del.icio.us
E-mail this
Facebook
I'm never really surprised when the board of elections bounces a rookie candidate off the ballot. In fact, I work on the assumption that the board will always favor the well connected over the neophyte in these matters. It's sort of like taking out a champion in boxing. If the rookie wants a win, it better be a knockout.
That being said, it was Christmas comes early for state rep John Fritchey last week, when hearing officer Lynne Ostfeld booted Roger Romanelli, his wannabe opponent in the 32nd Ward Democratic committeeman's race. Her ruling was a stretch even by election board standards.
On November 16 Fritchey challenged Romanelli's petitions in part on the grounds that they contained "the names of persons who did not sign the papers in their own proper persons." "Such signatures," his challenge urged, "are not genuine and are forgeries."
After Fritchey filed, the case moved to what they call a record review. That's the mind-numbing process where representatives from both sides sit around a computer screen while a clerk from the board of elections compares signatures on the nominating petitions to the signatures on voter registration cards. If the clerk thinks the signatures don't match, or if the address isn't in the ward, she recommends that they be stricken.
Romanelli submitted 710 signatures. At the records review, 483 signature were ruled invalid, leaving Romanelli with 227 valid signatures, 20 below the 247 he needed to make the ballot.
So Romanelli retraced his steps. Accompanied by notary publics, he and his aides went back to the homes of voters, asking them to sign sworn affidavits affirming they had indeed signed his original petitions or that they lived in the 32nd Ward. All told, he gathered 49.
"I could have got more, but I didn't think I needed more," says Romanelli. "I didn't think they were going to rule against 49 personally sworn affidavits."
Almost. On December 13 Ostfeld issued a ruling dismissing 45 of the statements. According to Ostfeld, it's not enough that voters signed notarized affidavits swearing that they signed the original petitions. They also have to explain why the signature on the petition looks different from their signatures on the voter registration card.
As more than one lawyer has explained to me, it doesn't matter why the signatures are different so long as the voter swears that he signed the original nominating petitions. "A sworn, notarized affidavit is what we call prima facie evidence," says one election-law attorney, who'd rather not be named because he has friends on both sides of the debate. "It's evidence that's established as a fact unless it's rebutted. But the hearing officer isn't rebutting the evidence. She's changing the issue."
Ostfeld also removed seven voters who'd signed affidavits attesting to the addresses at which they were registered. In this case her finding was that Romanelli "presents nothing to show" that the voters were "registered there on or before" the day in November when they signed his nominating petitions. Well, I suppose it's possible that all seven of these voters moved between signing the petition in November and signing the affidavit one month later. But is there any reason to doubt them on their word?
On Sunday Romanelli held a press conference to announce that he would appeal Ostfeld's ruling to the Cook County circuit court. On hand were four residents whose affidavits Ostfeld had dismissed. They showed me their driver's licenses to prove that they lived at their addresses and all but raised their right hands and swore to God that they were telling the truth. "They accused us of fraud, and the only way to debunk that is to sign an affidavit. So I signed," said Craig Gould, a 32nd Ward resident. "And now they say my affidavit's not good enough? I shouldn't have to prove I'm me. If they don't believe I'm me, they should have to prove it's not me."
For his part, Fritchey says he thinks the hearing officer made the right ruling. But he can understand why Romanelli and his supporters would be disappointed. "If people feel these rules should be changed, I'd be happy to sit down when them," he says.
By the way, Fritchey was represented by Michael Kasper, go-to guy for house speaker Michael Madigan and many others. Kasper's made a name for himself convincing the board to bounce independent Democrats and third-party candidates from the ballot. Fritchey says that his statehouse alliance with Madigan has nothing to do with him hiring Kasper or with Kasper taking his case -- they're old friends from law school.
Fair enough. But if the board's going to keep on making rulings like this one, I suggest we do away with the time, money, and inconvenience of elections altogether. Let's just give the oath of office to any candidate Kasper represents.
I don't think that I agree with the ruling, but I give Fritchey credit for being a gentleman about it. He didn't write the ruling, the hearing officer did.
I'm sure that if Romanelli had won the case, he would have thought that the hearing officer was just fine.
It sounds like you're either saying that something improper went on or that you're knocking Kasper for being very good at what he does. If there's no grounds for the first part of it, the second part doesn't seem very fair.
Getting 250 valid signatures in the 3 months of time given for circulating petitions doesn't seem like it should be that hard to do.
without the fix he could not have succeeded.
Statements made by Romanelli, outlandish or not,
are irrelevent. Anyone would have been mad.
What matters is ordinary citizens got
mugged in broad daylight by a sworn official.
How many votes does it take to elect an insider
as Ward Committeeman? None. A tremendous
victory for State Representative John Fritchey.
That's just the type of thing I was talking about. If you are going to make serious claims like that, you need to be able to back them up with something other than 'I just know it was fixed'.
On the other hand, if you think that the wrong legal decision was reached, appeal it like 'that's life' said.
To simply rant without facts makes a person look desperate, bitter, and a little crazy.
It's an affidavit!
The way I see it, it turns out that Fritchey had a good reason to challenge the petitions; Romanelli fell short by virtue of an iffy ruling; and now Romanelli is trying to blame Fritchey for the decision of the hearing officer.
If Romanelli hadn't turned in so many bogus signatures, it wouldn't have turned on the affidavits. That's life.
Please don't cry Roger& friends, Fritchey will sit down and console you.
What about everything else I said?
To Affs-
Should Fritchey have flipped them off? You'd whine no matter what he said.
If there's an opponent someone is going to ask for a debate and Fritchey doesn't want to answer questions
Bought and paid for whores will do what they've been bought and paid to do.
In the grand scheme of things, both the Democratic party and the Republican party are obsolete creations of archaic minded control freaks.
No one need care about who gets 'elected' to 'lead' either of these stagnant pools of decayed mentalities.
Regardless of who either party chooses to run in the General Election, all the voters need to do is remember to:
REGISTER TO VOTE
VOTE IN EVERY ELECTION
HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT
When given the chance, vote for any independent candidate.
When only a Republican and a Democrat are running, vote for whoever is NOT the incumbent.
Successful criminal conspiracies, which accurately describes the activities of both the Democratic party and the Republican party, require as many co-conspirators in positions of influence and authority as possible.
Deny Republicans and Democrats these positions and you deny them the ability to successfully conspire.
Shake up their comfortable and cocky worlds and see them reveal themselves for who, and what, they truly are.
Just Do It.
and it would't have made a difference.
Romanelli could have needed 500 signatures or
250. The outcome would have been the same.
A sworn official tossed just the right number of legitimate documents, sprinkle in a few extra.
Romanelli deserved to be on. Forget the bad signatures -he got enough good ones and proved it.
Was there testimony from one or two of the 45?
Osterfeld must be a handwriting expert, right?
And she is on record requesting research on the affidavits, right? Because it took days for them to
come up with this and she took days to diligently
review the information. I know she did a super job because as an appointee she is probably being
carefully scrutinized by her squeakly clean
superiors. By the way, if Fritchey is not the
person who signed the complaint, who did?
He personally had to vouch that the signatures
were fake didn't he?
The fix was clearly in, or 45 people are lying.
Wrong. Take the time to read the ruling. She said that the affidavits were insufficient under the Supreme Court rules.
She didn't question the integrity of the signers, she said that the affidavits did contain the required facts and it was because Romanelli and his lawyer used 'form affidavits'.
You might not agree with her, but far far from a 'fix'.
Fritchey never once came out and
challenged Gabinski who begat Matlak. Then he
sat out the first real Aldermanic race in my entire lifetime. This is not honorable. I wanted a contest for the position of Committeemen.
As for how the judge ruled it is mumbo jumbo.
Romanelli got the proof he needed to get on
the ballot. She insults all of us by twisting
logic until it came out to cancell the signatures.
I would rather have a mistake made that will
let a candidate on the ballot than keep them off. It is the voters who should make these types of free
decisions in the election.
Romanelli's petitions were crap or he never would have had this problem. Only issue. End of story.
But when you can't argue facts, argue conspiracies and non sequiturs.
The chatroom posse rides again.
"...Fritchey and Tom Dart...are...the best of our party can produce."
That says it all.
This shows just how obsolete the Democratic machine is.
(Not that the Republicans are any better.)
"Can you guys do any better?"
Well, when Fritchey pulled the strings to knock his challenger(s) off the ballot, he made this statement, by a machine minion, clearly a ludicrous and dishonest attempt at deception.
As for the imbecilic "Read, the speak" knucklehead, even if there is any validity to your 'argument', it deceptively avoids addressing the issue, namely, if free, fair and open elections are what the Democratic party supports, why are so many challenges filed and granted, said challenges being made for the sole purpose of eliminating any competition for publicly elected offices?
Go ahead, asshole, tell us it's because the Democrats, and Republicans alike, all are just protecting the electorate's best interests.
