“Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land, they own and control the corporations that’ve long since bought and paid for, the senate, the congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pocket, and they own all the big media companies so they control just about all of the news and the information you get to hear. They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else. But I’ll tell you what they don’t want. They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them.”                                                                                                                     -George Carlin                                                                                                              (Whitehall Mayor’s Court Magistrate Sean Maxfield has donated a total of $600 to Kim Maggard, he that rules on people’s lives that Mayor Maggard compels into court through code enforcement who are part of the Service Department who act at the pleasure of the Mayor)

“The manager accepts the status quo, the leader challenges it.”- Warren Bennis

For your consideration…here are three post-election comments leaked to me that I wanted to share with you and respond to. I’m afraid I’m late in reporting these only because I’ve been busy post-election and the amount of time spent writing, referencing, checking, etc., can be lengthy and so I’ve written it as I’ve been able. Forgive me it’s tardiness.

Two of these are from Facebook posts made by Whitehall Auditor Dan Miller with commentary by Mayor Kim Maggard. There was some fun commentary by others (calling me “the boil on the butt of humanity”) but my overall beef is not with these non-public citizens so I chose not to include their comments. Another one is from Cheryl Jo Thompson who you may remember as the leader of the effort to recall democratically-elected sitting councilperson Jacquelyn Thompson back in 2009 with Issue 32. Their claims are so simple and without creedence that they’re really not any kind of argument at all. They are a prime example of an irresponsible string of illogical, hyperbolic, juvenile, debasing, simplistic claims and retorts.

Firstly, in our society there is something called argument. It is how you make your case for or against something. In the spirit of argument and in order to win it, using critical analysis, one makes their case in a reasoned, educated manner from ones viewpoint, using details, facts and logic. The point is to sway others to accept and side with the argument being made. Without this roundly-accepted and socially-respected avenue for swaying minds, we are left with only simple accusations and flaccid points sufficing for argument, leaving us with only enough room on that downward slide for the apoplectic screaming, fist fights and hair-pulling as witnessed on ‘The Jerry Springer Show’. Thus then, offering up arguments in-kind which respectfully respond to reasoned, well-researched arguments made, is the correct and civil response, that which saves us from sinking back to a level with the animals. In the over 45,000 words of argument in which I’ve offered evidence and observation and examples to bolster my charges that there is much corruption and underhanded wrongdoing in Whitehall City Hall, there were no counter-arguments made in return. None. I believe this was for two reasons; Firstly, I believe my arguments were so well constructed that they felt intimidated and impotent in their ability to offer up a strong counter-point or they felt they lacked the depth in which to do so (notice I was the only candidate for council to ask for a debate amongst my candidate peers). Secondly, I believe these viewpoints or anyone’s feelings regarding my writings were kept to themselves until after the election lest I expose the holes in their arguments (which would’ve further bolstered mine) and because something they said or added could’ve had the power to cost someone votes. (Something you’ll notice that never caused me to withold my views) So too, while this is an opportunity to actually rebut something, it is also a look into a thought process and mindset which further illustrates some of the points I’ve made.

“You cannot reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.”
― Ben Goldacre, Bad Science

While this quote is apropos, I’ll nevertheless offer up responses to their arguments as made, such as they are, for both their edification and yours, those which they never offered up to me in response to the actual arguments I made. First it will be their argument/comments, followed by my analysis/rebuttal. First up;

CHERYL JO THOMPSON’S POST:

Issue 32 leader and friend of Kim Maggard, Cheryl Jo Thompson, filming me (foe of Kim Maggard and Issue 32) peacefully and lawfully protesting the inherent conflicts in Issue 32.

Okay, first, here she reveals that Mayor Kim Maggard is her friend (not friendly, not an acquaintence but friends). With this statement I must deter from this post’s intent for a moment due to the importance of an issue her declaration above now informs.                                         In 2009 Cheryl Jo Thompson led the effort to oust Councilperson Jacquelyn Thompson, accusing her with a number of offenses, both on her blog dedicated to the topic and in a flurry of fliers leafletting the city. That effort which was heavily funded by government insiders and unions, making it by that funding, not a citizen’s revolt but a political campaign. That conflict and ethical wrong which I spoke out on and protested over at the time. (As you can see by Cheryl Jo Thompson actively filming me protesting, at left). This declaration then shows a clear bias in her feelings as well as confirms my original concerns and beliefs in regard to her efforts as the leader of Issue 32; that the conflict of interest in her running the recall effort as funded in part by her friend Kim Maggard, made its truth spotty and motives suspect, thereby suggesting its leader was merely a political hack. Serving not as a voice of the people but rather as a mouthpiece for friends in government. In that alone, the veracity of any piece of information offered during the recall effort as factual or explosive in order to exact the result she/they wanted must be called into question given the relationship the leader has with one of her efforts’ governmental benefactors, Kim Maggard. She (Maggard) who was quoted as saying in a Dispatch article regarding Jacquelyn Thompson, “Thompson is a bitter woman” “She’s probably the most negative influence anyone can have on Whitehall”. And while that may or may not be true and is representative of Kim Maggard’s opinion, this was stated in the article dated Oct. 5, 2008, sometime before Cheryl Jo Thompson turned in the paperwork in 2009 to begin the recall effort of that very woman her friend Kim Maggard had such strong feelings against. As such, given the relationship between the person leading the recall effort and one of the persons funding it within the government itself, we simply can’t know if this was a clean and honest effort or if it was merely about insiders and unions with vested interests settling scores and using Cheryl Jo Thompson as a means to rid themselves of someone who might get in the way of those vested interests. None of which is really their ethical place or business to pursue. (More on this at the end of this post).*

