One party in a contested matter requests a court reporter - request denied. Later the other party (the one who brought the charges) requests a court reporter and the proceedings are stopped because of this request. They will be rescheduled, with a court reporter I'm sure. But it seems that the first request for a court reporter should have been granted. Saying no to one and then yes to the other seems like favoritism - not an impartial hearing.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
It's a disgrace that the city manager is even permitted to act in that capacity. If there was EVER a case of conflicted interests, this one takes the cake.
I hear the word "gestapo" was used today - is the lawyer going to get sued?
Point of interest - hearing officer is BCDO member and buddy of the chief. For a "non-partisan" city there's a lot of politics.
If the City Manager stepped up and actually ruled against the chief in this, now that would show me something. But, knowing what I know and from what I have seen so far, I am not counting on that. It would take guts for him to do that. Good luck Officer Ferraioli, seems you're gonna need it.
The city manager takes his marching orders from on high. He would NEVER rule against the King. This hearing is a farce, and a massive waste of taxpayer dollars.
Post a Comment