This guy is just one wierd fella

[truthmatters]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/21009363/for/cnbc

Hes sueing his son and threatening him too.


| 27 Sep 2007 | 08:27 AM ET Font size: WASHINGTON (AP) - The son and daughter-in-law of a State Department official are seeking a restraining order to stop what they claim are unprofessional and offensive e-mails in a dispute over a personal loan, The Washington Post reported Thursday.

The State Department's inspector general, Howard J. Krongard, is already under scrutiny from a House committee over whether he hindered inquiries into contractor fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan and mistreated subordinates.

Last year, Krongard sued his son, Kenneth W. Krongard, and his daughter-in-law, Kristin, over a home loan that he said they had defaulted on, the Post reported. Although they repaid the loan, which was $320,000, after the suit was filed, Krongard has demanded hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional interest and penalties as well as legal fees, the newspaper reported.

In Krongard's e-mails included in a recent court filing, the Post reported, he berated his son and at one point said in urging a settlement, "If you are willing to put your wife and children's future in jeopardy, that's your business." Krongard told the Post: "This is a highly personal matter which has nothing whatsoever to do with my professional life. I think it is intrusive and inappropriate for you to publicize it, especially while I am in Iraq trying my best to do my job as a public servant." Kenneth and Kristin Krongard declined to comment, the paper said.

[Mr. P]

So what's wrong with collecting a debt?

[truthmatters]

Is his kids and they did pay it back

http://tinyurl.com/2erzu6

WASHINGTON — A congressional committee has opened an investigation of the State Department's inspector general, alleging he blocked fraud investigations in Afghanistan and Iraq, including potential security lapses at the newly built U.S. embassy in Baghdad.

Also under scrutiny is whether Blackwater USA, the private security firm banned this week from working in Iraq for the alleged killing of eight civilians, was "illegally smuggling weapons into Iraq," according to a letter to IG Howard J. Krongard obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press.

According to Waxman's 14-page letter, staff investigators said Krongard stalled an investigation into allegations that contractors building the Baghdad embassy did not adequately search for mines and other security hazards on the 104-acre compound, which included a number of tunnels.

The embassy, which will be the largest in the world, is expected to be finished this month, at a cost of nearly $600 million.

A central theme running through the letter is that Krongard prevented his investigators from cooperating with Justice Department probes and refused to send his staff to Iraq and Afghanistan to look into allegations of fraud and wasteful spending involving the more than $3.6 billion the State Department has spent on contracts in the two countries.

Waxman also said he's been told Krongard censored inspection reports and audits to remove information critical of the State Department.

The letter cited e-mails between staffers talking about their frustrations at not being allowed to assist the Justice Department in investigations.

In one exchange, former assistant inspector general for investigations John DeDona told Krongard's deputy, William Todd, that the IG agents believe they should only work on "penny-ante" cases and "not rock the boat with other more significant investigations."

DeDona eventually quit to take another federal job. McNamara was forced out, and also took another federal job.

The letter includes allegations that Krongard:



Was warned about poor workmanship at the U.S. embassy site, where serious electrical problems eventually occurred, but blocked investigations into it


Prevented investigators from seizing evidence they thought would implicate a large State Department contractor in procurement fraud, involving thousands of computers in Afghanistan


Interfered in an investigation into Voice of America head Kenneth Tomlinson, by providing him information about the inquiry


Fueled a "dysfunctional office environment" that caused key investigators to leave

[Mr. P]

Is his kids and they did pay it back

And apparently they owe more...interest, penalties, legal fees to collect said debt. No problem.

[truthmatters]

And apparently they owe more...interest, penalties, legal fees to collect said debt. No problem.


Its his son and hes sueing him after he already paid back the loan and calling and threatening him.

Now that is family values.

[Mr. P]

Its his son and hes sueing him after he already paid back the loan and calling and threatening him.

Now that is family values.

It's not paid as agreed or there wouldn't be a suit. A loan contract is a loan contract, regardless of the debtor.

[jimnyc]

Its his son and hes sueing him after he already paid back the loan and calling and threatening him.

Now that is family values.

So much for not condemning your neighbors, huh? I guess it's ok so long as it's a republican. And yet still not a word of condemnation about the terrorists. Your agendas are so apparent it's not even funny.

[Sir Evil]

So much for not condemning your neighbors, huh? I guess it's ok so long as it's a republican. And yet still not a word of condemnation about the terrorists. Your agendas are so apparent it's not even funny.

Hey, the truth matters! :D

[truthmatters]

So much for not condemning your neighbors, huh? I guess it's ok so long as it's a republican. And yet still not a word of condemnation about the terrorists. Your agendas are so apparent it's not even funny.

Hes more than a neighbor hes my employee.

[jimnyc]

Hes more than a neighbor hes my employee.

Sorry, not even close. Paying taxes does not make you an employer of government officials. Not to mention, these things have nothing to do with his capacity as inspector general.

Like I said, your agendas are quite apparent, and I might add a bit sad.

[truthmatters]

So you truely think an American is not allowed to discuss the ethics of a govenment employee?

This guy has been twarting any investigations into these contractors and you dot find it interesting that his own son has to take out a restraining order against him for calling and threating him about a loan his kid already paid back?

I dont Think you would do this to your son would you?

See you somehow are confusing me talking about an American government official with what I said about my nieghbor and my own kid.

In the example I gave you this guy IS my kid and NOT the nieghbor.

[jimnyc]

So you truely think an American is not allowed to discuss the ethics of a govenment employee?

This guy has been twarting any investigations into these contractors and you dot find it interesting that his own son has to take out a restraining order against him for calling and threating him about a loan his kid already paid back?

I dont Think you would do this to your son would you?

See you somehow are confusing me talking about an American government official with what I said about my nieghbor and my own kid.

In the example I gave you this guy IS my kid and NOT the nieghbor.

I wouldn't do it to my son, but that doesn't mean he's not entitled to, or that he's wrong. They were apparently in default if it made it to a lawsuit. Since it came to that, he obviously is out lawyer fees as a result and is likely entitled to interest and penalties as well.

And I have no problem with someone pointing out unethical behavior of government employees, I only have a problem when the complaining they do is solely towards one party/administration. What about all the Dems that have ethical issues, how come you never start threads about them?

Like I said, your agenda is apparent and silly at this point.

[typomaniac]

I wouldn't do it to my son, but that doesn't mean he's not entitled to, or that he's wrong. They were apparently in default if it made it to a lawsuit. Since it came to that, he obviously is out lawyer fees as a result and is likely entitled to interest and penalties as well.
Do you think it's ethical to charge your children interest on a loan? If you don't trust them to repay, you shouldn't lend them money in the first place.

[jimnyc]

Do you think it's ethical to charge your children interest on a loan? If you don't trust them to repay, you shouldn't lend them money in the first place.

What I believe I would do in the same situation has no bearing on the law, or right and wrong in this case. People also shouldn't borrow money if they aren't going to pay it back in a timely fashion.

[Hagbard Celine]

What I believe I would do in the same situation has no bearing on the law, or right and wrong in this case. People also shouldn't borrow money if they aren't going to pay it back in a timely fashion.

It's like the old saying: Don't loan money to family if you ever want to get paid back--or something like that.

[hjmick]

Its his son and hes sueing him after he already paid back the loan and calling and threatening him.

Now that is family values.

There it is, it only took five posts for the purpose of this thread to come to the surface: Another opportunity to slap around a Republican and an administration appointee.

This topic never had anything to do with a frivolous lawsuit, it was all about family infighting and attempting to use a wide brush to paint an entire group of people and it was about pointing out that Krongard is being investigated.

Why not just post what you mean rather than trying to hide your true intent? :rolleyes:


So what's wrong with collecting a debt?

Nothing...unless you're a Republican apparently.


I never loan money to family and I never expect to be repaid when I loan money. If it happens, great. If not, at least I don't get angry and lose friends over it.

[truthmatters]

This man is a corrupt person who would seek to profit off his own son to such an extent that he would destroy his family to do so.

He is under investigation for doing much the same to the office he holds.

How you people can defend such behavior is beyond me.

[Hagbard Celine]

This man is a corrupt person who would seek to profit off his own son to such an extent that he would destroy his family to do so.

He is under investigation for doing much the same to the office he holds.

How you people can defend such behavior is beyond me.

They'll defend anything if they think a "lib" is against it. They're all in full "feud" mode all the time. They see life as a stage and us as guests on the Jerry Springer Show.

[hjmick]

This man is a corrupt person who would seek to profit off his own son to such an extent that he would destroy his family to do so.

He is under investigation for doing much the same to the office he holds.