Go ahead.
Say it.
You know you want to.
And how does 'Read, then speak''s argument avoid the issue? It goes to the heart of the issue.
Romanelli screwed up, and now he's crying foul.
Almost 490 bad signatures out of 710? There's your 'ludicrous and dishonest attempt at deception.'
(But you do come off as very macho when you swear and type real tough)
signed again. They stood up. They got a
a smirking manipulation of technicality. How many more signers/voters were cheated?
. "Petitions were crap." Really. Why, the
ink wasn't black?
What do you call a State Representative who
hasn't got the balls to go toe to toe against such
ineptness? Spend thousands on well known
machine lawyers to snake through the system
instead spending time and money speaking directly to voters.
"affidavits were insufficient under Supreme Court rules." Oh that is rich. We see the influence
of the High Court on the "brethren" of the 'committeemen , like Todd Stroger's
coronation. When Romanelli got those 45 affidavits he won. No matter what
happens in his career, John Fritchey is a loser.
I don't want to ever see the words integrity
and Fritchey in the same sentence.
And what about challengers that knock other challengers off the ballot? Are they part of the 'fix' too?
Roger can blame himself, he can blame the hearing officer, he can blame the Board, he can blame global warming, but he can't blame Fritchey for making sure that the same rules applied to everybody.
Even if Fritchey would have lost, there was a legitimate question as to the number of valid signatures. Romanelli had to resort to getting affidavits to even have a shot, and he screwed that up.
Takes a lot of 'balls' to talk crap from behind a keyboard. Whiny loser.
I wish 'your boy' would have survived, so we could hear what whiny crap you would spout once he got his creepy clock cleaned at the polls.
Whether it's today, February 5, or sometime after that, the only losers will be Romanelli and the two-faced hypocrites who helped him. And you know who you are.
Happy Holidays everybody!
You should have reported the rest of the "grounds," which included a lot of people who DON'T LIVE IN THE WARD.
The rules,if followed, supported Romanelli.
Fritchey resorted to avoiding a campaign.
Fritchey ducked a public airing of his record.
He chose to challenge not to run.
He spent considerable resources to shutdown the first election for committeeman in recent memory.
John Fritchey did not defend election law, he
got a friendly "interpretation" to stop an election.
These actions show voters who State Rep.
John Fritchey really is.
I bet that the majority of people who file petitions stay on the ballot. And that the ones who screw up and get challenged off, accept their mistakes and learn from them. EXCEPT this guy who thinks that the whole world has nothing better to do than gang up on him. Your 15 minutes are up. People don't care about you or a committeeman election.
The process is fraudulent? Gimme a break. By this guy's OWN math, a boatload of his signatures were bad. And if somebody attests that they're good when they're not, that's fraudulent in my book. Sorry.
Problem today is people always want to blame somebody else when they screw up. I screwed up my petitions? Not my fault. Must be the hearing officer's...or the Board's...or the guy who challenged me...or the flying spaghetti monster...or anybody but me.
The rules are the rules. You played fast and loose with them and got called on it. You tried to save your hide with affidavits. You got ruled against. Not that complicated.
She is dense, does not understand the law, has no sense of judicial economy.
MICHAEL KASPER is also the lawyer and does the election challenges for the Hispanic Democratic Organization (HDO) the group that has convicted drug dealers like major baller heroin dealer George Prado and the Hired Trucks program under TWO SIX (the same gang as Senator Tony TWO SIX Munoz) gang member Angelo Torres.
Kasper makes money from challenging people.
I wasn't going to bring this up, but I heard that the hearing officer is the daughter of Lee Harvey OSWALD (Oswald - Ostfeld, it's so obvious) and that somebody saw her writing her decision on some blue container that she got from Drew Peterson.
Are you guys trying to help or hurt public opinion on this thing with this Forrest Gumpian defense?
The boys get caught clouting their way into
a no-vote election. First -timer Romanelli messed up SOME petitions. Your problem is he didn't mess up ALL of them. He got enough.
There was nothing wrong with his numbers.
He followed proceedure. But that wasn't the plan.
Fritchey thought no one was watching or cared.
After days and days of goons looking to throw
a true independent off, they winked to Lynne
Ostfeld about affidavits not being "inadequate" or
"technically" correct. Nevermind they were
accurate representations of real voters in 32
expressing their desire for an honest election.
You can scream, threaten, laugh and probably you can continue to get the system to cover for you.
Doesn't matter.
John Fritchey put his efforts into snuffing out
the competiton in an election he would have
very likely easily won over an unknown.
How come Rep. Fritchey couldn't let 32nd ward
voters have the final say?
The only ones screaming and threatening is you. No wonder your coworkers don't like you.
Why all this effort over a partisan, political party position?
Is it because there is only one political party in Chicago?
So the only competition is between members of this one party?
And these members don't want any outsider competition?
Sort of an incredibly incestuous environment, don't ya think?
And we all know what happens when a species experiences excessive inbreeding, don't we?
Can we spell imbecilic offspring correctly?
I commented on this before and my
point seems to be lost in the back and forth.
The question we are asking Representative Fritchey is why did he not let the voters here have their choice for who should get the position.
I do not believe harm would have resulted if
we had an election for committeeman between these two people. I think that is a fair question
given the history of this Ward. Mr. Fritchey
should have been sensitive to that.
I am retired and have do not have co-workers any longer.
"How come Rep. Fritchey couldn't let 32nd ward voters have the final say?"
Nice question, the answer to which I'm sure you know.
I'll take the liberty of putting that answer into words, to wit:
Because members of a dictatorship have absolutely no interest in the opinions of those they dictate to.
Because the concept of candidates for elected offices 'letting' the voters have the opportunity to actually have more than one candidate to choose from, which is, by definition, what a contest is, is an alien concept to those who prefer dictatorship to Democracy.
Because, given this city's long standing history of one party rule, one party rule being the definition of dictatorship, it would be surprising if anyone in the Democratic party were to genuinely support 'allowing' the voting public to actually have a say in anything concerning their governments.
The only mildly encouraging thing we citizens have is the fact that these default dictators still find it necessary to pretend to care about what the 'voters' think, want or believe.
Why do they still find it necessary to pretend they care about our opinions?
We also know the answer to this question.
Because they still haven't figured out how to completely deny us our Right to Vote.
Because, so far, they haven't needed to deny us our Right to Vote.
Because, so far, they've been successful, at maintaining their default dictatorship, effectively using their skills at bullshitting us to keep 'electing' and 'reelecting' their sorry asses.
Don't think the Republicans are any different, though.
They just haven't had the right bullshit to sell, here in the city, though they've had some success, in the recent past, at selling their particular brand of bullshit on some state and federal levels.
What is left for the citizens to do, besides resign themselves to being the servants of rulers?
A good start would be to read our Constitution and Bill of Rights, just to see if any light bulbs begin to illuminate within one's noggin.
If said readings fail to jump start one's thought processes, well, perhaps each individual citizen must then conclude that they are more suited to serving than to living their life as a free man or woman.
My guess is that, of course he would have, and nobody would have blamed him for doing so, and these same people would be talking about how easy it is to get on the ballot, and that Fritchey deserved to get challenged, and that the same rules apply to everybody.
Challenges get filed, some win, some lose.
Audit the last, say, 20 years worth of elections in Chicago.
Determine exactly how many candidates were challenged.
Determine exactly how many challenged candidates were successfully denied ballot access.
Determine how many Incumbents were denied ballot access.
Determine how many slated party candidates, be they Democrats or Republicans, were denied ballot access.
Determine how many non-party-slated candidates were denied ballot access.
Compare the numbers, as in, do the math.
Then try to tell us that "...some win, some lose..." with a straight face, and, with that same face, that "...the same rules apply to everybody...".
(Nice try at selling the bullshit, though)
Democratic regulars for almost 100 years. Rep. Fritchey did a disservice to voters in my opinion. He should have understood Ward history and been willing to participate in a contest once Mr. Romanelli proved he had received support for
a candidacy. It is disheartening.
http://www.ostfeldlaw.com/
And my proposed questions weren't fair?
And the answers to my questions wouldn't answer your 'question'?
"If Fritchey's petitions were bad enough that he might get tossed off of the ballot, would Romanelli have challenged them?"
Now, why would Romanelli waste his efforts challenging the petitions of a slated, party hack?
Said party hack being assured of successfully withstanding any and all challenges, by having the hack-filled party machine backing his candidacy?
Since the very same, hack-filled party has had the power, to select the individuals who are empowered to determine the outcome of all challenges, for generations?
The only slim ray of hope here is for Romanelli to have the financial resources to challenge the denial of his candidacy in civil court, said court being populated by, you guessed it, individuals primarily selected by the very same political party hacks that selected those individuals who've denied him access to the ballot by upholding the party-slated hack's challenge in the first place.
