Contradiction

[Sweeney Law]

http://jcpenknife.wordpress.com/2013/02/03/di...

[Letusnamenames]

Boyer now says Sweeney's 2011 opinion was correct because it would now work in his candidate's favor. I bet he was of a different opinion back in 2011 when it was issued since it didn't get the people off the ballot that he wanted. Oh wait, he's failing to report that in Sweeney's memo in 2011 it specifically names Boyer as the one who reported the personal property violations.

Flip flop.

[Sweeney Law]

Letusnamenames wrote:

Boyer now says Sweeney's 2011 opinion was correct because it would now work in his candidate's favor. I bet he was of a different opinion back in 2011 when it was issued since it didn't get the people off the ballot that he wanted. Oh wait, he's failing to report that in Sweeney's memo in 2011 it specifically names Boyer as the one who reported the personal property violations.
Flip flop.

Fact: The Department of Revenue must receive a complaint, investigate it, find an arrearage and give the candidate 30 days to pay any money owed. Since that is the case, then Mr. Missey should still be on the ballot. Removal was not up to the city clerk.
No matter who reported it, no matter who was involved, the law doesn't change, only Sweeney's interpretation of it to suit his agenda.

[Letusnamenames]

You're missing the point. You didn't like the 2011 interpretations when it happened and now you have flip flopped and like it. Is it because it is in your candidates favor this time around?

I do t think it matters if they were on the ballot at this point. Because of all the stink over missed/evaded taxes nobody would vote for him anyway.

[Sweeney Law]

Letusnamenames wrote:

You're missing the point. You didn't like the 2011 interpretations when it happened and now you have flip flopped and like it. Is it because it is in your candidates favor this time around?
I do t think it matters if they were on the ballot at this point. Because of all the stink over missed/evaded taxes nobody would vote for him anyway.

You are missing the point. The law is the law. It should be applied equally. It shouldn't change with Sweeney's opinion.

[Letusnamenames]

As it shouldn't change with which candidate you support and who gets kicked off of the ballot.

Now knowing that Missey is in arrears or suspected of tax fraud as stated by the Leader, I would not vote for him. The same goes for any candidate that is in arrears.

Mullins was in arrears on his sewer bill. I wouldn't vote for him knowing the only reason he paid was so he could run for office.

Let it go.

[Sweeney Law]

Missey should still be on the ballot! Everyone should have the opportunity to vote for him. Just like they had the opportunity to vote for Moritz and Crisler when they were in arrears. So you see, whether someone is in arrears or not makes no difference to many.

[Letusnamenames]

Actually it does, IF they know about it. Crisler and Moritz weren't widely publicized or at least I never heard about it. If I would have known Crisler would have lost my vote.

Moritz was unopposed in the election if memory serves.

[Sweeney Law]

2011 Mr. Moritz ran against Michelle Hohmeier, so no, he did not run unopposed when the taxes were in arrears.

[Matt Hay]

Letusnamenames wrote:

Actually it does, IF they know about it. Crisler and Moritz weren't widely publicized or at least I never heard about it. If I would have known Crisler would have lost my vote.
Moritz was unopposed in the election if memory serves.

Sure it was known. County Councilman Bob Boyer sent Diane Waller an inquiry about it, as he did not think they would be eligible, hence the Memo Sweeney drafted explaining that Bob Boyer misunderstood and that in fact, the County Clerk could not remove anyone and that it was the DoR's responsibility. The law is the law. You cannot have one interpretation for some and one for others. It is called Equal Protection. Either it applies now and should have applied then, meaning all votes in which Moritz participated are in dispute, or it does not apply, and Mr. Missey has 30 days from receipt of a notice from the DoR to make things right.

The point is that Mr. Sweeney arbitrarily and capriciously applies the law however he sees fit when it is in his financial interest.(ie. he was afraid he would be removed from office once again if Bill and Randy were both removed) so he indeed had a direct pecuniary interest. Come on now, surely, whether or not one believes Shaun should or should not be on the ballot, this is blanket hypocrisy on Sweeney's part, as is the fact other
officials, such as the Mayor of Byrnes Mill, were in arrears yet are still on the ballot. So, apparently State Statute applies differently from City to City depending if the individual injured is likely to continue to sign
his paychecks or not. No amount of Sweeney Logic can explain this one away. He acts in his own best interest, even when it results in a conflict of interests, like Ozark Bridge, representing all parties in the monies
paid to the Rhymers for their property on Kehrt in the Triangle deal, or at Jefferson County 911 representing both the 911 Board and the 3rd Party (POWER Union-Vice President) to which the $180k contract for "organizing" was subcontracted to.

Sweeney has a history of this, and the Bar, while declining to take formal action, has already rebuked and warned him once over his conflict and failure to disclose over Ozark Bridge.

[Letusnamenames]

Matt, do not SpAm the threads. We read it once. Posting it multiple times doesn't make it any better.

[equal schmequal]

I remember a few years ago that Brian Waldrop signed up to run against Paul Vinson, who was seeking a second term on the city council. Then Paul and Matt Hay showed up together in the last minutes on the last day of filing. Paul withdrew and Hay signed up. When it was discovered that Brian had unpaid taxes he was dropped from the ballot. Matt Hay ran unopposed because, as it turned out, the law was not applied arbitrarily and capriciously, was it? Notice in all this posting about unfairness they do not mention that year.

[Sweeney Law]

equal schmequal wrote:

I remember a few years ago that Brian Waldrop signed up to run against Paul Vinson, who was seeking a second term on the city council. Then Paul and Matt Hay showed up together in the last minutes on the last day of filing. Paul withdrew and Hay signed up. When it was discovered that Brian had unpaid taxes he was dropped from the ballot. Matt Hay ran unopposed because, as it turned out, the law was not applied arbitrarily and capriciously, was it? Notice in all this posting about unfairness they do not mention that year.

Duh, those were real estate taxes, not personal property taxes, completely different law.

[equal schmequal]

Duh? Do tell. How do you know that particular detail?

[Sweeney Law]

equal schmequal wrote:

Duh? Do tell. How do you know that particular detail?

Look it up on the County Collector's website.

[remember when]

Letusnamenames wrote:

Matt, do not SpAm the threads. We read it once. Posting it multiple times doesn't make it any better.

Shut your pie hole !!!! We have to put up with the air between your ears and your continuous SPAM .
Have a little problem with the TRUTH do ya ?

[Letusnamenames]

No, just a problem wih him putting it on every thread and the fact that he doesn't even live in Arnold anymore, or so I read in another thread.

Someone seems to have anger issues.

[Rick Perry]

Satan shoved a pineapple up Hitler's butt