How you people can defend such behavior is beyond me.

I am defending his right to get back the money he loaned his son and daughter in-law per whatever contract they entered into at the time the loan was made. It's not something I would do, but it is his right. None of us know the state of the family, it may have already been "destroyed" and this may be the only way he felt he would get his money back. It's not the first time a family has sued each other and it won't be the last. The profit he is seeking is only what was agreed upon and to cover legal fees that resulted because of the son's failure to, initially, repay the loan.

As for the investigation, since it is not yet complete no judgement can yet be handed down. If it turns out that he has acted criminally, I sincerely doubt that anyone will defend him or his actions as they relate to the crimes. I, for one, will call for his incarceration as loudly as any Democrat or liberal.

[actsnoblemartin]

your cant verbally threaten, or send harrassing phone or email messages. The guy who is owed money should really just take him to court.


So what's wrong with collecting a debt?

[truthmatters]

He has taken his son to court and the son paid back the loan and the Father was still harrassig his own son so the son got a restraining order against him.

[Mr. P]

your cant verbally threaten, or send harrassing phone or email messages. The guy who is owed money should really just take him to court.

HA! tell that to "BANK" collectors. They have free raine.

The guy that was owed money (The creditor) did take him (The debtor) to court.

[typomaniac]

They'll defend anything if they think a "lib" is against it. They're all in full "feud" mode all the time. They see life as a stage and us as guests on the Jerry Springer Show.

:clap::clap::clap:
How true!

Little do they know that they're the freakish guests on stage.

[hjmick]

He has taken his son to court and the son paid back the loan and the Father was still harrassig his own son so the son got a restraining order against him.

According to the story, the son paid back the loan only after his father filed suit.

[JohnDoe]

HA! tell that to "BANK" collectors. They have free raine.

The guy that was owed money (The creditor) did take him (The debtor) to court.

fyi
bank collectors most certainly DO NOT have free legal reign to harass anyone at any time! There are legal legislated limits in place that criminalizes this....

now, i don't know if this man has broken those limits, like calling after 9pm or reaching them at work.... but just saying there are legal limits to the harassment that many americans are unaware of....

i am more concerned with this man obstructing justice in the blackwater incompetency/corruption dealings with the justice dept.... that's a pretty serious accusation...

jd

[Mr. P]

fyi
bank collectors most certainly DO NOT have free legal reign to harass anyone at any time! There are legal legislated limits in place that criminalizes this....

now, i don't know if this man has broken those limits, like calling after 9pm or reaching them at work.... but just saying there are legal limits to the harassment that many americans are unaware of....

i am more concerned with this man obstructing justice in the blackwater incompetency/corruption dealings with the justice dept.... that's a pretty serious accusation...

jd
FYI they (banks) do..they are exempt from the limits placed on other collectors. They can legally dog the shit outta ya..just like the old days..Believe me when I say this, I have a close connection to the legal practice of the bankruptcy world, I know.

Now this guy isn't a bill collector so I'm sure he doesn't fall into that part of the law.

[Hagbard Celine]

:clap::clap::clap:
How true!

Little do they know that they're the freakish guests on stage.

I like to think of myself as the smart-ass audience member who f*cks with the guests just to get a rise outta them.

[JohnDoe]

FYI they (banks) do..they are exempt from the limits placed on other collectors. They can legally dog the shit outta ya..just like the old days..Believe me when I say this, I have a close connection to the legal practice of the bankruptcy world, I know.

Now this guy isn't a bill collector so I'm sure he doesn't fall into that part of the law.

Ahhhh, did not know that Mr. P....but there has to be some limits? Like not being able to call after 9pm or something like this restriction....no?

jd

[Abbey Marie]

According to the story, the son paid back the loan only after his father filed suit.

Well, isn't this an interesting tidbit. To read this thread, you would never know it. Funny that the people wrenching their hands over the father collecting the loan money from the son, still have not acknowledged it.

[Hagbard Celine]

Well, isn't this an interesting tidbit. To read this thread, you would never know it. Funny that the people wrenching their hands over the father collecting the loan money from the son, still have not acknowledged it.

I saw that, I just think it's sad he sued his son and daughter-in-law.

[Abbey Marie]

I saw that, I just think it's sad he sued his son and daughter-in-law.

It is sad. Ideally, families support each other through thick and thin.

[darin]

Why aren't ppl seeing the villian here - a Son who seemingly defaulted on a home-loan from or because of his Dad?

