[pootsy]

Originally Posted by Clueless

Most people (with abundant proof on this thread) evaluate people in law enforcement or judicial roles in direct relationship to the result they experienced. In this example, if I rec'd a deferral or reduced charge, they're OK-to-great. If I did not, or IMO paid too heavily a price, then the person is not OK-to-terrible.

Even worse, is when we label others based on third-party knowledge, never directly knowing or having dealt with the person, such as Sauer. Many of us do that.

We tend to treat businesses with the same measuring stick. When we receive bad product or service, many of us tend to boycott and tell everyone else. Instead, we should take our issue directly to the owner or very senior management. Most of us don't do that.

I firmly agree that we need a change in the CA office. Not because I've been wronged in any way, or because I think someone was rude or didn't attend to my needs, or I heard it somewhere. I agree because of direct experience with the CA and a personal judgement that he's too often arrogant, demeaning, disrespectful to others, and I'm not convinced that he has the legal foundation to be a caring, concerned and still effective County Attorney.

Totally, I mean it sounds like he did Julie Funk a favor, So get over it already. GEEZ