DefeatGomez.com has posted Gomez's felony arrest and conviction record. It brings up the question as to why Gomez didn't come clean with the Tulsa World on two seperate occasions.
My questions are:
1.Did Gomez not tell the truth or did the Tulsa World not disclose it?
2. Can a convicted felon vote and run for office?
Quote from: Bubblehead on November 07, 2009, 08:14:07 AM
DefeatGomez.com has posted Gomez's felony arrest and conviction record. It brings up the question as to why Gomez didn't come clean with the Tulsa World on two seperate occasions.
My questions are:
1.Did Gomez not tell the truth or did the Tulsa World not disclose it?
2. Can a convicted felon vote and run for office?
I guess this means that Bubblehead isn't going to vote for Gomez. ;)
FYI, just because I know there is much confusion out there about the subject. In Oklahoma, felons who have served out their time MAY VOTE in Oklahoma. If you can vote, you can run for office.
So convicted felons can run for office. Isn't Paul Tay a convicted felon, too?
I heard Gomez BIT the police officer - can anyone confirm that?
He didn't bite them, the dumb officer stuck his <insert body part> into Gomez's mouth.
Quote from: TeeDub on November 07, 2009, 10:42:46 AM
He didn't bite them, the dumb officer stuck his <insert body part> into Gomez's mouth.
Sounds a bit like the tactic of throwing yourself in the path of a car so you can claim awdw.
When did the incident take place?
Quote from: patric on November 07, 2009, 11:59:43 AM
When did the incident take place?
According to the records he plead guilty to felony A&B on an officer in 1997 and completed a 2 year deferred sentence in 1999 after he paid a $1,000 fine. He let the Tulsa World think he was only guilty of public drunk in 2004 and this year when in fact the drunk charge & resisting arrest charge was dismissed in 1997 while he was serving his felony deferred sentence.
Shouldn't PJ & Brian ask him why he did not tell them about this and let the public believe he was only guilty of PD? The Tulsa Police officers name was "A. Surratt." Anyone know this cop? They should ask him what happened.
See: http://www.defeatgomez.com/
See also:
1/30/04
4 candidates had run-ins with law
http://www.tulsaworld.com/site/articlepath.aspx?articleid=040130_Ne_a18_fourc&archive=yes
8/23/09
Records yield candidates' legal woes
http://www.tulsaworld.com/site/articlepath.aspx?articleid=20090823_11_A14_Aswith70119&archive=yes
Quote from: RevereSide on November 07, 2009, 12:20:38 PM
According to the records he plead guilty to felony A&B on an officer in 1997 and completed a 2 year deferred sentence in 1999 after he paid a $1,000 fine. He let the Tulsa World think he was only guilty of public drunk in 2004 and this year when in fact the drunk charge & resisting arrest charge was dismissed in 1997 while he was serving his felony deferred sentence.
Shouldn't PJ & Brian ask him why he did not tell them about this and let the public believe he was only guilty of PD? The Tulsa Police officers name was "A. Surratt." Anyone know this cop? They should ask him what happened.
Im not at all defending Gomez, but with the only charges being public drunk and resisting that could have been nothing more than a cop having a bad day.
That could happen to anyone, and is not enough to hang him unless im just missing something.
Quote from: patric on November 07, 2009, 01:14:40 PM
Im not at all defending Gomez, but with the only charges being public drunk and resisting that could have been nothing more than a cop having a bad day.
That could happen to anyone, and is not enough to hang him unless im just missing something.
I guess you misread the documents--Gomez was charged with three things--felony A&B on a police officer, resiting arrest and public drunk. He had a preliminary hearing on the felony on 5/28/97 in which 1 witness was sworn and he was bound over for trial on the felony charge in District Court. This means a witness-the officer that was assaulted--must have come to court and testified and that a judge found there was enough evidence to send the case to trial.
Next he appeared before a District Court Judge on 6-19-97 plead guilty to the felony and the drunk and resisting charge was dismissed. He must have made a plea bargain to avoid a trial--a trial in which a jury could find him guilty and send him to prison. He was then on a form of probation for almost two years in which he paid fines and then the case was finally dismissed and the record removed on 5-17-99. Assaulting a police officer and pleading guilty to a felony is no small deal--especially for a would be city councilor who will vote on police department budgets and may need to ask questions and investigate police department actions.
What seems to really bother defeatgomez.com and others is that he did not come clean with this information when he first ran for office in 2004 and then the same error was repeated in 2009. He let everyone think it was no big deal--just a little public drunk. It appears it was much more than that!
