Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Yes, You Can Say a Fat-Cat Businessman Commits "Legalized Highway Robbery"

Three years ago, daTruthSquad faced a taxpayer-funded lawsuit initiated by what you can describe as some politicians that were way "too big for their britches." In the end, thanks to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, they affirmed our right to hand out "BaconHead Awards" if we so choose, and say that Manalapan taxpayers could lose and lose big their case of "DaTownship of Manalapan vs Da Mosked Man," which of course, they not only lost big, but, as daTruthSquad claimed can and would happen when they lost, da town would face a potential defamation lawsuit and a lawsuit for wrongful prosecution brought by da then-defendant in da case - da Mosked Man.

DaTruthSquad was sued using a subpoena that was for all intensive purposes illegal and unenforceable, something even da prosecution bringing da case would later be forced to admit. When da case was heard by a judge, da case brought by da Manalapan Legal Dream Team crumbled much like a 3-piece suit bought at a 99 cent store. A case that even then-Mayor and current Manalapan Mayor Andy Boy said cost "in excess of $100,000" was tossed out by a judge on First Amendment grounds, becoming a precedent-setting First Amendment law case, and later forced to be dropped by Manalapan's Dream Team after 25 months of taxpayer-funded legal billing!

Almost sounds like someone should write a book about that.

While you can't scream "fire' in a crowded theater, you can speak your mind, and you should be allowed to do just that without fear of retribution. In Pennsylvania, an anonymous blogger took aim at a company he or she believed wasn't doing things above-board. The anonymous blogger wrote about USA Technologies and its CEO, George Jensen, Jr. (no relation to the futuristic comic guy who worked for "Spacely Sprockets), writing and "drawing attention to plummeting stock prices, high compensation rates for executives, and a consistent lack of profitability."

Da blogger in this case wrote da company in question was a "Not one penny profit in this fugly company's sad history, yet millions have been paid in bonuses and directors fees," "Da top 2 people at USAT have skimmed $30 million from this hugely unprofitable venture," "Definition of 'soft Ponzi?"

Da blogger also wrote," The NASDAQ Small and Micro Cap exchanges are lousy with scam companies that, if they were limited partnerships, would have closed their doors in short order. USAT is a failure. It always was; it always will be. Jensen is a known liar. Several years ago (my memory fails; approx 2005-06; perhaps someone can nail down the exact year), he assured investors that USAT would be profitable in the same fiscal year. The company didn’t even come close. No apologies, no explanations, no nothing. Just more spin."

There was more that this anonymous blogger wrote, but da point here is, da company didn't like someone writing anything negative about it, so they, much like Manalapan Township's politicians did three years ago, filed a lawsuit to out da blogger.

Good news for da First Amendment - They failed.

Da reason they failed is thanks to da law firm of Phillips, Erlewine & Given LLP and da Electronic Frontier Foundation, who they went to court to challenge da deep-pocketed company's attorneys and in da end, da court took this case, crumbled it up, and tossed it into da garbage can.

First, it's already been proven in court that the right to speak anonymously extends to speech via the Internet.

Second, another case proved that "Internet anonymity facilitates the rich, diverse, and far ranging exchange of ideas."

Third, another case deemed "People who have committed no wrong should be able to participate online without fear that someone who wishes to harass or embarrass them can file a frivolous lawsuit and thereby gain the power of the court's order to discover their identity."

Fourth, just as da Manalapan Legal Dream Team discovered when they went after daTruthSquad at taxpayer expense, their case against daTruthSquad was "an unjust infringement on the blogger's First Amendment rights."

In da end, da case was tossed by a judge, because much like da Manalapan Legal Dream Team in da case against daTruthSquad, they failed to establish a prime facie case, or any case for that matter worthy of note against this particular blogger in question.

Why bring all of this up?

There are people out there who either don't like anonymous blogging, or don't like their dirty laundry washed in public, or think they are too big for their own britches for whatever reason.

DaTruth is, anyone has the right to anonymously blog, and people also have the right to not like it, or like it if they prefer. If you don't like it - don't read it.

DaTruth is, it's safe to say nobody likes their dirty laundry aired for others to read. However opinions have a right, and a legal right in this great nation, and whether they like it or not, we da people have been given da right in da Constitution and Bill of Rights to Freedom of Speech, and we should be free of persecution to exercise that Freedom of Speech. There are some who, either using their business clout, or township's taxpayer money, or even on their own allegedly using their own $$$$ to take anonymous critics to court to out them. In this great nation, they have that right. However, they and those who support their ventures should also remember that there are great attorneys out there who know and understand da Constitution, and da rights of individuals for Free Speech, and understand right from wrong, and they should be made aware that da Constitution is not something that you should be trying to make a paper airplane out of.

There will always be those who think they are too big for their britches, or wear expensive suits who feel they can intimidate or for whatever reason and file lawsuits for things they don't like.

Fortunately for all of us, there are legal experts who can see through all of this and do da right thing for da little guy or gal.

And, if you have any questions, da Electronic Frontier Foundations has a "Bloggers Rights" page that will answer all of your questions - as it has answered ours.

And, as David M. Given of Phillips, Erlewine & Given LLP said in response to his victory in the Pennsylvania case, "The First Amendment principle at stake in this case is paramount to preserving the free interchange of ideas and opinions on the Internet."

That's what our brave men and women who fought in wars in rice paddies and French forests, mountains in Afghanistan and islands in the Pacific fought for, as well as here at home in places like Bunker Hill and right down the street in Monmouth - for our rights to liberty and Freedom of Speech. And we remember each and every one of them this Memorial Day.

And that's daTruth.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Will Da Manalapan Township Committee Balance Their Budget On Da Backs of Kids?

Following the response to our latest blog about the proposed 2010 Manalapan Township Committee budget, it seems that maybe we struck a raw nerve about how some things don't seem to be adding up - and it seems we were right again.

It was daTruthSquad that first explained how da state has cut $1 million dollars from Manalapan's municipal aid, and how despite that, da Manalapan proposed 2010 budget is over $300,000 more than last year's budget was. In addition, while other towns are cutting staff and even some services and people who work for taxpayers are taking pay cuts, there are absolutely no layoffs in this new 2010 budget, and no salary cuts of any kind to any worker in Manalapan Town Hall - and da tax rate is expected to go up despite mandates from Trenton, because plain and simple according to their own budget numbers da burden on Manalapan taxpayers for da local municipal budget is increasing by about $1.4 million dollars.

Those numbers are not in dispute.

Our embedded sources within da walls of Manalapan Town Hall however are hearing that da budget may become leaner - or will it - courtesy of smoke and mirrors.

DaTruthSquad was hearing a number of possible scenarios to cut da municipal budget, and every one of those scenarios revolves around da school budget voted down by Manalapan voters. We originally heard that da Manalapan Township Committee was crunching their numbers, and were expected to cut anywhere from $800,000 dollars to $1.5 million dollars from da school budget that has already been pared down, with one person on da committee wanting what amounted to "draconian" cuts.

Of course, that sounds like a good thing, but that's where da smoke and mirrors come in.

Now, one might think that this is a job for "fiscal conservatives." However, what seems to be happening here is you have one budget - da Manalapan Township budget, that will be higher in 2010 than it was in 2009, with no layoffs and no staff reductions or salary or pension cuts of any kind. Then you have their new job - cutting da school budget. Simply put, in order for da Manalapan Township Committee to get their own budget across da finish line with no cuts whatsoever, they would have to trim about $1.4 million from da Manalapan-Englishtown school budget to achieve their goal.

Guess what happened?

Manalapan Township Committee "fiscal conservatives" Queen & Andy Boy have put together a school board budgetthat cuts -- and get this -- $1.4 million from da school budget! They couldn't cut a dime from their own budget, but they certainly could take a few erasers and pencils away from a few teachers -- and a few teachers too. With this now being da case, what will da cause and effect be for Manalapan's kids in our public schools?

Already, our school friends are saying a number of teaching positions are being cut, and this was prior to da Manalapan Township "fiscal conservatives" carving up da school budget.

Now that da Andy-Boy led Manalapan Township Committee has agreed to cut $1.4 million dollars from da school budget, is anyone surprised that da $1.4 million dollar figure is pretty much an exact match for da dollar figure that da overall tax burden on municipal tax payers went up from 2009 to 2010?

What this means is, da money lost when da state cut Manalapan aid, and da added number from last year to this year's budget is ECAXTLY what da Manalapan Township Committee cut from da school budget!

This means, no job cuts in Town Hall, no pay cuts in Town Hall. In order to not have cuts in Town Hall, da school budget has been decimated!

