Your right about him having rights. Totally agree. But then don't run a campaign based on a transparency argument. If your going to continue to do so, state that (personally) to the press.

He has rights. But if you run for office of what is becoming a major American city, expect scrutiny.

He's okay with scrutiny, as long as it's not scrutiny of him.

edit: Which I believe is what is called..."Hypocrisy" .

If that's not yellow journalism, nothing is.Have you read the article (it takes up most of the second page)? It appears that he and his ex are trying to keep details of the divorce concealed, to protect their children from them. However I'm still wondering why he found it necessary to take the Fifth. Specifically, the fact that he did, and is unwilling to be transparent about his reasons, makes me wonder if we might be in risk of following the path of Toronto or Washington DC...

I must confess that as a one-time OPubCo reporter, my first reaction to the headline was that "the more things change, the more they stay the same." However reading the article made me realize that things really HAVE changed there; no innuendo, simply a listing of the facts of the matter...

I am surprised at how strongly-worded The Oklahomans intro paragraph is. Doesn't the 5th amendment apply to civil cases as well as criminal cases? Aren't we not supposed to infer guilt from someone taking the fifth? Haven't innocent witnesses to a crime taken the fifth in past cases for fear of wrongfully or mistakenly being ensnared in something? I can think of many civil reasons why someone might want to keep something sealed; all of them speculation.

I don't think someone should be compelled to have such records released simply because they are running for a public office. I agree with the previous poster who said someone running for office shouldn't have to expect fewer rights and protections than an average citizen.

That being said, I think it's politically fair game for voters to hold that against him or for his opponents to politically attack him. I am not familiar with his campaign but think it'd be pretty damaging for his campaign if he was slamming other candidates for anything similar. I don't necessarily agree that campaigning on public policy transparency and keeping private personal matters private are at odds with one another.

It might make sense for him to voluntarily release some information regarding what has been sealed. I think he should continue to fight the Oklahomans legal proceedings.

Speaking of hypocracy, honesty, transparancy and yellow journalism...let's compare the coverage (and supporter commentary) with Mick's divorce.

Here's everything I can find in a search from NewsOK with two quotes pulled:

Oklahoma City mayor files for divorce | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-mayor-files-for-divorce/article/3529498)

Cornett's office confirmed the split Tuesday, releasing a statement from the mayor, 52, who did not want to discuss the matter.


Mayor's wife responds to filing | News OK (http://newsok.com/mayors-wife-responds-to-filing/article/3529880)

Lisa Cornett, 53, could not be reached for comment Tuesday. She contacted The Oklahoman on Wednesday and said she does not know why her husband wants a divorce.

Where's the frontpage headline and posters asking what Mick is hiding?

Carry on with your dish...I'm going to go vomit in the corner.

The Oklahoman is not saying that Shadid can't exercise his 5th Amendment rights. They just want to know what the question was. He can still refuse to answer it, but the public has a right to know what the question was.

There is no Constitutional right to be protected from allegations. He can't assert the Fifth and have all the evidence of his criminal behavior hidden from view. That's not what the 5th Amendment is about.

This issue has nothing to do with divorce. Read past the first sentence of the story. If Shadid were investigated by the cops or DA, everyone would want to know the subject matter. But because it's being revealed as part of a divorce, it is easy to squeamish about it.

Still, criminal activity is criminal activity, and the fact that it came out in divorce court is irrelevant. The two proceedings and their media coverage cannot be compared.

Bs.

This may chap a few folks. May not. It isn't about this candidate in my mind.

I don't know what the man did not want revealed during his divorce proceedings. Whatever it was, it brought on a concern about being compelled to provide incriminating information against himself.

A court of competent jurisdiction heard the request, and though unusual for its setting, the court granted the request.
I think I'm good with that.

As to notions of now he is running for public office so the public has a right to know ... hogwarsh, poppycock and balderdash.
Mind you, I have no issue at all with the public having a right to know a candidate once chose to make an assertion of his fifth amendment rights. There is no right for anyone to hide having done so. And the public does know this has happened. It's public record that it has happened.

But if it was a valid assertion, then it was, and he ought to be able to rely on his assertion being in place unless and until he decides he longer seeks or needs the protections our constitution affords him as a citizen.

If some, even thousands, even tens of thousands, of folks draw a negative inference and decide they do not wish to vote for someone who made the choices he made, such is the right of each voter to decide for himself or herself.

But the mere act of running for public office ought not to require one to have less protection under the law than any other citizen enjoys.

Given how some imaginations work, the candidate might well fare better if he was very forthcoming on this matter. That said, I don't think he ought to be stripped of his ability to assert a protection afforded by the federal constitution.

