Comment 62308

By thrillhouse (registered) | Posted April 14, 2011 at 21:13:24 in reply to Comment 62290

After reading Mr. Kearney's addendum, I'm more suspicious of Winn's motives.

I presume it's impossible for a single invalid application to invalidate /all future ones/, legally-speaking -- especially since I doubt that Winn actually has "absolute authority" to do this (i.e., his authority likely only extends to those things he has authority over in the first place, and invalidating applications for this reason might be beyond the purview of his office).

If I'm reading Kearney right, since Winn refused to accept revised (and valid) versions of the application, my only advice at this point would be to find a lawyer to take on the case, and seek a court order placing Ms. Burson on the ballot.

Seriously, remedying these sorts of issues in our electoral process (due to malfeasance or not) is one of the most important functions of our courts.

So, Mr. Kearney: I suggest that the only point you should be pressing is that, if true, Mr. Winn rejected (or claimed he would reject) applications which were both /complete/ and /valid/. Everything else is beside the point, including whether prior applications were invalid.

Comment edited by thrillhouse on 2011-04-14 21:44:02

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds