Another unhinged Democrat to taxpayer: “Get the f**k out of my office!”
It is arrogance like this that has prompted thousands of taxpayers across the country to take to the streets:
A Chicago taxpayer went to his 22nd Ward alderman, Ricardo Munoz, to protest the Democrat’s support for tax-increment financing. (I reported years ago on how these “public-private partnership” scams siphon off tax dollars to subsidize developers/builders who then reward politicians with big campaign donations.) The constituent wants to present Alderman Munoz with a petition.
Munoz physically shoves the voter and yells: “Get the f**k out of my office!” (Hat tip – Jim Hoft). Move over, Charlie “Mind Your Goddamned Business” Rangel. You’ve got company:
***
Send Ricardo Munoz a teabag!
• Ward Office: 2500 S. St Louis
Chicago, IL 60623
• Ward Phone: 773-762-1771
• E-Mail: rmunoz@cityofchicago.org
(if that doesn’t work, reader Mark says this one is operable…for now: Ward22@cityofchicago.org)
• City Hall Office: 121 N. Lasalle St.
Room 300 Chicago, IL 60602
• City Hall Phone: 312-744-9491
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Report: Solyndra Sold Assets Cheap to Entity with Close Ties to Investors
February 9, 2012 10:08 AM by Doug Powers
49 Comments
Fast and Furious showdown: Holder/Obama defend bloody culture of contempt; Update: Fortress Holder, Stonewall City; vid clips added, Dems advise, “Don’t answer”
February 2, 2012 09:16 AM by Michelle Malkin
158 CommentsThe SIGA scandal: Calls for investigation mount
January 27, 2012 02:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
58 Comments
Obama’s Green Robber Barons
January 25, 2012 09:13 AM by Michelle Malkin
89 CommentsAttention: Obama’s coming to Arizona, Ground Zero of his Fast and Furious debacle
January 23, 2012 02:08 PM by Michelle Malkin
58 CommentsObama’s “Razist” Lobbyist Moves Up
January 13, 2012 06:29 AM by Michelle Malkin
233 CommentsThe Year in Obama Scandals — and Scandal Deniers
December 28, 2011 12:04 PM by Michelle Malkin
122 Comments
Of Course: MF Global COO Still Listed as EPA Financial Adviser
December 28, 2011 11:01 AM by Doug Powers
30 Comments
Categories: Corruption
Pundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"JustOneMinute
» We Hear From The Department Of Good Ideas And False ChoicesHot Air
» GOP budget leaders: The president’s fourth straight budget flop underscores need for reformPundit & Pundette
» Obama's war on conscience, cont'd
On March 9th, 2009 at 5:44 pm, chapoutier said:
Uhm… someone bothered to write a law specifically outlawing this? Where? Which states? Which statues? Is it a felony or a misdemeanor?
Just because you find something unpleasant, don’t invent laws out of your own butt and call them illegal. Where do you practice law? Boston Legal’s “Crane Pool and Schmidt?”
Funny how reasonable people (ILMC excluded) can disagree about seemingly easy subjects. Can an Adlerman say dirty words in public? Yep. Can he touch me on public property? Probably not. Can I shoot people on my private property? Probably can. I am the master of my domain.
Some things in life are supposed to induce distress.
This is a little off-topic, but elected officials *really* don’t like it when you come to their offices.
During the TARP fight, we got tired of calling and decided to pop into our Rep’s local office.
They really did not like the intrusion. I think the Tea Parties should be held in and/or in front of the offices of the elected officials, because they hate it so much.
I think Democrats really liked it when Code Pink disrupted republican functions. Pelosi didn’t like it so much when they came after her.
Getting back to Chicago…
I’d like to see what happened before the alderman started shoving the guy. I’m not excusing the incident, but I’d like to see the full tape before I make a judgment on what really happened.
Hey Rabbidsquirl – is that off of 161 St in SD?
I just sent an e-mail to this guy:
I have watched your “interaction” (would be called “assault” anywhere else, I believe) with this taxpayer, which can be located at the link I have provided above.
This is disgusting behavior from anyone, much less someone in your position, which I might remind you is that of a public servant elected to represent and serve the public and the taxpayers. The taxpayers do not exist to serve you. Again, since you seem to misunderstand the concept of public service, the taxpayers do not exist to serve you.
Unbelievably arrogant and unacceptable behavior displayed in that video.
Hopefully, your constituents will get some sense and vote you out the next time you’re up for election.
I can even tell you more. You can look up his address on-line. Just go to the name MNUSMCDavid. Can’t miss it.
