D122 Member Kathy Miller Kicked Off A...

D122 Member Kathy Miller Kicked Off April Election Ballot

There are 253 comments on the Patch.com story from Jan 11, 2013, titled D122 Member Kathy Miller Kicked Off April Election Ballot. In it, Patch.com reports that:

The nomination petition filed by New Lenox School District 122 Board Member Kathy Miller was found to be invalid at a special hearing Friday.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Patch.com.

Lost

New Lenox, IL

#231 Jan 31, 2013
Baloney wrote:
Miller was put back on the ballot by a partisan Democrat Judge because she was represented by the current head of the Will County Democrat Party. Now, DiSandro, in coordination with Sass, is trying to bully her in to resigning, like Sass and Brouwer did four years ago. All of this is because she and Smith won't go along with the scam. Sass keeps control of the teachers by jacking up their salaries in the last few years before retirement long as they cooperate with him. That's why he has the teacher's union in his hip pocket and they will show up in droves at board meetings to back him up on a moment's notice. They are all part of the Mayor's plan to stack the board to appoint him Superintendent as soon as Manville leaves. The taxpayers are left with the bill.
Maureen stop posting on topix
Social Security

Calumet City, IL

#232 Jan 31, 2013
Baloney wrote:
Miller was put back on the ballot by a partisan Democrat Judge because she was represented by the current head of the Will County Democrat Party. Now, DiSandro, in coordination with Sass, is trying to bully her in to resigning, like Sass and Brouwer did four years ago. All of this is because she and Smith won't go along with the scam. Sass keeps control of the teachers by jacking up their salaries in the last few years before retirement long as they cooperate with him. That's why he has the teacher's union in his hip pocket and they will show up in droves at board meetings to back him up on a moment's notice. They are all part of the Mayor's plan to stack the board to appoint him Superintendent as soon as Manville leaves. The taxpayers are left with the bill.
I don't think Manville is going anywhere once she takes over. Why would she nor should she go anywhere. She's right for the job. Besides by that time Big Tim will have had his fill of New Lenox and will be looking at schools and towns in Arizona to take control of.
Right

New Lenox, IL

#233 Jan 31, 2013
Social Security wrote:
<quoted text>I don't think Manville is going anywhere once she takes over. Why would she nor should she go anywhere. She's right for the job. Besides by that time Big Tim will have had his fill of New Lenox and will be looking at schools and towns in Arizona to take control of.
Peggy Manville is only guaranteed the job while she's under contract. When her contract is up the job is open to whomever the Dist. 122 School Board wants to put in that position.
Right

New Lenox, IL

#234 Jan 31, 2013
Lost wrote:
<quoted text>
Maureen stop posting on topix
If that was Maureen's post then I'd say she's brilliant!
Errors

Mchenry, IL

#235 Jan 31, 2013
Right wrote:
<quoted text>
If that was Maureen's post then I'd say she's brilliant!
Why? There are tons of errors in that paragraph. Isn't she all about chastising people for simple mistakes?
Just watch

Mokena, IL

#236 Jan 31, 2013
Baloney wrote:
Miller was put back on the ballot by a partisan Democrat Judge because she was represented by the current head of the Will County Democrat Party. Now, DiSandro, in coordination with Sass, is trying to bully her in to resigning, like Sass and Brouwer did four years ago. All of this is because she and Smith won't go along with the scam. Sass keeps control of the teachers by jacking up their salaries in the last few years before retirement long as they cooperate with him. That's why he has the teacher's union in his hip pocket and they will show up in droves at board meetings to back him up on a moment's notice. They are all part of the Mayor's plan to stack the board to appoint him Superintendent as soon as Manville leaves. The taxpayers are left with the bill.
Keep this post handy. It will prove to be true in a couple of years.
Notary

Downers Grove, IL

#237 Feb 1, 2013
Graphic wrote:
<quoted text> Seriously? Is this true? Judge and Jury for sure. I think it's appalling. Clearly, this is a personal vendetta. They are jealous, ignorant, and incapable of keeping District 122 out of the news. Come on Smith and Broderick. THE KIDS. THE KIDS. This is so typical of these two.
I have not had the time to read all of the comments to this post. What I would like to know is if anyone has bothered to point out that notarizing a false signature is ILLEGAL? Have charges been brought up against the notary as of yet? This is not a simple clerical error by the notary and as a business owner of an insurance agency, Kathy knows this full well. This is against the law.
Neighbor

Wheaton, IL

#238 Feb 1, 2013
Great point! That's the whole purpose of a Notorized signature right? <The plot thickens....
Appalled

Joliet, IL

#239 Feb 1, 2013
Notary wrote:
<quoted text>
I have not had the time to read all of the comments to this post. What I would like to know is if anyone has bothered to point out that notarizing a false signature is ILLEGAL? Have charges been brought up against the notary as of yet? This is not a simple clerical error by the notary and as a business owner of an insurance agency, Kathy knows this full well. This is against the law.
From what I heard, the signature was "placed" in the wrong spot. Nobody ever claimed that the signature was falsely notorized. The clerical error was on Miller's part, not the notary. While the notary swears to the signature, they are not responsible for the legalities of the contract.
Appalled

