PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #9

cloudbuster05 · Feb 16, 2012

J. J. in Phila said:
The spending was purposeful (and deductible). He was not known for spending.

Well he did a good job on buying the mini cooper in cash. He also was a spender on his Vermont vacations and PF was with him. He was a good spender when he paid off PF's morgage. He also had a hobby of buying antique toys.

The pension was around $120 K per year, from what I understand. You may have to watch your pennies in Manhattan or Beverly Hills, but not in Bellefonte. The median household income in the county is about $50,400 in 2010.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/42/42027.html

Add to that an absence of debt.

1986, three weeks after taking office, RFG was asking for more money.

1993, Bryant is bringing it up, because RFG still is asking for more money.

At some point, from what I understand, RFG when to the PDAA, the state DA's association, with a resolution calling for all DA's to be full time. They would not support it, so he resigns from that.

1995-96, RFG comes into disagreement with Commissioner Wedler, because she opposes making the post full time.

According to you, this isn't a pattern of 9-10 years? :what:

He was asking that he be full time, as his assistants already was. If he wanted more money he could of been a attorney part time like Bryant. Bryant welcomed being a part timer so he could still be a attorney the other half of the day. Ray thought that doing that would be a conflict .Nobody works full time and is only paid part time wages, minus health insurance.
:what:

J. J. in Phila · Feb 16, 2012

cloudbuster05 said:
He was asking that he be full time, as his assistants already was. If he wanted more money he could of been a attorney part time like Bryant. Bryant welcomed being a part timer so he could still be a attorney the other half of the day. Ray thought that doing that would be a conflict .Nobody works full time and is only paid part time wages, minus health insurance.
:what:

RFG alone thought this. His predecessors didn't. The state DA's association didn't. His opponents didn't.

If he wasn't handling criminal cases, a conflict would be unlikely, and as seen in MTM's case, could be handled. Statute makes provision for that.

J. J. in Phila · Feb 16, 2012

pinktoes said:
JJ: Question: Do you know yet what's going to happen yet with CDT and the interest in Gricar's disappearance? I remember you saying it was Heisse's interest in it that drove things. New guy coming.

I have no idea, but it is intertwined with a very noted case.

cloudbuster05 · Feb 16, 2012

J. J. in Phila said:
He was described as "frugal." The donation was a one time donation when he went full time. He didn't lose anything by it, and gained some good PR.

It would be close to 20 years, though she could not claim it immediately (age).

A. To write checks in case something to him, e.g. disability or death.

B. There would be a savings on inheritance taxes.

Neither reason is uncommon.

The question is, and has been, why isn't more in those accounts?

You would not the person it would be directed to. Interestingly it was a major theme of Bryant's 1993 campaign. http://www.collegian.psu.edu:8080/archive/1993/10/10-29-93tdc/10-29-93dnews-8.asp

No, though if that is the case, there might be evidence.

BTW: Do you like Billy Joel?

cloudbuster05 said:
Oh I get it lol, this question is like the question I have received daily lol. I thought that was a friend of yours. I get it lol.:woohoo:

J. J. in Phila said:
The spending was purposeful (and deductible). He was not known for spending.

The pension was around $120 K per year, from what I understand. You may have to watch your pennies in Manhattan or Beverly Hills, but not in Bellefonte. The median household income in the county is about $50,400 in 2010.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/42/42027.html

Add to that an absence of debt.

1986, three weeks after taking office, RFG was asking for more money.

1993, Bryant is bringing it up, because RFG still is asking for more money.

At some point, from what I understand, RFG when to the PDAA, the state DA's association, with a resolution calling for all DA's to be full time. They would not support it, so he resigns from that.

1995-96, RFG comes into disagreement with Commissioner Wedler, because she opposes making the post full time.

According to you, this isn't a pattern of 9-10 years? :what:

J. J. in Phila said:
RFG alone thought this. His predecessors didn't. The state DA's association didn't. His opponents didn't.

If he wasn't handling criminal cases, a conflict would be unlikely, and as seen in MTM's case, could be handled. Statute makes provision for that.

Point is we are talking about Ray not his predecessors.

J. J. in Phila · Feb 16, 2012

cloudbuster05 said:
Point is we are talking about Ray not his predecessors.

It still shows his longstanding interest in increasing the pay of the position, and interest not shared with others.

pinktoes · Feb 16, 2012

I have no idea, but it is intertwined with a very noted case.

JJ: You mean Sandusky?

cloudbuster05 · Feb 16, 2012

J. J. in Phila said:
It still shows his longstanding interest in increasing the pay of the position, and interest not shared with others.

