Tuesday, August 7, 2007

People vs. Pinky

Read all about it! Here are the indictment papers, courtesy of AM-NY.

You may also weigh in on their online poll: Vote: Do you think Gallagher is guilty?


diana said...

If there is any justice, this will be the first of many indictments against this rapist of the community. The corruption charges will follow once the eyes of investigators are opened.

Anonymous said...

Based on the indictment, this is going to be a binary "He said...She said".

Don't get your hopes up.

verdi said...

justice will finally be served.

And Pinky will be served a lovely fare of prison diet,
complete with (pink) plastic tableware !

Anonymous said...

Based on the indictment, you can't tell anything about the evidence that the DA has with regards to this case, so how can you determine that it will be a "he said, she said?"

Anonymous said...

Watch Pinky's minions furiously vote "no" in the poll. Before the link was posted here, the vote tally was overwhelmingly "yes."

Taxpayer said...

18 people who never met Gallagher's rape victim "know" she's just an opportunist (I guess that's because he's an "esteemed", "honorable" man).

In other words, they would rape too, as long as they knew they could have stupid supporters like themselves.

Anonymous said...

I don't believe he's guilty, but he is immoral. That is reason enough to remove him from office.

Anonymous said...

I too, believe he is innocent of the 10 counts against him. But even as someone who personally lkes him, its painfully obvious there is so much wrong with how he's led his life and administered his office. I'm hoping that true justice prevails, that he is vindicated, but he must step down and he must seek the professional help he so desperately needs.

Prove me wrong said...

Hey Christina, Do you think Gallagher is guilty. Oh yes you do, well let me tell you something, The United States constiution states "Innocent Unless proven Guilty" so Christina Please reas that quote and while your at it show it to Adolf Holden.

P.S. I bet you wont post this

Queens Crapper said...

I posted the previous comment so you can see how badly Dennis Gallagher supporters read, write and spell. They don't need no ed-u-ca-shun!

Freddie said...

The United States constiution states "Innocent Unless proven Guilty"

Please find that for me:
U.S. Constitution

Taxpayer said...

Prove me wrong said...
"Hey Christina, Do you think Gallagher is guilty. Oh yes you do, well let me tell you something, The United States constiution states "Innocent Unless proven Guilty" so Christina Please reas that quote and while your at it show it to Adolf Holden.

P.S. I bet you wont post this"

Here's an idea Ms. Prove me Wrong: Cite the Article, clause or word in ANY part of the US Constitution that states: "innocent unless proven guilty".

The CONCEPT of PRESUMED innocent ... is reserved for the courtroom. The judge and jury must reserve their conclusion until all evidence has been presented.

Certainly the prosecutor believes the defendant is guilty, and makes every effort throughout the trial to persuade the jury to the same belief.

The defense attorney probably KNOWS that the defendant is guilty just as much as the defendant does, but, he's a hired hand and just want to win.

The court officers probably believe the defendant is guilty, so their job is to stand nearby in the event of an outbreak of violence.

So, grow up and knock off the inane and uneducated gibberish about that which you know nothing.

We adults, who can reason these things through, already found the rapist guilty, and are unafraid to announce that conclusion in writing and in public. The bad luck we have is that we are powerless to compel our beliefs upon the judicial system. But, again as adults, we accept that.

You lose your idiotic bet. Now, take time to study to improve your spelling, punctuation and grammar. After that, have your attorney write your comments.

Your gratuitous reference to Mr. Robert Holden as "Adolf" says much more about you than the man whose feet you are not worthy to lick.

Go back to sucking on the rapist - he's guilty!

Anonymous said...

This is only the beginning for the man they call Pinky.

He has opened so many windows in his glass house that the investigators are lining up to get a crack at him.

After the rape case, corruption charges will follow.

Pinky was advised very early on not to play with fire, he decided he would crush his opponents instead.

He under estimated his opponents in a big way, particulary when you live in a glass house, you shouldn't throw stones.

It was so easy for his opponents to fend this loser off because he has so many, and I mean many, skeltons in the closet of his glass house. Here's the unlucky 13 list for Pinky, some immoral, some criminal:

1. sexual harassment
2. assault
3. rape
4. porn distributor
5. gambler
6. drug addict
7. graff taker
8. adultery
9. mis use of his office for campaigning
10. mis use of his office for sex flings
11. abuse of his staff
12. mis use of his duties and resources as a Council Member
13. a drunken everyday bum, who needs rehab

With this laundry list, it's not hard that his opponents are crushing him....the power of We the People!

We the People will not tolerate this man representing us and nor should anyone else that calls themselves a decent citizen.

Anonymous said...

"He said, she said" -

It's only the beginning, it's a long road thatI wouldn't want to walk down.

There appears to be a lot of evidence and witnesses from previous flings.

He will get convicted of a least one or two of the counts and that means his career is over.

It may mean jail time as well.

If the bigger counts drop, lookout, we talking 15 years. Ouch!

Gallagher is in deep donkey dog doo doo.

After this case, the DOI will be stepping in, BIG TIME.....it's only the begining!

I wouldn't want to be in his size 6 shoes!

Anonymous said...

That's not a very friendly list that was posted.

Besides jail, this man's going to hell!

Anonymous said...

Oh my God!

What a crook!

Anonymous said...

Pinky the rapist trying to squirm like a worm, but this time, justice has caught up to him.

What exactly is he doing behind those closed curtains where the crime took place representing our public interests the last few days?

Nothing, absolutely nothing.

Anonymous said...

The big celebration will be when he gets convicted, but I am enjoying ever minute watching the lighter shade of Pink turn beat red every time he hits the TV or newspaper.

There's coverage every single day.

Check out the Sun today.

Anonymous said...

I heard they abuse midgets even more in prison than regular folk.

Presumed Innocent said...

14th Ammendmant
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Commentary By US Supreme Court
The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.... Concluding, then, that the presumption of innocence is evidence in favor of the accused, introduced by the law in his behalf, let us consider what is 'reasonable doubt.' It is, of necessity, the condition of mind produced by the proof resulting from the evidence in the cause. It is the result of the proof, not the proof itself, whereas the presumption of innocence is one of the instruments of proof, going to bring about the proof from which reasonable doubt arises; thus one is a cause, the other an effect. To say that the one is the equivalent of the other is therefore to say that legal evidence can be excluded from the jury, and that such exclusion may be cured by instructing them correctly in regard to the method by which they are required to reach their conclusion upon the proof actually before them; in other words, that the exclusion of an important element of proof can be justified by correctly instructing as to the proof admitted. The evolution of the principle of the presumption of innocence, and its resultant, the doctrine of reasonable doubt, make more apparent the correctness of these views, and indicate the necessity of enforcing the one in order that the other may continue to exist.

Remember everyone thought OJ was guilty too.

Anonymous said...

What happend to my post by the supreme court concerning the presumption of innocence? Did you censor out because it didn't help your agenda?

Anonymous said...

That's nice, but Pinky hasn't been denied equal protection under the law, nor has he been declared guilty by a court without a trial. Personal or journalistic opinion does not constitute violation of Pinky's rights under the Constitution.

Presumed Inocent said...

Unless you count the court of public opinion on this web site, which has him guilty of a slew of illegal and immoral infractions. While I will agree that he has rendered himself ineffectual and should resign, I will not call him guilty of a crime until a jury does.