Now, it's important to note something TruthTeller Joe "Joey D" DePasquale noted when he told the Asbury Park Press newspaper that it never even had to go this far. He said "the bulk of the cuts could have been avoided if the Manalapan-Englishtown Education Association had agreed to a wage freeze, as other bargaining units in the district had. The freeze would have amounted to a $1.2 million savings, district officials said."

Maybe TruthTeller "Joey D" would make a good Manalapan Township Committeeman?

What is even more interesting was da Queen's "No' vote on da Manalapan-Englishtown school budget. Apparently she voted "No" not because of da budget cuts, but because they weren't big enough cuts!

This could be interpreted as either:

1. Da Queen may be more of a "fiscal conservative" than we gave her credit for.

2. Da Queen may be more of a "fiscal conservative" than her GOP'er mayor Andy Boy.

3. As a Democrat, da Queen may have turned her back completely on her political base.

4. Maybe this was Queenly revenge for not getting da endorsement of da NJEA during her failed State Assembly campaign - - one of only two districts da NJEA didn't even give an endorsement to!

DaTruth is, while daTruthSquad is happy that da Township Committee did what it was supposed to do and cut da budget, da bad news here is it wasn't da budget they should have been cutting. They cut da school budget in an effort to soften da blow of da fact they couldn't properly cut their own bloated budget. Da bottom line - da local tax burden went up for Manalapan taxpayers with no appreciable cuts to Manalapan Town Hall at all - no salary cuts - no benefit cuts - no layoffs - not even a moratorium on pencils or pens!

What this amounts to, using $1.4 million dollars in cuts to da school budget to plug a $1.4 million dollar tax burden increase, is simply a one-time gimic to balance their own bloated budget - something we, as a state, hired Chris Christie to stop on da state level.

Why no cuts to staff in Town Hall? Why no infrastructure cuts? How much money has been or will be spent on lawyers for da "legal malpractice" case that was started against both da Mosked Man and now da defamation case by Manalapan Police Chief Stu Brown?

Or this famous precedent-setting First Amendment case?

Will they every really tells us?

Ironically, da Manalapan Township Committee overwhelmingy and unanimously approved to support a $4.5 million dollar cut to the Freehold Regional High School District budget. All well and good, but Dr/Mr/Lord Wasser is still superintendanting a salary of over $200,000 dollars!

DaTruth is, as a GOP'er you should have expected more from Mayor Andy Boy for not making cuts to his own budget before he tinkered with someone elses. It's easy to take from someone else, but when you can't cut your own budget, that shows a lack of leadership and residents should expect more. By cutting da budget of da kids and teachers and not your own, you show you are not a friend of da schools. You don't have to be a friend of da unions, but da teachers are a totally different matter, and this school budget cut to save your own budget will only harm da teachers and da kids - and nobody else. By not cutting your own budget, you show you're not a "fiscal conservative" like da Queen claims she is.

We think it will be interesting how many teachers will be filing for unemployment before July 1, while it appears at first glance that not one Manalapan Town Hall employee will apparently even lose one thin dime from their salaries. That could make for a very interesting November.

And that's daTruth.

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Manalapan's Early Budget Numbers Don't Add Up

You may remember that it was daTruthSquad that told you previously that da state was going to slice off $1 million dollars from the aid it sent a year ago to Manalapan. Now, due to a state mandate that budgets have to be announced by da end of April, Manalapan's alleged town leaders have indeed announced a budget, but when you look at da early numbers, something isn't adding up.

ISSUE 1: Manalapan’s 2009 budget was $31.9 million dollars. Da proposed budget for 2010 is $32,686,748.

Now, we checked with a 2nd grader, and daTruthSquad's math was confirmed. In case "fiscal conservatives" Mayor Andy Boy and da Queen didn't notice this, da proposed 2010 budget, at a time that da state is in fiscal chaos, is actually higher than that of 2009.

Why da added increase? Does Manalapan need to pay their lawyers more money because they have to defend themselves after their 25-month loss to da Mosked Man in da "Legal Malpractice Case To Nowhere?" Or, maybe it's da defamation case Police Chief Brown is bringing against da Queen? And, before you ask, YOU DA TAXPAYER are paying for both cases to be defended, with no caps, and sparing no expense!