She then suggests that my political writings which were in opposition to Kim Maggard failed to address the Mayor’s humanity, that which she, as her friend, seems to focus on. I can only believe that Kim Maggard has feelings and loves kittens and enjoys the smell of cinnamon but none of these things are my concern as someone who is fighting troubles within city hall regarding mine and others elected officials. Her humanity is irrelevant in that pursuit, that which I leave to her family and friends, like Cheryl Jo Thompson, to tend to in a personal, not professional or public, manner. They want me to be nice to their leader but I have to ask, who precisely does that benefit? Her humanity and personal self is none of my concern or business in a rightful critical analysis of that which harms the public’s interests. If she doesn’t/didn’t like what I had to say then perhaps she shouldn’t have sought elected office and then done untrustworthy, troublesome things as that elected official. This argument regarding her humanity in my pursuit of critical exposure is irrelevant. She also says I told “lies” but offers up no specific, detailed examples or cogent arguments as to how or why she claims this is so. Simple hyperbole for simple consumption by people who don’t require facts or in-depth analysis is not a well-constructed argument and doesn’t adequately support a viewpoint.

She then calls the Howard family and LaCorte family thugs. Never specifying certain members, or one or two but, “the Howard family and LaCorte family”. They complain that I am so terrible because I rightly criticize elected/public figures and yet extrude this kind of offal. Does not Cheryl Jo remember or did she not see when some Maggard supporters were ganging up on Leslie LaCorte impugning her intelligence or suggesting she was going to take every citizen’s dogs from them? While I have certainly been publicly critical of Brent Howard and his son Brandon in their time, even I have to say that to characterize any of the Howards or LaCortes as ‘thugs‘ is beyond reason and is simply a perfect example of Cheryl Jo Thompson’s talent for irrational distortion.

She then suggest that the election’s outcome had to do with karma, justice and truth as opposed to other factors like preference, Democratic ballot samples handed out at the polls, sticking with the status quo, ignorance of the truth of some in elected office or low information voters. If karma, justice and truth were factors in the outcome of things, they surely would’ve factored into Cheryl Jo’s life in 2009 after she headed up an effort to kick a democratically-elected, sitting councilperson out of city hall largely with elected official’s and union’s money. In my opinion, it was a dastardly coup primarily funded by these two groups to rid thmselves of someone who wasn’t towing lines or was exposing their wrongs, that aspect which wasn’t mentioned in their flurry of fliers papered across town (those which Kim Maggard helped fund and which kept voters in the dark as to the whole truth of the matter (the monetary backers), the exposure of which might’ve hurt their efforts).

Finally, Cheryl Jo claims this is Kim Maggard’s hometown, simply because she won an election. Sorry, but in the ‘place of birth and/or raising’ definition, no, this is not her hometown. Not that I have any issue with people from anywhere else being a part of a place. (I was not born and raised in New York City but felt it was my home and cared for it as much as natives) However, when you throw this up in such a snotty fashion at people who were born and/or raised here, it tends to get the ‘Ram’ blood up. Bob Bailey, Leslie LaCorte, myself, Karen Conison and many, many others were born and raised here and know what that was like. We lived it. Our parents built and supported and sustained this town in its youth and halcyon days, like Bertie LaCorte, when Kim Maggard was enjoying her childhood and youth in Kentucky.

DAN MILLER’S POSTS:

Dan Miller:   “Jerry makes up his own reality and then leaves out anything that doesn’t conform to that reality. That is a lie of omission. When he says Council is corrupt, that is a lie. No one on Council has received anything in return for their vote. He calls the former Mayor a tyrant. He never forced me to do anything against my free will or anyone else for that matter. What part of the word lie don’t you understand. I read his entire blog and it is full of crap!” Like · Reply · 2 · 8 hrs

Dan Miller:   “Don’t get me wrong, through the years Jerry has had some good ideas but he lacks the ability to present them in a way that doesn’t offend. He needs to work on his delivery. He also needs to understand that in a democracy no-one gets everything they want. He has to learn how to accept that fact. He has had partial victories in code enforcement, litter and law enforcement. He should have used those to his advantage this election rather than slinging mud in every direction“. Like · Reply · 2 · 8 hrs

Dan Miller: “Let’s play a game. You decide to borrow your parents car without permission. You Dad looks out the window and notices the car is gone and calls the police to report it stolen. The police arrest you and charge you with grand theft auto. You call your dad and he comes and bails you out and drops the charges. I can make you look bad by saying, you were charged with grand theft auto. I can make the police look bad by saying you stole a car but the police dropped the charges. And lastly, I can make your dad look bad by saying he had you arrested for borrowing the car. These were all true statements but without the rest of the story they are lies of omission“. Like · Reply · 5 · 56 mins · Edited

Kim Barker Maggard:   Great example Dan. Not only are there lies of omission, there are crystal ball gazing lies. In other words, lies regarding possible future events. His lies intertwine with his obsessions. Like · Reply · 1 · 1 hr

Dan Miller:  “I’d like to thank Jerry Dixon for proving once again that negative campaigning does not work. His hate filled ramblings were a stain on Whitehall politics. Made up charges, outrageous accusations and outright lies do not reflect well on the person who spews these barbs. He attacked every candidate, even those that have not held office. I was highly offended by his assault on Michael Bivens character. This is a man of integrity, a marine, a godly man. Shame on you Jerry!”

