The main reason we would not have to check is if some poster already did (like Trackergd and the estate file). You implied you did file a RTK request. So what was the precise response to your request, verbatim? [modsnip].Since any individual can request this information and it is a matter of public record, people may check for themselves. There is a link to the location where to order the forms. It is very clear that there are such forms. The years that are available are listed.
The only reason not to check is if a poster really doesn't want to know.
The main reason we would not have to check is if some poster already did (like Trackergd and the estate file). You implied you did file a RTK request. So what was the precise response to your request, verbatim? I do not think this is too much to ask of someone who asserts facts not otherwise in evidence.
The main reason we would not have to check is if some poster already did (like Trackergd and the estate file). You implied you did file a RTK request. So what was the precise response to your request, verbatim? [modsnip].
I do not think I need to. Trackergd was kind enough to post what she found out, [modsnip].
I concur. I do not know about PA law - but in CA, a public official and ANY public employee in a position of discretionary review MUST file a Statement of Financial Interest. Even if you have nothing to report - you must file the statement.
Salem
ETA: The statement must be filed yearly.
In PA you are supposed to file one and is governed by the Pa Ethics Commission but is not enforced.
J.J. is working with Beach to get the Financial Disclosure forms up.
Thank you, J.J., and thank you. Beach, for helping him with the PDFs and redactions. They are the most important case documents I have seen, so I want them out there, for all to see and understand.
Thanks for the pre-analysis. If you do not mind though, I think some of us would just like to see the raw data.I'm not sure how to post them, but we'll try to get everything up by the weekend. I have stuff until Saturday afternoon, but we'll get them.:loveyou:
Some of the things are a bit misleading, i.e. property interest includes only property rented or sold to a governmental unit. That is why I posted the form, well the newer version.
I was inspired by Trackergd and I think between the two documents, we have the first hint of documentation on RFG's finances.
RFG would have had to have put most of his assets in his daughter's name to have less interest than $1300/year for two years in a row. That would strongly point to suicide or walkaway.
I was looking for capital gains, and hoping to look earlier.
Thanks for the pre-analysis. If you do not mind though, I think some of us would just like to see the raw data.
Regarding the financial discussion can it be carried any further than it has already been for the last several years by anyone other than LE?
I don't believe it can be so what's the point of speculating on it?
From my understanding this point of view has been posted, blogged about, and argued for at least 4 years yet there have not been any advancements to the theory in that time. At some point doesn't become redundant or a dead end?
You can want something to be true all you want but that doesn't make it so.
I myself begin to wonder why anyone would promote such a theory with no further information available to advance it.
Thanks again for your pre-analysis. Still waiting on the original response.Please do. It is the absence of data, a box which said his sole source of income (above $1300) was his DA job, and nothing else.
He could have put most of his money in his daughter's name, solely. That would explain it, but it wouldn't make too much sense for a 59 year old, in good health, anticipating retirement to do that.
A trust probably would not account for it, unless it was solely in her name.
He could have spent it, but on what? I'd say gambling or cocaine, but there is no suggestion RFG was involved in either. I have heard that RFG didn't try pot in college, in the 60's!
The questions started in 2006 with "Missed Leads," an we have not had any answers, the questions just keep coming. Now we are starting to get some data and the questions just keep growing larger.
We know, roughly, his salary.
We know, roughly, how much his assets were.
We know his estate size.
We know that, whatever he was doing with his money, it wasn't producing a lot of income.
We also know that there was no liquidation of his assets in 2004 (capital gains would show up on the form).
We just found out about the last three in the past month.
That advances your theory how again? Not trying to be difficult I just don't see how Ray's estate amount proves your walk away theory.
Karen Arnold, who worked side by side with Ray Gricar for almost 20 years does not believe Ray Gricar walked away from his life so why should I believe those who have never even met Mr. Gricar when they say he did?
Although everyone is entitled to believe whatever they'd like I submit that there is no basis or factual evidence that he walked away. Pure speculation [modsnip].