Re: Interesting Spending Excerpts from the City Hall Ohio Checkbook
Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 10:04 pm
Since it appears that City Hall will end up getting their way by having this thread derailed, I may as well take some time to clear up some mountains made from anthills in this thread.
First, my lawyer reads and checks every post I write. I have double-checked with my lawyer about all posts made in this thread, and they agreed that I have done nothing wrong. In fact, they are unsure of why this thread is suddenly of such major legal concern.
I feel that the definition of “funnel” needs to be cleared up here. The use of this verb was not intended to imply any criminal or otherwise dubious activity. Rather, it was simply used as a synonym for “gave”. One example of the word “funneled” used in a sentence is “$12.8 billion was funneled through the Marshall Plan.” The Marshall Plan was a Post-World War II aid plan for Western Europe. That does not sound criminal to me. I stated that City Hall giving the money was questionable as it was a relatively large sum of money and I was unable to conclude the use or intended use of those funds. Again, this does not imply any criminal or dubious activity.
I will reiterate the fact that my lawyer and I are highly puzzled as to why this is suddenly worthy of “legal review”. This is all very confusing indeed.
Regardless, mentions of “legal review” or similar actions will not intimidate me into the end my pursuit of the truth, and discovering the usage of city funds. Unpopular speech is still free speech. The day that free speech without threats of “legal review” ends on the Lakewood Observation Deck, tyranny in Lakewood will begin.
First, my lawyer reads and checks every post I write. I have double-checked with my lawyer about all posts made in this thread, and they agreed that I have done nothing wrong. In fact, they are unsure of why this thread is suddenly of such major legal concern.
I feel that the definition of “funnel” needs to be cleared up here. The use of this verb was not intended to imply any criminal or otherwise dubious activity. Rather, it was simply used as a synonym for “gave”. One example of the word “funneled” used in a sentence is “$12.8 billion was funneled through the Marshall Plan.” The Marshall Plan was a Post-World War II aid plan for Western Europe. That does not sound criminal to me. I stated that City Hall giving the money was questionable as it was a relatively large sum of money and I was unable to conclude the use or intended use of those funds. Again, this does not imply any criminal or dubious activity.
I will reiterate the fact that my lawyer and I are highly puzzled as to why this is suddenly worthy of “legal review”. This is all very confusing indeed.
Regardless, mentions of “legal review” or similar actions will not intimidate me into the end my pursuit of the truth, and discovering the usage of city funds. Unpopular speech is still free speech. The day that free speech without threats of “legal review” ends on the Lakewood Observation Deck, tyranny in Lakewood will begin.