Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
He chose not to fight. If he had, he would still be in the job.
Fight the assault charge or the residency issue?
Both. He didn’t fight either issue. He resigned before either was resolved.
How would the residency issue be resolved in his favor?
Because he was technically a DC resident. It would be resolved the same way the assault issue was resolved. He would be cleared.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
He chose not to fight. If he had, he would still be in the job.
Fight the assault charge or the residency issue?
Both. He didn’t fight either issue. He resigned before either was resolved.
How would the residency issue be resolved in his favor?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
He chose not to fight. If he had, he would still be in the job.
Fight the assault charge or the residency issue?
Both. He didn’t fight either issue. He resigned before either was resolved.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
He chose not to fight. If he had, he would still be in the job.
Fight the assault charge or the residency issue?
Anonymous wrote:
He chose not to fight. If he had, he would still be in the job.
Anonymous wrote:So they prosecuted one DC govt employee for falsely claiming DC residency.
https://patch.com/virginia/arlington-va/arlington-woman-obtained-149k-fraudulent-dc-benefits-prosecutors
This guy should be next.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So they prosecuted one DC govt employee for falsely claiming DC residency.
https://patch.com/virginia/arlington-va/arlington-woman-obtained-149k-fraudulent-dc-benefits-prosecutors
This guy should be next.
The situation in this article is completely different.
Anonymous wrote:So they prosecuted one DC govt employee for falsely claiming DC residency.
https://patch.com/virginia/arlington-va/arlington-woman-obtained-149k-fraudulent-dc-benefits-prosecutors
This guy should be next.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The most disturbing part of this video is that the “victim” is parked in a handicapped spot AND backed in. Who does that? The whole point of a handicapped spot is that there’s room to open your door and get out!
No doubt that parking in a handicapped spot is pretty tone deaf in this instance, but most disturbing part?
I find it interesting that no one else brought this up about the alleged victim parking in handicapped. Where are the disability advocate groups?