Try as you might, you have no valid or fair question.
The only thing you have is the chutzpa to think that your agendas aren't showing.
Because the only honest question is the one posed by 'S', that question being:
"The question we are asking Representative Fritchey is why did he not let the voters here have their choice for who should get the position."
Any answer you may choose to give, other than, 'Because he could' "...not let the voters have a choice for who should get the position." will be you avoiding the question.
1. It isn't that hard to collect enough valid signatures for Committeeman -- if you can't do that, how can you effectively coordinante the Democratic party for the ward?
2. Perhaps, the Board of Elections really does have valid reasons to boot Roger -- to simply suggest that this is machine politics and the Board fixed this is a bit of a stretch. Perhaps the reason a lot of fringe candidates get booted is because they run goofy, unprofessional campaigns and can't do the bare minimum to secure a spot on the ballot.
I hope someone makes them disclose the proof in
open court. This will not take Fritchey off the hook
for deciding to avoid a campaign. He refused to submit his fate to the voters in the Ward
who have waited a generation to get their
voice back. Even if it was irritating to run against
a "greenie" Fritchey should have done it to prove
he supports a New 32. He decided to get power another way rather than energize the electorate
and enjoy a well-earned victory.
He has shown us he is not a reformer but part
of the old guard. Fritchey lost something in this debacle.
Oh, wait. The other debacle is that the Reader is falling for this whiny crap from a loser.
Illinois has long been one of the most corrupt political cultures of the 50 states. No news there. It's a one-party state where the Democrats and Republicans are indistinguishable from one another. Too many of them play an inside game. There's not a lot of honor among this particular bloc of thieves.
The voters, of course, are complicit because they haven't held elected officials to a higher standard. If people know Chicagoans are going to vote Democratic regardless who the best candidate might be, then why should the Republican/Green/Independent candidates bother?
Voters haven't even begun demanding change until just recently. Maybe it's the convergence of scandal and technology (i.e., an official's corruption gets broader exposure via the Internet which, in turn, helps channel voters' discontent into action) but the election of an anti-machine guy like Mr. Waguespack and the anti-eminent domain rally against Mr. Schulter would have been impossible to even have imagined just a few years ago.
So, hooray for the Internet!
Now some of the people like Mayor Daley are beginning to lift their heads from the trough and thinking, "I could be the next to fall victim to this trend." Well, if voters get angry and mobilize, maybe, but probably not. Most voters have preferred the devil they know to the devil they don't. But if Mayor Daley keeps demanding more money from taxpayers, money that he gives away to his friends in scandals of $50 million increments, and he keeps giving half-answers to legitimate questions from reporters about what he knew and when did he know it, maybe they'll surprise everyone and vote for someone different, someone better, someone honest. But for that to happen, the majority of voters have to organize, have to demand better, have to recruit solid opposition candidates, and have to vote smarter.
Voters also need to get angry. See today's headline in the Chicago Tribune about the City's continued violation of the Shakman decree on political hiring? When voters start holding rallies downtown demanding that the Mayor and his administration comply with that law, then maybe something will change.
Right now it seems our only hope in Illinois is U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. The more politically-connected crooks he catches and convicts, the better off everyone in Chicago and Illinois will be. Otherwise, it's just going to be more of the same.
As for Romanelli v Fritchey, there seem to be two semi-reasonable sides. It's pretty obvious that Mr. Romanelli could have/should have been a lot more careful collecting signatures for his petitions. Getting 70% of your signatures from outside the correct ward does not speak highly about his attention to detail. That same lack of attention to detail appears to have sunk the affadvits he submitted (I've only read Ms. Ostfeld's report once.) In either case, Mr. Romanelli should have been a lot more attentive, especially since he knew Mr. Fritchey was looking for a way to stop him.
At the same time Mr. Fritchey can be cited for poor sportsmanship for challenging Mr. Romanelli's petitions in the first place. But it was an easy shot to take (so many newcomers make careless mistakes)and you can't blame a man for taking a shot that the rules say he's entitled to take.
That doesn't mean anyone has to agree with the umpire's ruling. But Mr. Fritchey isn't responsible for that. If no one cares for the rules of the game, they can go ahead and work to change those rules. The Internet ought to be helpful in stirring up a crowd to agitate for change. It seemed pretty effective for Mr. Waguespack and against Mr. Schulter.
There's talk of holding a Constitutional Convention in Illinois. A ConCon may be just the thing to set right much of what the political system in this state has wrong with it.
It's the perfect opportunity for people who aren't happy with the way things are to start rolling up their shirtsleeves and make something good happen.
Will the 32nd Ward return to those who
have one agenda - keeping power for themselves?
Or do we prefer to be represented by people who
will take a stand against Boss Politics? Representative Fritchey missed chances to
demonstrate his is a reformer.
1-openly support the candidacy of Waguespack
and work to oust Matlak
2-participate in the first direct election of Ward
Committeeman in 100 years.
Fritchey hid during the Aldermanic race and sought to stop the second election from occurring.
3-Fritchey, by failing to acknowledge there is a
problem, misses another opportunity to be an agent of change.
I do disagree with "you can't blame a man for taking a shot." Rep. Fritchey should be above that.
He has received our trust and is currently
representing us in Springfield. It should not be
too much to expect restraint and consideration
from a public official who had the unique ability
to inspire participation in an historic moment.
I really wish he had let us have a say because it
would have been the greater good. I salute the 45 citizens who provided notarized statements,
and Mr. Romanelli for shedding light.
I would like to see Mr. Romanelli on the ballot.
We all win when elections are free and open.
1 - One that says that he wasn't in constant communication with Fritchey from before he ran and throughout his race.
2 - One that says that Fritchey wasn't intimately involved with his campaign design, strategy and execution.
3 - One that says Fritchey sat on the sidelines and hid.
4 - One that says that he didn't agree to endorse Fritchey for Committeeman over a year ago.
It should be a no-brainer based on everything that you've said.
But he could never sign that and you know why. So does he. Enough.
in a new era but is the one who never publicly took a stand against Gabinski/Matlak in ten years and
he wants Waguespack to rewrite history?
Waguespack faced the competition head-on.
Not so Fritchey - he "took his shot" to stop an
eleciton. At best it has been called, "poor
sportsmanship." It was worse: both arrogrant and cowardly.
Waguespack went out there solo except for a
small band of believers. Your boy watched.
He was not sure where this would go. He was too
scared to work against the machine and was not
about to start incase Matlak won. That's true.
Forget an affidavit Mr.Fritchey, just show us
a check, one fundraiser or a letter that went out
TO THE PUBLIC....SO SOMEONE WOULD KNOW....
WHERE YOU STOOD ...SO YOU COULD HAVE INFLUENCED OTHERS.
Ok, sorry.
It's just that those of us who worked to throw
out Matlak do know what "THE REFORMER'' DID.
Constant communication-well everyone called
once he won. Again, stop trying to raise Fritchey's
sinking image using a new alderman.
Talk about whining. Give it up-your boy is an
old boy.
Waguespack kept his word. He never denied he
backed Fritchey. He thought Matlak was running.
You didn't want it to come to this? It was always
coming to this. Fritchey is a lowlife trying to control the Ward.
Even easier than an affidavit, but Waguespack will still never do it. Six months in and he's already been caught trying to play both sides.
I'm sure you won't answer directly and instead will spout some nonsense. But you're on your own from here on out.
"Get Waguespack to ask Fritchey to publicly state his role in the campaign, and I'm guessing that at this point, Fritchey would be more than happy to oblige."
Sure.
So Fritchey can lie his ass off, rewriting history.
As for Fritchey signing an affidavit, what makes you, or anyone, think that a professional bullshitter, aka party hack politician, gives a shit about swearing to the truth of anything.
"I'm sure you won't answer directly and instead will spout some nonsense."
"My last post" & "But you're on your own from here on out."
Promise?
After ten years it is time for John Fritchey to
declare which side is he on?
W. campaigned against the machine. He kept a promise to support Fritchey when it was assumed Matlak was running. As a newly elected
Alderman he understandably refused to knock Romanelli's right to run. He did not go back
on a promise. But he is not going to kill debate
in the Ward. Now that is fair.
Ciao.
32ndNLA2(NewLeadershipAlliance)2008
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/32ndnla2008
Joe Lake Bucktown
what do you mean?
Said sound with which you are intimately familiar, no doubt.
Noonan, you familiar with defamation? You will be.
A. Phillip Randolph
If Team Kasper is the best in the business and they spent days scouring Romanelli's peitions, we
can assume assume they tossed only bad
signatures out. Why then was Romanelli able to
come back with affiidavits, directed by the rules,
and prove some signatures were valid? Was
Romanelli faking affidavits? Was his lawyer? The
notary? Did 45 people conspire to provide false
information? Representative Fritchey attempted to eliminate any challenge to his assuming the role
of Committeeman. The first round challenge was
contrary to the spirit of a fresh approach in the
Ward. But, Romanelli was able to in short order
bring back enough proof to stay on the ballot.
