Should you fail to do so, your committee and ALL persons and organizations involved in this defamation will be subject to the same legal action which will be brought against Mr. Jaeger and the Amphi school District.So, in other words, a party activist or even just a regular citizen will be sued if they merely write a letter to the editor. As strange as this is, it isn't totally unprecedented in a city election. Back in 2003, the party ran an ad critical of Mayor Bob Walkup and the Republican council candidates. Shortly after the ad first aired, the party and several news outlets recieved a letter claiming the ad was illegal. Unfortunately, the party caved, mostly prompted by the mayoral nominee. That letter wasn't sent by a lawyer, but by a Republican party official. The idea though was to intimidate the candidates into not campaigning. Having a lawyer threaten to sue campaign volunteers is this cubed. It is intended to dissuade regular citizens from becoming involved with campaigns and maybe dissuade them from civic life in general.|W|P|113077508931903265|W|P|Republicans Doing Their Part to Show What a Frivolous Lawsuit Is|W|Pemail@example.com
"She said there are no votes for her here. She said the forum was a setup and she didn't like the format," said Lopez-Grant, who reserved the $75 room and talked to Dunbar.Then, the article went on to say that Dunbar was "suprised" that Lillian said that. Why is she suprised? Is it not true? Or are you just miffed that she said it in public? Yes, I'll be the first to admit, there are probably not a lot of West Side votes for Dunbar. But blowing off a major Republican activist in town? She's got to overcome an almost two to one registration advantage. Not only can she not afford to tick off Republicans, but she needs a good "in" to get Democratic votes as well. Think about this: you are a Democrat who may not know much about the candidates, but your neighbor Lillian introduces you to Councilmamber Dunbar, wouldn't that mean something? Both Ronstadt and Dunbar have been shy about any venue that they don't have control over. Earlier this year, Dunbar decided to boycott the Republican-friendly John C. Scott show. Apparently this was because Scott featured some individuals critical of Dunbar's record. She has since re-appeared on the show. This episode is most disturbing because it reveals that these two council members, who have been guiding the agenda for the last couple of years, really have no interest in gaining the support of people on the West Side. The five West side neighborhoods that sponsored the forum are the ones most effected by the Rio Nuevo project and the changes to the I-10 corridor. One, Barrio Hollywood, was flooded after neglected sewerlines broke a while ago. These are all city issues involving millions of dollars in tax revenue. If Dunbar doesn't think she needs to visit with them because there are "no votes" there, it should chill all of us who live in neighborhoods that don't vote Republican.|W|P|113068102734786314|W|P|Making Friends|W|Pfirstname.lastname@example.org
They said quite candidly that they were withdrawing from the agreememnt because Ms. Dunbar had told them that if they entered into an agreement she would see to it that this development was voted down. I had my own conversation with Ms. Dunbar on or about 4/21 and she told me in fact she would fight us on this project. I cannot understand for the life of me why she would oppose a voluntary agreement that would benefit students at 2 Title I schools.So, why would Dunbar be opposed to such a thing? She was at the council meeting where Jaeger made the allegations, but provided no adequate explanation for her actions. Later, Dunbar told people that she did not want to set a "precedent." A precedent of public-private partnerships to benefit students and families? How awful! You'd think that the developers would be happy with such an agreement, the school district and the company entered into this agreement without a single county statute or state regulation forcing them to. The only precedent that would have been set was that a developer would have admitted that development has a cost that the public bears. This would run counter to the line from SAHBA, who have named Dunbar their "Public Official of the Year," that development is a net plus for everyone involved. Interestingly, three members of the Kimmerly family have maxed out to Dunbar's campaign. This makes me wonder if this was a weird way Kimmerly to get out of the agreement by unleashing her, who knows? It's all very bizarre. By the way, despite voting against impact fees and her actions here, she now claims that she is for impact fees. She's had a similar death-bed conversion on the methamphetamine issue. Geez, a few more weeks of this, maybe her views will so resemble Uhlich's that there will be no need to elect Karin at all. This gets back to Karin Uhlich's campaign mailings about this. These have infuriated Dunbar, she said that the allegations are "a bunch of crap." Such language! Maybe the Citizen will call her "shrill." Given that this is something that was discussed at at least one public meeting and documented in numerous e-mails, it is hard for her to deny that it actually occurred. Dunbar has said she is angry that Uhlich is using her public statements against her. Yes, the public words of a public official are now off limits. From now on, Uhlich is only allowed to talk about how much Dunbar has done for puppies. NB- Today's Weekly has an item in the Skinny detailing the fiscal impact of the resistance of people like Dunbar, Ronstadt and SAHBA to impact fees.|W|P|113043568211265590|W|P|Once Again, It's Money Over People|W|Pemail@example.com
“Well, by God, I’m going to have you arrested.”