The cover-up is almost always worse than the act itself.
Hmmm, couple of first time posters, they weren't here specifically to do a hatchet job, I don't think. I think Bubblehead might be Maria's husband. I heard he made an donkey out of himself at the Renaissance homeowner's meeting with some rambling diatribe on Eric. I was impressed with the dignified manner with which Eric and Maria interracted at the Lortondale meeting where Mr. Barnes was not an attendee.
FWIW- Eric is a good guy. Maria is a good lady, both are worthy candidates for the interests of D-4 that's why it's been a difficult choice for me up until recently.
Bubblehead, when you make accusations, please post your source material. Sounds like he made a mistake. If the officer roughed him up and Eric tried to defend himself, the officer can claim A&B on a PO. I wasn't there, have no idea what happened, but it's been 12 years ago. Not going to affect my vote. If anything your posts have given me a distaste for the Barnes campaign.
Quote from: RevereSide on November 07, 2009, 01:49:25 PM
I guess you misread the documents--Gomez was charged with three things--felony A&B on a police officer, resiting arrest and public drunk. He had a preliminary hearing on the felony on 5/28/97 in which 1 witness was sworn and he was bound over for trial on the felony charge in District Court. This means a witness-the officer that was assaulted--must have come to court and testified that a judge found there was enough evidence to send the case to trial.
Next he appeared before a District Court Judge on 6-19-97 plead guilty to the felony and the drunk and resisting charge was dismissed. He must have made a plea bargain to avoid a trial--a trial in which a jury could find him guilty and send him to prison. He was then on a form of probation for almost two years in which he paid fines and then the case was finally dismissed and the record removed on 5-17-99. Assaulting a police officer and pleading guilty to a felony is no small deal--especially for a would be city councilor who will vote on police department budgets and may need to ask questions and investigate police department actions.
What seems to really bothers defeatgomez.com and others is that he did not come clean with this information when he first ran for office in 2004 and then the same error was repeated in 2009. He let everyone think it was no big deal--just a little public drunk. It appears it was much more than that!
The cover-up is almost always worse than the act itself.
You make it sound as if he got a special deal. He didn't. That's how it works.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 07, 2009, 01:55:14 PM
Hmmm, couple of first time posters, they weren't here specifically to do a hatchet job, I don't think. I think Bubblehead might be Maria's husband. I heard he made an donkey out of himself at the Renaissance homeowner's meeting with some rambling diatribe on Eric. I was impressed with the dignified manner with which Eric and Maria interracted at the Lortondale meeting where Mr. Barnes was not an attendee.
FWIW- Eric is a good guy. Maria is a good lady, both are worthy candidates for the interests of D-4 that's why it's been a difficult choice for me up until recently.
Bubblehead, when you make accusations, please post your source material. Sounds like he made a mistake. If the officer roughed him up and Eric tried to defend himself, the officer can claim A&B on a PO. I wasn't there, have no idea what happened, but it's been 12 years ago. Not going to affect my vote. If anything your posts have given me a distaste for the Barnes campaign.
I have known Maria for years, and most people on the forum know that I am a big fan of hers. I also know that Maria (and many others) have known that Gomez assaulted a police officer for years. In the last election, as well as this one, Maria has made a point of not using his felony arrest in her campaign. Many urged her to use the information to attack Gomez. Instead, she has run an entirely positive campaign.
I don't know who Bubblehead is. But I know that Gomez has made a lot of people angry, and any one of those people might be responsible for the website.
I think ultimately it won't matter. Maria will win the election, because she has tremendous support from accross district 4. Even Michael Bates has endorsed Maria. http://www.batesline.com/archives/2009/11/my-wife-wants-a-maria-barnes-yar.html.
Quote from: pmcalk on November 07, 2009, 02:35:18 PM
I think ultimately it won't matter. Maria will win the election, because she has tremendous support from accross district 4.
I would concur, and add that Maria didnt turn her back on her neighbors in favor of developers, the billboard industry, etc. when in office.
When Maria gets her job back it will be because she is qualified, and not because her opponent hand an unfortunate encounter with someone on a power trip.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on November 07, 2009, 08:52:27 AM
I guess this means that Bubblehead isn't going to vote for Gomez. ;)
12 total posts, I think all of them about Gomez, and all negative.
So Bubble, what's your stake in this race?