The affidavits cast doubt not on Mr. Romanelli
but on the relationship between Team Kasper
and the Board of Elections. Ms. Ostefeld displayed questionable judgement in disregarding the generally accepted standard of affidavits. It makes
one wonder if some of the hundreds signatures she tossed out earlier might have been valid.
Representative Fritchey should have graciously
accepted a challenger when the affidavits were
produced. If there is a way for that to still happen
it would be a diplomatic gesture on his part.
accepted a challenger when the affidavits were
produced. If there is a way for that to still happen
it would be a diplomatic gesture on his part."
Not diplomatic, but honest, ethical, respectful, (of the citizen's right to have choices), and humble, (as in being willing to submit his candidacy to competition).
But diplomatic, no.
And gracious, again, no.
Being a hack politico, Frithchey did what all politicos do, work the system and rules to his advantage.
Maybe some voters admire the ability to be dishonest, manipulative, conniving, deceptive and ambitious.
All qualities Fritchey has in abundance.
Congratulation, John, you got your way, thanks to whatever quid pro quo Ostfeld undoubtedly received.
All protestations to the contrary not withstanding.
criminalize political differences. It would be
a gracious gesture if State Representative Fritchey
withdrew his challenge to Romanelli. Fritchey,
the better known candidate, would most
probably win he could silence his critics charging
that he abused the system. He would then be
able to seek to improve the gliches in the process.
Just a thought.
Yes, and a good one.
Though 'new to this' surely must know that Fritchey is highly unlikely to be so gracious.
That would defeat the purpose of challenging the competition's right to compete in the first place.
Perhaps the purpose of challenging (and the
right of Rep. Fritchey) was altered by a questionable implementation of process.
The Representative may accomplish more by
letting Mr. Romanelli run.
Indeed he would.
The only question is, does he have the sense to realize just how much he would accomplish in doing so?
Even if he doesn't really believe in the citizen's right to have choices, he could really give the impression that he does, just by 'allowing' this single challenger to compete.
Perhaps it's more important to the political apparatus that they maintain the 'tradition' of squashing all contenders before the fight is held.
It is alot to ask someone to back off for the sake of a principle when they hold an advantage but
it would say a great deal about our Representative
if he rose to the occassion. I would support him
if he did that.
Graciousness is a two-way street.
(my opinion) if given the chance by the largess of Fritchey.However, blocking an election that has not happned in 100 years may raise eyebrows
when coupled with the possibility that Romanelli
can go to court and might prevail. Voters are
left to wonder why they were deprived of the right to choose their Committeeman for so long. If
Romanelli gets on there would be little the
Representative could say to justify his actions.
It is much less risky for the favored candidate to
also be the gracious one and as the saying goes
"heap burning coals of kindness upon their head."
The more outrageous Romanelli, the more Fritchey
looks like a statesman. But if Romanelli fights his
way back he becomes the vindicated underdog - very appealing in the current climate.
It's not about personal graciousness, kindness, courtesy or respect.
It's about the long overdue respect that the voters have been denied, said respect being, in this case, the refusal of the machine democrats to 'permit' any other declared democrat from daring to challenge one of the party anointed.
No doubt the republicans have done this very same thing to their own party's voters.
It's the principle of acting in favor of the voter's right to HAVE choices, which is what makes an election an election, and not a christening.
This is supposed to be a Democracy, NOT an Aristocracy.
The party 'regulars' don't get it, but the voters are beginning to.
HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT
The voters are most respected when their
wishes are known. Without this race moving forward that will never happen...
The party regulars are always winning, what they need is to lose.
The only persons who you should be looking to help win are those who have been losing, as in the citizens.
As for "The voters are most respected when their
wishes are known.", well, you really are new.
The rule of thumb, said rule being repeatedly proven over several generations of Chicagoans and Cook County residents, is that the voters are NEVER respected, in any sense of the word, until, and unless, those holding political power fear the wishes of the voters being to NOT reelect the party's incumbents.
A rare occurrence in these them parts.
the situation.
Both are equally positoned to follow long-term goals instead of short term gratification but only one of them has the ability to discern the difference.
There are some practical issues not yet raised relating to that:
1. Given that the B of E has already ruled on Mr. Fritchey's objections to Mr. Romanelli's petitions, I wonder if Mr. Fritchey even has the legal option to withdraw his objection. Probably not.
2. The media reported that in the last municipal election, voter turnout was in the general neighborhood of an (abysmal) 25%.
3. Notwithstanding Mr. Joravsky's reporting, aside from the one or two dozen people posting on this board, I wonder:
(a) How many voters in the 32nd Ward even know that there are Democratic and Republican ward committeemen in Chicago?
(b) Are aware that Mr. Romanelli and Mr. Fritchey even exist?
(c) Are aware that one of them has been ruled ineligible to stand as a candidate?
(d) Care?
4. Financing a competitive campaign in a ward as large as the 32nd would probably cost at least $50,000 (didn't Mr. Waguespak spend $100,000?).
So with all due respect to those suggesting Mr. Fritchey withdraw his legal objection to Mr. Romanelli's petitions - asking Mr. Fritchey (or anyone for that matter) to spend $50,000+ that he doesn't have to so that 25% of the registered voters of the ward might have an alternate choice in a race for an unpaid, partisan position that barely anyone knows even exists, much less cares about, is probably asking a lot.
This is doubly so given that Mr. Romanelli doesn't seem to have much name recognition and so isn't likely to be remembered for very long.
Blame voter apathy. Blame Mr. Romanelli's careless signature collection process. Blame Mr. Fritchey's steely cold-heartedness. Blame the poorly written affidavits of Mr. Romanelli's lawyer. Blame the B of E. Blame whatever factors or individuals we choose, asking a candidate to raise and spend that much money for a race no one knows about, cares about or will remember is asking a lot.
Link to Stay on 30th District Ballot
by Russell Lissau | Daily Herald Updated: 12/22/2007 12:09
Embattled state Sen. Terry Link survived a formal challenge to his candidacy and will stay on the Feb. 5 primary ballot, the state elections board decided Friday.
Although the panel ruled 1,660 of the signatures on the veteran lawmaker's petition were invalid, he was left with more than enough to remain a candidate for the 30th Senate District seat, election officials said.
Link's challenger in the Senate race, Jerry Johnson, wasn't as lucky. Johnson, a former North Chicago mayor who'd formally objected to Link's petition, was removed from the ballot because of invalid signatures on his own petition.
Three Link supporters had challenged Johnson's petition.
Link, who also leads Lake County's Democratic organization, said his victory Friday feels good.
"I'm very happy that …. I am on the ballot and Mr. Johnson is not," said Link, of Waukegan.
Johnson accepted being kicked off the ballot but said he is considering appealing the panel's decision in the Link case.
"Terry Link's ability to be on the ballot was upheld today. That does not make him right," said Johnson, of North Chicago.
The election board's ruling doesn't end the controversy surrounding Link's candidacy.
The Lake County state's attorney's office is investigating several complaints about the senator's petition. Critics have said the document contains the names of dead people and area residents who've denied signing the form.
Additionally, some signatures on the sheets are in alphabetical order, which is unusual for campaign petitions, state's attorney Michael Waller said.
Link has said he did not circulate any of his candidate petition forms. Records indicate campaign workers and volunteers did.
Petitions circulated by two campaign workers particularly have come under fire, officials said. Because the workers also gathered signatures for other Democratic candidates in Lake County, the state's attorney's office is investigating those political petitions as well, Waller said.
The complaints prompted picketing at Link's house and a Democratic Party office in Waukegan on Thursday, and criticism from Democrats and Republicans.
Link declined to comment on Waller's investigation, saying the state's attorney hasn't contacted him about it.
Friday's separate decisions in the Link and Johnson cases followed several hearings before election-board representatives.
In the Link case, the board ruled 5-3 the senator should remain on the ballot. The panel said he had 1,718 legitimate signatures, far more than the 1,000 required to appear on the ballot, elections board Executive Director Dan White said.
As for Johnson, the panel ruled 8-0 that he should be removed from the ballot. It eliminated 673 signatures, leaving him with no more than 841, White said.
Johnson has said he might run as a write-in candidate in February or as an independent in November's general election.
Most of the 30th District is in eastern Lake County, but it also includes a small part of northern Cook County.
No Republicans filed to appear on the primary ballot in the Senate race.
Candidate Officially Off
Daily Herald 12/21/07
The Illinois Board of Elections on Friday officially ruled against Charlotte Kegarise's bid to remain a candidate in the Feb. 5 Republican primary for state representative of the 56th District. An objection questioning the number of valid signatures on her candidacy petition led to the ruling. Kegarise, the Schaumburg Township Elementary District 54 school board president, has 10 days to decide whether to appeal, and she said Friday she hasn't yet reached that decision. For the time being, the only candidate in the GOP primary is Schaumburg Township District Library board President Anita Forte-Scott. She hopes to unseat incumbent Paul Froehlich, who himself faces a Democratic primary challenge from newcomer John Moynihan.
just a registered voter in the Ward.