Like Comment Share
Kim Barker Maggard, C A R and 16 others like this.

Kim Barker Maggard:   Agree 100%.
Like · Reply · 2 · November 5 at 6:24am

MY REPLIES: (IN RED)

Dan Miller:   “Jerry makes up his own reality and then leaves out anything that doesn’t conform to that reality. That is a lie of omission”. Here he suggests that I “make up” my own reality, that none of the critical thinking I used; the many things which I’ve personally observed, used the brain God gave me to ascertain or all the paperwork and leg work and interviewing of citizens I’ve done is true or reality and that there are things I know which I’ve intentionally left out in order to inflate my arguments and make them look bad. If there are things which they know of which I’m not privy, how am I to write on them without that information? If I do not have additional information not privy to me then how have I omitted what I don’t have? I gave all I had and left out nothing intentionally. In that then, Mr. Miller makes a baseless claim which he doesn’t give examples of in order to solidify his claims, thereby making his statement one of hyperbole for the purpose of minimizing my claims and voice, that which will directly benefit himself and his friends/monetary patrons (chief of which is Mayor Maggard who has donated, at last notice, $200 to Mr. Miller and whom Mr. Miller, at most recent notice, has donated a total of $550 to)

“When he says Council is corrupt, that is a lie. No one on Council has received anything in return for their vote“.  Firstly, I am not a liar. I am a homosexual male and if you can even say that sentence, particularly in the time I grew up, it shows an unflinching, unwavering dedication to truth. I may be many things but a liar is not one of them. Secondly, there are several types of corruption Mr. Miller is apparently unaware of. According to Elaine Byrne in her 2007 PhD Thesis; ‘The Moral and Legal Development of Corruption: Nineteeth and Twentieth Century Corruption in Ireland’, there is Systemic Corruption, Sporadic (individual) Corruption, Political (Grand) Corruption, Grand Corruption, Petty Corruption and Legal and Moral Corruption. What I have written mainly on is a moral corruption in public office, that which pays little heed to the public trust and how its lack of integration by them in their behavior causes an erosion in our government’s processes, as outlined in my ‘crap-filled’ blogpost;

http://votedixon.com/2015/07/04/why-ethics-in-public-office-matter/

In Ms. Byrne’s thesis she writes, “Although an act is committed within legal parameters it may lie outside moral boundaries”. (also known as ‘the law according to those applying it’, i.e. code enforcement standing on a neighbors roof to photograph down into a neighbor’s private backyard, photographing someone’s private property through the spaces in fences, photographing property from a bucket truck…) “A corrupt act can be camouflaged by lawful justification”. (checking for rat feces. Perfect example found here); http://votedixon.com/2015/10/23/the-petty-tyranny-of-whitehall-code-enforcement-part-two/                                                                                “…corruption encompasses undue influence over public policies, institutions, laws and regulations by vested private interests at the expense of the public interest.” (Issue 32 comes leaping to mind as well as the familial influences) “Cultural change, rather than legal change, may be necessary to impede corrupt behaviour”. (Exactly that which I’ve been trying to change with all these writings, protests, speeches, letters to the editor, etc.) ‘Non-corrupt actions may be within the letter of the law but do not account for the spirit of the law’.(This very point I’ve made several times in writing and over the years. Working their way around term limits comes to mind)

We must assume that the default position for all humans is one of sound ethical and moral behavior, so, when one shows that they have diminished ethics and morals then we must assume that somewhere along the line these character traits have been corrupted, by whatever means. Being though that they are public officials running the governmental affairs of our lives, special alarm must be given in our reaction when we see that they’ve been corrupted in this manner, for their actions have great power over the public’s lives. When one notes underhanded dealings and familial considerations over ethics, principals and the citizens (particularly given the amounts of money shared between each other in donations), and too often experiences silence and stonewalling in response to legitimate concerns and calls for help or change, then that is an outright corruption, not only of their character but the processes put into place for the citizens benefit in regard to their interests.

“He calls the former Mayor a tyrant. He never forced me to do anything against my free will or anyone else for that matter.”  (smacks forehead with palm of hand) His ‘tyranny’ didn’t have anything to do with elected officials, those he had no true power over anyway (see: checks and balances, three branches of government). Rather, my concerns have been in regard to how Whitehall citizens have and do suffer under the tyranny of these ‘leaders’. When a leader exacts undue punitive measures against those they’re ‘leading’, ala Dave Deluca, among others (please see the several blogposts regarding these in which I’ve written), that is tyranny. Dictionary.com defines tyranny as “oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler”. Mayor Wolfe certainly did exert ‘oppressive’ measures in code enforcement, as has Mayor Maggard. They used the power of their office to immorally oppress, abuse and harrass citizens using the law at their command. As well, a citizen may have free will but lets see that free will go up against the authority, red tape and judicial power of government, that which both Mayors have utilized to abuse and harrass citizens. The singular citizens comparatively tiny free will would’ve been crushed by the hammering fist of the Goliath of City Hall. See;

http://votedixon.com/2015/11/01/the-petty-tyranny-of-whitehall-code-enforcement-part-four/

