Comments on: Amended Complaint Filed in Election Lawsuit

By: Stebbijo

Stebbijo — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:48:31 +0000

Well, it did not take long for that comment to bite the dust. Kudos to that blog for doing the right thing – removing it.

By: Stebbijo

Stebbijo — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:41:51 +0000

Well, I have about had it with some people. Some poster from the ‘other blog’ decided to lift the above comment and make some ugly remarks about me. If anyone ‘out there’ wants to assoicate me with a crack pipe along with other ugly namecalling – they better be able to prove it.

By: Stebbijo

Stebbijo — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:18:11 +0000

I was reviewing the amended lawsuit. I was curious to the details that would actually change the outcome and I think I found it all – lots of it,besides the poll books being a mess. I really think Kennedy should step down if these are the facts – there is no reason for him to draw this out unless he is hoping for public opinion to defame Brannon some more and subsequently win a do-over? Kennedy lost. We should not have to wait 2 more months to fix this.

By: Bill

Bill — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:53:06 +0000

I received an email from a regular reader who asked me to try and clarify what effect the requested injunction would have on the way the Council conducts business.

Think of the existing council as the “old” council. The “old” council will remain seated with full authority to act on behalf of the City until a “new” council is installed. If Brannon’s lawsuit results in a new election and the new election results in one or more of the incumbents (Kennedy, Goodlander, McEvers, or Bloem) being voted out, the “old” council will remain seated until the “new” council with its new members is installed.

Jim Brannon’s requested relief in the form of an injunction would simply ask the court to enjoin the City from declaring the “old” council members to be the “new” council until after his lawsuit and the subsequent election finally declares who the members of the “new” council will be. His concern, which is a concern that the CdA City Attorney should share, is that prematurely declaring the “old” council members to also be the “new” council members may bring into question the validity of any decisions by “new” council members prematurely installed and seated before the contested election is finally resolved. The injunction asks that the Court direct the City to not prematurely install “new” council members who may be unseated by the election contest. In other words, the “old” council would remain as the “old” council until the lawsuit and subsequent election, if any, is finally decided. Brannon’s proposed injunction requests that the court require the City to obey existing law and ensure continuity of lawful government by not installing the “new” council until its members have finally been determined.

By: Zapatista

Zapatista — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:04:23 +0000

It’s been said that you can’t sue publicly elected officials for being nincompoops.

That is all changed as of today. An awkwardly-named US ethnic group called “Native Americans” will receive $3.4 BILLION from the US government (you and me) for ALLEGED mishandling of Indigian funds.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/12/09/us-to-pay-34-billion-to-settle-native-american-suit/

How does that pertain to Brannon?

Other than the Irish were treated WORSE than the indigenous people, the precedent is now established that you don’t actually have to PROVE malfeasance.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs is the Vatican compared to the cda city council.