I see my posts are not moving entrenched positions,
Apathy serves a few individuals but it does not
ultimately serve the Ward. After 100 years this
race might let people know why they should
care about Ward Committeeman or participate
in their Democracy at all. That is why only
Fritchey, the recognizable public servant, had the
power to open up the process-energize people to vote. The Presidential Primary is getting more
people thinking. But to keep this electable job
off the table plays to cynics who don't vote,
alienates voters and gives fodder to those
who just want to criticize and destroy. All of us
stand at a critical time. Those who care might
take some responsibility for what is happening.
It would have cost Rep. a bit of money (not that
much) and time but he could have created a new
legacy. Incivility and corruption led us to this
place. Citing business as usual is no answer.
I sense many intelligent and passionate people
think they are doing the right thing.
I can not agree with that.
March, 1996: Fritchey had an actual opponent in the Democratic primary in his first attempt at elected office, then the 33rd Illinois House district, a vacancy created when Blago ran for Congress. Here's the Tribune's 1-sentence intro to Fritchey:
" ... John Fritchey, 31, a lawyer supported by Ald. Dick Mell (33rd), the father-in-law of Blagojevich."
Fritchey won the primary.
John Fritchey (x) 6,328
Kevin Lamm 3,413
Nov, 1996: Although the GOP had a candidate on the primary ballot, by the general he was gone, and Fritchey ran unopposed.
March, 1998: No primary opponent
Nov, 1998: No GOP opponent. Fritchey defeats Libertarian Party nominee Ljubomir Marinov, a retired bus driver.
March, 2000: No primary opponent.
Nov, 2000: No opponent.
March, 2002: Now the 11th district, no primary opponent
Nov, 2002: Fritchey defeats Libertarian investment manager John E. Yackley.
March, 2004: No primary opponent
Nov, 2004: Fritchey defeats "low-profile GOP candidate Doug Nelson, who ran unsuccessfully for Congress against Jesse Jackson Jr., and Libertarian Jason Briggeman, a 27-year-old post- punk rocker."
John Fritchey (D) 30,789
Doug Nelson (R) 9,945
Jason Briggeman (L) 1,694
March, 2006: No primary opponent.
Nov, 2006: Fritchey defeats GOP candidate Republican Ashur S. Odishoo.
John Fritchey(D) 21,586
Ashur Odishoo(R) 4,450
lackluster field over the years. At least there
was a chance to vote and he ran. Having
heard him speak I have no doubt Fritchey could
easily campaign.
Local politics in 32 needs a shot of vigor and
credibility. The job of Committeeman has not
been decided by voters in 100 years. We should
all be ashamed of that and any action, legal or not,
that continues this is offensive and wrong.
Rep. Fritchey, by the mere act of encouraging
an election, will win and debunk all detractors and
misstatements. The gesture would be for the Ward
and our system in sore need of a statesman.
The gesture would not be for Romanelli who
will lose,but could no longer play system victim
or accuse his opponent of not bending over backwards to return honor to Ward politics .
Now we MAY be getting somewhere.
What is Democracy?
Do most citizens really know?
And by know, I mean understand what the experience of living within a democratic society both provides to each citizen and requires of each citizen.
Because, as apparently only a small minority of citizens are acutely aware of, our society, and, thus, our living environments, conditions, economies, day-to-day events, the very ability to survive, are all affected by the governments we 'elect' and empower to:
1) Make Laws (our various Legislators)
2) Interpret and Adjudicate those Laws (our various Courts/Judiciaries)
3) Make Policies and Programs (our various Executive/Administrative Agencies)
The essential principles of a Democracy, ours being a democracy of elected Representatives (our legislators) making laws, said laws administered, imposed and enforced by elected Executives/Administrators (our mayors, governors, presidents and those they appoint/hire/contract), and said laws interpreted/adjudicated by our elected or appointed Judiciary (our courts, judges, hearing officers, arbitrators), seem to be substantially unknown and misunderstood by a large majority of our fellow citizens.
Regardless of what our 'educators' have been 'teaching' our children, it appears that few citizens have been reaching adulthood with even a rudimentary understanding of the principles of democracy, the vital elements a democracy must consist of (to be an effective means of benefiting the citizens living within a society based on democratic principles), the original intentions of those founding fathers of our democracy, the social, legal, economic and dynamic forces our 'democratically elected' governing officials impose upon each and every citizen, and the potential (for good or ill) inherent in these principles.
Many citizens THINK they understand, but, in reality, misunderstand.
What else, but an egregious misunderstanding of democracy, can explain why approximately 50% of all potential citizen/voters don't register to vote, and, of the approximately 50% who are registered, about 50% of those don't bother to regularly vote in every election?
For this country to actually BE a Democracy, our fellow citizens must understand what a true democracy is.
Recently, our own lovable Mayor Mumbles made a statement that revealed exactly how far from a true democracy we have strayed.
I don't recall exactly what words he spoke, but the gist of it was that he, Mayor Mumbles, did not agree that the issue of gambling expansion in Illinois should be decided by referendum (as in each citizen of Illinois voting to approve or disapprove) but rather, that elected 'leaders', such as himself and our legislators, should decide this issue for the citizens, without the citizens having anything more than a theoretical, and non-binding, influence on this decision.
The 'will of the people' having an effect on the actions/inactions of their 'elected' representatives depends entirely upon those elected representatives respecting said will.
We assume our elected officials respect our desires because we assume that they believe that, should their actions/inactions show they do not, they will expect to not be reelected.
The reality is quite the opposite.
The reasons our elected officials do not expect to not be reelected are obvious, and a review of this blogs' archives, articles and comments alike, will garner much detailed information as to those many reasons.
The dumbing down of America is almost complete.
The fact that approximately 75% of our fellow citizens do not understand their responsibilities as citizens is the strongest evidence of this.
Our Democracy has mutated into a not-so-benign Aristocracy.
This is not a surprise to the very few citizens who have bothered to understand what so many citizens have not.
HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT
Remember, for an incumbent, the best campaigning isn't done in the weeks leading up to a race, but by how you do your job once elected. Looks like he's done that pretty well.
His numbers look like they outpace the partisan numbers which means he's also picking up non-Democratic votes in the Generals.
And so a rare moment slips by.
"Voting everyone out is not the way."
Actually, more or less, it is.
At least it is the beginning of the way.
Since the very act of voting 'everyone' out includes voting others in, it's not like these publicly elected offices are not going to have elected individuals in them.
But you do bring up the next step, in the process of restoring our Democracy, that step being answering the question:
How do citizens know who to vote for, once those, whose actions in office have proven them to be Aristocratic rulers, rather than Democratic Representatives and Public Servants, have been denied reelection?
The comments made by 'Looks to me like...' are typical of those many citizens who think they're reelecting an incumbent, whose 'record' in office is substantially unknown to them, but, since they've not heard anything 'bad' about an incumbent, they assume said incumbent must be doing a good job.
If we voters could only know one tenth of what these incumbents are actually up to........
As it is, we are spoon fed the meager amount of information about our many incumbent officials, with no real assurance of either the truth of what we're being told or the completeness or accuracy of same.
The Paul Harvey 'the rest of the story...' radio bits come to mind. And even those depended upon trusting a guy named Paul Harvey.
If the citizen/voter doesn't understand the specific responsibilities, legal authorities and practical abilities each individual publicly elected office requires, as in functioning solely for the best interests of the people as a whole, how can they decide who is best qualified for any particular public office?
As it stands now, all those who actually do vote know about the candidates for elected offices, be they incumbents or challengers, Democrats, Republicans, other parties, or Independents, is that the 'winner' must have been a 'good campaigner'.
What does that mean, to be a 'good campaigner'?
In my experience, that usually means a person who is skilled at telling people what they want to hear and, then, if elected, mostly doing whatever they, or their associates and financial supporters, want them to do, paying only as much attention to their new constituents as they believe they have to, to avoid pissing off enough of said new constituents to have to worry about being reelected.
Party backed candidates know that, once they are elected, the number of citizens they can count on to vote for them at reelection time greatly increases, purely because of their Democratic or Republican party's support.
And why do these two parties support specific individuals for elected office?
A seemingly ignorant question, no doubt, with many obvious answers, but worth thinking about, nonetheless.
Until we, the citizens, voting and non-voting alike, have practical access to whatever factual information can inform us of the nature, duties, responsibilities, practicalities, authorities, legalities, purposes, functions and day-to-day operations of each publicly elected office, how can we actually know what we are electing individual fellow citizens to do?