Having some bit of experience in front of the judges on the first floor of the Oklahoma County courthouse, let me just tell you that there was a period a few years ago where orders sealing files were granted when they probably shouldn't have been. These are supposed to be public records and unless you have a statutory reason to have them sealed, I really don't see why the judges get to invalidate the public nature of these records. I had on sealed a couple years ago because my client had alleged some things in the petition and application for temporary order. The next day, the husband committed suicide. I didn't cite a statute or a rule, I just got my order to seal the records.

I agree that these records should be private, but there's nothing in the law saying they are.

If some people and the paper were so concerned about possible mayoral criminal activity, where have they called for an investigation into the very public allegations made by Wayne Coyne that the mayor smokes pot?

who did not want to discuss the matter. [/U]


Mayor's wife responds to filing | News OK (http://newsok.com/mayors-wife-responds-to-filing/article/3529880)

Lisa Cornett, 53, could not be reached for comment Tuesday. She contacted The Oklahoman on Wednesday and said she does not know why her husband wants a divorce.

Where's the frontpage headline and posters asking what Mick is hiding?

Carry on with your dish...I'm going to go vomit in the corner.

You seriously equate "not wanting to discuss it" with invoking the Fifth to hide something? LOL. You can't be serious.

Speaking of hypocracy, honesty, transparancy and yellow journalism...let's compare the coverage (and supporter commentary) with Mick's divorce.

Here's everything I can find in a search from NewsOK with two quotes pulled:

Oklahoma City mayor files for divorce | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-mayor-files-for-divorce/article/3529498)

Cornett's office confirmed the split Tuesday, releasing a statement from the mayor, 52, who did not want to discuss the matter.


Mayor's wife responds to filing | News OK (http://newsok.com/mayors-wife-responds-to-filing/article/3529880)

Lisa Cornett, 53, could not be reached for comment Tuesday. She contacted The Oklahoman on Wednesday and said she does not know why her husband wants a divorce.

Where's the frontpage headline and posters asking what Mick is hiding?

Carry on with your dish...I'm going to go vomit in the corner.

It sounds like the records are going to be unsealed soon, anyway, so we will find out whatever it is Ed wishes to hide.

I'm all for leaving the family out but if Shadid wants to bring up Mick's divorce (which he has, right?), then I wouldn't be surprised to see this stuff come out.

Shadid is using his family in his campaign advertising. Why would he do that if he wants to keep them out of public view? Why not just feature pictures of himself in his ads?

On Channel 5 tonight he said he had his records sealed to protect his children. I found that odd, too. I have no idea what's in the records -- and why he pled the fifth -- but it seems he is using his children as a bit of a cover in this case.

You have to love all the situational ethics from Shadid supporters over the last 2 pages.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Not sure how you can plead the 5th Amendment in a divorce proceeding. No one in a divorce is being charged with a crime.

Not sure how you can plead the 5th Amendment in a divorce proceeding.

Let me google that for you. Divorce Source: FIFTH AMENDMENT ISSUES IN DIVORCE CASES (http://www.divorcesource.com/research/dl/divorcelaws/94jan15.shtml)


Meanwhile:


Court records show he asked for records filed from the Talbott Recovery Center and psychiatrist, Dr. Siavesh Nael, not be disclosed.

"As to the fifth amendment this was a very simple matter, it relates solely to the question, of whether I used marijuana many years ago, nothing more," said Dr. Shadid.

Dr. Shadid says his past battle with marijuana addiction is no secret.

OKC Mayor candidate addresses why he "plead the fifth" (http://www.okcfox.com/story/24167390/okc-mayor-candidate-addresses-why-he-plead-the-fifth-and-keeps-his-divorce-case-sealed)

Well big surprise I guess - the Constitution is misapplied all the time. Nice to know where Shadid stands on that subject.

Shadid commenting about The Oklahoman:
They're using tactics that make a mockery of our legal system, and it's those tactics that are really the heart of the Supreme Court case," said Dr. Shadid.

JTF commenting about Ed Shadid:
He's using tactics that make a mockery of our legal system.

If Shadid was so concerned about his kids - he could always drop out. I mean, is being Mayor really THAT important?


"I think he has to do what he thinks is best for his family," said David Slane, Fox-25 Legal Analyst.


At some point you have to ask yourself - is it really worth it? If the answer is 'yes' then ask to have the records unsealed and let the chips fall where they may. If the answer is 'no', drop out. Those are the only two real options.

On Channel 25, Shadid said the reference to self-incrimination was for marijuana use. I can't remember the quote exactly but i'm fairly sure he said, "that is all." If there's anything else, I guess we'll find out.

