story. We’ll definitely know at the trial in October.

  • @ 87. Orange County Deputies received a decent contract. That 12% wasn’t too bad. Bravo to them. Maybe Alads can borrow their negotiator for our next contract.

  • Ron, “It’s” all talk, the demeaning “Coward” calls, the “Use your real name” B.S. This site is golden for these young deputies to air out their complaints and express their displeasure in ALADS and LASD without suffering repercussions from the Department. ALADS is your last assignment Pal, these other young men and women have to compete in a cutthroat world for rank and/or a coveted assignment. I’m sure you Ron as a whole aren’t “All Talk” but I prefer to call men out that try and use the tough guy, intimidation gestures that may cause a young deputy to NOT post his concerns on this valuable site. The very men and women that read what you write are the same folks paying ALADS dues every month so Dick Shinee and his gaggle of “nit-wits” can get rich off the backs of these good cops! You see Ron, I paid into ALADS for a boatload of years and in all those years I never saw, other than once, an elected ALADS President that did not seek that position for monetary reasons or for the cold hard fact that their career was at a dead end with the odds of promoting about the same as mine playing point guard for the Lakers. I will add that in my career I have been represented by Dick Shinee and his toothless carnies on a few occasions and I would have been better off slapping the drool cup out of a “Dings” hand in the CJ Law Library and hiring him to represent me! So, in closing, YOU don’t matter you have 31 years on and are out in the next burp. These young men and women on the other hand have a long road ahead of them.

  • @Stuff: your defense doesn’t hold. First off, I do not believe it’s the younger guys who are on this site slinging mud, especially against me, because they most likely don’t know or care who I am.

    If you go back, you’ll notice I call people cowards when they try to BS their way into getting people to believe they know all the facts, and verbally attack me in the process, while hiding behind an anonymous name. If you want to talk shit about ALADS, have at it, just because I’m a Director now doesn’t mean I’m a die hard believer.

    How is this site “golden” if people are going to continue to gripe (here) and do nothing to try and fix it, like get involved!

    And then you say “these other young men and women have to compete in a cutthroat world for rank and or coveted assignment.” And we didn’t?

    Who they hell do you think I’m doing this for, me? My involvement with ALADS will help me in no way. But, I got tired of “old heads” knowing the problems, complaining about them, after the fact, but never being able to at least say they tried to help fix them. I don’t know what, if anything I can accomplish, but I can tell you one thing, I can’t go to bat for them as anonymous complainers.

    So, these young men and women on this long road, should they travel this road in the bushes along side of it or should we teach them to come out in the open, band together and stick up for themselves, after all like you pointed out they’re paying dues.

    I wish someone had taught me, in my younger days to be more vocal with ALADS and make sure I held them accountable.

  • The elephant in the room is ALADS who turned on their own, and angrily decided to prosecute two fellow deputies, former ALADS President Armando Macias and former Vice President (retired) Bruce Nance. Be aware that it is truly between $800,000 – $100,000 dollars, so far. Total membership is footing the bill. Every (yes every) current board member and Dick Shinee has a hand or voice in it. Good luck in getting the unadulterated truth from any of them. @ 85 Deja Vu: I hear you.

  • Ron, that wasn’t a defense. I’m stating that if your’e going to sell Wolf Tickets with tough talk, I will be the first person in line at the ticket booth. This is a site where people can express and post their opinions anonymously. You call it “griping” here and doing nothing to fix it (ALADS). You are the one that labeled them “anonymous complainers” that you can’t go to bat for? I’m not an ALADS member, I believe it is a cancerous mass that needs to be removed completely. These young men and women are expressing, anonymously, there concerns with ALADS, you ask them what they are doing to fix it? Well, they are paying dues EVERY month and electing people like YOU to take the members concerns to ALADS and fix them while they push a radio car through Willowbrook for 10 hours then go home to a spouse and kids before going to court the next morning. You are telling them/us you need a specific name attached to the concerns before you can present these problems to ALADS?

  • @Stuff; are you aware of ALADS Bylaws and the fact they are a legal document. Well, every proposed change requires a resolution of the Board and/or membership, including the Bylaws! Well, I am in the minority on the Board, so the only way to change things is to meticulously change peoples minds by explaining the logic, which takes time (obviously more than 3 months).

    Or, here’s a novel idea, a majority of the membership can band together and demand changes. See were I’m going with this? The fact you think “anonymous” is ok, doesn’t help me, help them!

    So, when you remove this “cancerous mass” which you call ALADS, what then. The other two Unions? Do you not realize that completely starting over is more detrimental to our work conditions than fixing an strengthening what we have.

    The “ticket booth” has been open, and there aren’t many people in line, including you apparently since you aren’t even an ALADS member!

    And spare me the “long hours and court time” in the “ghetto,” I worked there for 18 years, and no one went to bat for me. At least I’m trying to go to bat for them!

  • No doubt that Floyd Hayhurst had the biggest hand to go after Macias. Macias was the only one to call Hayhurst on his bullshit concerning the hidden financial picture of ALADS. I’ll cut to the chase. Only a select few at ALADS are aware of the mass millions going to/through ALADS. There’s a reason why a “Yearly Review” has never been available/published to the members. The sole reason why so much has been gotten away with is because no one questions it, until scandals hit.

  • Between the SCOTUS decision in June and the ALADS trial in October, a lot will come out. “To the victor belong the spoils”

  • @Century Centurion: there are two meetings 1100 and 1800. If you become a Unit Rep then they have to let you attend. I attended allot of the “Board” meetings, before I was a director, on my own time, because I figured if I was going to complain I better be willing to get involved.

    @Ole School; Wow, this is the first time I’m hearing I was a bully in patrol, and more importantly I don’t remember getting called out. It must have been so traumatic I blanked it from my memory.

    But, do me a favor, remind me and everyone reading this, so they can see what a “bully” I am, or I guess was before I got called out!

  • Not true, re: units having to allow reps to go to meetings. Only board members for board meetings whose alloted time is paid for by ALADS to the Sheriff’s Department.

  • The Sheriff’s Department allows board members to attend Board Meetings which is called “Release Time” in which ALADS compensates the Sheriff’s Department for that day or days. Rep meetings does not fall under release time. Imagine that bill if it that was true.

  • Ok Ron, lets wrap this thread up. You keep closing your posts with questions and requests for more stories. Get your hips down to ALADS and start trying to change things before Dick Shinee books another Tee Time at the country club on the Deputies dole. If that chore won’t keep you busy, bust that P.T. gear out of your hope chest from 85′ and get reacquainted.

  • OK “ALADS Rep” I should have been more specific. If you are a designated Rep and you need to go to a meeting, you must let your supervisor know and he’s suppose to let you go, “unless” he can sight staffing needs as a reason not to allow it. It’s part of the MOU. They are not suppose to continually deny your ability to go, without a reason.

  • @Stuff: You’re right, this tread is done. It has accomplished nothing other than show how many “closet” tough guys are out there and my inability to walk away from smack talkers!

    See you at the next thread I get sniped!

  • Ron > You’re more likely to get sniped by the board members that watch you closely. Its no secret how they feel about you.

Leave a Comment