Because, if we don't know specifically, and in great detail, what a given public office does, how can we decide who is the best person to hold that office?
What we can see is that, as in the past, communication is the key.
Unlike the past, we now have the World Wide Web. :)
And, while this relatively new means of communicating doesn't guarantee that information found here will be truthful, accurate and factual, it does provide the opportunity for competing opinions to be more readily available.
We still must use each of our individual brains to determine what is true, what is factual, what is real and what makes sense to each of us.
I find that I prefer to have more to think about, rather than less.
How about you?
32nd Ward 2008 Democratic Committeeman Race-
http://groups.msn.com/ChicagoBucktownPublicSquare/...
Joe Lake, Bucktown
Like YOUR comment contains anything of substance...... lol
First of all, I had spoken with Mr. Javorsky after a TIF forum sponsored by the IVO-IPO about any opinion’s I had about this race. At that time, I truly had none. I cannot understand why anyone would want to part of a committee that chooses Todd Stroger as their standard bearer? Having said that, I felt (and still do to some extent) that anyone would be better than the Gabinski/Matlak/Machine hack that traditionally has come out of the 32nd ward, and that Rep. Fritchey met that threshold in my estimation. Although his ‘view from the inside’ as of late has left one wondering if any of the rank and file (outside of Rep. Hamos) is capable of not only giving a candid assessment of the fiasco that is our state governance, much less offer any constructive legislation or path out of a growing crises in state government, or the disingenuous politics currently practiced at the local level; his attempt at offering some sort of transparency in state government is far more admirable than the gross lack of any attempt than any other of our legislator.
What I find so ironic is that Rep. Fritchey believes he has ‘ideas’ on how to reinvigorate the Democratic Party in the 32nd ward, while unwilling to test those ideas in a contested election and appearing so dismissive toward the very real concerns of the Democratic Party members in the 32nd ward who have elected progressive reformers like Alderman Waguespack and Commissioner Claypool. I agree with the sentiments of many of the posters on this blog that Rep. Fritchey needs to clarify if he is going to side with the progressive, inclusive, and transparent democratic process and the future of successful politics in Chicago; or if he is going to rely on the personal relationships between himself and Rep. Madigan/Ald. Banks/Mr. Kasper to further his own personnel career at the expense of winning elections on the merit of his ‘ideas’ and ability to implement those ideas and attempt to continue the bankrupt politics that a growing number of citizens throughout Chicago are expressing their disgust toward.
Second, I think the focus of Alderman Waguespack’s endorsement in this race is completely unwarranted of the attention it has received. After the run-off elections, the Reader profiled each of the Aldermen in the City of Chicago, and the assessment of Ald. Waguespack seemed to me exactly on point. He doesn’t have any patrons whom he is indebted to his seat – (the unions split their endorsements) – and it was a coalition of interest in the 32nd Ward who empowered Ald. Waguespack, not the backroom dealings of Rep. Fritchey (and if he believes he is somehow responsible for getting Scott elected, he is extraordinarily arrogant and a little delusional on his own influence in the ward). The more that I have gotten to know Alderman Waguespack (and I do not know him all that well), the more respect I have for him. He has a bright future in Chicago politics and is exactly the kind of citizen we need to step forward to participate in our politics. I think Hugh’s criticisms are also justified. I am far more critical of Comm. Quigley than I am of my other representatives because I have much higher expectations of Quigley and do support him – and reminding the few truly progressive elected officials that we are watching them and will hold them accountable to our desires of supporting transparency and candidates who merit support is needed. Having said all that, I don’t think Ald. Waguespack should charge windmills or fight loosing battles. He is exactly correct in focusing on putting his Aldermanic office in order rather than attempting a run at a symbolic committeeman slot that will do nothing to improve politics in Cook County.
Finally, what is being done to Mr. Romanelli is even more egregious and outrageous than what I went through in my ballot access case, and I hope he does not give up his fight. I made an error in not submitting a receipt, and although I believe that statutory rulings by the state court and constitutional rulings by the federal courts supported my argument for access to the ballot, what is being done to Mr. Romanelli is truly unprecedented. The administrative officer is calling the over 40 individuals in the 32nd ward outright liars. If the fix ever was in, it has never been so blatantly exposed. If this ruling stands, any signature that doesn’t exactly mirror the signature on anyone’s voter registration can be disqualified, despite the sworn affidavit of an individual. This truly would any hope of a democratic process and an election that is accountable to citizens or a government with the consent of the people. I hope that Mr. Romanelli has the resources and will to take this into court and challenge the validity of this ruling.
I would say to Mr. Romanelli that the principal of ballot access is far more important than the position of ward committeeman. I hope that he would consider starting a DFA group in Bucktown/Wicker Park/or even in the 32nd ward. You don’t need to be part of a corrupt and dismissive committee that doesn’t reflect the best of our party members in order to organize and advance the Democratic Party. I, for one, loathe my committeeman – as do a growing number of Democrats throughout Chicago – and despite my years of involvement in Democratic politics, I am not a member of the Cook County Democratic Party because I was not born into, or married into, or willing to throw the very principles of my Parties platform to the curb in order to be a member of their exclusionary club. The Democratic Party doesn’t belong to these fool, and they do not represent the best of our party either. Organize on your own, and build the coalition that elected Scott. That would scare the hell out of the establishment – the realization that it isn’t going to be reformed from within, but that its constituency has given up on them and is organizing themselves. I also hope that after your hopefully successful battle in the courts for ballot access, you will consider serving on a ballot access caucus with a group of concerned citizens who want to prepare ourselves for the next elections and ensure that Kafkaesque rules don’t deny the citizens of this city or state a contested election that holds those elected representatives responsible for the gross state of affairs in our governments throughout IL.
I wish you a happy holiday and luck in your battle Mr. Romanelli.
Damn, Chris, now that's what I call a comment of substance.
A few more paragraph breaks and it'll be ready for publication.
I'd take the liberty of re-formatting and re-posting it, but I've already been spanked for doing that in the past.
Still, one helluva comment, especially because it's so very true.
Where's Round Two?
Yours truly,
Slats Grobnik, Bucktown
slats_grobnik@hotmail.com
The one thing our alderman can do that we can't is vote in City Council. An alderman's vote in Council is not charging at windmills, it is their single most important responsibility. EVERY TIME a vote is cast that is not congruent with his constituents, our alderman has betrayed us. It doesn't a matter what feeble justification they offer for their abhorrent behavior, "aldermanic privilege," "aldermanic prerogative," "relationship building", whatever, it is WRONG, and there is NO WAY to excuse or forgive it. There is NO higher principle than representing your constituents with EVERY vote. If you don't hold your aldermen responsible for their vote then you can't hold them responsible for anything, there is no accountability.
Unless Waguespack somehow believes a majority of his constituents think that what Chicago needs most right now is 6 new TIF districts, he has betrayed his constituents.
Unless Waguespack somehow believes a majority of his constituents think that our City should be in the business of transferring private property from non-clouted owners to hooked-up developers/campaign contributors , he has betrayed his constituents.
"I have much higher expectations ... and reminding the few truly progressive elected officials that we are watching them and will hold them accountable to our desires."
Why are you so quick to look the other way when they don't?
Too little collegiality is a problem, and so is too much. Collegiality is nothing as compared to the most important value in an elected representative: representation. When collegiality interferes with an elected representative representing their constituency, a an elected representative fails in their fundamental mission.
Waguespack owes Schulter NOTHING. Waguespack owes EVERYTHING to his constituents.
Chicago's aldermen have been feeding Chicagoans lame excuses for their non-performance for so long, even otherwise intelligent people think it makes sense. Representative democracy will emerge in Chicago when we stop swallowing the old excuses.
News Years Resolution: Stop accepting the old excuses. Insist your alderman represent YOU.
And when they don't, as is so often the case, then:
HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, COUNTY DIVISION
ROGER J. ROMANELLI,
Petitioner,
v.
JOHN FRITCHEY, objector, BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO and its members LANGDON D. NEAL, chairman of Chicago Board of Elections, RICHARD A. COWEN, commissioner of Chicago Board of Elections, and MARISEL A. HERNANDEZ, commissioner of Chicago Board of Elections,
Respondents.