“You may do that.”
In State v. Musto, 454 A.2d 449 (N.J. Super. L.1982), the Court held that the office of a state senator became vacant automatically upon his conviction of felony crimes under a forfeiture of public office statute. The Senator argued that the exclusive method by which he could be removed from office was through expulsion by a two-thirds vote of the Senate under the New Jersey Constitution. In rejecting that argument the Court said:The 14 day deadline to file an appeal was put into place to prevent an office holder from staying in office for months or even years by legal maneuvering. This is probably Smith's strategy in this case. If he can drag this out until primary day of 2006, he will have given himself a de facto legal victory as well as rendering the Clean Elections law unenforceable. Something worth pointing out here is that Smith is a lawyer and probably knows how to read a contract. Barbara Lubin never put a .357 magnum to his head and made him take Clean Elections money. Smith and other violators such as Rep. Colette Rosati agreed to abide by the rules if they took the money. Showing indignance for the "unfairness" of having to follow the law when they hapilly accepted $30,000 from the people of Arizona not only rings hollow, but it is offensive. Interestingly, one of Smith's attorneys during this episode has been a fellow named Lee Miller. Miller is also a lobbyist who represents, among others, payday lenders and the towing industry. Both of these groups had major legislation effecting their industry last session, and probably will again next session. What does it mean if the attorney that's fighting to keep you in office needs your vote on some legislation? CORRECTION: In my original post, I confused Jim Irvin with Tony West. West was the one that was thrown out in 1999, where Irvin was taken off of the commission for an entirely different set of legal difficulties. Thank you to Greg Patterson of Espresso Pundit for pointing out my mistake. Oddly enough, I originally posted with West's name, then changed it. R Cubed regrets the error. It could have been worse: I could have mixed all the affairs up and confused them with Commissioner Buzzard and his infamous Flower Scandal.|W|P|113012516592963525|W|P|Are You STILL Here?|W|Pfirstname.lastname@example.org
"[I]t is illogical to assume that expulsion or impeachment, provided by our Constitution, were intended by the framers of that document to be the exclusive methods for the removal of public officers. They serve as an added safeguard to the public against those officers who may be so powerful as to effectively avoid prosecution for wrongdoing. They could never have been intended to provide a shield for the corrupt official to prevent his removal by other means...." 454 A.2d at 472.
See also, Errichetti v. Merlino, 457 A.2d 476 (N.J. Super. L. 1982); State ex rel. DeConcini v. Sullivan, 188 P.2d 592 (Ariz. 1948).
1) The Republicans were holding off on the big fundraising so they don't have to reveal the big donors until Oct. 27, when the next round of reports is due;
2) The Republicans thought they'd be able to raise more money, but wallets have been tighter than they expected; or
3) The Republicans never intended to go on the big ol' spending spree of special-interest money that Democrats have been accusing them of for the entire campaign.