ISSUE 2: No Village, no ratables, no problem!

This proposed 2010 budget, as it was introduced calls for YOU DA TAXPAYER to fork over $20.2 million dollars in local taxes to support the spending plan. Now, follow da bouncing ball of budget blunders here --- da 2009 tax levy was $18.8 million that YOU DA TAXPAYER had to cover last year --- meaning, da overall proposed 2010 budget is going up $700,000, but your portion of local taxes is going up $1.4 million!

To be fair, and those numbers don't lie, we checked with a 3rd grader, and they tell daTruthSquad this means da budget burden on YOU DA TAXPAYER is increasing sharply!

ISSUE 3: Your taxes, as proposed, WILL GO UP.

Even when you adjust for last year's property reassessment, da budget as they introduced it will still raise the municipal tax rate by 2.5 cents per $100 dollars of da assessed valuation. The 2009 budget, which "Hear No Evil. See No Evil and Looking Evil" enacted in 2009 raised the municipal tax rate by 1.1 cents per $100 of assessed valuation --- this proposed one raises it by 2.5 cents per $100 dollars of assessed valuation!

Again, to be fair, we checked with a 1st grader on this one, and indeed, this would not only be higher, but it will mean a local tax increase.

ISSUE 4: No cuts, no pay freezes, no problem!

Apparently one person was laid off in town, but that doesn't really count since that layoff already happened and wasn't due to this budget. There is absolutely no word in Town Hall of anyone getting a pay freeze, or pay cut, or anything like that. What Governor Christie is demanding from state workers and others apparently doesn't apply in da town where your property taxes will most likely be going up.

ISSUE 5: What about da local school budget?

At da last meeting, daTruthSquad watched as many others in attendance with us at that meeting saw kids from da Manalapan schools come up and practically beg da Manalapan Township Committee not to cut their school budgets. There was one kid who made things clear when he said "This is our future." These kids showed more poise and guts than some members of da committee! However, unfortunately for these kids, their fate, much like ours, is in da hands of Mayor Andy Boy and his tax raisers.

Here's an idea from daTruthSquad - Maybe da Manalapan Township Committee should think about having some of these kids be a part of da budget process. Maybe their insights can help them craft a budget that will be a benefit - not a detriment - to da kids of Manalapan.

DaTruth is, as things stand now, something certainly isn't adding up. Da state takes away $1,000,000 from Manalapan, but da tax burden on Manalapan homeowners is going up $1,400,000? Da state cut our budget, but we can't cut our own?? Proving there were no real cuts, da 2010 budget will be higher than da 2009 budget??? Da "fiscal conservatives" Queen and Andy Boy can't find places to cut da budget???? Do we have to pay so much in lawyer's fees????? Is this why da budget is increasing??????

Are we da only ones seeing more questions marks here???????

Granted, da budget isn't a finished product, and maybe that's a good thing. But we will be watching closely, and considering Mayor Andy Boy is up for reelection this year, he'd better prove he's an actual GOP'er and not a RINO, and cut da budget. If he needs any help doing this, obviously, da Queen is da perfect person to help him, because as she said at Brookdale College when she was running for State Assembly last year, she is a "fiscally conservative Democrat. Most Republicans are shocked that I am more fiscally conservative than they are."

Queenie, not for nothing, but we're all shocked at that one. Can it be true that da Queen is "more fiscally conservative than they are?"

So Andy, if you need pointers from someone who is apparently more fiscally conservative than you may be, by her own admission, then seek out da Queen for budget advice. And remember, this is an election year for you - something voters certainly won't be forgetting if their taxes go up.

And that's daTruth.

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Guess Who Is Financing Da Queen's Legal Defense Team --- YOU ARE!

No TruthTellers, da title of this blog is not a typo.

When da Queen decided to tell da world that Manalapan Police Chief Stu Brown was "a threat to women," among the other things she said during a televised Township Committee meeting, it seems, at least for da moment, she won't have to worry about being held personally accountable for her actions. Instead --- YOU WILL! Manalapan Township will be picking up da tab for her legal defense team in da defamation case of "Manalapan Police Chief Stu Brown vs. Michelle Roth."

And, there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.

