‘Law-Abiding’ Rep. John Atkins Reverts to Form
Pulled over for speeding, then lying about the consequences. Someone should ask Pete Schwartzkopf whether enabling this chronic miscreant is worth it. Wait a minute, I’m asking that question.
But first, the latest antics from Sussex County’s ‘Bad Boy’. The News-Journal’s (buy it to read the story) Maureen Milford reports that, after being stopped for speeding on his way to Dover, and being let off with a warning:
…Atkins was still steamed that being pulled over by Cpl. Raymond St. Clair had made him late. Roughly two hours after his 1:44 p.m. stop, Atkins fired off a nasty email on his state account to the trooper’s boss, Capt. Galen M. Purcell, excoriating the “smart ass” officer who stopped him.“He was very arrogant, short and when he returned to give me my license decided to lecture me about the speed limit. Captain, I’m very aware of the speed limit, perhaps Cpl. St. Claire should read the constitution and read the section pertaining to Legislators traveling to the Capital. I missed role call and was marked absent for the day.”
“That pisses me off,” said the lawmaker.
May I take one moment and simply point out that what Atkins wrote about missing roll call is a lie? Thank you. As I’ve pointed out here on numerous occasions, legislators can be marked present at any time during the legislative day. They can even be marked present the FOLLOWING day before the previous day’s session is adjourned. Every legislator knows this. Every legislator therefore knows that Atkins was lying to the police captain in this e-mail. Oh, and every legislator who can read also knows that Atkins is wrong about his ‘interpretation of the State Constitution’.
This is nothing new to loyal readers of Delaware Liberal. John Atkins has posted over here, and spread lies about me and others, of course, often pretending to be someone else, a ‘friend’ of, wait for it, John Atkins. He is a serial liar, and he and I both know that I can prove it.
He is also used to intimidating law enforcement authorities. Have we forgotten the following?:
In his previous dust-up with fellow legislators in 2007, Atkins faced censure and a possible historic expulsion.He avoided that by resigning. Atkins’ troubles began when be was pulled over in Ocean City, Md., for speeding and driving erratically. His blood-alcohol was later measured above the Maryland limit.
He then flashed his legislative identification card, after the officers acknowledged his special legislative license plates. Police released Atkins into the custody of a friend. Hours later, Millsboro police officers were called to the Atkins home and charged him with offensive touching.
Almost as offensive as Atkins ongoing flouting of the law and flaunting of his ‘legislative privilege’ is the response of House Majority Leader Pete Schwartzkopf. Schwartzkopf goes out of his way to run interference for Atkins:
“I understand how this is going to be taken by the public,” he said. “But I can assure you between the state police organization and corrections, I don’t know which one John loves more.”Schwartzkopf, a retired state trooper, said Atkins never intended his remark about St. Clair coming to Legislative Hall as a lobbyist as a threat.
“It wasn’t a threat about the DSP. It was: ‘[St. Clair] got smart with me on his field. Send him over so I can get smart with him on my field,’ ” Schwartzkopf said.
“…”I understand how this is going to be taken by the public,” he said. “But I can assure you between the state police organization and corrections, I don’t know which one John loves more.”
I think Schwartzkopf has been a very effective House Majority Leader, but I just have to call bullshit on this. Any reasonable person reading the entire e-mail (which you can read if you subscribe to the News-Journal) would read it precisely as a threat, because that is what it was. By ‘reasonable’ people, I include Speaker Gilligan and House Minority Leader Lavelle, who both clearly know how to read.
I think Schwartzkopf is trying to forestall some kind of ethical punishment for Atkins, which could include either censure and/or expulsion.
I think that Schwartzkopf should cut his losses. Nothing has changed about John Atkins except his party affiliation. He’s already had to resign from the General Assembly once. His behavior continues unabated. It’s only a matter of time before it happens again. Why? Because ‘this boy ain’t right’. And he ain’t gettin’ any better.