Case No. COEL000065
ELECTION CASE
PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF
THE DECEMBER 16TH, 2007 ORDER OF FINDINGS AND DECISION
OF THE CHICAGO BOARD OF ELECTIONS
Petitioner, through undersigned counsel, brings this petition for judicial review of the findings and decision of December 16th, 2007 of the Chicago Board of Elections against John Fritchey, the objector; the City of Chicago’s Board of Elections; and Langdon D. Neal, chairman of Chicago Board of Elections; Richard A. Cowen, commissioner of Chicago Board of Elections; and Marisel A. Hernandez, commissioner of Chicago Board of Elections, and in support of this Petition states as follows:
1. Petitioner Roger J. Romanelli (“Roger Romanelli”) is a resident and registered voter in the City of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois. He is a candidate for election as Democratic Ward Committeeman, 32nd Ward, City of Chicago, for the February 5, 2008 Primary Election, and he was a respondent before the City of Chicago’s Board of Election (the “Board”). He is aggrieved by the decision of that Board in that the Board’s decision on the objector’s petition was adverse to his candidacy, and he was ruled not to have satisfied the requisite 247 signatures on his nominating petitions, and the Board thereby failed to certify Romanelli for placement on the ballot for the February 5, 2008 Primary Election. (A copy of the Board’s Findings and Decision is attached hereto and incorporated herein, as well as a copy of the Hearing Examiner’s Recommended Decision, on which the Board’s decision was based.)
2. Respondent Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Chicago is a statutory entity with the power to determine the validity of nominating petitions pursuant to the objection procedures set forth in Article 10 of the Illinois Election Code.
3. Respondent John Fritchey is the objector who brought the objections against the Petitioner candidate and the sole other candidate for 32nd Ward Democratic Committeeman for the February 5, 2008 Primary Election.
4. Respondents Langdon D. Neal, Richard A. Cowen, and Marisel A. Hernandez are commissioners of Chicago Board of Elections. Mr. Neal is the chairman of Chicago Board of Elections.
5. Respondent John Fritchey alleged in his objector’s petition that Petitioner’s nominating petitions did not contain sufficient valid signatures of registered voters to legally qualify him for a ballot position for the office of 32nd Ward Committeeman. In addition, Mr. Fritchey claimed that the nominating petitions contained numerous forged signatures.
6. In its decision, entered December 16th, 2007, the Board accepted and endorsed the recommendation of the hearing officer that Romanelli had only 227 valid signatures, 20 short of the 247 required and that Romanelli’s name would therefore not appear on the ballot.
7. In this petition for judicial review, Petitioner specifically contests the Board’s acceptance and endorsement of the hearing officer’s recommendation that 44 personally-sworn, unrebutted and unequivocal affidavits by active 32nd Ward voters submitted by Petitoner constituted insufficient evidence to verify the validity of 44 original signatures on Petitioner’s nominating petitions In particular, the Board rejected 33 affidavits by 32nd Ward voters attesting that their signatures on the Petitioner’s original nominating petitions were in fact made in their proper persons; the Board rejected nine affidavits by 32nd Ward voters attesting that they were in fact registered voters in the 32nd Ward when they signed the original nominating petitions; and the Board rejected two affidavits by a husband and wife attesting that their signatures were in fact made in their proper persons and that the husband did not forge his wife’s signature on the nominating petitions, as alleged by the hearing officer and accepted by Board. In all, the Board determined that all 44 of these affidavits failed to satisfy the evidentiary requirements to qualify as a valid signature on a nominating petition, pursuant to statutory requirements, and thereby refused to recognize their validity. In doing so, the Board failed to properly credit the evidentiary weight to be accorded these personally-sworn affidavits. Accordingly, the Board’s decision to reject 44 affidavits that were personally-sworn under oath before licensed notary publics by registered voters living in the 32nd Ward is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
8. Presently, the Election Board has credited Mr. Romanelli with 227 valid signatures, making him 20 signatures short of the 247 requisite signatures to be placed on the ballot, and thus the validity of these 44 affidavits (or any significant portion of them), and the proper degree of evidentiary significance to be accorded them under the law, is determinative as to whether Mr. Romanelli will be placed on the February 5th ballot.
9. The decision of the Board should be reversed as it is contrary to law, against the manifest weight of the evidence, a denial of the right of the Petitioner to campaign for office, and a denial of the rights of 44 voters residing in the 32nd Ward who legally and appropriately signed the Petitioners’ original nominating petitions to place him on the ballot for the February 5, 2008 Primary Election.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that this petition be granted, that this court enter its judgment reversing the Board finding that the nomination papers of the candidate are not valid and ordering that the candidate’s nomination papers be determined to be valid and that the Petitioner candidate’s name be printed on the February 5, 2008 Primary Election ballot for election to the office of Ward Committeeman, 32nd Ward, City of Chicago; and, for such other relief as the court deems just.
Dated: December 26, 2007 Respectfully submitted,
ROGER J. ROMANELLI,
Petitioner,
By: ______________________________
One of the Attorney For Petitioner
Mark Weinberg Neil S. Ament
3612 N. Tripp Ave 1955 Shermer Rd. #400
Chicago, IL 60641 Northbrook, IL 60062
(773) 283-3913 (847) 559-9800
Atty# 6199578
step toward Democracy after 100 years in Ward 32
Message to Rep.John Fritchey: let him run already.
Enough.
fyi, even if he wanted to, Fritchey has no longer has any say in the matter.
So da guy did it da same way yous guys do it.
Wat's yer beef?
of clout, patroage, no-bid contracts, inside land
sales, Zoning Code manipulations and Family
Ties has had the tables turned for once.
"..Fritchey has no longer any say in the matter."
Excuse me, the Representative personally vouched
that these were fraudulent signatures. He is the
only one who has any say in the matter. He is the
embodiment of what is wrong with the system.
You were a little preachey.
Now a circuit court judge will decide who's on the ballot?
When do I get my turn to vote?
Yours truly,
Slats Grobnik
slats_grobnik@hotmail.com
"When do I get my turn to vote?"
If you're registered to vote, every election.
If you're not, you don't get to vote.
HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT
"Not The Tiresome Masturbatory Mantra"
and
"Like the anal wart who keeps chanting that fellatian fetish..."
You've expanded your vocabulary!
No doubt because you've broadened your life experiences.
By becoming intimately familiar with the meanings of the words "Tiresome", "Masturbatory", "anal wart", "fellatian" and "fetish".
Congratulations on your vocabulatory progress.
Let us all know when you get your Master's degree.
32ndNLA(New Leadership Alliance)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/32ndNLA
From May 10, 2006 to present--Dec. 30, 2007, 1095 messages are recorded, including meeting announcements.
The first recorded meeting of the 32ndNLA still in the calendar was May 10, 2006.
Attending the first meeting--Roger Romanelli and others.
The purpose of the 32NLA was to solicit candidates to run in the 32nd Ward 2007 aldermanic election.
Ald. Scott Waguespack was in contact with the 32nd NLA during the summer of 2006 before he announced in the Fall.
By the way, State Rep. John Fritchey has received all 1095 messages to date--a few of which he disagrees with.
Happy RICO Year,
Joe Lake, Bucktown
You can't play all sides, Slats.
"You can't play all sides, Slats."
You mean like everybody else does?
Everybody as in 'sumbady dat sumbady sent'?
We Don't Want Nobody Sent 25
http://groups.msn.com/ChicagoBucktownPublicSquare/...
Joe Lake, Bucktown
answer from Representative Fritchey -are you part of the Old Guard? Or are you willing to work
with the New 32? Let our Representative take
a stand. And by that I do not mean he should take
the Witness Stand for us to get a straight answer.
Reading the legal documents filed by Romanelli,
it seems they do, indeed, have a case.
Alderman Waguespack has no power or role in
this. ,This is about Fritchey, his ambition and his
determination to stop Romanelli from running and
the voters from making a choice.
That doesn't seem very democratic to me.
"Slats Grobnik Supports John Fritchey for 32nd Ward Democratic Committeeman"
For the a copy of the full email and reasons, see Message Board-General August 27, 2007 at:
Chicago Bucktown Public Square
http://groups.msn.com/ChicagoBucktownPublicSquare
Bandwagonly yours,
Slats Grobnik
slats_grobnik@hotmail.com
Court Room: 1713 Daley Center, Judge Robert W. Bertucci, Cook County Circuit Court: County Division 312-603=5113.
Joe Lake, Bucktown
Did he uncover the vast conspiracy against Romanelli?
Did he refer the matter to Patrick Fitzgerald?
Or did he find that the facts supported the Board's finding that hundred upon hundreds of Roger's signatures were invalid and that Roger himself screwed up his attempts to save some of the potentially valid signatures that he did have, justifying his removal from the ballot?
Just asking.
Since no one, as in no one, gets to be a judge without having connections to either the Dems or the Repubs, a victory for Romanelli would be the surprise here.
Save you bullshit phony questions for your nightly suck session with your clout.
But he also said that his sympathy for Roger's plight wasn't enough to overlook the facts and the law.
My questions weren't phony, Roger's petitions were.
Committeeman. Not hard to trace. The system,
as proven most recently by Romanelli, is rigged
and Fritchey was insulted he had to run at all for a
postiion he figured he'd earned "the old-fashinoned way" He waited his turn for the table
scraps - like a hungry little puppy.
Roger loses at the Board, which finds almost 500 of 700 signatures to be invalid, and points to Roger for the deficiency in the petitions and the failure to properly rehabilitate certain signatures.