You missed the whole point. There was no need or interest from any other person because Ray was the only one on the outside looking in.

Bryant was in 1993 a Full time Attorney, Ray was not. Therefore it was feasible for Bryant not to want full time status.

Ray's assistants worked in full time positions, yet Ray himself was part time without health insurance. The question is it's clear Ray put in full time hours but yet took home only half a salary. Would you in all honesty not be pushing to raise to the level of your assistants at least, or would you continue to work for free?

You say Ray bought himself some good PR by donating part of that salary but yet the way I see it was he was so grateful to have a full time position that he decided to share some of it to his favorite charity. If he got some PR out of it then it was a good thing all the way around.

cloudbuster05 · Feb 16, 2012

JJ what's your opinion on the governor's position regarding Ray and the JS fiasco?

J. J. in Phila · Feb 16, 2012

pinktoes said:
I have no idea, but it is intertwined with a very noted case.

JJ: You mean Sandusky?

Apparently the grand jury was asking about the 1998 decision.

JKA was quite correct when she said it was the DA's decision.

J. J. in Phila · Feb 16, 2012

cloudbuster05 said:
You missed the whole point. There was no need or interest from any other person because Ray was the only one on the outside looking in.

No he wasn't. Go back and read the posts.

cloudbuster05 · Feb 17, 2012

J. J. in Phila said:
No he wasn't. Go back and read the posts.

I read the article you provided and the assistants wore already full time.

Bryant was already a full time attorney, seeking only to become a part timer, so he could still maintain his attorney practice.

Ray was the only part timer working full time hours. Its only natural for him to want the same status of full time. Nobody likes working a half a day for free minus health insurance. That makes no sense in that the assistants already was full time.

J. J. in Phila · Feb 17, 2012

cloudbuster05 said:
I read the article you provided and the assistants wore already full time.

Bryant was already a full time attorney, seeking only to become a part timer, so he could still maintain his attorney practice.

Ray was the only part timer working full time hours. Its only natural for him to want the same status of full time. Nobody likes working a half a day for free minus health insurance. That makes no sense in that the assistants already was full time.

You still didn't read the posts.

RFG never had to work full time in the position; he chose to. If you had read the articles, you';d see he was still making more than the part timers. You'd also a long term interest in money.

I don't think health insurance was as issue, as from 1986 to 1990, his wife probably had it and he'd be covered under her policy. He may have had it as DA as well.

cloudbuster05 · Feb 17, 2012

J. J. in Phila said:
You still didn't read the posts.

RFG never had to work full time in the position; he chose to. If you had read the articles, you';d see he was still making more than the part timers. You'd also a long term interest in money.

I don't think health insurance was as issue, as from 1986 to 1990, his wife probably had it and he'd be covered under her policy. He may have had it as DA as well.

I read the post.

I don't see a long term interest in money. Making more money than the part timers has nothing to do with what you are saying about his long term interest in money.

Im only pointing out that it's normal to want to be full time when your four other assistants already are. That is not about money but more along the lines of what's fair and normal.

I will have to agree with he probably did have health insurance through his first wife.

J. J. in Phila · Feb 17, 2012

cloudbuster05 said:
I read the post.

I don't see a long term interest in money. Making more money than the part timers has nothing to do with what you are saying about his long term interest in money.

We have it starting in 1986 and continuing for 10 years.

Im only pointing out that it's normal to want to be full time when your four other assistants already are. That is not about money but more along the lines of what's fair and normal.

RFG was still making more, at part time, than his full time ADA's.

You have also heard friends describe him as "frugal."

Are you a Billy Joel fan?

pinktoes · Feb 17, 2012

So...if someone wants to make more money he is a suspect for taking a bribe to walk away from his life? IDK

What about a man wanting his salary to be more on par with wife's? It's a guy-ego thing.

What about a person wanting to earn enough money to not have to reduce his/her lifestyle should his marriage end? Can happen, without warning to anyone. Just a good precaution.

But continue on.

J. J. in Phila · Feb 17, 2012

pinktoes said:
So...if someone wants to make more money he is a suspect for taking a bribe to walk away from his life? IDK

No. In fact, you just mentioned the word "bribe." Note what I've said on this thread, about two points. Neither one of them deals with the 1998 incident or a "bribe."

(And, just for the record, about 18-24 months prior to the 1998 incident, his salary had doubled because the position became full time; there was not a particular financial motive to take a "bribe.")

I've said that the story RFG gave at least some of his friends a reason for the breakup of his marriage to #2. I've said it had nothing to do with infidelity, on either party's part.