At least it’s great that, to quote Schwartzkopf, “…I can assure you between the state police organization and corrections, I don’t know which one John loves more.” He’d better love ’em because, barring a miraculous change in personality and behavior, Atkins will get to know both organizations on a more intimate and long-term level.
Tags: John Atkins Delaware; Pete Schwartzkopf Delaware; Steve Tanzer Delaware; El Somnambulo;
The police certainly had his back in his recent run-in with a couple of people who saw smoke and went into Atkins’ father’s (father in law?) field to investigate. I thought it very interesting how one-sided the reporting on that story seemed to be.
I thought so, too. The very idea that this law abidin’ citizen was just mindin’ his own business and was unfailingly courteous to these…ruffians who nevertheless accosted him w/o provocation might make sense. If the unfailingly courteous law abidin’ citizen was anybody but John Atkins.
I mean, it COULD be true. But,to believe it, you’d have to believe that Atkins was telling the truth for perhaps the first time.
Me? I’m a non-believer.
What in the world does Schwartzkopf get out of enabling this BS? An iffy vote on issues that need Democratic unity? I don’t get it.
You know the numbers better than I do. Would we be that much worse off minus 1 from Sussex? We can’t have that much to lose, right? Is Schwartzkopf just trying to show the rest of the team that he would be there for them too?
All this proves is that Atkins is stupid he never should have made this an issue
Atkins is an embarrassment and Swchwarzkopf will become one too if he continues to defend him!
We know what Pete GOT out of it…a D vote that might have made the difference in the balance of power back in 2008. Turns out that it didn’t, but no one knew for sure.
We know what he GETS out of it. John Atkins is a wholly-owned political subsidiary of Pete Schwartzkopf. Atkins must do whatever Schwartzkopf tells him to do. His political career depends on Schwartzkopf’s support.
Until now, Atkins’ ‘issues’ had remained in the shadows. Now they’re back in full view. And I’m betting that more than a few Atkins missteps have been covered over up until now.
Schwartzkopf may now have to pay a price for continuing to support Atkins. It remains to be seen if the price will be worth it.
Schwartzkopf is a strong and often intimidating leader. Atkins is a weakness that can now be exploited by other members of the Democratic caucus, should they choose to do so. For example, support by some caucus members for Atkins in a censure move may now come with a price, say, oh, I don’t know, requiring the U of D and Del State to open up their proceedings. Just a hypothetical example, but I think you can see where I’m coming from.
The leadership dynamic has changed somewhat, and I’ll be interested in seeing where this goes.
All that puffery from one stupid arrogant email. The voters in Atkins district are diametrically different that those in Pete’s. Those voters know John warts And all and will make they’re decision without any help from Pete. In fact there will likely be no decision to make as the only likely candidate is someone put up by Wolf Von Dumbass. Knowing what I know you would be well advised to study John’s survival skills. I suspect he will be giving another real life seminar in same.
He may well survive. People who lie with straight faces often do. Drunken driving, spousal abuse, intimidating cops, people who support Atkins LOVE that stuff about him. ‘Hey, it’s our John’. And those people deserve a rep like Atkins.
But he belongs in a caucus of one, no committee assignments, no staffers, no extra bennies. The R’s rightfully cut ties with him. Were it not for Schwartzkopf, the D’s would as well. Which is what they should do. Even Schwartzkopf, perhaps especially Schwartzkopf, would be better off.
Oh, and Joe, as far as ‘one stupid arrogant email’? We’ve got dozens of ’em here. Someday, I just might post a version of Atkins’ Greatest Hits. He really should stay away from the keyboard, especially as the night gets later and the drinks flow more freely. This ‘one arrogant stupid e-mail’ is part of an ongoing pattern of arrogant stupid e-mails. That boy just ain’t right.
What if he was absent on wednesday and was trying to get there before Wednesdays session closed? Therefore he was correct. Also do you actually think anyone will bring up a censure when not one word was said about Bennetts DUI and arrest?
