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.

[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?

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.

[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.

How true!

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

[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.

[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.

[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.