Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 8
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
It Depends on How You Define "Use"
Total Comments: 8
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $12.6959 | +0.0013 | +3.39% |
| F | $11.9530 | -0.0247 | +0.19% |
| C | $9.2824 | -0.6039 | -43.95% |
| S | $10.1934 | -0.8828 | -48.49% |
| I | $12.0957 | -0.7697 | -51.15% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $11.0060 | -0.6167 | -39.66% |
| L 2030 | $11.2839 | -0.5499 | -35.19% |
| L 2020 | $11.6920 | -0.4696 | -29.78% |
| L 2010 | $13.1320 | -0.2608 | -15.06% |
| L Income | $12.3301 | -0.1593 | -8.46% |
November 20, 2008
Search:
Custom Search
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
© 2008 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Potential reinstatement of agent
VA
Fri Sep 17, 2004 9:43 AM
Post Reply
I find it frightening that the citizenry of this country is at risk of having an agressive, admittedly drug-using, liar returned to a position as an armed law enforcement agent.
Re: Potential reinstatement of agent
VHA
Fri Sep 17, 2004 10:18 AM
Re: Potential reinstatement of agent
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
Fri Sep 17, 2004 12:55 PM
There are "lies" and "lies"
VA
Mon Sep 20, 2004 8:31 AM
Post Reply
"He listed his application to other law enforcement agencies but did not mention his unsuccessful FBI application." A lie by omission. Not that the 5,10,15 thing is not a lie. Though you might be happier if I describe it as "casuistry"; which is "Specious or excessively subtle reasoning intended to rationalize or mislead."
who walks on water? Do You?
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Wed Dec 22, 2004 1:50 AM
Post Reply
Give the man his job back..
Ralph Smith needs to get his facts straight!
Waiting for Decision
Wed Apr 6, 2005 3:49 PM
Post Reply
I am the individual Ralph Smith has written this article about. I am trying to get a fair and unbiased decision from the government regarding this case and Mr. Ralph Smith has written that my troubles began when I got into a bar fight in Washington DC. I do not appreciate Mr. Smith smearing my name in his article while I am trying to get a fair shake from the government regarding my pending case. Where did you get these stories from Mr. Smith? What kind of fact finding ability do you have? Do you just print whatever you want? I am not going to let you get away with this. I have been the subject of the rumor mill for too long and my name has been tarnished because of people like you. You have done enough damage to me and my family by writing these false statements about me. I was never in a bar fight in Washington DC. You owe me and my family an apology for your ignorance and laziness for not finding out the truth. I cannot express enough how damaging this article has been to me and my family.
Re: Ralph Smith needs to get his facts straight!
Fedsmith.com
Wed Apr 6, 2005 7:21 PM
The decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in this case contains the following:
"Within days of his arrival at the DEA Academy, however, an altercation at a bar in Georgetown involving one of his classmates changed the path of Mr. Hathaway's career at DEA. Although Mr. Hathaway was cleared of any wrongdoing in the incident, he was immediately reassigned from the Academy to DEA's Boston office."
While it is not the focal point point of the article, The FedSmith.com article which I wrote entitled "It Depends on How You Define 'Use' contains the following sentence:
"While at DEA, he (referring to Hathaway) got into a fight in a bar in Washington, DC and found himself reassigned to the vehicle fleet office in Boston."
As the court decision states, Mr. Hathaway was cleared of any wrongdoing from an allegation from one of his classmates regarding an altercation in a bar. Therefore, my statement that "he got into a fight in a bar" is not supported by the facts as stated by the court and I apologize for the error.
The entire Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decision on which this article is based is available at http://www.fedsmith.com/articles/references/HathawayvJustice.pdf
Federal Gov't
Ferris
Fri Sep 23, 2005 2:07 PM
Post Reply
The federal government wants only the best. If one's reputation comes under any scrutiny what so ever, they are more than inclined to seek a clean slate, and most likely will.