Wasn't there some connection or other between David Slane and Ed Shadid recently? What was that about?

Wasn't there some connection or other between David Slane and Ed Shadid recently? What was that about?

Slane was the one who threatened to sue the city over the Constitutionality of MAPS 3. He was linked very closely to Shadid. I think they shared a staffer or something; Steve posted about it.

Wasn't there some connection or other between David Slane and Ed Shadid recently? What was that about?

The MAPS 3 challenge that dumbass Shadid "had nothing to do with".

Sorry but there is a difference between having the court records sealed on Eds divorce and Mick merely declining to comment on his. I'm sure you could find anything you would like (that you could normally find) about the legal proceedings surrounding Mick's divorce. You would have to be pretty dense not to see the difference.

As for whatever Shadid is hiding, I could really care less what it is, but for the good of the city's future, I hope it's bad enough to destroy any chance of he has of winning the election. This guy has become a cancer to the city council and if that spreads to the mayoral level, it would kill our momentum. Hopefully this run ends his brief political stint, we would all be better off for it.

Having his divorce records sealed is one thing. The issue is why he invoked the Fifth Amendment. It's pretty simple.

Having his divorce records sealed is one thing. The issue is why he invoked the Fifth Amendment. It's pretty simple.

That's not what the tabloid is asking for:


Court documents show a judge issued a stay after "The Oklahoman" sent a letter asking for records from Dr. Shadid's divorce case be unsealed. The letter states- "The Oklahoman believes release of the records is in the public interest given that he is a candidate for mayor."

On Channel 25, Shadid said the reference to self-incrimination was for marijuana use. I can't remember the quote exactly but i'm fairly sure he said, "that is all." If there's anything else, I guess we'll find out.

I know one way we could all find out for sure.

What ever happened to the city law requiring the council and mayor to be drug tested? Have either of them been drug tested since they went to work for the citizens?

I do find it interesting that Shadid had an appointed committee member investigated by city attorneys and has filed for open records on all the mayors appointments and emails for the past 10 years, yet doesn't want anyone doing the same for him. It's just another example of unreasonableness and hypocrisy. I'm still trying to think of a single reason why he should be mayor, other than that he's reasonably photogenic and sounds well-spoken (as long as you're not listening to what he is saying).

Betts, what was the basis of Shadid asking for that committee member to be investigated? Did you read the auditor's report? Every time this matter is brought up, I'll point out that I've not been permitted by that committee member to report what he said (it was said during a casual conversation in a hallway, not during an interview).

I already aplogized for what I said. I either misspoke or I believe my comments were misinterpreted. But it was a private conversation none-the-less. Not an "on the record" conversation.

Regardless, I expected to be treated with a greater degree of respect by Councilman Shadid considering that I am a volunteer.

Not only was I audited, an aggressive effort was led by Councilman Shadid to put my appointment up for public debate and a council vote. That didn't make the press.

Oh, and by the way, that audit went far beyond the elevator lobby conversation. I was accused of being on the take from streetcar companies, where my money comes from, how I can afford to go on vacations, on and on and on...

Poster McJeeves was getting all irritated about these questions about Ed's potential former activities coming put in the context of a divorce.

Lets just say my sympathy for Ed is limited.

I know one way we could all find out for sure.

Do tell.

That's not what the tabloid is asking for:


Court documents show a judge issued a stay after "The Oklahoman" sent a letter asking for records from Dr. Shadid's divorce case be unsealed. The letter states- "The Oklahoman believes release of the records is in the public interest given that he is a candidate for mayor."

Guess you didn't read the article. Figures.

Urban Pioneer asked me to post this:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/shadid.jpg

I went to four 7elevens and a grocery store to pick up a physical copy of this to read the rest of the article. They sold a great many papers this weekend.

Is it a private matter if it involves public business and taxpayer dollars? Every time this audit is mentioned I will challenge that person to provide context. There was no mistake in what I heard.

Reading the last page or two of this thread just crystallizes the drama that Shadid brings to our city, drama reminiscent of Tulsa politics. It's here.

The audit established that there is no mathematical way I could have meaningfully influenced the selection of the streetcar consultants. 2 subcommittee members voted. I was one of them. Three city staffers voted. A total of five. The selection process had scoring for each criteria field. The consultants were overwhelmingly favored mathematically by the majority.

That is context.

If I felt like I had actually done something wrong other than have that conversation, I would resign.

I feel very comfortable with any involvement our committee members had in the consultant selection process. But regardless of one's POV on that subject, my point was that Shadid has no compunction about asking for information on people he opposes politically. I'd be interested to know just how many open records requests he has filed, as I've heard of many. I can only imagine his public outrage were he denied. Where's the fairness, consistency and transparency in his behavior? While I understand wanting one's children not apprised of one's misbehavior, he should have thought about how much public scrutiny is given to elected officials prior to running for mayor.

It is my understanding through a 3rd party that he has been filing a Open Records Request nearly every day for the past several weeks. Not necessarily Ed personally, but people who are presumed to be with his campaign.

How many audits has Shadid requested? I've heard it is astronomical.

Records of the government employees doing government business are equal to divorce proceedings in some peoples minds eh? That's a bit of a stretch.

I'm not saying they're the same. But Shadid is clearly looking for "dirt" he can use in his campaign so it's not as if he is filing his requests for noble reasons. He's not noble, as we've seen from multiple things he's done to other people to promote his own political interests. I don't really care why his wife has divorced him, unless it is because he was beating her or doing something that affects his potential to be a ethical leader, but if I were running for mayor, I would know that I'd better be prepared for someone to go digging for skeletons. Especially since we know he'll play dirty if he finds something himself. That is what happens in politics.

I'm not saying they're the same. But Shadid is clearly looking for "dirt" he can use in his campaign so it's not as if he is filing his requests for noble reasons. He's not noble, as we've seen from multiple things he's done to other people to promote his own political interests. I don't really care why his wife has divorced him, unless it is because he was beating her or doing something that affects his potential to be a ethical leader, but if I were running for mayor, I would know that I'd better be prepared for someone to go digging for skeletons. Especially since we know he'll play dirty if he finds something himself. That is what happens in politics.

Glad we've finally reached common ground that both sides have their evil component. Mick's side owns this one.

That's really a matter of perspective. I don't think either side is likely lily white. Which is why I'm voting for the person who will make the best mayor. On that question, the scales are weighted so heavily on the Cornett side that I don't have to think twice. Having seen both candidates in action for the last 2 years, I pick Mick.

I'm going to hold my nose and vote for him too.

This kind of crap and the rabid Ed hate of his supporters doesn't make that any easier.

I'm going to hold my nose and vote for him too.

This kind of crap and the rabid Ed hate of his supporters doesn't make that any easier.

A lot of this started out as rabid Ed like.

A lot of this started out as rabid Ed like.

A friend of mine used to say anything worth doing is worth overdoing.

He's dead now.

Ed's response to Sunday's article, among many other things accusing Mick of drug addiction and calling him "Rob Ford 2.0. You’ve got the sitting mayor of Oklahoma City engaged in criminal conduct.”

Will alleged "pot-smoking mayor" debate Shadid on the issues? | Red Dirt Report (http://www.reddirtreport.com/red-dirt-politics/will-alleged-pot-smoking-mayor-debate-shadid-issues)

Ed's response to Sunday's article, among many other things accusing Mick of drug addiction and calling him "Rob Ford 2.0. You’ve got the sitting mayor of Oklahoma City engaged in criminal conduct.”

Will alleged "pot-smoking mayor" debate Shadid on the issues? | Red Dirt Report (http://www.reddirtreport.com/red-dirt-politics/will-alleged-pot-smoking-mayor-debate-shadid-issues)

OMG. This guy is nuts. It's funny because the Rob Ford jokes were aimed at Ed. They must have been effective if he's trying to project them onto the mayor. I hate giving that rag clicks but this must be read and psychoanalyzed.

OMG. This guy is nuts. It's funny because the Rob Ford jokes were aimed at Ed. They must have been effective if he's trying to project them onto the mayor. I hate giving that rag clicks but this must be read and psychoanalyzed.

I've read one too many at that blog. But Ed's probably planning on appointing him as head of the MAPS oversight committee if he's elected. In fact, the scariest thing Ed has said was his reflection on his appointing ability were he mayor. I'm not worried about my position, as I'm expendable regardless of who's mayor. But the thought of replacing some of the very knowledgeable and thoughtful members of various committees with the Ed supporters I've met is downright terrifying.

I've read one too many at that blog. But Ed's probably planning on appointing him as head of the MAPS oversight committee if he's elected. In fact, the scariest thing Ed has said was his reflection on his appointing ability were he mayor. I'm not worried about my position, as I'm expendable regardless of who's mayor. But the thought of replacing some of the very knowledgeable and thoughtful members of various committees with the Ed supporters I've met is downright terrifying.

What I was trying to say is that Ed should be analyzed. The writer is just a fan boy.

It's time our elected officials are independently drug tested on a regular basis.

What I was trying to say is that Ed should analyzed. The writer is just a fan boy.