I've said and shown RFG had a long term issue with money. Likewise, he is described as "frugal," and some of his friends note the full time position as being the major accomplishment of his career as DA.

What about a man wanting his salary to be more on par with wife's? It's a guy-ego thing.

The original plan was for him to be a stay at home dad. No income, and for 4-5 years, he didn't have that problem as an ADA.

What about a person wanting to earn enough money to not have to reduce his/her lifestyle should his marriage end? Can happen, without warning to anyone. Just a good precaution.

Reread my last comment.

pinktoes · Feb 17, 2012

The original plan was for him to be a stay at home dad. No income, and for 4-5 years, he didn't have that problem as an ADA.

In a marriage, feelings change. We really don't know what went on behind closed doors or within the minds of any of these people.

I must not have really understood your point, JJ. Why did Ray want more money at the time he pushed for it?

J. J. in Phila · Feb 17, 2012

pinktoes said:
The original plan was for him to be a stay at home dad. No income, and for 4-5 years, he didn't have that problem as an ADA.

In a marriage, feelings change. We really don't know what went on behind closed doors or within the minds of any of these people.

As I've said, RFG did talk to people about the breakup with wife #2. As I've said, what I've heard is that infidelity was not an issue, for either party. You claimed that it was earlier in this thread, yet his actions (the "fed up" Cleveland trip, does not point to that).

I must not have really understood your point, JJ. Why did Ray want more money at the time he pushed for it?

He assigned a fairly high value to money; it was important to him. There is nothing illegal in that.

That, in theory, could provide a motivation for other, completely legal, actions.

Too bad you are not a Billy Joel fan.

cloudbuster05 · Feb 18, 2012

J. J. in Phila said:
We have it starting in 1986 and continuing for 10 years.

RFG was still making more, at part time, than his full time ADA's.

You have also heard friends describe him as "frugal."

Are you a Billy Joel fan?

Why would you want to know if I am a Billy Joel fan? Are you asking me out to a concert?:razz:

On the question I get the message, but I think you knew I would

cloudbuster05 · Feb 18, 2012

pinktoes said:
So...if someone wants to make more money he is a suspect for taking a bribe to walk away from his life? IDK

What about a man wanting his salary to be more on par with wife's? It's a guy-ego thing.

What about a person wanting to earn enough money to not have to reduce his/her lifestyle should his marriage end? Can happen, without warning to anyone. Just a good precaution.

But continue on.

I agree no one should be a suspect by bettering theirself.

J. J. in Phila said:
No. In fact, you just mentioned the word "bribe." Note what I've said on this thread, about two points. Neither one of them deals with the 1998 incident or a "bribe."

(And, just for the record, about 18-24 months prior to the 1998 incident, his salary had doubled because the position became full time; there was not a particular financial motive to take a "bribe.")
So what are you getting at?
I've said that the story RFG gave at least some of his friends a reason for the breakup of his marriage to #2. I've said it had nothing to do with infidelity, on either party's part.

I've said and shown RFG had a long term issue with money. Likewise, he is described as "frugal," and some of his friends note the full time position as being the major accomplishment of his career as DA.
Where is the long term issue?

The original plan was for him to be a stay at home dad. No income, and for 4-5 years, he didn't have that problem as an ADA.

Reread my last comment.

If he had a long term issue with money he wouldn't have elected to be a stay at home dad. Also add in that's no money for 4 to 5 years as you said.

pinktoes said:
The original plan was for him to be a stay at home dad. No income, and for 4-5 years, he didn't have that problem as an ADA.

In a marriage, feelings change. We really don't know what went on behind closed doors or within the minds of any of these people.

I must not have really understood your point, JJ. Why did Ray want more money at the time he pushed for it?

I don't get it either.

J. J. in Phila said:
As I've said, RFG did talk to people about the breakup with wife #2. As I've said, what I've heard is that infidelity was not an issue, for either party. You claimed that it was earlier in this thread, yet his actions (the "fed up" Cleveland trip, does not point to that).

He assigned a fairly high value to money; it was important to him. There is nothing illegal in that.
That, in theory, could provide a motivation for other, completely legal, actions.

Too bad you are not a Billy Joel fan.

What?

PA PA - Ray Gricar, 59, Bellefonte, 15 April 2005 - #9

New Member

Verified Insider

Verified Insider

New Member

Verified Insider

New Member

New Member

New Member

Verified Insider

Verified Insider

New Member

Verified Insider

New Member

Verified Insider

New Member

Verified Insider

New Member

Verified Insider

New Member

New Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics