- Today's Email from Siobhan Reardon
- Seth Williams Office Opening Party: TODAY
- Hear, hear: Judge Fox's Order
- Bob Brady saves New Year's and the Mummers!
- Mayoral Petulance: Unbelievable
- ’San Quentin Six’ prisoner Hugo Pinell to have Parole Hearing Jan. 17
- The Nutter administration (and us) at the crossroads
- Ring around the rosey, pockets full of.....
- Ring around the rosey, pockets full of.....
- Tom Ferrick on the Library Fight
After all we've learned, Brady should be off the ballot
Submitted by VernAnastasio on Wed, 03/21/2007 - 10:07pm.
I have never been a big fan of ballot challenges.
As I have stated before, they don't do much for raising the level of public debate and they cost way too much time and way too much money. Furthermore, if these challenges are solely based on a technical errors (whereas the information can still be found within the four corners of the document), I think many challenges should not be made.
Much to my surprise, it appears as though the challenge to Bob Brady's statement of financial interests is, in fact, legitimate.
You cannot find the information necessary for full disclosure anywhere on the form. Therefore, this isn't a technicality. It's an omission.
And, as an attorney, I have problems with his attempt to duck a subpoena.
And after all, this IS the system that they -- those who have been in power for so very long-- have given us. In the past, when independent Democrats who sought to get on the ballot and stand up to the status quo faced ballot challenges, there was no great outcry.
No one blogged. No one rallied. Not one newspaper called it a sham. With one exception, no one in power spoke up or said anything. In fact, people in power participated in the miscarriage of Democracy.
I know because I lived it.
The petitioner who was a campaign volunteer. The council staff who accompanied the petitioner. The casino developer/lawyer who sent letters demanding retractions. The judges who decided to legislate from the bench.
I was there...and it was wrong.
And it's not the only time it happened. Others have been challenged. And the very same people in 2007 who say "leave the incumbents alone" were, at one time in the not-so-distant past, supporting challenges or staying silent.
And now, those who helped perpetrate these gross violations of the spirit of our Democracy want leniency. Not for technical errors. But for omissions.
But all I can think of is: sorry, that dog don't hunt. Not here. Not this year.
The day that the law is applied with uniformity; the day a reform challenger and an incumbent are treated equally under the law; the day every person is judged not by his connections but by the merits of his case -- that's the day when I will say "stop ALL of these challenges once and for all".
That's the day I say Mr. Evans and Mr. Knox should not challenge an opponent's ballot position based on gross omissions. Because that's the day we will finally have reform in Philadelphia.
Until then, let justice be blind.
Respectfully,
Vern Anastasio
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Wow
Wow... Vern, who was the one person in power who spoke up on your behalf?
Vern, as a litigation
Vern, as a litigation attorney, I have routinely attempted to quash subpoenas for testimony and discovery. It is part of the practice. It does not indicate unethical behavior one bit (and you should know that). The Rules of Civil Procedure allow such a process and it is up to a judge.
In this case, I would have done the same thing--argued it was a question of law and testimony was not needed. More importantly, this case is not just a legal proceeding, but a political one with reporters and challengers all over the place. Steve Cozen's tactic was a good one.
The problem with crossing the world of courtroom practice and procedure with politics is--people following politics look for chum in the water. Meanwhile, attorneys are interested in protecting their clients. I'm not saying that any one profession is more noble than the rest, but for Christ-sake, let's put this into perspective the right way. Bob Brady's rights within a court of law are not diminished by who he is and what he is running for. Just like they should not be increased.
Higher standards
Gaetano:
I don't disagree with your assesment as a legal tactic. I just think any person who wants to be the elected representative of 1.4 million people should be as open and honest and transparent as possible. Was it a mistake or was it intentionally ommitted. Testimony is required to give the public all the information.
That's the point, in this voter's opinion.
Well, YOU can make that
Well, YOU can make that determination in a ballot box. In a courtroom, it is a different story.
The point in this attorney and voter's opinion is--these worlds do no mesh easily. But, legal rights are legal rights. And, in a courtroom, we guide ourselves by certain rules and procedures that lay people are often not aware of. Let's not penalize Brady for following those rules or his attorneys for doing the same thing that hundreds of other people do each day.
I think you also misunderstand the point Cozen was making. There argument is, whether it was or was not omitted intentionally is irrelevant, the effect is a legal determination--is this pension an X, Y or Z pursuant to a statute. Statutory interpretation is a question of law, not fact. It remains to be seen whether this judge was right or how he will rule. But, lawyers make arguments to protect clients and get to an ultimate determination.
That being said, I just can't see how this would change someone's mind so quickly.
I think the sudden reservation in throwing Brady off the ballot
is because if he is thrown off than we are looking at Mayor Knox.
Why do you say that? First,
Why do you say that?
First, 20% of the vote is undecided in polls.
Second, one line of thought is that brady supporters will tend to favor Fattah as the other "machine" candidate.
Next line of thought is they will split to the winds or not even participate.
Next is that, and I am guessing this is what you are trying to say, is that they will vote for Knox because he is white. Of course that is assuming all of Brady's supporters are white or Uncle Toms.
Or you are saying that yo think only Brady can beat Knox.
Curious for you to elaborate.
If Brady is off the ballot, yes I do think a lot of Brady
supporters will go to Knox. At least that is what Knox is counting on which is why he is trying to get Brady off the ballot in the first place. Being the white candidate and splitting the Black vote is a strategy that worked in this city back in 1991 for Ed Rendell. The other white candidate was Frank Rizzo and he went off the ballot by dying.
If split-the-Black-vote is the only strategy, however, than it won't work anymore. But here's the big reason I think Knox would get the Brady voters: The public, national and citywide is tired of the partisan rancor that has engulfed politics the last few years. They just want someone who will get things done. Brady is being billed as a consensus-maker who can cross racial and political lines to do that. Knox is billing himself as a reformer who will get things done by not owing anyone anything. Nutter is running on getting things done, too (I think he'd be a good mayor) but he doesn't have the money Knox has. Brady and Knox are trying to appeal to everybody which I think is the winning strategy. Brady supporters would go to the guy who is trying to reach out to everyone, not just to a targeted base like Fattah is.
At least that is what Knox
Rizzo was running as a Republican, and irrelevant to the racial breakdown in the Democratic race.