The weirdest thing about the guy who runs "Red Dirt Report" is that he maintains office space in Mesta Park (18th and Shartel) for his blog.

For his blog.

Most people run a blog out of their bedroom/dorm room/hall closet. Why does he need an entire office? Just seems weird to throw that much money at a hobby. A "meatspace" location like an office adds no value to a blog. If he really wanted to promulgate his views the money would be better spent on Facebook promotions/sponsored Twitter/printing and hand delivering his "report". My guess is he has disposable income to throw around and/or an unpleasant home life he is trying to avoid.

Just seems like a strange choice, IMHO.

I'm sure he lists his home as an office for tax reasons.

The weirdest thing about the guy who runs "Red Dirt Report" is that he maintains office space in Mesta Park (18th and Shartel) for his blog.

For his blog.

Most people run a blog out of their bedroom/dorm room/hall closet. Why does he need an entire office? Just seems weird to throw that much money at a hobby. A "meatspace" location like an office adds no value to a blog. If he really wanted to promulgate his views the money would be better spent on Facebook promotions/sponsored Twitter/printing and hand delivering his "report". My guess is he has disposable income to throw around and/or an unpleasant home life he is trying to avoid.

Just seems like a strange choice, IMHO.

Where he offices to me isn't as relevant as the strange content he is publishing. He is serving as Shadid's personal publicity tool. But what needs to be analyzed here is Ed Shadid, his bizarre comments, and his insane electoral strategy.

I'm sure he lists his home as an office for tax reasons.

Ha, well he lives/works a block away from where I live/work...I'd be glad to go check it out and let him know how awful he is as a writer.

Channel 5 is taking him to task-

Shadid fights for sealed divorce files | Oklahoma City - OKC - KOCO.com (http://www.koco.com/news/oklahomanews/okc/shadid-fights-for-sealed-divorce-files/-/11777584/23388626/-/oqvd65z/-/index.html)

OK, I was having this conversation with a coworker; is it pronounced Shad(i)d or Shad(ee)d? Is the emphasis on the Sh or the EE?

OK, I was having this conversation with a coworker; is it pronounced Shad(i)d or Shad(ee)d? Is the emphasis on the Sh or the EE?

Most of his family pronounces it Shad(i)d.

"I think this is a desperate attempt by a newspaper trying to maintain relevance," Shadid said. "I'm not going to, nor would I advocate unsealing of records which would harm children and I'm not going to allow that to happen."

Read more: Shadid fights for sealed divorce files | Oklahoma City - OKC - KOCO.com (http://www.koco.com/news/oklahomanews/okc/shadid-fights-for-sealed-divorce-files/-/11777584/23388626/-/oqvd65z/-/index.html#ixzz2n0Aypw2N)

I don't get it. Shadid said publicly that this is only about him smoking pot many years ago. If that is all it is, and he already made that public, what is left to protect the children from?

OK, I was having this conversation with a coworker; is it pronounced Shad(i)d or Shad(ee)d? Is the emphasis on the Sh or the EE?

In his campaign video he pronounces it "shuh-DEED." Dr Ed Shadid Campaign Video - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWK6UaCSM_w)

Most of his family pronounces it Shad(i)d.

When Ed's cousin Anthony became pretty famous, and he was pronouncing it "Sha-deed" after spending much time in the Middle East, I believe that is when Ed started using it.

When Ed's cousin Anthony became pretty famous, and he was pronouncing it "Sha-deed" after spending much time in the Middle East, I believe that is when Ed started using it.

He didn't pronounce it the same way Ed does.

When Ed's cousin Anthony became pretty famous, and he was pronouncing it "Sha-deed" after spending much time in the Middle East, I believe that is when Ed started using it.

Knew another Shadid who went by Sha-did. Think that's Okie pronunciation. Sha-Deed is proper.

He didn't pronounce it the same way Ed does.

Article from The Nation on Anthony Shadid:

"The lights were off, and a rustle caught my attention. Turning around, I saw Anthony, silhouetted by a dim light bulb, standing at his desk and smoking a cigarette: on the floor was a hefty boom box from which wafted the scratchy sounds of elementary Arabic; he had just taken up the language and was pursuing his studies with steely determination. Back then everyone pronounced “Shadid” the American way, ShAHH-did; later Anthony began to pronounce it in the Middle Eastern manner: “Sha-dEEd.”

The Road to Marjayoun: On Anthony Shadid | The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/article/167560/road-marjayoun-anthony-shadid)

Anthony and Ed both pronounced their names the same way (at the end of Anthony's life anyway). Here's a PBS NewsHour tribute where he says his name himself at the ten second mark...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8DEPEc6cIk



(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO91_Prl-BE)