Sunday, February 27, 2011

Bob vs Bob 14.0

Bob #1:
"I DO stand up for truth."

http://columbus1.ath.cx/index.php?news=5790


Bob #2:
"And if you notice, I always say that I was told something. THAT part is true. Whether what they told me is true or not is a different matter."

http://columbus1.ath.cx/index.php?news=5785

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

Bob Freeman represents himself as media. "I was told" isn't good enough. "I was told" isn't good enough for my 10 yr old. I have been told alot of things about Bob Freeman. I choose not to believe them and not to pursue them because there is no proof. Bob is not so discerning.

Danny Palmer said...

I do believe that BOB will soon be the TRUSTEE
at the BARTH. COUNTY JAIL real soon.
His dream of being a TRUSTEE will soon come true.
LMAO BOBBY BOB keep it up an you will be THE NEXT Barth. County Jail Trustee

Anonymous said...

Lol Danny. Ask the deputies that run the jail. Bob Freeman would never be made a trustee.

MEMBER INDIANA BAR said...

The jail term is "trusty" not "trustee", fyi.

Anonymous said...

"I was told" is not even good enough for the National Enquirer. They have gotten into trouble many times based on rumor and innuendo they were "told."

Bob Freeman is NOT a journalist, editor or publisher. He is a disgruntled citizen with a web-site where he lambasts anyone and everyone who does not fit in his delusional world.

Am I Bob? said...

I wasn't trespassing.
I unknowingly wandered from my course.
__________

It's not my website.
It belongs to GoDaddy.
__________

If it's wrong, I didn't say it.
Someone using my name said it.
__________

I didn't call her a cunt.
I said she acted like one,
looked like one,
smelled like one,
reminded me of one,
sounded like one,
and talked like one...
...but I didn't say she WAS one.
__________

I didn't lose the election.
Voters are stupid and they checked the wrong box.
__________

I apologize.
I still believe it's true,
I meant every word,
and I won't take it back...
...but I apologize.
__________

I'm not a member at a teen penpal website soliciting interaction with minors for lewd purposes.
It was an Italian guy who speaks Chinese that resembles me, is my age, has a suit, shirt and tie like mine, and used to live here in Columbus at this street address before I moved in.

Phil Swaim said...

you cannot stand for the truth if you insist on printing hearsay and do not try to investigate the situation before printing. That breaks how many rules of journalism?

I know I NEVER print hearsay. I may talk about it in person with someone who says they have heard something, but that's as far as it goes and that's as far as it should go.

Bob's gonna have to learn the rules of journalism the hard way, unfortunately for him. He's right, just because it is legal does not make it right, but he cannot go around saying he has committed crimes if what he did was not illegal to begin with. It may have been against the rules, but that just means he has to undo it.

I don't think Bob knows how state government works. These counties, cities, and townships all must adhere to the SBOA. Failure to do so does not mean jailtime or a felony on your record. It just usually means that someone did not follow the rules and needs to put money back that was misappropiated or needs to correct their books.

The only time Barkes would be considered criminal is if he was putting money in his bank account or even taking cash home with him and using it for his personal life. That would be embezzelment. He would go to prison for that. So far as we know, Fred as not done this nor is there any indication that he has done this.

However, our elected officials need to make sure they can do the books right. There was one SBOA report where they could not even tell what was going on with the Township's books so the docked the township for the difference of the discrepancy. I don't think that is very good. Now, was it criminal? Probably not unless the SBOA also found that money being funnelled into illegal activity or someone's personal pocket. Again, no such evidence has been brought forth by the SBOA (And sure as heck NOT by bob.)

Bob's wrong with how he carries out his message on this one. He's gonna learn the hard way that he needs to change his ways. It's going to cost him a LOT of money too.

Anyway, I give fair analysis.

Brian said...