For a guy who was an alleged insider you did not learn much. John’s crime in this instance was using email which created a record rather than blowing off his steam on the phone. Of 41 people I would wager 15 or more have had comparable fits of temper either with DSP or a similar agency. There wil be no stomach to escalate this. In your world all transgression is cumulative and can never be forgiven, fortunately for a lot of us the real world is different. Careful, somebody may kick the step stool away from your high horse.
Welcome back, anon with a period. Always good to hear from ‘John’s friend’.
You, of course, would be wrong. As you should know, oh, why don’t I just quote myself since your reading comprehension skills haven’t improved: “(L)egislators can be marked present at any time during the legislative day. They can even be marked present the FOLLOWING day before the previous day’s session is adjourned.”
Just one more lie in a long string of lies from your ‘friend’.
Oh, and one more thing ‘anon with a period’? January 12, the day in question, was a Thursday. So, it wasn’t a committee day when the House did not reconvene, it was an ordinary session day. So, your friend John could have been marked present any time during that day’s session or even on the subsequent Tuesday session before they changed the legislative day. But, hey, when it comes to your friend John, the truth is whatever he says it is, not the, you know, real truth.
Here you go guys, I hope this link is still active, I tried to post it to Mr. atkins Facebook but it seems to be blocked, I did post it to my Facebook and it seems to work.
http://www.delawareonline.com/assets/pdf/BL18598732.PDF
Rep. Atkins may soon find himself to be a man without a party, though I suspect Wolf would take him on for the Independent Party of Delaware.
And if you guys don’t mind here is a link to my post at D P for the conservative view on this. http://www.delawarepolitics.net/the-dog-and-the-fire-hydrant/#comments
Try to comprehend this. If a legislator is absent on Wednesday and Wednesdays session actually closes at a couple minutes after 2pm on Thursday and then Thursday legislative day opens you CAN NOT be marked present for Wednesday. So who is wrong Einstein? And answer the question about Bennett. How stupid would the GA look to censure anyone when they did nothing. And what exactly are we censuring an misdemeanor speeding violation or sending an email?
First of all, ‘Einstein’, the session in question took place on a Thursday, not a Wednesday.
However, ‘John’s friend’, even had the session taken place on a Wednesday, the legislator still could have been marked present. How? Read my lips: I am now quoting for the third bleeping time:
“(L)egislators can be marked present at any time during the legislative day. They can even be marked present the FOLLOWING day before the previous day’s session is adjourned.”
When the House breaks for committee meetings on Wednesday, it does not reconvene on Wednesday. However, when it reconvenes on Thursday, it is STILL THE WEDNESDAY SESSION. THE COMMITTEE RESULTS FROM WEDNESDAY ARE READ INTO THE RECORD BEFORE THE HOUSE CHANGES THE LEGISLATIVE DAY TO THURSDAY. Every legislator knows this. It is not uncommon for legislators to come late on Wednesday and then be marked present on Thursday for the Wednesday session. The Chief Clerk of the House confirmed that Atkins had not been marked absent, so any argument to the contrary is, how should I say this, untruthful.
As to the ‘how stupid would it look’ question. This is your friend John Atkins we’re talking about. Pete Schwartzkopf took him on as his own personal reclamation project, argued that John had changed. What this shows is that John hasn’t changed. He’s the same arrogant above-the-law dick he was before. And that’s why he had to resign the first time.
No shit you dumbass. We are saying the same thing. If he was absent Wednesday and they closed Wednesdays session before he got there on Thursday how can he be marked present for Wednesday if they are in Thursdays session day you moron. Admit you are wrong for once you pompous ass know it all!
Calm down, ‘John’s friend’. Haven’t you learned from your mentor that angry e-mails can lead to no good? I’m sure a call to ‘your good friend John’ will help you see the error of your ways.