Joliet, IL

#240 Feb 1, 2013
Neighbor wrote:
Great point! That's the whole purpose of a Notorized signature right? <The plot thickens....
Think it through, Neighbor. Nobody questioned the signature authenticity. They questioned the placement.
Notary

Downers Grove, IL

#241 Feb 1, 2013
What wrote:
<quoted text>
Squad parked in front of the door? Is this something that happens at every meeting?
No this does not happen at every meeting. It only happens at the meetings that Dr. Sass directs the union president to direct the teachers/principals/staff to show up at the meeting; jump up and down and hoot and holler like clowns. Great to know that this same person runs our district and the union president teaches our children.
Neighbor

Wheaton, IL

#242 Feb 1, 2013
Agreed. But (help me out) the Notary observes the person signing right? Then stamps it as accurate right? I don't know the specifics here, but I do know there are two signature spots on the bottom of a Petition (candidates & person who passed the petition). I believe (help me out) the candidate must sign in the presence of the Notary & the Notary stamps it as accurate. Seems too straight forward for an error.... How was this found to be incorrect (specifically if you know)?
Notary

Downers Grove, IL

#243 Feb 1, 2013
Appalled wrote:
<quoted text>
From what I heard, the signature was "placed" in the wrong spot. Nobody ever claimed that the signature was falsely notorized. The clerical error was on Miller's part, not the notary. While the notary swears to the signature, they are not responsible for the legalities of the contract.
If that is the case, then I understand. However, the notary should verify that the signature is in the correct place and is authentic; but, that is something I do as a notary. I do not just place my stamp where someone suggests.
Neighbor

Wheaton, IL

#244 Feb 1, 2013
Thanks... I am good now.
Appalled

Joliet, IL

#245 Feb 1, 2013
To Neighbor and Notary: A careful eye might have caught the discrepancy, but it not the Notary's job to proofread, right?
Neighbor

Wheaton, IL

#246 Feb 1, 2013
Seems to me, if a person must sign a doc in front of a Notary, the Notary would know they are validating "that" signature. But that's me...

So, did the Notary validate the Petition Passers signature as they signed it & stamped it valid -and not- validate the candidates signature? Or did the candidate sign in the presence of the Notary & the Notary stamped the Petion Passers? Now I wonder if the Candidate (required Notarized signature) was not present, and the Notary did the Notorizing on the Petion Passers signature because that's the person who was present? Peter piper picked a peck of pickled peppers...I am done! Please don't answer this! lol
Notary

Downers Grove, IL

#247 Feb 1, 2013
Appalled wrote:
To Neighbor and Notary: A careful eye might have caught the discrepancy, but it not the Notary's job to proofread, right?
I find you statement incorrect. The signatures that need to be notarized are not to be added to that paper until the persons are in the presence of the notary. Therefore, both Kathy and whoever else signed the paperwork needed to be present at the time of the notarization. If they were present and signing in front of the notary, that person would have clearly pointed out where they were to sign, checked their i.d.(unless she/he clearly knows them) and then notarized that they did indeed sign in front of her/him as required by law. A notary cannot interpret the law any way he/she pleases. They took on that title or job with the understanding that they would have complete respect for the law and complete their job in a lawful manner.
Cueball

United States

#249 Feb 1, 2013
This is all speculation.
Appalled

Joliet, IL

#250 Feb 1, 2013
Notary wrote:
<quoted text>
I find you statement incorrect. The signatures that need to be notarized are not to be added to that paper until the persons are in the presence of the notary. Therefore, both Kathy and whoever else signed the paperwork needed to be present at the time of the notarization. If they were present and signing in front of the notary, that person would have clearly pointed out where they were to sign, checked their i.d.(unless she/he clearly knows them) and then notarized that they did indeed sign in front of her/him as required by law. A notary cannot interpret the law any way he/she pleases. They took on that title or job with the understanding that they would have complete respect for the law and complete their job in a lawful manner.
I think you are missing my point. Nobody has said the notary was not present when the papers were signed. That came from you and Neighbor.

When you notarize a signature, do you check all the paperwork to make sure the lawyer, real estate entity or, as in this case, the political candidate has correctly filled everything out, or do you just notarize the signature? Seems to me you are placing a lot of responsibility on yourself because everytime I have had my signature notarized, the notary couldn't care less what I signed, just that I proved who I was.
Appalled

Joliet, IL

#251 Feb 1, 2013
Cueball wrote:
This is all speculation.
You are right. It is also unfair to cloud the issue with unverified information.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Joliet Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
trump cancels NOKO summit 12 min Appalled 30
trump, the sucker 2 hr Executive Action 73
Starbux 2 hr Starbux Bathroom 4
~New Lenox Double Word Fun~ 3 hr MPMMB 165
We can all learn a lot from Jimi 4 hr Robert Thomas 2
Council stung by its boner (Apr '17) 7 hr Larry Walsh the 5th 23
Great Job Mr President 8 hr Robert Thomas 33

Joliet Jobs

Personal Finance

Joliet Mortgages