As I have suggested before, whatever the Trustee did, it does NOT rise the level of a criminal violation. It just doesn't. The SBOA routinely turns matters over to the Indiana State Police for investigation. NO SUCH INVESTIGATION HAS TAKEN PLACE BECAUSE NO CRIMINAL LAWS WERE VIOLATED.

I would agree that Fred needs to keep his house in order BUT Bob is pouring what he thinks is gasoline on a fire that isn't even burning. He sounds like a disgruntled idiot.

Phil Swaim said...

agreed

Dude said...

"you cannot stand for the truth if you insist on printing hearsay and do not try to investigate the situation before printing. That breaks how many rules of journalism?"

Bingo. To excuse their behavior, columbuzz claims they are both a legitimate news site and a gossip/opinion site. But then Bob tries to pass off his opinions and hearsay as fact. Not a good idea.

"Bob's gonna have to learn the rules of journalism the hard way, unfortunately for him. He's right, just because it is legal does not make it right, but he cannot go around saying he has committed crimes if what he did was not illegal to begin with. It may have been against the rules, but that just means he has to undo it."

Exactly, and that has been my point all along. All I've seen so far is a Trustee guideline that says "Disbursements should be paid from properly authorized line items." It's a guideline, not a requirement, that states "should" not "must". So it's not even against the rules. Like Barbossa says from Pirates of the Caribbean, "the code is more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules."

Dude said...

"As I have suggested before, whatever the Trustee did, it does NOT rise the level of a criminal violation. It just doesn't. The SBOA routinely turns matters over to the Indiana State Police for investigation. NO SUCH INVESTIGATION HAS TAKEN PLACE BECAUSE NO CRIMINAL LAWS WERE VIOLATED."

For some reason, Bob, a concrete technologist, thinks he knows more about accounting than the professional auditors at the SBOA.

Anonymous said...

"Bob, a concrete technologist, thinks"

BOB, THINKS! PRICELESS!

Phil Swaim said...

Should is like Shall. Shall means that it MUST be done. Similarly, should puts a condition on how things MUST be done.

If the rules and guidelines say "Disbursements should be paid from properly authorized line items." then that is how it must be done. That is why the SBOA audits and mandates corrections based no the rules.

but the same fact applies that disobedience of the rules does not necessarily mean a crime has been committed. It just means that corrections need to be made.

Dude said...

"Should is like Shall. Shall means that it MUST be done. Similarly, should puts a condition on how things MUST be done.

If the rules and guidelines say "Disbursements should be paid from properly authorized line items." then that is how it must be done. That is why the SBOA audits and mandates corrections based no the rules."

If you read the manual, it has guidelines that say "must" and some that say "should". If what you are saying is correct, then why doesn't it say "must"? In my field, if it doesn't explicitly say shall, then it's not a requirement, it's just a suggestion.

Dude said...

"However, our elected officials need to make sure they can do the books right. There was one SBOA report where they could not even tell what was going on with the Township's books so the docked the township for the difference of the discrepancy."

I would agree with this to a point, but I think you have to investigate the reason for the errors. It could have been something beyond the Trustee's control. For example, The Republic ran a story on this back in October and the Trustee mentioned that the township had some issues related to switching to a new bank after the demise of Irwin Union Bank & Trust.

Phil Swaim said...

Very true Dude, about the error investigation.

I am just defining shall. It is an OLD word that is not used any more. Saying "you shall" is a command, at least it was the last time it was used in English. Now people use the word will. I will do something. I shall do something. You will do this. You shall do this.

Any attourneys on here? I would like a legal definition of the use of the word shall and how it is interpreted in modern indiana law.

Phil Swaim said...

I found a writing from the University of Texas talking about how shall has the same effect as must.

Shall actually means "has a duty to." Which essentially has the effect of ordering the officer who has that duty to do something.

Shall and will have the same meaning too, apparently.

http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/wschiess/legalwriting/2005/05/shall-vs-will.html

Dude said...

"Shall and will have the same meaning too, apparently."

But the manual says "should" not "shall". In my field, shall = must and should is just a suggestion.