The public record shows that your good buddy was not absent, so any statement to the contrary, regardless of whatever hypothetical you conjure up, has no basis in reality.
Oh, and please explain why your friend should be above the law when it comes to speeding. Shouldn’t he, as a self-described ‘law-abiding citizen’, serve as a role model to his constituents?
Or, is Atkins’ being marked present more important than the safety of those forced to share the road with your good friend and speeder?
See you can comprehend when you are wrong. Anyone that follows Delaware politics knows if he missed role call on Thursday he could be marked present all the way up to the following next legislative day (Tuesday). The fact that he was trying to be there before 2pm tells me he must have been absent Wednesday. As far as the ticket, you will have to ask the trooper why he didn’t issue a violation. Sometimes they do sometimes they don’t. And for all the dopes that read this. Ill say what everyone else is to afraid to, you’re still a DICK! Blog that.
Gee, John’s friend, you sure seem to know a lot about this situation, even though you’re John’s friend and not John.
Is John’s defense now that he wasn’t speeding, or is it that he WAS speeding, but wasn’t in violation of the law b/c, after intimidating the police officer, a ticket wasn’t issued?
I’m sure there are people, mostly people who think like John does, who think I’m a dick. I understand that, and I relish that, coming from people who think that they’re above the law and that the traditional standards of ethics and morality don’t apply to them. In fact, I take it as a personal badge of honor. Especially coming from you, ‘John’s friend’.
At least we both agree that you are a dick. And I still love you too. Good night.
Here is the only business on that day that wa so important for him to be there http://www.legis.delaware.gov/LIS/LIS146.NSF/2bede841c6272c888025698400433a04/bcd01007b00acb6c85257980006f2376?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,01%2F12%2F2012
And I guess we both agree that Atkins is a dick as well. But I bear him no malice.
‘John’s Friend’, I have to go to bed now, but would you please pass this message along to John for me?:
“Keep the home tires burnin’.”
And here’s one for you since you love music. From the Delaware General Assembly and Ray Charles when they fired you. “Hit the road Jack and don’t you come back no more”.
You are a great big ball of malice. You are an accomplished bridge burner and alienator. John is not the sharpest kinife in the drawer and really means nothing in your universe but you can’t resist a good public flogging. But that’s the way of the angriest man in Delaware politics.
Señor El Som:
“… intimidating cops, people who support Atkins LOVE that stuff about him. ‘Hey, it’s our John’. And those people deserve a rep like Atkins.”
I have no insight on his relationship with corrections, but after meeting Atkins for the first time, I knew within 30 seconds he had nothing but contempt for law enforcement. His feigned ‘support’ for the police was just one of the bandwagons on which he rode for votes.
Mr. Connor:
“Of 41 people I would wager 15 or more have had comparable fits of temper either with DSP or a similar agency.”
During my career, I was frequently in contact with numerous legislators on law enforcement issues. Many of those contacts were because of constituent complaints against my officers. NOT ONE of those legislators were as unreasonable, arrogant, and condescending as Atkins (OK, Dave McBride was a close second). I long for a front row seat to his demise.
Miscreant, sir you must not have been paying attention.I can name 10 in a snap (but will not) and several were in leadership. It goes with the territory. In my estimation John is not even in the top half. The best practitioners of this behavior would never leave fingerprints on their work as it is not something where a score card is desired to be kept:).
Lol, touchiest legislator in Delaware, with the touchiest supporters, too. No “Sorry for breaking the law”, instead we get “I was gonna be absent!” Next time try waking up before noon, dumbass.
It it just me, or is this anger that he was marked absent on a day HE WAS ABSENT a bunch of privileged bullshit? And what is the downside of being marked absent? I know that it has been used as a scam to claim mileage on both legislative days. I guess we can FOIA Atkins’ expense sheets and see what he claims. But perhaps there are other perks that are forfeited by absence. Anyone have any ideas?
