| I received an idiotic letter to the editor this morning concerning the rigged vote for a candidate to succeed Jack Murtha (the Lamplighter vote went, as expected, 46 for Critz, 22 for Hafer, 13 for Cernik and a handful for Bucchaneiri. The Washington County people voted separately due to the crooked nature of the process.
Here's what I received this morning:
Read your blog....I thought the issue was his announcing before Mrs. Murtha decided not to run? Then you state, after you were corrected, well, that's not this issue it's Cong. Murtha's issues and Mr. Critz's issue with a defunct business that he didn't own?
So, which is it?
Phil Glover
Democrat
12th Congressional District
Well first of all you didn't read much of the blog. You seem to have missed this article and this one. Frankly the issue with the Facebook page is minor in comparison though I must admit I made that mistake intentionally to trap Mrs. Critz into having to answer the hard questions. They are refusing to respond to those questions. She was willing to come here and discuss the questionable timing (the Facebook page DID say he announced on Feb. 15th) but not his legal culpability in corporate fraud.
Yes, Mr. Critz, as a corporate officer, is responsible legally for the conduct of that company. He didn't simply work for them and it is irrelevant whether or not he was an owner. Under law corporate officers and Directors are responsible for the businesses practices. You might recall what happened to Enron and Adelphia Cable here in Pennsylvania. Those corporate officers went to prison.
The major issues regarding Mark Critz are his possible involvement in Murtha's obvious corrupt practices, the obvious rigging of today's vote to come out his way and his legal responsibility for the fraud perpetrated against the people of Pennsylvania by Parkins Inc. You question is rather ridiculous since this blog has made it abundantly clear all week that these issues go to this man's integrity and fitness for office. The Facebook matter may have been a clerical error, we'll accept Mrs. Critz's explanation of that but then she ran away after repeatedly leaving comments about that when I posed the hard questions. The Facebook issue simply trapped her into making statements for her husband he obviously wasn't willing to make himself. She didn't stick around to answer the real questions. That's more of an issue than the Facebook page: they're ducking these serious matters.
So Mr. Glover, the issue here was never really about Facebook, it was about fraud. |
