DA finds school board member within law
Original post made on Jun 13, 2008
Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, June 13, 2008, 12:00 AM
on Jun 13, 2008 at 10:01 pm
This is a perfect "cop out" opinion.
, Stark said they "concluded that there wasn't any evidence of criminal misconduct" to justify a criminal investigation.
CAREFULLY NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT HIS POSITION AS A TRUSTEE IS LEGAL!!! ONLY THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT WHICH REQUIRES INTENT.
"There are people out there doing their best to live in the letter of the law to represent what they were elected to do.
CAREFULLY NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT HE IS WITHIN THE LAW! ONLY THAT IS TRYING TO BE WITHIN THE LAW.
HEY, WE ALREADY GAVE YOU THAT SLACK. BUT YOU'RE NOT!
Folks, that's why they're lawyers. Has the wool been pulled over your eyes? Just because there is apparently only one gadfly officially complaining are they going to throw any gasoline on the fire by saying anything other than "it's cool, he's OK"?
Like I said in earlier posts. Let this guy be a swing vote on anything controversial like a parcel tax, then that's the time to slam them......a court will look hard at the facts. Or how about another Neal School fiasco?
on Jun 13, 2008 at 10:33 pm
The DA's decision to not to pursue a criminal investigation against Pat Kernan is in no way conclusive regarding a residency violation.
Criminal misconduct would only apply if it could be proven that Pat Kernan committed perjury when he signed his statement to run for office. If his residency status changed after that point it is a non-criminal violation out of the jurisdiction of the DA's office. The remedy being the Quo Warranto process through the Attorney General's office.
The question of a residency violation is not yet answered but you can look at the facts and determined whether you think the spirit of the law has been violated.
on Jun 14, 2008 at 11:29 am
I am disappointed to see the very misleading and biased headline on the cover of the Weekly. "Kernan Cleared," is not accurate.
The DA made a decision to not pursue a criminal investigation, they did not clear him. In fact they advised me that the appropriate remedy is to take it to the Attorney General's office.
I understood the DA to say that Kernan took the steps to stay within the technicality of the law. He therefore believed he was legally eligible to run for office. That means no intent, no criminal misconduct.
Stark said they "concluded that there wasn't any evidence of criminal misconduct" to justify a criminal investigation.