Nintzel says that his guess is a combination of 2 and 3. Jim, you aren't allowed to guess two answers, especially when you came up with the list. He failed to consider a fourth possibility. I can bring up a fourth possibility you see, because I didn't write the list. The Republicans are deliberately holding back on their fundraising to deny the Democrats the issue of big money in politics. Yes, it's absolutely brilliant. Okay, maybe not. The reason is a variant of answer number two. The people that typically give to local Republicans just are not excited about this race. Some normally supportive business groups are holding back on support for Fred Ronstadt, mostly because he deals with them in the same high handed manner that he deals with regular citizens. Kathleen Dunbar is seen as a losing cause by many Republican muckety mucks. This is odd, since I always saw her as the stronger candidate of the two. She has a much stronger community presence than Ronstadt does. This may be one case where the quality of the Democratic nominee has scared the Republicans. Karin Uhlich used to be the executive director of the Primavera Foundation, the fundraising list of which has many of the Republican buisinessmen who give to campaigns. I don't know if this has hurt Dunbar's fundraising, but it can't help. I have been suprised by the listlessness of the Republican campaigns so far. I have recieved one piece of mail from Ronstadt's folks, and that wasn't technically a campaign mailing. I haven't seen any ads for either Ronstadt or Dunbar. I have barely seen any activity from pro-Republican "independent" campaigns. I've seen a grand total of three signs for either Ronstadt of Dunbar (by the way, I think I saw more signs for Vernon Walker than the two active candidates). What the heck is going on here?|W|P|112977915166930431|W|P|F-Oldin' Money|W|Pemail@example.com
In lieu of flowers, please send acerbic letters to Republicans.I think clearly, when a man who gave so much for this country makes a request like this, we must oblige him.|W|P|112942268074501869|W|P|Theodore Roosevelt Heller|W|Pfirstname.lastname@example.org
Bin Laden says his own role is to tell Muslims, quote, "what is good for them and what is not." And what this man who grew up in wealth and privilege considers good for poor Muslims is that they become killers and suicide bombers. He assures them that his -- that this is the road to paradise -- though he never offers to go along for the ride.Yeah, awful of him to be asking others to sacrifice when people like him don't have to. Does this mean that Jenna and Barbara are finally signing up? NB - Thanks to Barabara D. for the heads up on this one. By the way, this is post number 100! Woo hoo!|W|P|112877854374966444|W|P|I Thought that 9/11 Was the End of Irony|W|Pemail@example.com
According to the Associated Press article in the Arizona Republic on-line, Cindy Sheehan is urging Governor Napolitano to request that Arizona National Guard troops be withdrawn from Iraq. This would, of course, undermine the United States' foreign policy in Iraq. The news of a "high-ranking official" such as a governor, calling for a withdrawal from Iraq, would incite the insurgents. Our troops in that country would further be in harms way. I have spoken to a few of the members of the Arizona House Judiciary committee. The consensus is that the Governor should not pander to Ms. Sheehan, or run the risk of being impeached. Janet Napolitano has flirted with being impeached in her handling of the CoppeRx drug card. One pharmacy ended up with a sweet-heart deal that was different than they bid on. The GOP-controlled legislature is drawing a line in the sand. If the Governor decides to side with anti-American groups and their contributor, George Soros, she will be available to work with them full time. We will remove her from office for treasonous actions. State Senator Jack W. HarperSetting aside the premise that somehow the insurgents at this point haven't been "incited," Harper's main argument is on ground shakier than poorly set lime Jello. Let's follow the logic: Sheehan has asked the Governor (not even officially) to withdraw the National Guard from Iraq. Because the Governor has been asked, she should be impeached. That is the only thing I can figure because there is no way in heck that the Governor is even going to seriously consider pulling the Guard from Iraq. It doesn't even seem like she has the authority, since the troops are under the President when they get mobilized for this sort of action. So, the Governor is asked to do something that she will not do, and doesn't even have the authority to do. This is grounds for impeachment? These are the sorts of serious discussions that goes on in the judiciary committee? Folks like Harper seem to think that anyone to their left is some sort of Marxist. Because of this, these sorts of leaps make perfect sense: she's a Democrat, thus she must be on the phone with Cindy Sheehan all of the time, because Cindy Sheehan disagrees with me on the war, she's a traitor, thus, Janet Napolitano is a traitor. Lovely. This guy is on the judiciary committee. That committee runs our courts, right? God help us. NB - I will be putting up a picture of the Captain America villain, Batroc the Leaper, on future posts about strange Republican logical leaps. I figure that since the Batroc character is French, this will irritate the Republicans even more. Also, note the gratuitous swipe at George Soros. I'm glad to see that the Republicans are angry about these fat cats throwing their money around in our politics. So, they will all be on board for Clean Elections now, right?|W|P|112851994305521965|W|P|Let's Call it the Republican Leap|W|Pfirstname.lastname@example.org