| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
FlintCityMole
F L I N T O I D
|
From Marcie:
The past week has been quite eventful. There has been a recall petition going around against Flint's Mayor Dayne Walling. People with brains realize this is a waste of time and tax payers' money; others think it's completely justified despite there being a new election in a year. By the time their signatures go through and the election is set, and IF the mayor was actually recalled, the mayor would only be out of office a few months before the new election. WASTE!
So, I was playing around on FB the other day when I saw a friend post about how he was approached downtown by 3 petitioners all at separate times stating that if he signed the petitions it would bring back police and fire fighters. They stated nothing about the recall. When my friend looked at the petition it stated it was to recall Mayor Walling. That set me off.
So off I go downtown with my cell phone in tow. I located a petitioner on the sidewalk and park next to him. I turned my cell phone video camera on and stepped out of my car. Here's the convo, although it's the best to my recollection. If anyone wants to see the video they'll have to call me.
Him: Are you a registered voter?
Me: Yeah, I am.
Him: Are you a citizen of Flint?
Me: Yeah, why? What's going on?
Him: This is a petition to bring back our police officers, fire fighters, and sanitation workers.
Me: Oh, okay. (I took the petition in hand) What is this?
Him: Oh, it's a recall petition on Mayor Walling.
Me: But you're saying this is to bring back police officers and fire fighters. You do realize that by recalling the Mayor you're not actually bringing back police officers and fire fighters, right? I mean, this seems to be what you're telling people.
Him: Yes, that's what I was told to say.
Me: Who told you to say this?
Him: David Davenport
And from there I informed him it is defrauding the citizens of Flint and can ruin the campaign.
THIS IS NOT RIGHT! SHAME ON ANYONE INVOLVED IN THIS FALSE CAMPAIGN! |
|
|
Fri Jul 02, 2010 1:57 pm |
|
|
00SL2
F L I N T O I D
|
No one should sign a petition without first reading it and understanding its contents. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence isn't going to sign based on what the petition carrier says but on what is written in the petition.
Mole, from Marcie to whom? Did Marcie ask you to post this in public forum, or give her permission to do so? |
|
|
|
Fri Jul 02, 2010 8:23 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
| OOSL2 is right and the issue of fraud in what petitioners allegedly say has been in court already. Read what you sign. These individuals may believe that Walling has allocated the budget in such a way so as to eliminate officers that did not have to be laid off. Trash is back and so are fire fighters. Walling indicated police could return if they gave in to his demands. No one will risk their life for $9 an hour while he pays his cronies handsomely! |
|
|
|
Fri Jul 02, 2010 8:43 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Oral arguments in a federal lawsuit charging MCRI and the State of Michigan with violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were heard on August 17, 2006 with attorneys presenting their closing arguments on the morning of August 18, 2006. The case was heard by U.S. District Court Judge Arthur Tarnow, who promised to rule on the matter by September 8, 2006, to give officials enough time to print up the ballot. During the first day of the hearing, hundreds of protesters picketed outside the courthouse chanting among other things, "Racist fraud, hell no! MCRI has got to go!"[8][9] The lawsuit was filed by Operation King's Dream, Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, Detroit City Council, American-Arab Anti Discrimination Committee, Michigan Legislative Black Caucus, Keep the Vote No Takover, AFSCME Locals 207, 312, and 2920, and UAW 2200 as well as several individual voters.[10] Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm submitted an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs.[11]
On August 29, 2006, the case was decided with Judge Tarnow, a Democratic judicial appointee, refusing to remove the initiative from the ballot.[7] However, Judge Tarnow declared that "MCRI engaged in systematic voter fraud by telling voters that were signing a petition supporting affirmative action." However, because the case was not decided on these grounds, this statement is legally characterized as "dicta"--judicial commentary that is not relevant to the outcome of a case. Tarnow also found the testimony of Jennifer Gratz (MCRI's executive director) in the court to be evasive and misleading. His stated reason for refusing an injunction to remove the MCRI from the ballot was the MCRI "targeted all Michigan voters for deception without regard to race." He ruled that the Voting Rights Act was not violated because it "is not a general anti-voter fraud statute, but rather prohibits practices which result in unequal access to the political process because of race."
Luke Massie, national co-chair of the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigrant Rights & Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) announced that the plaintiffs would appeal Tarnow's decision to the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, saying "It makes no sense to conclude there was fraud and allow the vote to go forward." The 6th Circuit rejected the appeal in mid-September [12].