[hjmick]

I saw that, I just think it's sad he sued his son and daughter-in-law.

Absolutely. Unfortunately it sometimes happens, especially where money is involved. The harsh truth is that, whether or not there are familial ties shouldn't effect a business transaction, which is what this was. Following that logic, if the stipulations of the arrangement are not met, frequently the only course left is litigation. As far as the phone calls and e-mails are concerned, well, that is indeed creepy.


Well, isn't this an interesting tidbit. To read this thread, you would never know it. Funny that the people wrenching their hands over the father collecting the loan money from the son, still have not acknowledged it.

Abbey, you must take into consideration the true purpose of this thread. The initial post was intended to generate some commentary, get some discussion going, probably generate some support for the father's actions, this was quickly followed by the article discussing how a congressional committee has opened an investigation of Krongard, "alleging he blocked fraud investigations in Afghanistan and Iraq, including potential security lapses at the newly built U.S. embassy in Baghdad."

The the big reveal:

Oh my! He's a Republican appointee! What family values?! He would destroy his family for money?! You call that "family values?" How can you idiots defend this man? He's a criminal! You call yourselves Americans? Blah blah blah blah.

None of the substance really mattered, it was all just a circuitous effort to attack conservatives, again.

In my opinion.

[hjmick]

Why aren't ppl seeing the villian here - a Son who seemingly defaulted on a home-loan from or because of his Dad?

Damn it dmp, that's not the purpose of this thread! Are you trying to hijack it with reason and analytical thought?

Seriously, that was my take on the story from the word go, but as I stated in my above post, this thread isn't really about a father suing his kid or a kid trying to stiff his father for $320,000. It's about how corrupt Republicans are.

[Abbey Marie]

Absolutely. Unfortunately it sometimes happens, especially where money is involved. The harsh truth is that, whether or not there are familial ties shouldn't effect a business transaction, which is what this was. Following that logic, if the stipulations of the arrangement are not met, frequently the only course left is litigation. As far as the phone calls and e-mails are concerned, well, that is indeed creepy.



Abbey, you must take into consideration the true purpose of this thread. The initial post was intended to generate some commentary, get some discussion going, probably generate some support for the father's actions, this was quickly followed by the article discussing how a congressional committee has opened an investigation of Krongard, "alleging he blocked fraud investigations in Afghanistan and Iraq, including potential security lapses at the newly built U.S. embassy in Baghdad."

The the big reveal:

Oh my! He's a Republican appointee! What family values?! He would destroy his family for money?! You call that "family values?" How can you idiots defend this man? He's a criminal! You call yourselves Americans? Blah blah blah blah.

None of the substance really mattered, it was all just a circuitous effort to attack conservatives, again.

In my opinion.

:clap:

[JohnDoe]

As the resident Christian Liberal on this board :D, there are a couple of Biblical teachings that come to mind when reading this thread about this man....

first this relates the closet:


An Eye for an Eye
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

and then there is also this Chapter in Matthew that speaks about how a father normally treats his children, which appears NOT to be happening with this particular man.

Please NOTE though, that his son was also showing disrespect for his own father by not paying back the loan in a timely manner... but we must also take note that we do not KNOW ALL of the circumstances surrounding this law suit on either the father's side or the son's side, and it is probably none of our beeswax, when you get right down to it!


Matthew 7
Judging Others

1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

6"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.

Ask, Seek, Knock

7"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.

9"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

The Narrow and Wide Gates

13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the
road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

A Tree and Its Fruit

15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

The Wise and Foolish Builders

24"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."

28When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.



And there is another passage that I can not find that speaks about not taking someone to court, settle your differences out of court, before going before the Law...that relates to this issue also....

And I know probably none of you want to hear this, but the Gospels of Jesus Christ, could teach us all a good thing or two, whether athiest, agnostic, jew, budhist, or whatever you are or are NOT! :D

jd

[darin]

JD - it's okay. You can't help yourself but rise to the persecution of EVERY Republican. lol!

[typomaniac]

The the big reveal:

Oh my! He's a Republican appointee! What family values?! He would destroy his family for money?! You call that "family values?" How can you idiots defend this man? He's a criminal! You call yourselves Americans? Blah blah blah blah.

None of the substance really mattered, it was all just a circuitous effort to attack conservatives, again.

In my opinion.