Ah back to the good old days of the pre-election threads. Where insetad of thread-jacking, you could take a topic and let the buried nugget of whatever hidden intellectual topic there to be exposed much like a rough diamond laying in the turned dirt fields of the Crater of Diamonds State Park.
Hmm…. I thought I had his address right, but “happyscrapper” says it’s in MN.
Hmmm…..
Maybe you have heard of this little thing called “common law”? It happens to be the legal system we have her in the US (inherited from merry old England), and what it means is that there is a whole body of law beyond what is written in those little statute books. And guess what? Every single state’s common law recognizes IIED as a tort. And guess what one of the CLASSIC examples in every jurisdiction (including rough and tumble Texas) of IIED is? Threatening the life of someone’s child.
I know that is information you can’t necessarily pick up from watching Boston Legal, so I don’t hold your ignorance against you.
That is so close its almost scary… but not exact. You can get there by 161st though.
Comparing having a very angry man brandish a loaded weapon at your child to simply “getting your feelings hurt” is simply disingenuous and you know it.
And someones child threatening my life is probably a common law IIED as well. I don’t know if coming across the Southern border would be a tort. Maybe a tort-illa.
If you bring your child to the commission of a crime, you probably inflict some emotional distress on them yourself. Especially if you are caught & confronted by people who have no idea who you are or what state of mind you are in.
Its probably better not to do that. Things may not work out well for you or your child. But if you want to roll the dice, be prepared to accept the consequences.
In the Arizona case, aren’t the illegals doing more than trespassing? What class of crime is illegally entering the US? Is it a misdemeanor, a felony? If it’s a felony, aren’t they then liable for any resulting action? Also, since they are illegal, isn’t the rancher making a citizen’s arrest?
Bottom line, no I would not be happy if someone pointed a weapon at my kids. But at the same time, I don’t want my kids doing anything illegal. If property is posted “No Trespassing”, I don’t want them going after a ball or taking a short cut thru the property. As my wife always tells me “There are nuts out there with guns” (which always inspires me to get mine out for a good cleaning).
You might want to ask your teacher to give you a bit of extra tutoring on reading basics. Or maybe you haven’t gotten up to your grade level in reading skill yet. It was David himself who mentioned Minnesota. But if you had been paying attention in other threads, you would know he’s in Minnesota. It isn’t exactly a secret. How old did you say you are? I’m guessing 16.
what a piece of dung!
Hi Scap!
No, I think your guess is a little high…
I’d say, probably a precocious 13, but with parent “too busy” to pay attention.
That is the sad part of this. These young kids without parental supervision get on a computer and act stupid as a way to get some attention, ANY attention, even negative. You do have to feel compassion for the poor thing. Also pity.
Except Louisiana, who got their system from French common law. This would be why they refused to agree to article 2 of the UCC.
I figure since we’re picking nits over the whole pointing guns at children vs holding a group for the police, I’d nitpick the common law statement.
Of course, though I am not familiar with their policy on Article 2.
You know what? It does not matter what this guys ageda was, why he was there, or what his personal ties are…especially the one that claims he has ties to the Communists in Mexico, which basically once again proves that IHMC is one of the biggest idiots on the Net who constantly demonstrates his/her bigotry and stupidity…unless the guy had physically attacked the Alderman.
The fact is, the Alderman physically attacked this man and it could even be argued that he committed attempted manslaughter by trying to throw him down a flight of stairs.
If this man was threatening the Alderman, as some have brought up, then the Alderman should have called the police. There was also other people in that office besides the Alderman, so the man was already outnumbered.
There is a certain way that a person needs to act when they are an elected official, and screaming at a constituent while physically attacking them and attempting to throw them down a flight of stairs and verbally assaulting them with profanity is NEVER acceptable or excusable.
This “Chicago Way” is not an excuse. It is not a reason. It is nothing other than proof that anyone who participated in this form of governing should be thrown out of office and forbidden to run for any office ever again.
It is time such things are brought out into the open.
And finally, if anyone is living in the fantasy realm where Der Fuhrer is innocent of any and all actions of this nature, if they honestly believe that he is as pure as the driven snow, they are as big of a fool as LGM and IHMC demonstrate themselves to be. MacBeth has done nothing but hide his past since he first came into the political spotlight. You cannot question him, you cannot look into his college credentials, you cannot see his birth certificate, you cannot see any of his writings, you cannot talk to anyone from his past…and you still think he is innocent?
I cannot WAIT until the lid is blown off of him and his cabal. All it will take is just one REAL journalist who cannot be bullied or bought off to expose him for who and what he really is. However, I am honestly losing all faith that such a person even exists anymore.
Ricardo Munoz = Scum. Democrap Scum.
Chap has been setting you all up..
Everyone is someones child! (Its for the children you know.)
SHHHHH!!!!
Don’t let them in on my nefarious plans!
O/T True.
Last weekend I mentioned to a friend of mine that we hadnt talked to another friend in almost a year.
So she texted his last known cell number. In return, she got an ‘F you, leave me alone, Ive already told you, blah blah blah.’
So being very mature adults, we contacted several other friends and all of us blasted this cell number with funny (mostly
) messages.
All of the return messages were the same ‘F you, blah blah blah’. Turns out, he was a 13 yr old kid in NJ. Now hes one of my daughters ‘friends’. He just wanted some attention.
!@#$! I forgot…. just put the money in a brown paper envelope and tape it under the park bench. I’ll make a chalk mark on the lightpole and then flick the lightswitch twice if I see that you were followed.
What if they point a “non-assault” rifle, like a Springfield ’03, or a nice Mauser? Would that make everyone feel better? I know I would. Those “assault rifles” are crazy-scary, unlike those non-assault rifles…
Rule #1: whenever anyone mentions the term “assault rifle” recognize that you are in the presence of a liberal.
OK, that’s rule #160. Rule #1 is “don’t date a woman who can beat you up,” but I digress…
On March 9th, 2009 at 7:53 pm, chapoutier said:
Uh huh. That’s a patently absurd answer to my point, Mr. Alan Shore
There is no law stating that if you as a parent TRESPASS onto someone’s property WITH a child, that you can “charge” IIED against the PROPERTY OWNER (as opposed to the police charging the PARENT who brought the child into harm’s way with endangerment of a child).
IIED is also a recent phenomenon (1890′s on, and has always been limited except very recently) and it is CIVIL, NOT CRIMINAL. Which means it is only good for TORT CLAIMS.
Therefore stating:
…Is RETARDED. Yes, I said it: LEGALLY RETARDED.
Good god, where did you pass your bar? You must be in the defender’s office.
Hmmm, now that I think about it… was it earlier in this thread where we were discussing ‘assault’ vs ‘battery’.
By “assault” rifle, wouldnt that encapsulate any rifle? So shouldnt the term be battery rifle?
Isn’t Ricardo Munoz’ father Elias Munoz? The latter, an illegal alien, was sentenced to 4 years for Fake ID schemes. There is a couple of YouTube videos on his case.
I never said that this was a claim for IIED, did I? And you know that is not the issue. I said the subsequent THREATENING OF THE CHILD IS IIED.
And IIED is still very very limited. This winner just happened to stumble upon one of the very classic times when it is invoked. People may claim it all the time, but they are almost invariably wrong and lose.
And “illegal” does not just mean criminal. Please find one definition that says as much. It means in contravention of the law. There is common law saying you cannot do this. The rancher was in contravention of that. Hence: illegal.
And fyi I have passed the bar in 3 different states.
Bringing Mexican political practices and attitudes to Chicago from Monterrey.
Assault could be applied to any rifle that won’t keep its muzzle shut in polite company. And why do you think they call it an artillery battery?
(Actually that’s potential battery, when you wheel out the Big Guns and light em up – that’s kinetic battery. But we ammo guys just call it “blowing the ‘stupid’ outta someone who desperately needs ventilation”)
On March 9th, 2009 at 10:17 pm, chapoutier said:
I know, and you’re missing the point.
It is not IIED when the CHILD and his PARENT are BOTH breaking the law and, by extension, THREATENING the property owner.
The property owner reacted to the THREAT of their CRIMINAL TRESPASSING with a threat IN KIND.
You don’t have cause for IIED against the victim of your OWN crime (unless you live in France, the U.K., New York, Boston, or Los Angeles).
There is no way in hell in Texas you could bring a claim of IIED against the property owner to a profitable conclusion – not even in Austin. In Louisiana (as in the case of the Japanese student who was killed that I cited in an earlier post) they will probably throw a raw crawfish at you before laughing you out of court.
Here’s another stab at it.
Saying it is illegal is like saying “shooting a person is illegal.” This is a false statement. There are many instances in which shooting a person is illegal, but in others, not (self-defense vs murder, war, etc.).
Threatening a child that has trespassed onto your property, and is threatening your own life, is NOT illegal.
Please. One does not equal the other. The ranch owner approached them. They were not threatening his life in any way, nor did he claim they were. And you should know enough from your watching LA law and whatnot that children are not generally held criminally responsible and certainly are not when they are being led by their freaking parents.
You clearly have no idea what “in kind” means. Criminal trespassing is not in kind with killing, which is what he was threatening to do.
The case you cited in Louisiana is absolutely nothing like the case at hand. Nothing like it.
Objection. Arguing facts not in evidence. There is absolutely no claim by anyone that the children were threatening his life.
His behavior was contemptible and you are a pitiful apologist for threatening to kill innocent children for a, relatively speaking, minor transgression. Pitiful.
And by the way, here is the guy you are defending. This is just one of the suits against him. In 2004 he accosted a family (American by the way, who unfortunately were of Mexican descent) who were hunting and happened to cross his property. This is the time he threatened the children with an AR-15 (sorry. This guy is so psychotic, its hard to keep all the incidents straight). He also refers to humans as “the greatest prey on earth”. This guy is certifiable.
Southern Poverty Law Center…. no bias there……..
Those so-called vigilantes are doing the jobs government won’t…
Oh hey, I have an idea! A way we could stop the majority of these senariors from happening… and save the childrens…
Build the fence already!
The illegals were trespassing… THEY and THEY ALONE put their children in danger. Story over.
Chap, citing southern poverty law center. Your examples are always very curious. The law school you attended must be a breeze. Did you make up case law to cite for your papers? I imagine your law school professors were lazy and don’t check their student’s cites. Or are so ideologically driven they don’t care about pure bias. Or is it that they do care about bias, teach you how to swindle to make a few bucks?
Roll all you want. The lawsuit they talk about is real. The guy is a psycho. He bought the property in 1996, probably looking to pick a fight.
Amen. Some people are aghast that someone, after a decade of damage done to their property, is angry and tired of losing profits resorts to this, they find no excuses for this man, but will make up excuse after excuse for illegals who kill in this country because they do not see any harm in drinking and driving. Or commit crimes because, let’s face it, they have no fear of our justice system. It is sick. Your right, stop them from coming, lessen the problems.
What a lazy, stupid argument. I can assure you that if I simply cried “bias!” instead of actually looking at the arguments, I would have been tossed from law school. Maybe that cuts it in whatever dime-store “school” you got your “education” in, but I assure you any place with actual standards would laugh you out the door.
The cases it discusses are easy enough to confirm. There are many mentions of them all over the internet. The quote about man being the greatest prey was cited from an independent source, a UK newspaper. here is the original article. Of course, you would know all of this already if you had a shred of intellectual honesty.
Whatever happened to the purpose of this thread? Wow, did it ever get off track! And another thread somehow got moved to this one. You guys are out of control! Ha! You need to start over fresh. Have a nice day!
File charges for assault. It is on tape and no doubt an assault on his person with threatened violence. If I did that at my place of business, I would be standing in the unemployment line by the end of the day. I guess this is what passes for “citizen representation” in Chicago?
Chap, I know a lot of posters here play kissy face with you a lot. Not me. I find most attorneys such as yourself opportunistic parasites of society. You are a waste, cheering on worthless litigation among a sea of ideologically driven people. If there was no money in it, people like you won’t touch it. That case was designed to put the Rancher out of business. Organizations that you champion such as Poverty Law Center will keep suing him until he is destitute in order to promote their agenda (off of taxpayer money as well). How about you take up this Rancher’s case against the federal government for not protecting his livlihood like they should be.
Well just color me inimidated. I’d be even more intimidated if you knew what you were talking about. There are plenty of others here who absolutely call me out when they think it appropriate, but who also possess a measure of intelligence.
Awwww…now MY feelings are hurt. Thankfully I have the nice living I make providing a necessary service to people to console me.
Oh this is an awesome argument. Hmmm….seems to be true of most people that take a job. Would you do your job if you didn’t get paid for it? Isn’t that why you think Obama’s big bad tax increase on the rich is so bad? Because people are disincentivized when they don’t get paid for the work they do?
I cited an article of theirs. I didn’t “champion” them. And you seem unable to dispute any of the facts put forth in that article.
What? And take away his pretense for hunting the “greatest prey”?
Chap, keep waving the pom poms and keep citing the drivel. Trust me, I am not out to hurt your feelings, don’t think there are any there to hurt. And you don’t find me intelligent? Boo hoo, I hope I can find a way to make it through my day. I hope you find yourself on the legal recieving end of an organization out to enrich themselves through an agenda opposite of yours. I really hope that happens to you, and most attorneys.
Alas…an opposite agenda is hardly enough. You actually have to do something, like say…threaten the life of a child…to invite such attention. I’ll try to keep my nose clean.