[edit] Voting and Poll Results
On November 27, 2006, Proposal 2 was certified officially by the Michigan Secretary of State to have passed by a margin of 58% to 42% (2,141,010 "Yes" votes to 1,555,691 "No" votes)[13]. The last reported poll of October 15, by The Detroit News, showed MCRI to have up to a 50-41 lead. In another Free Press-Local 4 Michigan poll conducted by Selzer & Co. Inc. of Des Moines between October 8 to October 11 of 643 likely voters, it was shown that 41% were in favor of the MCRI, while 44% opposed the measure, and 15% of the voter poll were undecided. The poll had a margin of error of 3.9% making the poll a statistical dead-heat. Another poll, from mid-September 2006, showed MCRI was up 48-37 with 15% undecided, with the pollster admitting that his previous polls had not used the exact language of the proposal until the Sept. poll. The entire polling process highlighted an ongoing debate about the scientific value of modern phone polling on questions of race or controversial social issues where the polled members of the public may be "embarrassed" by social desirability bias to give a truthful response about their intended vote for fear that they will be identified. The effect, which was predicted by several Michigan political consultants and even some pollsters themselves, represents a new concern in polling accuracy.
[edit] Board of Canvassers Meeting
In July 2005, the Michigan State Board of Canvassers declined to certify the MCRI proposal for Michigan's November 2006 ballot after hearing allegations that a significant number of signatures were obtained by telling supporters of affirmative action that the petition was likewise, in support of affirmative action. Counter-allegations were made by MCRI supporters that the allegations were fabricated and that the Board of Canvassers' decision-process itself was being improperly influenced by politics because Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer was "giving orders" to the two Democrat-appointed members of the Board, and backed up by the linked videotape shot by MCRI Treasurer and publisher Chetly Zarko.[14] Despite the deadlocked vote by the Canvassers and their inability to certify the petition as a result, in October of the same year the Michigan Court of Appeals ordered the board to certify the petitions.
On December 14, 2005, in Lansing, Michigan, while attempting to comply with that court order to certify the petitions, the board's four members were scheduled to make the final vote to certify the petitions for the November ballot. However, the meeting attended by hundreds of Detroit high school students. The crowd began to shout "No voter fraud," until they became so loud that the members left the room adjourning until 2pm. Chanting, "They say Jim Crow! We say hell no!," the emotion-surged crowd of students continued until a table was overturned in the commotion and the Lansing police came in to control the situation. Opponents of MCRI labeled their own conduct "civil disobedience" while proponents argued it crossed the line into outright violence and intentional intimidation.[15] Video of the situation can be seen here.[16]
After the protest, the election panel again failed to certify the petitions with a vote of 2-1, falling short of the required three votes. Republican board members Katherine Degrow and Lyn Banks voted in favor with Democrats Paul Mitchell voting no and Doyle O'Connor not voting.
The meeting received considerable media attention because of the protest. In the months following the controversial board meeting, both Mitchell and O'Connor resigned from the board and were fined $250 on contempt of court charges.[17] O'Connor later testified against the MCRI at the August 17 federal court hearing, relaying how he had witnessed two African-American women circulating the anti-affirmative action petition in Detroit telling signers that it was in support of affirmative action. Proponents counter this claim by arguing that O'Connor, as a member of the Board of Canvassers, had failed to offer this testimony during Board meetings and waited until after the Board had decided and a lawsuit begun to relay his alleged testimony. Proponents suggest that O'Connor had a clear conflict of interest as a first-hand witness, and that he unethically failed to relay that information to the rest of the board and to MCRI officials and recuse himself from the decision-making process, and that his testimony as a result is simply not credible given that he waited so long to relay it.
Committee, MCRI (2004-2006). "Official Ballot Language". The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative Committee. http://www.michigancivilrights.org/ballotlanguage.html.
^ Egan, Paul (January 20, 2007). "High court slams door on delay of Prop 2". The Detroit News. http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070120/SCHOOLS/701200399.
^ Core, Harold (June 9, 2006). "Michigan Civil Rights Commission Calling on Supreme Court and Attorney General to Take Action Regarding MCRI Fraud". Michigan Department of Civil Roghts. http://www.michigan.gov/mdcr/0,1607,7-138--145077--,00.html.
^ Bernstein, Mark. Mohammed Abdrabboh and George Wirth.Michigan Civil Rights Commission June 7, 2006 memo. "michigan.gov" (website).
^ Michigan Civil Rights Initiative Committee.Report on Abuse of Power by Michigan Civil Rights Commission memo. "michigancivilrights.org" (website).
^ United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.Case No. 05-2258, Kilpatrick et al. vs. Land et al.. "bamn.com" (website).
^ a b Driver, Shanta; Luke Massie (August 30, 2006). "Judge Tarnow finds: "the MCRI engaged in systematic voter fraud" – refuses injunction". BAMN. http://www.bamn.com/doc/2006/060830-prel-tarnow-refuses.asp.
^ Committee, MCRI (August 17, 2006). "Radical Pro-Racial Preference group Protests Outside Federal Courthouse in Detroit". The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative Committee. http://michigancivilrights.org/bamnvideo.html.
^ news, Action (2006). "Article". WXYZ TV. http://www.detnow.com/wxyz/nw_local_news/article/0,2132,WXYZ_15924_4923883,00.html.
