Sunday, February 22, 2015

ACEB HEARING- TIM PAPE RECUSAL- CLEAR CONFLICT OF INTEREST

x
X
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wY6g9KTj10w/0.jpg

x

xx
x
bush's brain..
x
Gina Burgess
February 17 at 11:53pm · 
TO THOSE MAYORAL CANDIDATES CHALLENGING MAYOR HENRY TOMORROW: First, please read the article below entitled "Candidate Challenges Hearing Tomorrow" regarding the conflict of interest regarding Democratic member of the ACEB Tim Pape, as visually evidenced below.
Like ·  · 
  • Gina Burgess From Left to Right: City Attorney Tim Haffner (Faegre Baker Daniels), Mayor Henry, Marty Bender and Tim Pape (Carson Boxberger)
    February 17 at 11:55pm · Like · 2
  • Gina Burgess Again -- don't forget to check campaign finance reports of both Henry and Pape.
    February 18 at 12:03am · Like · 1
  • David Roach 2 NEW POSTS RE: what youre saying
    http://roach4mayor.blogspot.com/
    DAVID ROACH 4 MAYOR DEMOCRAT FORT WAYNE
    dcroach@yahoo.com DCRoach60@Gmail.com see links:...
    ROACH4MAYOR.BLOGSPOT.COM|BY DAVID ROACH
    February 20 at 5:39pm · Like
  • David Roach I DID file an email request asking that PAPE recuse himself. AND- as you have since pointed out- HE should have recused himself voluntarily; for conflict of interest. In fact- much of what i talked about the importance of full and complete disclosure on these new local economic interest statements centered around electing Politicians who DONT have to recuse themselves from votes in office- city council meetings, etc- for that very Reason- because the voters thereby lose representation from whomever they elected. I "alluded" to in a general way- about former council members having to recuse themselves before; AND talked about why having church related issues- board members, church OWNERS' ETC- was also important such as the vote to give a couple Million bucks to University of St Francis, etc.
    which is why I filed all those challenges about incomplete, inaccurate statements- including most of all Mayor Henry's. I specifically talked about his wifes (spouses) interests and "business activities with the Democrat party- which is a business by any other name; and what about the liquor license? was it sold? with the bar? held? as an asset? is it the "behind the scenes" business interest in the green frog? and she found a couple kids to run the day to day? 
    which makes all the recent media attention over well- cindy henry sold her bar ( but did she? or didnt she?- a matter for debating her integrity..)
    there was discussion about the Mayors possible ongoing interests in the GALANT GROUP- and when he divested in it- or just what exactly?
    And a lengthy discussion about the Mayors candidate paperwork filing- with a incorrect middle name listed? To which that QUESTION wasnt answered by any showing of the Mayors birth certificate- to prove or disprove my allegations.. I told the ACEB- im an ordinary citizen and as such- WE dont have access to other peoples birth records for nearly any reason. So Mr Henry should quell this conspiracy/controversy- by showing us if his true real accurate middle birth name is Charles as the waynedale news reported; and as is repeated on wikipedia; and we have all heard, read, oir seen is commonly known as Charles; but on his filing paperwork is printed as Christopher..
    which blows down the whole house of cards, and as in computer jargon FATAL ERROR. no recovery. the proverbial electoral BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH for his campaign..
    February 20 at 5:58pm · Edited · Like
  • David Roach has anybody out there ever lost any money playing cherry masters at the green frog in? tax evasion.. thats what nailed CAPONE..
    February 20 at 5:59pm · Like
x