“What part of the word lie don’t you understand. I read his entire blog and it is full of crap!” Like · Reply · 2 · 8 hrs  Keeping it classy Auditor Miller, “crap!” And not only ‘crap’, but full of it! Btw, I understand the word ‘lie’ very well (The actual saying is, ‘What part of the phrase don’t you understand?’, not “word”). What you’re suggesting is that I have information which I twist in order to benefit myself, that which I’ve never done, and if I have, prove to me what statements and sentences and paragraphs I’ve done so and how specifically I consciously lied. One can say, ‘lies, lies, lies’ all they want but if it is not backed up with specific instances and the reasons why they are lies, then one has made a thin and fallacious argument. That which I say is done by Mr. Miller to degrade my growing influence here in Whitehall (1230 people is nothing to sneeze at), the diminishment of which would only benefit the likes of Mr. Miller himself and his patrons and ‘team’ within city hall.

Dan Miller:   “Don’t get me wrong, through the years Jerry has had some good ideas but he lacks the ability to present them in a way that doesn’t offend. He needs to work on his delivery”. I don’t give a hoot if they don’t like my delivery. What I don’t like and which is more damnable, is their actions and behavior in office which abuses and harms the citizenry which they swore to serve. Which is worse, my telling my public officials how I feel about them doing things wrong while in office which hurts the citizens or, their doing things wrong in office which hurts the citizens? I think the answer is crystal clear. They don’t answer me out of spite for telling them they’re corrupt to their face and because admitting to anything would then prove me right and we can’t have Mr. Dixon be right because then, if he’s right about one thing, then he must be right about other things too and maybe…everything! His excuse is a cheap deflection of what the true problem is; not me, but them.

Dan Miller: “He also needs to understand that in a democracy no-one gets everything they want. He has to learn how to accept that fact.” This is not something I don’t understand. What I do want is for many I’ve mentioned in this blog to get their ethical ship righted and stop with the selfishness, familial backslapping and intra-monetary patronage that is harmful to the citizens and the processes designed to help them, not those in City Hall. Then we can start talking about them not using their power and the processes of government and law to immorally abuse and harrass citizens through various means.

Dan Miller: “He has had partial victories in code enforcement, litter and law enforcement. He should have used those to his advantage this election rather than slinging mud in every direction”. Like · Reply · 2 · 8 hrs Ummmm, no one told me I had ‘partial victories’. How come I wasn’t made aware of these and what are they specifically? Would they have helped me get elected or bring more people over to support me? Mr. Miller writes of these things post-election but doesn’t mention I wasn’t aware of these things or perhaps only assumes that I was.                                                                Also, ‘slinging mud’ suggests I am writing about someone’s alcoholism or extra-marital affairs or drug use or inappropriate personal behavior or calling someone ‘full of crap’, rather than the truth of what it is; offering critical information regarding elected officials actions which are wrong and harm the citizens and which citizens should be apprised to make the most informed decision for the best possible outcome for the health of the city itself. If we cannot expose the truth about wrong behavior in City Hall for fear someone will accuse us of ‘mud-slinging’, then how are we ever to know what is going on wrong in our names? As well, do those who are the targets of the exposure use simple terms like ‘mud-slinging’ and ‘negative’ merely as a construct to silence critics and veer citizens away from further investigation into the truth of the matter? Well-researched, educated, in-depth critical analysis of government officials is not mud-slinging, it is the backbone and underpinnings of the health and vitality of our country, its government and its processes. Mr. Miller’s cheap and degrading characterization of my efforts shows not what Mr. Dixon is about but rather what Auditor Miller is about.

Dan Miller: “Let’s play a game. You decide to borrow your parents car without permission. You Dad looks out the window and notices the car is gone and calls the police to report it stolen. The police arrest you and charge you with grand theft auto. You call your dad and he comes and bails you out and drops the charges. I can make you look bad by saying, you were charged with grand theft auto. I can make the police look bad by saying you stole a car but the police dropped the charges. And lastly, I can make your dad look bad by saying he had you arrested for borrowing the car.” Mr. Miller’s point here is about perception of a story from a particular angle and the interpretation one takes from that. That when one looks at a situation from one angle one sees one thing but when looked at from another angle, one sees another. That without the whole story, there are missing pieces vital to one’s understanding. And while yes, that is true and all right and good, I am a citizen, looking out for the well being of my fellow citizens. That is my point of view. When I see the Whitehall city guide (which uses tax dollars pulled from people’s wallets) publish a website within the guide with a link to a blog on which a sitting councilperson’s character is assassinated who’d brought an ethics complaint against the guide’s author, it sets off an alarm in me concerned that power and tax dollars down at city hall could possibly be being used politically to harm and settle scores with enemies. Then, when I try to get to the bottom of it and am only shuffled around and met with ultimate silence by the big boss himself, Mayor John Wolfe (not given alternate viewpoints to help me with my perception, Mr. Miller), then I’ve seen all there is to see or be given to see, and so, all I’m left with then is just some excuse-making by council people. (After my taking loud issue with this situation, in the next City Guide issue in Fall, ’09, they added a disclaimer that said, “Opinions expressed by any organization contained in this publication may not represent the opinions or views of the City of Whitehall and the City of Whitehall in no way is responsible for any content those organizations publish”.)                           So yes, while there may be alternate ways to see a situation, it was I who brought up the problem as I saw it (which one should always do if one perceives trouble. Nobody in elected office should get a free pass) and so, asked for and demanded answers. Those ‘alternate viewpoints’ and answers no one offered in return. Which leads to the other part of this statement;

Dan Miller: “These were all true statements but without the rest of the story they are lies of omission”. Like · Reply · 5 · 56 mins · Edited Here Mr. Miller suggests that I indeed know all the angles but intentionally leave others out simply to bolster my point of view and to hurt others. That, I claim, is a lie by Mr. Miller. In all that I wrote, I want him to go through it piece by piece and say specifically what and where I was given information that I then intentionally manipulated by omitting it for a lie. Without this then, I say Dan Miller is not making an argument but only flinging simple  accusations about. One cannot lie if one has never received the information in which to then lie about knowing. One can say that I know or knew but it is another to prove that I was told things and then omitted them. I might be naive or trusting or foolish or sometimes simple about things but my integrity is iron-clad. When I made charges I backed them up with examples and proof and personal observation. I didn’t just say things and leave it at that. Mr. Miller has though. He needs to go through my ‘crap-filled’ blog and point out specifically where I lied, how I lied and why specifically they are lies. Until then, Mr. Miller is the liar.

Kim Barker Maggard:   “Great example Dan. Not only are there lies of omission, there are crystal ball gazing lies. In other words, lies regarding possible future events. His lies intertwine with his obsessions“. Like · Reply · 1 · 1 hr                                                                 This makes me smile at its absurdity. Mr. Miller may make a point of sense in his example but it didn’t truly fit the bill as evidenced by their constant silence offering no ‘alternate viewpoints’ of situations I bring up. As well too, the charge of ‘lies of ommission’. Unless Mayor Maggard offers specific examples, as I asked of Auditor Miller above, in calling me a liar, then she herself is a liar too and I demand she offer up specific proof of what, how, when, etc. She also suggests that, while looking into the future, I have knowledge of the existence of things which I then intentionally leave out in order to advance my cause**, again calling me a liar. If I know things about plans or the movement of future things then I am free to make observations and hypothesise on those things, based not on what I don’t know but on what I’ve seen, read, observed and understood about plans and officials, their behavior and actions in the past as well as their character and morals. These ‘lies’ she speaks of are not based on prediction,(which is what I’ve given at times) but rather on an ommission of facts (some of which I never had). And yet, all the charges I’ve made, not one peep from the Mayor herself or anyone else at City Hall answering the details of my many concerns and queries regarding their policies and actions and behavior which may have answered questions and brought more understanding to issues .                     Finally, Mayor Maggard only offers up juvenile name-calling as ‘arguments’ (see: The Jerry Springer Show) In response to the Dispatch asking her about Jacquelyn Thompson she said, “Thompson is a bitter woman”. When the Dispatch asked her about me protesting against her downtown she said, “Mr. Dixon is a bit of a performance artist”. And here she debases my efforts by calling them, “obsessions”. Never offering up understanding through intelligent, respectful, reasoned, cogent counter-arguments. So then, she calls my concerns and demands for ethics and morality for the public trust (which benefit the citizens and our govenmental processes themselves), as well my alarm over misuse and abuse of power to harm said citizens merely, “obsessions“. She does this, as I’ve said too many times, as a means to denigrate, marginalize and minimize my voice, that which sheds light on her harmful, abusive administration (that which she doesn’t want!) as well too, because I don’t believe she has a true capacity for educated argument. Its easier for her to make of her detractors straw-men for public consumption than to offer up detailed, in-kind rebuttals. Regardless, this kind of simple response also (foolishly on her part) spits on the underlying decency which inform my pursuits for those admirable concerns and their ultimate benefactors, the citizens and their well-being themselves. Those who seem to get in the way of her climb to power and her dogged pursuit for the glorification of Kimberly J. Maggard.

Dan Miller:  “I’d like to thank Jerry Dixon for proving once again that negative campaigning does not work. His hate filled ramblings were a stain on Whitehall politics“. I don’t hate people. Calling out elected and public officials is my duty to my city and my country. If I have to call you out in the first place its either because you’re dumb as a box of rocks and doing stupid things which harm the public or you’re duplicitous, both of which are superior reasons to call out elected and public officials to begin with. Hate had nothing to do with it. Anger? Yes. Outrage? Yes. Hate? No.                            As far as my writing’s ‘rambling’ character, I say they are detailed criticisms, the topics and the citizens they impact I respected enough to take the inordinate time necessary in which to present them as their natures called for. They were not written for Reader’s Digest or as panels for Mad magazine. They were intelligent discourses on a number of topics, none of which can be properly communicated in 100 words or less. (and if they could’ve, I would’ve!) Conversely, if I hadn’t given them the proper depth and heft I did, critics like Mr. Miller would have surely lambasted me for a lack of thoroughness. Either way, reason, thoroughness or getting it right are not something people like him care about, their aim is to see me diminished for his and their benefit, plain and simply (see: George Carlin’s quote at the top of the post). Also Mr. Miller, what precisely leaves a larger ‘stain’ on Whitehall, my calling out the misdeeds of elected officials or the misdeeds of elected officials itself?

Dan Miller: “Made up charges, which ones did I make up? And did I ‘make them up’ or were some of them observations and viewpoints? outrageous accusations what specifically makes them ‘outrageous’? and outright lies Prove that I lied Mr. Miller, specifically, what, where and how and the process in which I was duplicitous so as to create the lie. Saying ‘lies’ is not proof of the lie. do not reflect well on the person who spews (‘spews’ is a disparaging verb I’ve heard often from the likes of those in city hall and some of their supporters. Myself or my writings are not legitimate, nor are they well-said or eloquent or on-target, they are merely vomitus spewing from Beelzebub’s mouth) these barbs. He attacked every candidate, even those that have not held office. Did I “attack” Mr. Miller, or did I criticize and take to task? There is a difference. May I say, my criticism’s were with reason, that which I made clear and which illustrated and brought together my well-made points. I brought up the Quincels political donations as a means of showing a larger problem which I spelled out succinctly in that post. Mr. Quincel is/was a political candidate and Mrs. Quincel is a political appointment (by Mayor Maggard) to the Parks and Recreation Board. They are both then political figures and so the use of their public donations to political figures makes them fair game in using their monetary support as a clearly acceptable example of a point being made for the advancement of my argument presented. Let me be clear on things, there are elected officials, political figures and public figures. I have the right to bring them up if their actions, etc. are a part of an argument being made. I have no personal beef with the Quincels, I’ve met Mr. Quincel and thought him a very nice person, I liked him and while my inclusion of him and his wife in my argument may have caused tension and resentment between us now and in the future, my first alignment is not with people themselves but rather, principals, the steadfast championing of which I’m willing to pay such an unhappy price for. As well, being a candidate for elected office, it brought me a weightier bully pulpit than I had as just a citizen, therefore I used that to my public argument’s advantage to inform even more people of what I’ve found and my viewpoint on these matters, which has worked. That is why some things were brought up that didn’t seem to do with candidates or my race but which ultimately better served the citizens.

Dan Miller: “I was highly offended by his assault on Michael Bivens character“. Let me show you then the entirety (62 words total) of this “assault” I wrote in regard to “Michael Bivens character” in the over 45,000 words I otherwise wrote on Whitehall; “(he) Didn’t take one dime from any ‘Family members’. Although has now endorsed the endlessly corrupt and awful Mayor Maggard as well as Councilpersons Bailey, Conison and Kantor. If this trend continues I’m afraid (not a word connoting certainty) his reputation (a good one) will become soiled by his allegiance to party and associations over truth and conflicts of interest, and with them, the public’s trust of him, and (note that this is an ‘if’ it does, then it will be…) rightfully so” (not one solitary word “assaulting” Mr. Bivens’ character, not one). If Mr. Miller would take such “high offense” with my “assaulting” any person’s character in this small paragraph I would think it would chiefly be his ‘team leader’ Kim Maggard’s (and what would’ve been more correct for him to have characterized this as would be, ‘criticizing political figures‘). But, that doesn’t serve Mr. Miller’s means which is to use a man of Mr. Bivens decent character as the height of goodness in order to manipulate the reader’s perceptions to make it appear that anything I wrote about him which wasn’t simply gushing praise, was some sort of heretical attack on his divine “character” (thereby skirting the true issues and manipulating those in the public who are uninformed or unparticipatory into believing what he wanted them to believe of me, making me out to be some awful jerk in their eyes; the ones who vote). Mr. Bivens is a smart enough man that he doesn’t need Mr. Miller to exaggerate my words to maximally misinterpret my intent and meaning in regard to how I feel about his character. It is clear from the simplicity of my words that it is not Mr. Bivens himself who I have the issue with but rather whom he freely chooses to endorse and associate, which of course is his free will to do so. However, from the reams of evidence and concerns and testimonials I’ve given, it is clear that those he has chosen to support, in particular Mayor Maggard, risks his own peerless reputation by doing so. As he has a right to do, but, so too do I have a right to criticize that decision, particularly as it effects the citizen’s experience in Whitehall by those who aim to lead them. I remind Mr. Miller then of my publicly-stated feelings toward Mr. Bivens with my words used after the conflict-apalooza called the ‘Candidates Forum’ in 2011, “I saw only one leader up there tonight and his name was Michael Bivens”. So lets not get up in a froth Mr. Miller and mischaracterize my actual words. Their meaning is clear to anyone with a brain and a modicum of sense and reason.

Dan Miller: “This a man of integrity, (you notice he didn’t protest this argument about one singular other person I criticized, not one. Apparently none of the rest have integrity) a marine, a godly man. Shame on you Jerry!” (Easy to say that in a Facebook post that I’ve been restricted from seeing. Was he preaching to the choir or assumed it would be leaked to me) ‘Goodness gracious’, as my Grandfather used to say. Firstly, I again refer you to my above explanation. Secondly, since when does ones voluntary entrance into service in the Armed Forces force the rest of us to treat them with kid gloves and like a saint rather than the human and political figures and elected representatives that they are? Mr. Bivens is entering public office, not entering the priesthood. As well, I’m sure if Mr. Bivens fought for anything it was not the cutting into of free speech rights out of holy reverence for a person running the affairs of the citizens simply because they chose to serve in the armed forces. To suggest that their be no criticism of elected officials, for any reason, is not to understand and appreciate the principals and tenets of our country and its freedoms, that which Mr. Bivens served to have properly protected, not undercut by the likes of the foolish and hyperbolic Mr. Miller. I am then reminded of this Teddy Roosevelt quote,