Rich Puffer was quoted in NJ saying that he was in fact marked present. The significance is minimal, nothing forfeited.
And so why the BS about being marked absent, if there are no consequences to absence?
Nobody ever accused John of being a good decision maker ;). As I said if he was good at this kind of thing we would have never heard of it.
You know, I don’t feel angry at all. In fact, I like to think that this post smoked out the real John Atkins. Demonstrated that his e-mail to the state police was in no way an isolated slip, but rather the way that Atkins acts all the time.
Did I say Atkins? I mean Atkins’ friend.
Now, please excuse me. Got one more post to write on the subject…
I can’t stop commenting on how effed up it is that Pete Schwarzkopf (sp?) is covering for this guy. Gilligan too. WTF were those idiots thinking?
OK. Atkins is apparently everything you guys say he is. But still I totally get what Pete means when he says:
“It wasn’t a threat about the DSP. It was: ‘[St. Clair] got smart with me on his field. Send him over so I can get smart with him on my field,’ ” Schwartzkopf said.
I think that is all it was.
I’ve been ticketed a handful of times, some fairly, some not. But the attitude of the officer nearly always leaves me with a burning anger that lasts for a few days. I know enough to keep my mouth shut, but that doesn’t stop my mind from churning in search of legal ways to return the favor in kind. But I don’t have any (at least not any that don’t take a lot of time and money).
But Atkins does, and he reached for it.
All I’ve got is this: whenever the police fundraisers call, I ask them “Can you get me in touch with that smart-mouth young cop who made my wife cry when she was trying to find a parking spot at the Ice Cream Festival a few years back? ” and when they say No, I say “Then I can’t help you either.”
“…I can name 10 in a snap (but will not) and several were in leadership. It goes with the territory…”
Indeed, assholery seemed to be a way of life at leg hall for most, but their behavior towards law enforcement was my primary, or only, concern. Like in this recent incident, most of Atkins’s contacts were accompanied by some petty threat or innuendo. And, I’m sure he may have been adored by someone, but most cops wouldn’t piss in his mouth if his teeth were on fire.
Maybe, Puck. But it’s equally plausible that Atkins has had it in for this cop for some time. Why? Allow me to quote from Atkins himself in his offending e-mail:
“Last year I had a very close family friend that lives in Millsboro and works at the Stanton Campus for DTCC. When she arrived she received a phone call that her grandfather had passed away. She tried to rush home to be with her grieving family only to be stopped by Cpl. St. Claire. To make a long story short, he used no discretion and ticketed her. Very tasteless in my opinion…”
BTW, if you haven’t done so, please read the e-mail. It says more about John Atkins than I ever could. (Tip of the sombrero to Frank Knotts):
http://www.delawareonline.com/assets/pdf/BL18598732.PDF
BTW, BTW, this Cpl. St. Claire (sic)? In 2011, he was named the Troop 3 Patrol Trooper of the Year:
http://dsp.delaware.gov/news%20release/June%202011/06062011troop3statetroopershonored.shtml
Doesn’t matter to Atkins. Being stopped for speeding and having a family friend stopped for speeding are patently unfair and even ‘tasteless’. Especially when Atkins is Pete’s boy on (Vice Chair) the House Public Safety & Homeland Security Committee, which basically oversees the state police agenda.
Would it be fair to at least suggest that Atkins’ actions disqualify him from that position, and that Speaker Gilligan should remove him from that post? It is, and I just did.
Pete got Atkins through the primary in 2008 and the general. After that, John has been on his own. Is Pete pissed off about this? Yeah, because it detracts from the work that needs to be done.
BTW, Rich Collins, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Christian Hudson and the “Positive” Growth Alliance, is planning on running against John this year. That is if he can wean himself from The Fatman’s teat and his hour of free air time he gets each week to spread his BS.