Bubblehead's "stake" in this is that I want to know why Gomez didn't mention his assault on a police officer and why the Tulsa World didn't report it.
Quote from: Bubblehead on November 07, 2009, 09:20:39 PM
Bubblehead's "stake" in this is that I want to know why Gomez didn't mention his assault on a police officer and why the Tulsa World didn't report it.
Not much of an answer.
Frankly, because you've had no other interest in this forum other than to take a hatchet to Gomez, you're not going to get much traction here. You've made no effort whatsoever to be engaged in other discussions here.
It's your right to do a hatchet job on Gomez. But the fact is few people are going to care about an incident that happened more than a decade ago, and it has no bearing on his duties as a city councilor now. And because your motivations are so blatant, you're not going to have much credibility anyway.
(I don't live in Gomez's district and don't really care whether he or Barnes wins. Both, I think, would be decent-quality councilors. Not great, but decent.)
Doesn't it matter that he was not totally truthful about his past? A decade or whatever, he more or less spun the event. The World must really like the guy. I don't pay much attention to excesses of youth, and I am glad to forgive his past if he paid his dues, but isn't honesty the issue here?
Don't shoot the messenger.
Quote from: waterboy on November 08, 2009, 11:48:50 AM
Doesn't it matter that he was not totally truthful about his past? A decade or whatever, he more or less spun the event. The World must really like the guy. I don't pay much attention to excesses of youth, and I am glad to forgive his past if he paid his dues, but isn't honesty the issue here?
Don't shoot the messenger.
Probably because he was embarrassed by it (I would be), and part of his record was expunged.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on November 08, 2009, 11:56:21 AM
Probably because he was embarrassed by it (I would be), and part of his record was expunged.
I can agree with this one. I've had my run ins in the past and don't particularly want to go waving them around if I can help it, so I can understand an ommission. And since I've seen A & B on an officer charges come up because the cop pushed someone who had too much to drink, that person reached out to steady himself to keep from falling and the cops shoulder is what his hand found, I don't put a lot of merit into this charge without some serious details to go along with it.
Quote from: custosnox on November 08, 2009, 03:01:00 PM
I don't put a lot of merit into this charge without some serious details to go along with it.
Where ARE the details? Gomez should be asked for them. The police officer should be interviewed. The arrest records should be released. Where is this basic journalism?
Because there was a shallow misleading news report in 2004 that appears to have been pulled from the archives for the 2009 update the public thinks Gomez pleaded guilty to being drunk after a soccer game. Something much more actually happen--what that was is a mystery. If the World had even looked closely at the OSCN docket sheet--something everyone can still easily look at online--
http://www.oscn.net/applications/ocisweb/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=236054&db=Tulsa
---they would have seen he was on some sort of probation for some sort of felony until May of 1999. Yet the 2004 article says the mystery charge was dismissed in 1997 and the 2009 article says that he pleaded guilty to public drunk (when it actually was dismissed)--something the OSCN records clearly show was not the case.
If the criminal contact background of all candidates for public office is relevant--as the Tulsa World thinks it is--their reporting should be accurate and complete. The World (our only newspaper of record) could and should have asked for an OSBI report just like defeatgomez.com apparently did. In fact they should do it for every major candidate and public official. That they did not do it for Gomez suggests they did not do it for the others. Wonder what else we are missing?
Meh... He made some mistakes while young and drunk.. Who hasn't? And really, you propose to persecute him for that? I bet you have at least that in your past... And if not, it was merely luck on your part not to get caught.
Does a drunk and disorderly really disqualify someone from office? (Obviously not Trebilcock, and he even did it WHILE in office.)
So where do you draw the line on disclosure? That's a gnarly can of worms you're opening. It was a/b on a police officer, d/d and resisting arrest. If that isn't worthy of full disclosure, what is?
BTW, who hasn't? I haven't. Nor my wife, my brothers, my sister, my mom, or my sons. We aren't exactly Mormons either. Now, my uncles? Different story.
Quote from: custosnox on November 08, 2009, 03:01:00 PM
I can agree with this one. I've had my run ins in the past and don't particularly want to go waving them around if I can help it, so I can understand an ommission. And since I've seen A & B on an officer charges come up because the cop pushed someone who had too much to drink, that person reached out to steady himself to keep from falling and the cops shoulder is what his hand found, I don't put a lot of merit into this charge without some serious details to go along with it.
http://www.newson6.com/story/16979594/former-tulsa-city-councilor-arrested-for-domestic-assault-and-battery