Wheels Vs. JBelle RE: Charlie Nipp

19 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  Aliasjax on February 27 at 9:44 a.m.

  Whether Nipp’s a “good person” or does “good things” for the community is not relevant…what is relevant is that “intent” is an element of the crime…lacking intent, therefore, means he committed no crime, even though he may have comitted a technical violation; and I say “may have” because just because the AG says so, doesn’t make it so. That finding would have to be made by a judge or jury after arguments. Clearly, the attorney who was advising Nipp has a different opinion than the AG’s office…from my viewpoint, Nipp did nothing wrong. He’s a volunteer board member, lending his expertise to this community which he is obviously passionate about…that he may or may not have made a technical violation of sunshine rules in our over-regulated, rules-happy world is NO. BIG. DEAL.

• 

  hmoffsuite on February 27 at 10:03 a.m.

  Aliasjax. I agree with your post entirely.

• 

  JohnA on February 27 at 10:09 a.m.

  I say we should get Wheels and JBelle to Blogfest tomorrow so they can square off on the issue.

  I’ll be in Wheels’ corner, encouraging him “When the going gets rough and the odds are against the boys, win one for the Nipper”. :)

• 

  Kage_Mann on February 27 at 10:12 a.m.

  What the big deal is: Mr Nipp owns property in the Lake District and his properties could potentially benefit from having LCDC properties nearby.Another conflict of interest.

• 

  Kage_Mann on February 27 at 10:16 a.m.

  Or LCDC contributing taxpayer funds for developments near an
  LCDC board members property.Even Mr Patzer was concerned about this and wanted the state legislature to weigh in on this issue.

• 

  JBelle on February 27 at 10:17 a.m.

  OH COME ON, BOYS! You all are having a little just us fellas moment at JBelle’s expense, right?

  Because I’d hate to think that you all lacked one shred of moral responsibility and were in the bathroom peeing when it came time to pay the ethical obligation check.

  Yore boy Charlie may have come up empty handed on this because he lacked intent, but anybody can see that those hands of his were dirty. Dirty, dirty, dirty.

• 

  MikeK on February 27 at 10:19 a.m.

  I have a question of fairness and reasonable treatment of citizens about all this: can anyone answer why, as of this morning, Charlie Nipp has still had ZERO communication from the Attorney General’s office or the County Prosecutor’s Office but the copy of the letter is on DanG and Mary Souza’s website?

  Charlie has not been contacted by anyone official, not been informed by anyone official, not had information shared with him by anyone official. He heard about this from the Coeur d’
  Alene Press AFTER the letter appeared on DanG and Souza’s website. I know this because I called Mr. Nipp myself this morning and asked him if anyone has talked with him.

  Here’s my question - who gave DanG and Mary Souza a letter about Charlie Nipp when Charlie Nipp himself has not been communicated with by ANYONE officially from the AG’s office or the county prosecutor’s office?

  Is there someone, say in the legislature, perhaps, who is sharing information with third parties and the media without communicating directly with the person targeted?

  Is that fair to citizens who have been accused of wrongdoing?

  note: You can’t spell DanG’s last name on here because apparently the SR software thinks it’s a slur of some sort.

• 

  JBelle on February 27 at 10:27 a.m.

  Hence my point about moral responsibilities and ethical obligations. When others in the mix (boy that new program Ryan’s got going is wiiiise) have dirty hands up to their elbows, it’s incumbent on guys like Charlie to keep it clean. Keep it all clean. Disclose, disclaim yet deliver.

• 

  Kage_Mann on February 27 at 10:37 a.m.

  I almost fell out of my chair this morning. I actually, agree with
  JBelle on this issue.

  Why did it take Mr.Nipp 10 years to disclose any potential conflicts of interest, that he and other board members were supposed to disclose back in 1997?

• 

  wheels on February 27 at 4:03 p.m.

  Let me be perfectly clear.I have not, am not.and never will be part of any good old boys club.

« Back to Huckleberries Online

• ›Scanner traffic