Fogal to run for Franklin County District Attorney

It has nothing to do with the 180k a year salary that goes with it.

yea ok wrote:

It has nothing to do with the 180k a year salary that goes with it.

Well, if I were qualified and enjoyed the work, and that was what I went to school for and have done all my life I would try to get the job too? Your theory suggests a baseball player in the minor leagues shouldnt get better, because if he does he will make millions in the big leagues. Lets all just spin our tires and not challenge ourselves to be better? Is that your message?

The word on the street is that he should have learned from Jack Nelson when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em and quite a few other things as well. Jack was humble, yet effective and efficient.

pamale wrote:

The word on the street is that he should have learned from Jack Nelson when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em and quite a few other things as well. Jack was humble, yet effective and efficient.

The "word on the street" is always a reliable source.

Jack Nelson was decietful and Fogal is too. I think it's a requirement for A DA. One term and then out before people can start stockpiling favors and hiding skeletons. Fogal's treatment of Chris Jones alone means he has to go.

Jack Nelson and Matt Fogal are two of the most humble and kind individuals I have ever met, and furthermore Mr. Fogal was not prosecuting the Jones case another ADA was. Once again facts would be helpful when you individuals are posting. Did anyone maybe think that this "secret" meeting was for the benefit of the victim's family, to protect them from a media blizzard. No you are probably right, it is all a great big conspiracy. They are out to get you, it is a sign of the apocalypse you better start preparing for the end now.

I have seen Matt in action for some time and he has justice as his only interest. He does the right thing for the right reason. Nothing less is acceptable. Those who would argue probably were just on the wrong side to begin with.

GetsMyVote wrote:

I have seen Matt in action for some time and he has justice as his only interest. He does the right thing for the right reason. Nothing less is acceptable. Those who would argue probably were just on the wrong side to begin with.

Would you say that the handling of the Matt Jones plea hearing was transparent and Jones was treated like every other defendant? Justice 'was his only interest?'If not, why not?

After all, the DA would have had the final call on how it was handled.

pamale wrote:

<quoted text>
Would you say that the handling of the Matt Jones plea hearing was transparent and Jones was treated like every other defendant? Justice 'was his only interest?'If not, why not?
After all, the DA would have had the final call on how it was handled.

I, just like most others don't know any of the evidence in the Jones case. I do know that I trust Matt to have handled it correctly because he has integrity and honor.

Matt Fogal is a good, decent individual who has served his country with honor. He has my vote.

yea ok wrote:

It has nothing to do with the 180k a year salary that goes with it.

Now that's an intelligent, well informed position.

Fogel is a first rate procesutor I wish him many years in office. The standard salary for the position is what should be paid to someone with a law degree who is responsible for running all criminal prosecutions in the County. Get over the hick mindset (or jealousy) that someone makes too much money, what kind of DA would you get for say 40K a year?

GetsMyVote wrote:

<quoted text>
I, just like most others don't know any of the evidence in the Jones case. I do know that I trust Matt to have handled it correctly because he has integrity and honor.

Then he should be doing things transparently and in public, not hurriedly behind closed doors. Often that prompts judicial review and it will be interesting to see if someone else lifts the veil of secrecy on why this was handled away from the public eye.

pamale wrote:

<quoted text>
Then he should be doing things transparently and in public, not hurriedly behind closed doors. Often that prompts judicial review and it will be interesting to see if someone else lifts the veil of secrecy on why this was handled away from the public eye.

What "veil of secrecy" are you referring to? It was a public proceeding in open court - in front of a judge...which I belive counts as "judicial review". Jones pled to the most serious charge...how can that be some kind of favor or secret deal. Have some dessert while you are out to lunch.

pamale wrote:

The word on the street is that he should have learned from Jack Nelson when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em and quite a few other things as well. Jack was humble, yet effective and efficient.

If you really knew John F. Nelson, then you would know that he thought the world of Matthew Fogal - encouraged and approved of his aggressive and zealous representation of the people of this County. All the words you use to describe Mr. Nelson are true (I did know him personally)- and if Mr. Nelson chose Mr. Fogal to be one of his assistants, that is a serious affirmation of Fogal's character, integrity, skill and talent as a prosecutor.

It matters wrote:

<quoted text>
What "veil of secrecy" are you referring to? It was a public proceeding in open court - in front of a judge...which I belive counts as "judicial review". Jones pled to the most serious charge...how can that be some kind of favor or secret deal. Have some dessert while you are out to lunch.

The PO says the hearing was 'unlisted' and 'unscheduled.' In other words, this was done without public notice and without the public given the opportunity to attend the court hearing. Why is that, do you think? And now Fogal won't comment or release any further information on the plea agreement. No secrecy, huh?

pamale wrote:

<quoted text>
The PO says the hearing was 'unlisted' and 'unscheduled.' In other words, this was done without public notice and without the public given the opportunity to attend the court hearing. Why is that, do you think? And now Fogal won't comment or release any further information on the plea agreement. No secrecy, huh?

It made the paper, didn't it? Hardly a secret. And the record of the case, including the plea documents, is kept at the Clerk of Courts Office, available for public inspection. Attend the sentencing and watch that as well. The public certainly has a right to be present at all open court proceedings - I agree with you on that point. However, the Court is under no obligation to provide notice to the public of specific hearings.

There is only one person that deserves the honor of this position, following Jack Nelson and that person is Todd Williams. Thats the way Jack would have wanted it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Um lets see wrote:

There is only one person that deserves the honor of this position, following Jack Nelson and that person is Todd Williams. Thats the way Jack would have wanted it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Lets not be so quick to put Nelson on a pedestal, I have read documents going back 15 years ago where he and many town officials ( officers) looked the other way in some serious matters. None of which I will talk about as most parties are deceased but he documents are around... God Bless Google...

It matters wrote:'It made the papers, didn't it?' and "However, the Court is under no obligation to provide notice to the public of specific hearings." It made the papers, but not via the traditional process. The reporter feels, if I am reading this correctly, as if they and other media were 'hoodwinked,' for want of a better word, and the public generally may have reason to feel the same way.

This was a departure from the norm, as the reporter rightly noted. Also, a 'public' hearing is normally made known to the public beforehand, is it not? If the public is not made aware of it beforehand, is it truly a 'public' hearing? Why these departures in this case?

When one case is handled differently than another, the public paying the DA's salary and for the court system's very existence certainly seems justified in asking 'Why?.' If you you go over to the Jones' story elsewhere on this site, you will see that many people have many questions. The DA and his office has made no effort to explain or justify why and how things were done differently in this case, even when invited to do so by the media. Perhaps he has very good reasons for handling this matter in the way his office did. If so, he should provide them to the public. After all, he is answerable to the public and is at the beginning of a process to persuade the public that he will serve their interests fairly, responsibly and not not try to sidestep the process the public traditionally relies upon to verify that matters are being handled in the best interests of their communities. Doesn't that seem fair?