The self-styled conservatives have brought it on themselves by doing exactly the same thing to everyone else (or the "liberals," as they end up getting called) for the past 30 years or so.

In my opinion.

[hjmick]

The self-styled conservatives have brought it on themselves by doing exactly the same thing to everyone else (or the "liberals," as they end up getting called) for the past 30 years or so.

In my opinion.

I can't disagree.

The truth is, I am and have been sick of it for years, from both sides. For either party to pretend they are better than the other is the height of arrogance.

[JohnDoe]

JD - it's okay. You can't help yourself but rise to the persecution of EVERY Republican. lol!

BALONEY!!!!!

I was not persecuting anyone, i don't even know enough about this scenario to do such....the dad and the kid both seem like jerks to me, but i shouldn't be judging this either way!!!

i do find it a little hypocritical for repubs to bash liberals for pointing out that ''they ain't so perfect when it comes to their own PLATFORM of family values'', when i have taken nothing less than a VERBAL BEATING by so called family value republicans for the last 6 years.... just because i generally vote democratic....

AND if quoting the Bible is considered ''persecution'' of EVERY repub dmp, then..... so be it! lol

i don't see it as persecution at all, honestly? even Christ quoted scripture when fighting off the Devil in the dessert, i believe?

anyway, regardless of this guys private life, his actions in his government position, have little to be desired, if true, in my book!!!!!!!!



jd

[darin]

BALONEY!!!!!

I was not persecuting anyone, i don't even know enough about this scenario to do such....the dad and the kid both seem like jerks to me, but i shouldn't be judging this either way!!!


Why not judge it? Say something like "Based on the facts I've read, assuming they are true, the Son may have screwed over his dad pretty badly. :( "



i do find it a little hypocritical for repubs to bash liberals for pointing out that ''they ain't so perfect when it comes to their own PLATFORM of family values'', when i have taken nothing less than a VERBAL BEATING by so called family value republicans for the last 6 years.... just because i generally vote democratic....


That's a logical fallacy. Their behaviour does not change the fact their message is true.



AND if quoting the Bible is considered ''persecution'' of EVERY repub dmp, then..... so be it! lol


You should try to understand the bible before you quote it to 'attack' somebody, JD. ;)

[JohnDoe]

You should try to understand the bible before you quote it to 'attack' somebody, JD. ;)yes, good advice for you to take!!!! oh, and your brother too!!!! not the BOGUS attacking part, but getting to know and understand the Bible and the beauty of its message of pure love!!!!

:poke:

jd

[Yurt]

Hes more than a neighbor hes my employee.

You do not have automatic standing as a taxpayer :poke:

And, just because you pay taxes DOES NOT make someone who the government hires/manages your employee. Do you even understand the concept of taxes? You give money to another entity so they can manage, not you. You do have some say, it is called a vote. There are other ways, but the first is a vote.

[Yurt]

yes, good advice for you to take!!!! oh, and your brother too!!!! not the BOGUS attacking part, but getting to know and understand the Bible and the beauty of its message of pure love!!!!

:poke:

jd

*gag*

If you read the bible, sin was attacked all the time. :poke:

[truthmatters]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/20100.html

Investigators have said his staff threatened them with retaliation.


The two investigators said they were threatened with retaliation — perhaps including losing their jobs — if they cooperated, Waxman said in a letter to Krongard.

According to the letter, Krongard's congressional liaison told one of the two, Special Agent Ronald A. Militana, "Howard can fire you. It would affect your ability to get another job."

[Said1]

This man is a corrupt person who would seek to profit off his own son to such an extent that he would destroy his family to do so.

He is under investigation for doing much the same to the office he holds.

How you people can defend such behavior is beyond me.

Actually, it happens a lot - along with husbands lending their wives money with the same strings attached and winding up in court. Sad, but not as uncommon as one might think.

[Said1]

I like to think of myself as the smart-ass audience member who f*cks with the guests just to get a rise outta them.

You wish. :fu:

[truthmatters]

This guy is a dirtbag



http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/20100.html


In a telephone interview, Militana confirmed that he's filed a complaint with Waxman's panel and said the congressman's letter quoted him accurately. He declined to comment further.

Militana and the other investigator, Assistant Special Agent in Charge Brian Rubendall, were among those pressing for an investigation into whether employees of Blackwater were illegally shipping automatic weapons and other military goods to Iraq without a license. Rubendall couldn't be reached for comment.