Website Home   or   Forum Home

Register or log in (lost password?):

Username:
Password:

Remember me

Riverside Info » About Riverside

1. Alexander Gallegos
   Member

   This is Alexander Gallegos. This site has recently been brought to my attention, as well as an allegation that the Riverside Party conspired to have me run as an independent in this race. This allegation is false.

   Moreover, the facts have spread about my being approached by Alliance Presidential Candidate, Mike Gorman. Bob Uphues, from the Landmark, also asked me about this. This was my statement.

   “Yes, I confirm that Mr. Gorman approached me last January to drop out of the race. He cited my candidacy could hurt the chances of an Alliance victory. He also asked me to join the Alliance which would make me eligible for him, as Village President, to hand pick me as a replacement in the rumored event that Trustee Scully would step down as trustee upon an Alliance victory. I declined his proposition.”

   I want to make clear that only Mr. Gorman and I were in this meeting. No other Alliance member or candidate was there. I further want to say that this should not reflect upon the entire Alliance party. I have high respect for both Dave Reynolds and Lonnie Sacchi and have found both of them to be complete gentlemen. I admire their passion for Riverside, love of nature, and deep concern for Olmsteds’ legacy.

   This will be my only participation on this website. I would have preferred that this not have to come out before the election, but when I hear some accuse others of libel and slander, the truth must be said.

   Posted Sunday Apr 5, 2009 20:26 #

2. idic5
   Member

   allegation that the Riverside Party conspired to have me run as an independent in this race

   There was never any such allegation on this board, at least.

   Assuming that this is Alexandor Gallegos, was this the statement that was given to the Landmark? Bob Uphues would corroborate this? When was this statement given, and why was it given (context)? To give this whole exchange any validity, Mike Gorman's statement would need to be seen in a venue that is well above an insecure internet blog website. I am not an attorney, but it feels like a grand jury would be the correct venue to vet this for the charges being made.

   Posted Sunday Apr 5, 2009 20:31 #

3. AlexanderGallegos
   Member

   I agree with idic5

   Posted Sunday Apr 5, 2009 20:54 #

4. JamesMarsh
   Member

   IDIC5 said on another thread:

   Was it possibly a tactical decision by the caucus (we are in the thread)? Maybe the fact that those two are important players in two of the main churches in town might have affected this selection? Kennedy did it with Johnson since he needed Texas. There I go again, sitting on a grassy knoll :)

   On Alex, I wonder if they let him go to split the people disaffected with the status quo - after the last two elections, they see that there are more than a few such people - thus increasing the odds of getting a full RP slate? You thought he was an 'independent'? Along these lines, If a trustee steps down, for whatever reason, isn't it the case that the president of the board has the discretion to appt anyone he or she wants? You read it here first.

   Seems like I found an allegation on this board. I guess IDIC5 is wrong.

   Posted Sunday Apr 5, 2009 21:00 #

5. idic5
   Member

   Those were rhetorical questions, and not allegations, the equivalent of bar room musings such as 'was picking Cutler a choice that indicates that the Bears are going to a run-and-gun offense?'

   An allegation would be 'On thus and such date, AB of the caucus offered AG a seat if KS got in.', or 'on thus and such date, AB of the caucus offered to pay for AG's signs or at least make a payment that would be under the disclosure law limits to defray their costs if he runs as an independent'. I asked a question, --and was thinking, by the way, of 'independence' in a strict philosophical sense-- but did not make an allegation, since I did not have facts that I could corroborate.

   Posted Sunday Apr 5, 2009 21:06 #

6. JamesMarsh
   Member

   Alex: Thanks for making a statement. Makes picking out which party should get some of my votes a lot easier.

   Posted Sunday Apr 5, 2009 21:06 #

7. JamesMarsh
   Member

   PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FIRST POST FROM "ALEXANDER GALLEGOS" IS NOT THE SAME PERSON AS THE SECOND POST BY A PERSON USING THE NAME "ALEXANDERGALLEGOS"

   NOTE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE TWO NAMES AND THEIR POSTING HISTORY
   

   Someone is trying to impersonate Mr. Gallegos after he made a very difficult post.

   The lengths some people will go to win an election is beyond even my cynical mind.

   Posted Sunday Apr 5, 2009 21:30 #

8. spatny
   Member

   JM - think You are starting to display pronounced paranoia. Please, don't go postal. And after such a distinguished career too... Wait a minute - you're already dead!

   James Marsh, 1794–1842
   James Marsh was a Congregationalist minister, a professor of philosophy at the University of Vermont, and from 1826 to 1833 served as president of the University of Vermont. His chief contribution to American Transcendentalism is his publication, in 1829, of Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s Aids to Reflection, which contained aphorisms of both Coleridge and Archbishop Robert Leighton. This work introduced Americans to Coleridge and his views of German philosophical thought, in particular to the crucial distinction between Understanding and Reason—perhaps the key epistemological concept of the Romantic age. For Marsh and the New England Transcendentalists, the prevailing Lockean and Scottish metaphysical philosophies were unsatisfactory, since they excluded the possibility of spiritual power and agency and were logically incompatible with an essentially spiritual religion. The principles advocated by Coleridge, on the other hand, directly challenged Locke and provided the reconciliation of religion and philosophy that reason demanded.
   Marsh also edited Coleridge’s The Statesman’s Manual in 1832 and The Friend in 1833. His efforts encouraged the Transcendentalists in their path away from John Locke and toward a more spiritual, more fulfilling, more authentic gospel.

   Posted Sunday Apr 5, 2009 23:17 #

9. JamesMarsh
   Member

   Spatny: I am not displaying paranoia - I am displaying the truth.

   Posted Monday Apr 6, 2009 06:40 #

10. spatny
    Member

    Truth, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder, it seems. I do not want to comment on this Gallegos thing because, a) I think it is a non-story, b) I don't have. like you, any personal knowledge of it nor have I talked to the people named, and c) If it is indeed Alex, the timing of this is obviously highly suspicious. As follows:

    That meeting purportedly happened in January.

    The Landmark interviews were in March. "Alex" says that Uphues asked him about the meeting. How did Uphues know about the meeting in order to ask "Alex" about it? He also asked Gorman about it. Evidntly whatever he heard from both sides was not enough to merit a story.

    So, January meeting, March interviews/discussions with the Landmark about it, yet all of sudden this story comes out just a few days before the election. And who starts it?

    Maybe, since you yourself know nothing about this first-hand, you should be suspicious about that timing... and that source.

    Posted Monday Apr 6, 2009 07:41 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.