I agree with you on the political side. I’m just talking about the emotional side. I guess I have a high anti-authority quotient, just like Atkins apparently does. It’s probably part of his appeal to his voters. Skepticism of authority is not always a bad thing in an elected official. It’s all in how you control it and express it. Politicians with zero natural skepticism about authority have done far more damage.
I think we should all know as much about our police officers as they know about us when they enter our number into their computer. That is what real community policing is – when you know your cop, and he knows you know him.
“OK. Atkins is apparently everything you guys say he is. But still I totally get what Pete means when he says:
“It wasn’t a threat about the DSP. It was: ‘[St. Clair] got smart with me on his field. Send him over so I can get smart with him on my field,’ ” Schwartzkopf said.
I think that is all it was.”
Having been on the receiving end of Atkins’s rancor a number of times, I must respectfully disagree. That is merely Pete’s bullshit rationalization for Atkins’s behavior. The intent was very clear. I know Schwartzkopf, not as a legislator, but as Troop Commander at Troop 7, and am also perplexed at why he would risk his reputation and integrity by defending this *miscreant*.
I’ll defer to the people who know Atkins and Schwartzkopf personally. But the “rationalization” has the ring of truth to me.
I guess Atkins is not the best example to illustrate my point.
John Atkins pays more fealty to authority than virtually any other legislator. Except when it comes to authorities who question John Atkins for flouting/violating the laws he and they are sworn to enforce.
“…a high anti-authority quotient, just like Atkins apparently does. It’s probably part of his appeal to his voters.”
Unfortunately, I believe you are correct in that assessment.
I call 110% bullshit on Puck’s defense of this from an emotional perspective. If you get pulled over for speeding, guess what…YOU WERE SPEEDING. No need to get pissed off about it, or read into the cops attitude. Suck it up you pussies. You got caught. Full stop.
If anything I feel bad for the cop, because a traffic stop is the most dangerous single thing for a cop to do.
Atkins was just being the dickhead that he is – and Puck’s comment reveals that he has more than a bit of dickhead in him.
Jason, we are all dickheads over different things. Like I said, it’s all in how you control it and express it. I think I have it under control. I’m just talking about it. I am pleased that inside my own head at least I am not a passive suckup to authority, and can at least perceive the financial racket behind it, and the transition (for some) from middle school bully to law enforcement.
‘We Are All Dickheads Here’. I LIKE it, perhaps as our DL mission statement.
I think the point about Atkins is that he is one of, if not the most, self-styled ‘law & order’ legislators in Dover, and that applies except when it comes to authorities exercising their constitutional duties impacting John Atkins. Or his friends.
Merely a polite way of saying, that, when it comes to ‘law and order’, Atkins is full of shit.
I agree that we are all dickheads over different things.
However, defending Atkins on this is BS. This isn’t the ‘boys will be boys’ situation that Pete S wants it to be. Having a low internal locus of control (…not recognizing that events result primarily from one’s own behavior and actions) and dealing poorly with minor frustrations are not little character quirks.
They are textbooks signs of real emotional instability.
“BTW, Rich Collins, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Christian Hudson and the “Positive” Growth Alliance, is planning on running against John this year. That is if he can wean himself from The Fatman’s teat and his hour of free air time he gets each week to spread his BS.”
Glad I’m not in their district, so I don’t have to decide who’s the lesser asshat.
An apology? Think Pete had anything to do with this?
http://www.wgmd.com/?p=49839&cpage=1#comment-146475
March just isn’t John’s month.
“March just isn’t John’s month.” …….. but he’s undefeated in Novembers and that’s really all that matters.
That reminds me of an old W.C. Fields line.
I may be drunk, but you’re ugly. And in the morning I’ll be sober.
Come November, John will still be ugly.
And come November, John will no doubt be re-elected to represent the 41st district.
Everyone should have a look at the letter John wrote to our fine law enforcement folks. Remember, these are the same men and women that put their lives on the line every day to protect us: http://home.mchsi.com/~randy15441/JA.PDF
And Schwarzkopf defends him?