x

Gina Burgess
February 17 at 11:16pm · 
CANDIDATE CHALLENGES HEARING TOMORROW: The Allen County Election Board will hear the challenge against Mayor Henry, Brian Thornton – as well as challenges against several other candidates filed last week – at a hearing at noon Wednesday in the Rousseau Centre, Conference Room 419. Due to illness, I will not be in attendance. Only those who have issued challenges or have had challenges issued against them will have an opportunity to discuss the matters before ACEB.
Like ·  · 
  • David Burgess likes this.
  • Gina Burgess To Brian Thornton -- The challenge against you seems to stem from an allegation that you did not vote in the 2014 Primary. Personally, I find that hard to believe as you and I had a conversation on the topic of you needing to vote in the Primary to be eligible for future races. I believe you were also told that by Dem Chairman John Court when he asked you to remove yourself from the Clerk of Court ballot last year. This means that you will need to prove that you voted in last May's primary. The ACEB has records of everybody who voted in the primary. They know which primary you voted and what party you voted for. So, if you failed to follow advice that was given you, then remove yourself from the ballot and let this be a valuable lesson learned---the Dem Chair does not keep his word when it comes to signing things or putting people on the ballot. Court is supported by Henry and Henry wants his people in that office--pure and simple. After 32 years of management of that office by the same person--it is well overdue for an audit. Having said that, I'm not convinced you are the best person for that job. However, if you voted and they are saying you did not, then in my opinion---you should prepare an affidavit and have it notarized affirming that you did indeed vote in the 2014 primary. If it were me, I would also find third-party proof of your vote by way ofhttp://www.votermapping.com/.
    February 17 at 11:24pm · Like · 2
  • Gina Burgess To the Mayoral candidate(s) who are issuing challenges against Mayor Tom Henry -- Before proceedings begin, I would make a formal request, perferably in writing, to the ACEB and ask that Tim Pape recuse himself from tomorrow ACEB's hearing. Why? Because Pape is the managing partner of the law firm of Carson Boxberger. Carson Boxberger has traditionally given sizeable campaign contributions to Mayor Henry's campaign (as have Tim Pape personally through his wife---check Henry's campaign finance reports). In return, Carson Boxberger has been on the receiving end of numerous city payments for legal services rendered in matters ranging from the defense of the FWPD in the Yahree Cavin matter to the architecture of the contracts concerning Harrison Square and other public-private partnership agreements, memorandums of understanding and various related contracts. If Pape refuses to recuse himself, then I would ask Tom Hardin to recuse himself. Why? Because since the perception can be raised that Pape's firm receives work from the City as a result of their contributions to Mayor Henry's campaigns, it creates a gift situation (some might even call it "pay to play"). The ACEB is under the jurisdiction of the County, meaning its under the jurisdiction of the Allen County Ethics Commission. Hardin happens to be a member of the ACEC. Also, if Pape (or Hardin) recuses themselves, make sure their proxy is not currently an elected official (even a minor school board position like Mark GiaQuinta---their favorite go-to guy in these situations). Also, make sure it is not another member of Carson Boxberger or of another law firm that has contributed to the Mayor's campaign and has received payment from the City for work accordingly (i.e. perception of a gift). Here's a list of those firms to help you out: http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...
    February 17 at 11:33pm · Like · 1
  • Gina Burgess To all challengers and challengees alike: Something often gets lost upon candidates and the political powers that be -- Perjury. Perjury is a criminal offense that if conviction can lead to a Class D felony. Now, why is this relevant? Because all those campaign forms that had to be filed by now, were either certified, affirmed or otherwise signed under oath and notarized. Here's the appropriate statute regarding perjury for anyone who is interested:

    IC 35-44-2-1 Perjury 

    Sec. 1. (a) A person who: 

    (1) makes a false, material statement under oath or affirmation, knowing the statement to be false or not believing it to be true; or 

    (2) has knowingly made two (2) or more material statements, in a proceeding before a court or grand jury, which are inconsistent to the degree that one (1) of them is necessarily false; commits perjury, a Class D felony. 

    (b) In a prosecution under subsection (a)(2) of this section: 

    (1) the indictment or information need not specify which statement is actually false; and 

    (2) the falsity of a statement may be established sufficient for conviction, by proof that the defendant made irreconcilably contradictory statements which are material to the point in question.

