SFist: Oh No, Ed Jew!: Deadline

Adrian

Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:08:06 -0800

@Pen You continuously exclude the argument that Jon is making. What he is trying to say, is that if Ed Jew really was "innocent", he would have provided proof of his residency like he said he would do. Keep in mind, Ed Jew shot himself in the butt for saying he "would" but end up giving nothing. Ok, fine, maybe it's not nothing, but regardless - now that he is pulling it back saying he doesn't want to provide it because it might hurt him, is a little fishy. Does he not realize that all he has to do is provide something that shows that he lives in Sunset? How hard is that? The reason he is being "prosecuted" is because people are questioning whether or not he lives in Sunset. Maybe if he shows people that he "really" does (assuming that he REALLY does), this whole Ed Jew episode would be over. As for your argument about his "constitutional rights" being stripped. I love how you assume that people are actually going to care about whether or not this guy "loses his constitutional rights." 1- no one outside of the bay area actually cares about this. In fact, most people don't even know what's going on. 2- majority of the people, that are paying attention to this, concede to the fact that Ed Jew is a loser and is definitely guilty. it's common sense, think about it. and i didn't need the media to show me that this guy is a prick. 3- you can't break a rule and try to get away with it, claiming that your constitutional right is being stripped away. 4- his "constitutional right" is not being "easily" removed. he is going through the entire legal process, hence why he is being redirected to Jerry Brown to make the decision on whether or not the city can sue Ed Jew. I like this quote "Wake up and smell the roses"... Ed Jew is a guilty prick who clearly lies to the public. An example of this, like i stated before on an earlier post. Look at his website. He claims that he's raising his daughter in Sunset and that he supports the "Sunset Public Schooling System". Yet, his daughter lives in Burlingame with his wife, and attends a private school in Burlingame. Hmm... i think someone lied...

Pen

Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:38:31 -0800

@Jon. So easily removing the rights of one man harms us all. Personally, I have no doubt Ed Jew does not live in District 4. But if we strip away his constitutional rights so easily, how secure are our own rights? This whole "trial by media" circus frightens me as a citizen. Beware the mob mentality.

Kimo Crossman

Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:12:29 -0800

5/11/05 to 7/5/05 (748 gallons x 165 units) = 123,420 gallons 7/5/05 to 9/06/05 (748 gallons x 154 units) = 114,192 gallons

Kimo Crossman

Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:03:17 -0800

ok so I'm wondering two months the house on 28th avenue had very large water usage. Maybe they were growing something there?

Jon

Sat, 16 Jun 2007 23:48:09 -0800

@Pen, the point is that if Ed doesnt have anything to hide and is truly innocent then what ever evidence he provides wont be incriminating. His failure to produce the evidence can only mean that he is dirty.

Pen

Sat, 16 Jun 2007 23:09:16 -0800

@Calvin Louie. So you're all for ignoring the 5th Amendment? Do we give up our constitutional rights so easily?

Jon

Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:59:48 -0800

@ pen, If ed jew is innocent then he shouldnt be worried about providing incriminating evidence because such evidence would not exist. Wake up and smell the roses the guy is a crook. Calvin Louie = "the poor mans version of Al Sharpton"

Persona non Bergman

Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:47:59 -0800

and to add my own, because I cant resist: "I knew Ed Jew, Mr. Louie. And let me tell you something, you are no Ed Jew."

Persona non Bergman

Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:46:33 -0800

That Calvin Louie quote is priceless!! If Ed Jew really is that frugal with the water usage, he would have an instant best friend with my landlord, who is forever griping about high water bills from the City. "You cannot judge a man by the amount of water he uses. I know Ed Jew. He is a very frugal man."

andrew

Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:19:27 -0800

"I wish these people would stop talking so everybody doesn't think we're all morons." Quote of the decade!

james k. sayre

Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:59:51 -0800

Four score and seven flower-shop-showers ago, our foredjews brought forth on this peninsula a new carpetbagging concept, dedicated to Burlingame residents everywhere. Now we are engaged in a great civil discourse, testing whether this carpetbagging concept or any carpetbagging concept, so ill-conceived and so dilapidated, shall long endure...

Pen

Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:33:51 -0800

No law says Jew has to provide proof of residency. Legally, the burden is on the city, not Jew, to prove he doesn't reside in District 4. Jew broke no law by not replying. The 5th Amendment protects him. Like it or not, this is our legal system. Jew may live in Zimbabwe for all I know, but not replying with proof of residency is not an admission of guilt and is not a crime.

Sweet Melissa

Sat, 16 Jun 2007 13:16:00 -0800

These guys have had since May 23 (that's around 24 days, people) to come up with proof that he lives in the Sunset. Anyone who can't fabricate proof of residency in that amount of time has no business in politics. -Sweet Melissa

johnv.sf

Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:50:49 -0800

a reliable source at the Chinatown Flower Shop, told me that T-Ed. would usually take his morning shower and watering the flowers at the same time. The reason is that,"It conserve water and gives him that spring fresh feeling." said the reliable source.

FedEd

Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:14:19 -0800

Lets face it, this scumbag shows an utter lack of respect for the laws....and hes supposed to make them for us?