PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #11

[beach]

Admin note:

Knock off the snarky, inciting cheap shots NOW.

Post respectfully or don't post at all.

Final warning.

 

[Saunterer]

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? [modsnip].

 

[SeekingJana]

J.J., there is a way to post PDA forms on here. There are some in one of the members only forums.

Could you just post what you sent in email on the forum? I didn't see SS#s or anything but a home address ( Patty's house) and a probably now-changed phone number that would need to be redacted for privacy's sake.

If they don't believe, then show them what you have.

He does have the completed forms, everyone.

And the point is that Ray Gricar claimed no interest income nor did he list any income from another source on his Financial Disclosure form for 2004. ( I didn't see the forms Mr. Gricar filled out for years prior to 2004. I have seen Lara's 2005 form for Ray F. Gricar and again, every box is checked NONE).

That's the point no one wants to look at, it seems in my opinion.

 

[beach]

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.

Saunterer, have you made a request yourself? I think that would clear things up for you. You would have the information yourself direct from the source then.

 

[beach]

If you guys have something that needs personal identifying info redacted, please PM me. I can help with that.

Absolutely no pressure to post anything you don't want to post, but if redaction is an issue I'm happy to help. Just be patient because it will probably be tomorrow before I can get it back to you.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

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 filled out the form and I am not in the habit of discussing private messages. I have indicated the range.

I inquired how to do it, found the link, and sent of the form with a cover letter, largely because my hand writing is hideous.

The county was not, in any way, either tardy or discourteous. It took several weeks. I corresponded only with the official in charge of the RTK request, the county administrator. I insisted on doing this by the book, and I was delayed for about a week.

I most say that Trackergd was an inspiration. I only regret that he was not here and that I waited so bloody long.

I can only suggest that others interested do the same thing.

 

[SeekingJana]

I do not think I need to. Trackergd was kind enough to post what she found out, [modsnip].

I agree that all case posters should have access to at least the 2 forms I have. I have asked for Beach's help in getting the forms up with personal addresses and a phone number which could be a home number redacted.

OK?

If the release of info regarding the Financial Disclosure statements had been my post to make, I promise that I would already have asked and found out how to back up my post with the forms.
I understand your frustration, but neither J.J. nor I are lying to you. :tyou:

PS- IMO, we each have a responsibility to share what we discover that is hard copy, like Trackergd's forms and J.J.s financials.
The lack of cooperation is making me very upset and I don't know what to do other than fall on the sword and offer up the 2 forms I have, for all of 2004 and part of 2005. It's what's right to do.

 

[SuperSmith]

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. in Phila]

In PA you are supposed to file one and is governed by the Pa Ethics Commission but is not enforced.

I have known of cases where it was enforced, against the guy sitting next to me.

Generally, if there is no fraud, they won't prosecute, if the guy files the form, even belatedly. As some of us are aware, attorneys that violate the law can be treated harshly.

 

[SeekingJana]

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.

edited to add: Thank you to Trackergd, also, for your efforts and documents.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

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.

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.

 

[Saunterer]

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.

 

[SuperSmith]

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.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Thanks for the pre-analysis. If you do not mind though, I think some of us would just like to see the raw data.

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!

 

[J. J. in Phila]

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.

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.

 

[Saunterer]

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!

Thanks again for your pre-analysis. Still waiting on the original response.

 

[SuperSmith]

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.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

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.

First, it isn't my walkaway theory. Walkaway is a theory, but might not be the right explanation for RFG's disappearance.

Estate planning could explain things like the Mini. If he were doing some estate planning, that could be an indication he was planning to walk away or to commit suicide. That would weaken foul play, i.e. RFG didn't expect to be murdered. Likewise, if he left a lot of money, and it showed up in the estate, it would indicate that he was planning to be there.

The estate planning argument is not that good, for a number of reasons. If it did, it might point to suicide or walkaway.

Money earning interest for retirement would be expected for someone that was planning to retire. So, if RFG was going into 2005, earning a lot of interest from money put away (and some of it might be excluded from an ethics form), we could expect him to be retiring. That does not seem to have happened.

 

[SuperSmith]

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].

 

[J. J. in Phila]

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].

Well, there is some evidence, just not strong evidence. Even the low interest in 2004 is not strong evidence.

As for friends, his closest, Steve Sloane, thinks he walked away; so does the person who followed him into office, Michael Madeira. MTM was friendly with RFG. I would submit that these are closer to RFG than JKA. I would also submit that this is not strong evidence that RFG walked away, though MTM handled the case for four years.