 “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

Let’s insert “marine’ or “Godly man” instead of ‘President’ and you see my point. This also reminded me that when I criticized and accused Mayor Wolfe (a former Marine) of several wrondoings and character failings (as spelled out in a four-page flier I handed Dan Miller himself in 2011 entitled ‘How Mayor John Wolfe is Corrupt’) and loudly protested about the harrassment of Navy veteran Dave Deluca and his subsequent move from Whitehall as a result, that Councilman Miller was as silent as a church mouse, making his current outspoken outrage regarding former Marine Michael Biven then, specious. Apparently it wasn’t until I loudly criticized his ‘team leader’ Mayor Maggard…I mean…Michael Bivens, that suddenly Auditor Miller’s ire rose to such levels as to publicly shame the likes of me.  Truly, this is only a disingenuous assault on me to undermine my voice and character in order to contain the damage to his team leader, Mayor Maggard and others, from my loud and angry public criticism of them, nothing more. Mr. Bivens has been made well aware of all my feelings towards him by none other than myself, in person. If there is shame to be had it should be by Mr. Miller who cared not a lick that a citizen/veteran he represented as his voice on council was being systematically harrassed out of his home and Whitehall, that which he lifted neither public finger nor voice in defense or opposition to. No, Mr. Miller’s voice was only raised when a citizen and opponent of candidates he backed and aided in their campaign criticized public/elected officials, some of whom he is tied to with monetary donations. Therefore, it was my criticism of elected officials that upset him most, not Mr. Deluca (who sometimes had no more than peanut butter and crackers for dinner) being harrassed out of his home. Mr. Miller’s principals and so many officials called out in this blog are what are being rightly called into question. It is in too many ways shameless people who are running our city, not all, but too many. How they got their hands on the throttles of power in Whitehall is grist for another post but regardless, it is up to the decent people of this town to take them back. This kind of careless immoral behavior in public office as leaders of the citizenry is inexcusable and unacceptable. It is and has been my drive to expose it and do the right thing about it. And so I have as I’ve been able.   

Like Comment Share
Kim Barker Maggard, C A R and 16 others like this.

Kim Barker Maggard: (Team Leader)   “Agree 100%”. Of course she would, one of her ‘team’ is defending her and the rest of the ‘team’. Apparently, Whitehall Auditor Dan Miller is a good team player.
Like · Reply · 2 · November 5 at 6:24am

Simply said, Dan Miller is a ‘team member’ as evidenced by this piece of literature by Kim Maggard’s political campaign (…As odious as it is. )Anyone who would agree to allow their photo/name to be mentioned on this heresy to our democracy and its seperation of powers is no friend of the people. The only ‘team’ any of these people should be on is ‘Team Whitehall’ or ‘Team America’ not ‘Team Maggard’. Their offices are independent of each other and must remain so for the sanctity of serving the public good, not each others. The fact that there are two of the citizen’s voices, their representatives on council, on here is shameful. Does this mean that if I don’t like something their ‘leader’ is doing that they’ll ignore me rather than go against the ‘team’? And if so, that makes them her representatives, not mine. Bailey and Consion should be ashamed to even say they’re there for the people of Whitehall, its disgusting. This is not how our government is supposed to work.) So, when I call the ‘team leader’ a “pirate” and “Captain Kidd”, is there merit in Dan Miller’s thin arguments and hurled insults or is he just being a good ‘team player’? As well, just as I said in a blog post, that if you oppose them then you’re ‘persona non grata’, so it is with me and so it is with Wes Kantor for supporting the ‘enemy’, Leslie LaCorte. Notice he’s not listed as part of ‘Team Maggard'(But yet has to sit with them for the next four years…)

*I don’t believe this was a citizen’s revolt to recall Councilperson Thompson but rather a political coup. In my estimate, they played a dirty game and this just underscores it. I maintain that 78% of the funding to oust an elected official could be viewed as political, largely coming from elected officials and unions themselves. Those representing the government have NO business, NONE, funding an effort to remove a colleague and elected official from the government they both serve in from a citizen’s effort. (Whereas an actual citizens revolt funded and rallied entirely by the citizens themselves is completely legitimate and clean and right and fine). It says, with enough money, we the elected officials can decide who stays and who goes in government, not the people alone. That they and not the citizens wield the real power. This was a concerted effort by politicians to rid themselves of someone they didn’t like nor wanted around, regardless of her actions or behavior. It is absolute political corruption; did she not do as pleased them? Did she do things which brought forward things they didn’t want to, etc.? This is all well said in my four-page flier detailing my claims of Mayor Wolfe’s corruption that I handed out at his last council meeting. I quote;

“When there are concerns and alarm amongst the citizenry regarding their democratically elected officials and they gather together to address those concerns and/or take action, that is as it should be and of which I’m in complete agreement with. However, after the success of the recall campaign, the leader of that effort proclaimed, “THE PEOPLE OF WHITEHALL HAVE SPOKEN!!!!!” What her shouted statement failed in was its accuracy. What would have been more appropriate to shout would have been, ‘POWER TO THE GOVERNMENT AND UNIONS!!!!!’ because that is who did the majority of the financing of that campaign, thereby making them the strongest drivers of it.