^ TARNOW, ARTHUR (July 17, 2006). "OPERATION KING'S DREAM et al. vs. Connerly and Gratz" (PDF). UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. http://www.bamn.com/doc/2006/060718-brf-inj-fedct.pdf. |
|
|
|
Fri Jul 02, 2010 9:20 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Quotes from Judge Arthur Tarnow's Decision
Operation King's Dream, et al. v. Connerly, et al.
29 August, 2006
The Court finds that the MCRI engaged in systematic voter fraud by telling voters that they were signing a petition supporting affirmative action. …
If the proposal eventually passes, it will be stained by well-documented acts of fraud and deception that the defendants, as a matter of fact, have not credibly denied. …
The People of Michigan should also be concerned by the indifference exhibited by the state agencies who could have investigated and addressed MCRI's actions but failed to do so. With the exception of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission, the record shows that the state has demonstrated an almost complete institutional indifference to the credible allegations of voter fraud raised by Plaintiffs. If the institutions established by the People of Michigan, including the Michigan Courts, Board of State Canvassers, Secretary of State, Attorney General, and Bureau of Elections, had taken the allegations of voter fraud seriously, then it is quite possible that this case would not have come to federal court. …
Gratz was either ignorant of the state's failure to investigate the plaintiff's allegations, or that she deliberately lied by stating that the Bureau of Elections had investigated those claims. …
In reviewing Gratz's testimony as a whole, it is difficult to determine where the line between willful ignorance and deliberate deception could be drawn. …
Unfortunately, her lack of clarity and forthrightness seems typical of the MCRI's approach, which is best characterized by the use of deception and connivance to confuse the issues in the hopes of getting the proposal on the ballot. …
The Court finds that MCRI and its circulators engaged in a pattern of voter fraud by deceiving voters into believing that the petition supported affirmative action. At the evidentiary hearing and oral argument conducted in this Court, neither the state defendants nor the MCRI defendants presented an adequate defense either to the facts set forth in the Michigan Civil Rights Commission's Report or to the testimony elicited during the evidentiary hearing. The evidence overwhelmingly favors a finding that the MCRI defendants engaged in voter fraud. …
Jennifer Gratz's confusion at the evidentiary hearing as to the purpose of the MCRI's proposal supports the Court's conclusion that the MCRI deliberately encouraged voter fraud and did nothing to remedy such fraud once it occurred. …
Precisely because of the state's indifference to valid allegations of voter fraud, this case has fallen through the cracks and reached federal court. …
[Emphasis added.]
letters@bamn.com
313-438-3748 Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration & Immigrant Rights
And Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) |
|
|
|
Fri Jul 02, 2010 9:27 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Sponsored Links For: Mortgage Fraud, Tax Fraud, How to Fraud, Business Fraud
MCRI Petition Fraud - 2006 - C:\$LOIS\Letterhead\letterhead ...
allegations of voter fraud perpetrated by the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative ... fraudulent gathering of petition signatures. In Michigan Civil Rights ...
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/PetitionFraudreport_162009_7.pdf - - Cached - Similar pages
Groups allege petition fraud in push for mayoral control of ...
Jun 15, 2010 ... "This is the same type of voter fraud that was used by Ward Connerly to place ... the referendum abolishing affirmative in Michigan, on the ballot. ... organized a press conference yesterday to detail the allegations. ...
http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/06/activist_group_alleges_petitio.html - 63k - Cached - Similar pages
Ward Connerly - STOP BALLOT FRAUD
Despite the charges of voter fraud, Arizona Senator John McCain, ... In Nebraska , Connerly has faced charges that petition collectors collected ... Court cases attempting to overturn affirmative action at the University of Michigan. ...
http://www.stopballotfraud.org/merchant/ward_connerly - 23k - Cached - Similar pages
Michigan Civil Rights Initiative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The crowd began to shout "No voter fraud," until they became so loud that the ... the Commission had previously alleged in its June 2006 fraud-allegation report ... On Thursday, February 15, BAMN submitted 2000 petitions to the Board of ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Civil_Rights_Initiative - 144k - Cached - Similar pages
Quotes from Judge Tarnow's decision in Operation King's Dream, et ...
Aug 29, 2006 ... The Court finds that the MCRI engaged in systematic voter fraud by telling voters that they were signing a petition supporting affirmative action. ... to the credible allegations of voter fraud raised by Plaintiffs. ... either to the facts set forth in the Michigan Civil Rights Commission's Report ...
http://www.bamn.com/doc/2006/060830-tarnow-decision-quotes.asp - 13k - Cached - Similar pages
Colorado Petition Draws Charges of Deception - New York Times
Apr 1, 2008 ... In 2006 in Michigan, a federal judge criticized Mr. Connerly's supporters as engaging in fraud by telling voters they were signing petitions ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/us/01denver.html - - Cached - Similar pages |
|
|
|
Fri Jul 02, 2010 9:33 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
| The bottom line is it does not matter if paid signature collectors are deceptive-the person signing is responsible for reading what they sign. I have had deceitful petitions presented to me in the past, but after reading them I did not sign, |
|
|
|
Sat Jul 03, 2010 8:01 am |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