In a news account by da News Transcript, actual and very qualified reporter Mark Rosman quoted da Manalapan Township Attorney Roger McLaughlin-all-da-way-to-da-bank when he said "Manalapan’s ordinances “provide for the full defense of officials and employees having to do with their position or employment. There is no issue. The township is obligated to defend and indemnify (Roth) to the fullest extent of the law. That is what is being done in this case."

So, as it appears, da Queen will have da very best legal defense team YOUR MONEY can buy - because, as da township attorney said "There is no issue. The township is obligated to defend and indemnify (Roth) to the fullest extent of the law. That is what is being done in this case!"

Now, to be fair, some have called this case a "frivolous" lawsuit filed by Chief Brown and his attorney, none other than da Mosked Man.

Maybe we should investigate this:


Da statements, more than 7 minutes of them, happened at a September, 2009 Manalapan Township Meeting. It is interesting to note da statements came as an off-topic statement initiated by da Queen, because as far as anyone knows they were not on da agenda as a topic of discussion to be voted on, and at no time did da then-township attorney make any motions to have her stop her statement in any way.


Here is just a small sample of da comments da Queen made during her 7-or so minute speech.....

"Sexual harassment, verbal abuse and abuse of power by Manalapan Police Chief Stuart Brown..."

"Chief Brown has a history of verbally assaulting and threatening women."

"Chief Brown’s attack last September on me..."

"Chief Brown’s rage."

"Chief Brown and his repetitive abusive behavior toward women."

"His demeaning language and threatening behavior."

"I do not want any other women to be victims of Chief Brown’s rage

There is nobody claiming that she didn't say any of this. However, for da sake of evidence, if you have any doubts you can watch da whole Roth-O-Gram on YouTube - which is definitely "must-see TV."


This may be a serious question that has not been raised, and maybe should be. If you watch da video very closely, if you watch da entire video, stay fixed on da Queen. You will see her look down more often that we can keep count, meaning, it gives da appearance that either she has either has a serious neck issue and should see a doctor which should be covered under her paid-for-by-da-township health care plan (we're giving her da benefit of da doubt here), or she may have been reading off a prepared text.

Now, for da sake of argument here, if da Queen was reading off a prepared text, that could be construed as meaning she wrote out what she was going to say before she said it at da meeting. Webster's definition of "premeditated" is, "characterized by fully conscious willful intent and a measure of forethought and planning."

Now, again solely for da sake of argument, and to be fair, let's take this a step further. Let's say, only for da sake of argument, that da Queen wrote her speech that she was looking down at a lot prior to da meeting while at home a week prior while eating a nice homemade dish of pasta. If that were situation, then that means da statements she said were thought of prior to da meeting, which would give da appearance that those statements, including "Sexual harassment, verbal abuse and abuse of power by Manalapan Police Chief Stuart Brown...", and "Chief Brown has a history of verbally assaulting and threatening women." were not just off da top of her head and thought of ahead of time, henceforth, da thought of a premeditated act.


Webster's definition of "premeditated" is, "characterized by fully conscious willful intent and a measure of forethought and planning."

This begs an interesting question - if, and this would have to be determined in a court, if the act of alleged defamation by da Queen were a premeditated act, and if that were found to be daTruth, then should da taxpayers of Manalapan be made to use their hard-earned tax money to pay for a premeditated act? What type of precedent does this set, and what kind of message to elected officials does this send?

Here's an interesting question that deserves an answer. For da sake of argument using a completely ficticious scenario, "Whatever Township Committeeman Horatio Shmoe is arrested for DWI while driving to a meeting of da state board of tax & spenders. Committeeman Shmoe was on township business at da time, even going as far as listening to a tape of a township meeting in a township car as he was pulled over, and following a breathilizer found to be above da legal limit, but only slightly above."

Question - Does Committeeman Shmoe deserve to have his legal defense paid for by township tax dollars because he was an elected township official at da time of da incident?

From a legal standpoint, an argument can be made that according to the statement made by Manalapan Township Attorney Roger McLaughlin-all-da-way-to-da-bank to actual reporter Rosman, "provide for the full defense of officials and employees having to do with their position or employment. There is no issue. The township is obligated to defend and indemnify to the fullest extent of the law," then one might be led to believe that fake Committeeman Shmoe's legal defense would have to be paid for by da town.

In this completely fake scenario, Committeeman Shmoe consumed alcohol prior to getting into da township car - a premeditated act, and going to represent da township. Da case could be made that as a township official, Committeeman Shmoe, within da confines of township business should have legal representation by da taxpayers.

Da question is, if an act - any act - made by a township official which could lead to a legal challenge, should that challenge be paid for by da taxpayers of Manalapan?

We would all be curious as to how this would stack up, even in a college Moot Court.


From a legal standpoint here - not much.

According to da current events in this case, if da elected officials vote to have da Queen's legal bills paid by YOU DA TAXPAYER, then that's da final story.

As for recourse, from a legal standpoint, there may not be any. You can always vote da people out who approved this measure, but that can take a year or two, and in da end you're still going to pay for da Queen's Legal Dream Team - and, legally, even if da person is voted out of office and da case is still in continuance, da TAXPAYERS will still be on da hook to pay.

Can citizens mount a class-action lawsuit to have da Queen pay her own bills? We can bet you'd find a lawyer in this state who would take a case like that, however, it would not only be costly to those taxpayers, but da Queen's legal defense (YOU DA TAXPAYERS) would be paying for her legal defense here too based upon da current situation.


Here's what daTruthSquad believes - - This case will be settled out of court, and that will happen before this year ends. The reason here is simple. Da Queen's reign on da Manalapan Township Committee ends at da end of 2011. Next year is her election year, and would you want a court case like this hanging over your head if you were running for reelection? If you're da Chief or his attorney, you can raise da bar high because da longer this case drags on, da more likely we believe it will be settled before it reaches a court of law and a jury, and let's face facts, if you're da Chief and his attorney, that YouTube video might just be "Exhibit A."

As for da cost - we probably will never truly know. Da settlement in a case like this can be sealed by an order of a judge if one of da parties seeks it, and therefore both parties will be locked into keeping da final outcome a secret, even though taxpayers are footing da bill. Any settlement will be paid for by da insurance carrier, unless it breaks a threshold, minus any possible deductible depending on da language within da contract of da carrier. As for legal fees, we probably will never know, even if we submit a claim through da Freedom of Information Act, because as of late, it appears some legal bills for da most part aren't itemized, so we will not know for any absolute certainty how much was really billed by da Legal Dream Team of lawyers who will be a part of this case representing da Queen and paid for by YOU DA TAXPAYER.

DaTruth is, a case like this, it's in da best interest of da Queen to end it before her reelection campaign begins again next year, and a settlement is also good for da Chief as long as it contains language showing he truly was da victim in this case. In addition, a wild-card here is also da fact that da Queen made statements about both da Chief's work performance and also that he was being investigated. Da problem there is - under law you have to notify someone that they are being investigated, which is a violation of the Open Public Meetings Act, if that point is proven in a court of law.

In addition, there's da question of da Queen's claims of da Chief being investigated. As we know so far, absolutely nothing has come out of any investigation over all of these months, if one was being done at all. And, you would have to think that this puts da Queen in a very bad situation.

(1) -- If there was an investigation, and if we are to believe da Queen, then if an investigation yielded nothing, da Chief's case is that much better, and da Queen will obviously face questions of character for that for not letting da women of da township know they are safe from da "Chief's rage" and da Chief's "history of verbally assaulting and threatening women."

(2) -- If it actually yielded something, and nobody was told, then women aren't safe - and haven't been safe - and that will fall on da Queen's shoulders. However, we don't put much stock in that scenario - and of course, there would be questions as to why da Watergate investigation was shorter than da invstigation into da Chief that he apparently didn't know about.

(3) -- Worst case scenario - da safety of women has already been jeopardized, much akin to da person who cried "assault." If you claim something that didn't happen, then you have now made it that much harder for da next person who really was "assaulted" to get people to believe them.

DaTruth is, this should have never gone as far as it already has. You have da Queen saying one thing, da Chief saying another, and even innocent bystander Committeewoman Susan Cohen saying da Queen's version isn't exactly on da level, and as far as anyone knows, we don't even know what Tara Tiara's version would or could be.

Da only thing we do know for absolute certainty is, we have before us a "She said, He said, another She says something else, and yet another She hasn't said anything - and nobody seems to know who is paying for da investigation into da Chief that he apparently didn't know about and what da outcome of that alleged investigation is." And, we also know perjury is against da law, and something has to give, and as for giving, that would be YOU DA TAXPAYER because it is YOU DA TAXPAYER that will be paying for this scenario to be played out!

And that's daTruth!