    SOURCE: http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/2004/title35/ar44/ch2.html
    Indiana Code 35-44-2
    IC 35-44-2-1 Perjury      Sec. 1. (a) A person who:         (1) makes a false, material statement under oath or affirmation, knowing the statement to be false or not believing it to be true; or         (2) has knowingly made two (2) or more material statements, in a proceeding before a court or gran…
    IN.GOV
    February 17 at 11:40pm · Edited · Like · 1
  • Gina Burgess DISCLAIMER: I am not now nor have I ever been an attorney. The above opinions and suggestions are not legal advice. Rather, they are facts, processes, strategies and/or tools that I, myself, might utilize if I were in the position of the challenger or challengee.
    February 17 at 11:39pm · Like · 1
  • Cathy Cross The article you posted regarding the campaign-donor ordinance is 4 years old. What is the current status of this ordinance?
    February 18 at 12:48am · Like
  • Gina Burgess Cathy Cross -- Without doing additional research on that subject--off the cuff, I believe the ordinance itself failed. If memory serves me correctly, the bill was authored by Liz Brown, but defeated as a matter of state law or perhaps constitutional law. I believe Tim Pape made the counter-argument that the ordinance was unconstitutional on the basis that it would restrict the freedom of speech of the corporate donors who were spotlighted in the ordinance proposed. Liz Brown is now a State Senator and has a really busy schedule, but I'm hoping that maybe she can answer your question, Cathy Cross---that way you are getting it directly from someone involved. My purpose for posting a 4-year old article wasn't to discuss that particular ordinance, although perhaps such a discussion is warranted, but rather to highlight how much money Carson Boxberger and others have given to Mayor Henry's campaign and conversely how much money these firms make in doing business with the City. Thank you for the question though--perhaps it is time to revisit that matter. 
    February 18 at 11:18am · Like · 1
  • Cathy Cross Thank you.
    February 18 at 11:20am · Like · 1
  • Charlotte A. Weybright I must have missed the article about the challenges to Mayor Henry. I know Thornton is being challenged because he allegedly did not vote in the last primary as a Democrat - or didn't vote at all in the primary. 

    Where is the article on the various challenges to Mayor Henry? Thanks! I get the newspaper, and I must have missed it.
    February 18 at 1:21pm · Like
  • Charlotte A. Weybright Never mind - I misread. You were addressing those who have filed to run against Mayor Henry. When I saw the word "challenging" I immediately thought of a legal challenge to running. Duh!
    February 18 at 1:50pm · Edited · Like · 1
  • Charlotte A. Weybright The ordinance is G-11-07-11, and it can be found at the City Clerk's website. You can also go back to the streaming video in July 2011 to see discussions about the ordinance.

    The issue with the ordinance originally - if I remember correctly - was that it was too narrow and targeted the mayor and not others who could receive contributions and have an interest in approving contracts - i.e. City Council members.
    February 18 at 2:58pm · Like · 1
  • Gina Burgess Nice job Charlotte!!! Thanks for finding that for all of us. I'm definitely going to be checking it out. 
    February 18 at 2:59pm · Like
  • Gina Burgess David, David, David (Roach) -- What were you thinking? You cannot present a challenge without having some sort of evidence with you at the time of the hearing. The ACEB hearing is run very much like a court of law. When you bring forth a challenge, the burden of proof is always on the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has to prove their case against the Defendant by a preponderance of the evidence. The Plaintiff doesn't show up in court and say, "Your Honor -- Here's some information, if you go and investigate the matter, you will find that what I am saying is true." That's not how it works at all. 

    Your complaints should have cited statutes, facts backing up those statutes, and evidence backing up the facts. (Brian Thornton -- Makes notes.) 

    Now, part of the problem with the ACEB is that in the past (the Schrader matter of 2011), they did do some investigation---after the fact, waaaaaay after the fact. That's when they learned two things: (1) That they cannot arbitrarily remove someone off the ballot after the Primary, especially if that person gets elected, pursuant to a conversation they had with the Indiana Election Commission; and (2) that Schrader had let the folks in Green Bay, Wisconsin know that he was a resident of Fort Wayne, Indiana and that he never intended to give up his residency, pursuant to a fax they received from election board in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Of course, this was well after the ACEB had erroneously ruled on the matter. Instead of admitting they made a mistake and voluntarily taking a corrective course of action, they did what they did--perverting the electoral process that year and making the process questionable ever-since. 

    Also, your failure to ask Pape to recuse himself now also prohibits you (or anyone else) from being able to bring forth an ethics complaint for the potential conflict of interest. 

    While I may not always agree with the ACEB on matters, I have to side with them on this one. Although I would have liked to have seen Tim Pape take the higher road and voluntarily recuse himself, the fact remains no one challenged him on that. In this instance, I agree with the outcome and the decision rendered by Pape and Hardin.
    February 18 at 10:47pm · Edited · Like · 1
x
x
x
x
x
x



Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)