When the regular citizens have an issue with their elected officials it is their responsibility to attend to it as they see fit, after all, it is a people’s democracy, not a government’s democracy. If there were issues the citizens had with Councilperson Thompson behaving in a wrongful manner, legally or otherwise and unbefitting an elected official of the people as they alone saw it, then it is the people’s responsibility to unseat her with their aid and their money alone. This is not what happened. It was only a very small group of regular citizens who donated and worked to oust her, heavily abetted by the pocketbooks of the government officials and unions whose vested interests financed the show (the fliers, the car magnets, the yard signs, the hyperbolic literature). Due to this patronage, this small group of citizens was able to convince a large group of people how they felt and what they and (more importantly) some officials of Whitehall government financing the effort wanted to convince them of.                                                     So then, in order to keep our democracy ever clear of encroachments and dangers to its health and vitality, we must always monitor these sorts of actions and behaviors and assume them to be threats to our democracy (particularly so when government officials so cavalierly and disrespectfully ignore clear conflicts of interest) and give them the scrutiny, scorn and wide berth they so rightly attract and deserve. Given this then I believe the people, without aid of complete information nor use of critical analysis based on self-investigation of the matter for themselves, voted with their passion, which the program of information fliers distributed incited in them, all without ever knowing the truth of the conflicts inherent and exactly who financed the fliers distributed. Therefore I don’t believe in the least it was a true and organic people’s revolt. I believe it was a bloodless coup engendered by some largely self-interested, rotten government officials and unions whose vested interests were threatened by Councilperson Thompson’s presence, despite the hyperbolic surface allegations they used to convince them otherwise. Why else would these two entities care so deeply as to contribute so heavily toward’s a people’s campaign, one that concerned how an elected official behaved towards citizens or what legislature she deemed worthy to introduce as a legislator? The tale is in their inappropriate patronage of a purported citizen’s revolt.                                          When we start allowing our government and organizations with vested interests to decide who stays and who goes in the people’s democratically elected positions, it is then named something other than a democracy. In that then, it will be the people, this very country and its democracy that will lose. If she was worthy of ouster for the supposed ultimate benefit of this city’s health and well-being, I ask you; what price shall we pay for such ‘justice’ if we have to sacrifice the very sanctity and strength of our democracy to achieve it, and attain only in the aftermath the ruination of that which we held so dear?”                                                         

** And what precisely is that ’cause’ I advance and what “crap” exactly is it that I wrote in my blog?  Here is what I compiled after combing through its entirety;

I gave positions on being a legislator… Spoke out against patronage and cronyism…Dedicated an entire post on why character matters in public office…Offered my views on crime and safety… Suggested championing organic growth and movement in Whitehall…Gave a list of seven admirable attributes for ethical and good living…Stated that the Constitution and citizens should be priority #1…Deeply fleshed out ethics, trust and morality in public office…Warned against opression of freedom of speech and the need and right for reasoned adult criticism and shared adult views…Gave uplifting positive speech about what is possible for Whitehall’s future…Broke down and exposed fallacies over political tools used falsely to win…Suggested character matters more than experience…Exposed how code enforcement is used as a weapon and political tool…Claimed Mayor Maggard has no actual vision…Suggested hiring more police officers to battle crime and speeding…Pointed out harmful behavior by elected officials and why it’s wrong…Pointed out how Councilperson Conison misuses her time on council detrimentally to the citizens benefit…Called out so many’s unwillingness to heed conflicts of interest…Praised Dan Miller for correcting bad legislation (guess that was ‘crap’)…Called Mayor Maggard and Councilperson Conison selfish for doing for themselves over heeding conflicts of interest and building public trust…Tied Bailey’s silence over Wolfe’s corruption to Wolfe’s $500 contribution to Bailey’s campaign…Called Mayor Maggard “endlessly corrupt and awful”…Suggested their donation-orgy acts as a conflict of interest when they won’t act in the name of citizens who oppose them…Pointed out my opponents silence in responding to the League of Women Voters questionnaire…Offered detailed examples of City Hall and Council’s disrespect and lack of action to correct problems and right wrongs…Gave explicit examples of how salaries at City Hall aren’t reflective of Whitehall’s true poverty…Expressed thoughtful, educated opinions…Gave clear and deeply investigative examples of code enforcement abuse with government minimizing those charges and concerns and offering only silence or obfuscation as a response…Gave verbatim transcripts of council meetings and gave detailed arguments against their foolishness, showing their lack of logic and making an argument against code enforcement and their misuse of it…Properly placed blame for actions squarely on the doorstep of those I find responsible and rightly called the turd a ‘turd’…I compared them to pirates…I called Mayor Maggard “Captain Kidd”…Exposed their corruption with code enforcement with detailed incident after detailed incident…Spoke out against bothering poor senior citizen veterans with wallet-depleting code hassling…Spoke out against throwing self-sustaining fathers of six children into jail over grass and weeds…Championed poor veterans and their sacrifice over a slavish devotion to elected officials…Gave a thoroughly examined argument as to why Mayor Maggard is untrustworthy and gave several examples on how she is not a good mayor, and…I spoke truth to power.

Well, there’s all the “crap” in its entirety. As you can clearly see by this list, I’m quite an asshole. Mr. Miller is an astute man to be sure.