Roger calls the ruling outrageous and unprecedented, the hearing officer corrupt, and desperately calls for a federal investigation despite there being not even a shred of evidence that something improper had happened.
Roger files an appeal, in it making no mention of his wild public allegations, and a sympathetic judge nevertheless cites the facts of the case, case law and precedent in upholding the finding of the Board that Roger failed to make his case either before the Board of the Court and affirms Roger's removal from the ballot.
Roger's supporters now say that the judge, who has been consistently found to be qualified by the Bar Association, must also be part of a 'rigged' system. After all, what other explanation could there possibly be?
During this whole process, Roger made countless statements that he knew to be untrue, both about Fritchey and himself, all while trying to assume the role of the victim. He was offered an opportunity to tell the truth and stay on the ballot, and chose to ignore it.
Roger wanted to play by one set of rules, but be treated by another.
What goes around comes around.
No, Roger had to play by the established, written by the Aristocracy, rules, but we all would have preferred that these rules were, in fact honest, fair and supportive of Democracy.
"He was offered an opportunity to tell the truth and stay on the ballot, and chose to ignore it."
Be much more specific, and explain, as honestly as is possible for a dishonest creature such as yourself, exactly what this statement entails.
"What goes around comes around."
Indeed.
That's why I say:
Fuck the Democratic Party of Crooks.
Fuck the Republican Party of Crooks.
HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT
Begin to utilize your Right to Vote to deny these two Aristocratic ruling parties the power to rule.
Just Do It.
Sounds like anytime in the future, anyone with an affidavit for anything is screwed. Thanks to the madigan fritchey machine now operating in place of the Gabinksi Matlak one. You 32 ward people replaced one untrustworthy Illinois cog with the other. But don't worry, the media will set the record straight, that challengers should not bother with democracy, at least not in chicago.
Round Three: Fritchey vs. Romanelli?
At the end of the court hearing and still on the record, Romaneili's attorney announced to the court that he would be appealing the decision to the Illinois Court of Appeals.
Chicago Bucktown Public Square
32nd Ward 2008 Democratic Committeeman Race
http://groups.msn.com/ChicagoBucktownPublicSquare/...
Joe Lake, Bucktown
and stay on the ballot."
Oh, priceless. You mean, Roger was offered
a deal? Like when Fritchey was told to stepdown by City Hall when he wanted to challenge Matlak.
Fritchey kissed the ring and here we are.
So what was this "opportunity" that would make
the righteous Fritchey overlook the supposedly
vile petitions of Romanelli and dane to allow Roger
to stay on the ballot? Was it perhaps an attempt
to get Romanelli to rewrite history and whitewash
Fritchey as a reformer?
Do tell. Would love to know how Fritchey
works the angles. Did he call Roger? No, too
direct. A veiled offer on a blog? No, too vague.
Somebody who knows somebody calls somebody?
Pathetic. Fritchey's career ends here. He will
never live this down. I hope Romanelli keeps up
the heat. This is a fight for all of us now.
Keep trying to make Fritchey out as the bad guy when it's Roger that got caught lying and breaking the rules.
Brilliant denial.
Fritchey challenged his opponent, prevailed at the Board, which decision was upheld by a judge, and Fritchey's going to look bad down the road? Yeah okay.
The lies and undeserved ego of Roger caught up with him. The betrayal by his friends hastened it. Roger still doesn't realize what happened. Too funny.
"The rights of Chicago voters and my right as a candidate have been violated to the maximum extent, and the only plausible explanation is Chicago politics as usual.”
Um, actually Roger, another plausible explanation is that you grossly screwed up your own petitions and got caught.
"Romanelli and his supporters are convinced that political influence is tampering with this election on behalf of Fritchey. (Judge) Bertucci, a former Cook County Assistant State's Attorney, was elected in 1992 to represent the southwest side 14th subcircuit that includes Speaker Madigan’s district.
Um Roger, Bertucci ran AGAINST the slated candidate...and won. Weren't you paying attention at the hearing when the judge told you that he was almost challenged off the ballot himself?
"Romanelli (is) considering appealing Bertucci’s decision to the Illinois Appellate Court or filing a lawsuit in U.S. federal court to allege violation of voters’ constitutional rights."
(Can you write me another check Craig? Please? That way you can try to rent two politicians at once.)
"Ironically, the duty of Ward Committeeman is to encourage voter registration and participation in elections. Romanelli is mobilizing voters"
True, but the problem is that he's mobilizing hundreds of voters from outside the ward to falsely sign petitions that they live in the ward. Oops.
Details, details, lies, damn lies.
Of course Roger can deny that too, just like he denied that any of his circulators were paid.
Old habits die hard.
For Immediate Release: January 5, 2008 * Contacts: Roger Romanelli 773-531-6370, Craig Gould 312-371-3740, Scott and Sarah Gardner 773-575-9541, Evan Tobias 914-391-8136
Fritchey, Cook County Political Powers Derail Democracy in 32nd Ward While Romanelli and Supporters Consider Federal Lawsuit to Protect Voter Rights
On January 4, 2008 Cook County Circuit Court Judge Robert Bertucci ruled for the Chicago Board of Elections and John Fritchey who asked him to reject 44 personally-sworn affidavits from 32nd Ward voters who want community leader Roger Romanelli on the ballot against Fritchey in the February 5 Democratic primary. The decision marks the first time in Chicago elections history that a full set of voter affidavits has been rejected and a dark day for democracy.
"They accused us of fraud, and the only way to debunk that is to sign an affidavit. So I signed," said 32nd Ward voter Craig Gould in the Chicago Reader. "And now they say my affidavit's not good enough? I shouldn't have to prove I'm me. If they don't believe I'm me, they should have to prove it's not me." “I am appalled that they are preventing my signature from counting,” says Evan Tobias, another 32nd Ward affidavit signer. “They are violating my constitutional right to a fair election.”
“More than ever, I am convinced that Chicago’s election process is flawed,” says Romanelli. “The decision by Judge Bertucci to ignore 44 personally-sworn affidavits is incomprehensible. The rights of Chicago voters and my right as a candidate have been violated to the maximum extent, and the only plausible explanation is Chicago politics as usual.”
In his oral ruling, Bertucci said that the 44 affidavits - - all sworn under oath at their homes before notary publics with both voters and notaries facing felony penalties for falsification - - are unacceptable evidence to prove that voters signed Romanelli’s nominating petitions. The Board and Fritchey claimed that 33 affidavit signatures were not genuine, 9 affidavit voters were not registered, and husband Scott Gardner of 1530 N. Hoyne Avenue forged his wife Sarah Gardner’s name, a truly outrageous claim. The Board’s Rules allowed Romanelli to gather affidavits as evidence, giving him enough signatures to be on the ballot.
For his decision, Bertucci relied on arguments submitted by Romanelli, Fritchey and the Board. Romanelli defended 32nd Ward voters who submitted affidavits to affirm their petition signatures, while Fritchey and the Board challenged the legal value of affidavits and mocked 32nd Ward voters.
Romanelli’s lawyer wrote, “An affidavit amounts to an antifraud provision to ensure the integrity of the statement asserted. As the Illinois Supreme Court plainly put it, ‘facts contained in an affidavit…which are not contradicted by a counter-affidavit are admitted and must be taken as true.’ “
With shocking disrespect for 32nd Ward voters who signed affidavits, Fritchey’s lawyer Mike Kasper wrote, “Signing an affidavit that I am a registered voter does not make me a registered voter any more than signing an affidavit attesting that I am a cheese sandwich makes me a cheese sandwich.” Kasper is the general counsel to Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan.
And the Board wrote, “The Board’s rules allow for the use of affidavits, [but] the Board’s rules do not specify that affidavits are to be accorded any particular weight…The Board will generally follow the rules of…Cook County and Illinois, but the Board is not bound by such rules.”
“The duty of the Board of Elections’ is to serve voters and guarantee their rights to free and fair elections,” adds Romanelli. “To insure a predictable and fair process, the Board must follow the same everyday laws that everyone else does, where affidavits are special. For the Board to treat an affidavit like a random piece of paper is unfair and indefensible.”
Romanelli and his supporters are convinced that political influence is tampering with this election on behalf of Fritchey. Besides Madigan’s lawyer and staffers working for Fritchey, the Board’s hearing officer Lynne Ostfeld who first rejected the affidavits is a political appointee. And Bertucci, a former Cook County Assistant State's Attorney, was elected in 1992 to represent the southwest side 14th subcircuit that includes Speaker Madigan’s district.
Romanelli and 32nd Ward voters are considering appealing Bertucci’s decision to the Illinois Appellate Court or filing a lawsuit in U.S. federal court to allege violation of voters’ constitutional rights. The group will meet Thursday, January 10 from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. at The Ashland Restaurant, 2824 N. Ashland Ave. All documents will be displayed.
Ironically, the duty of Ward Committeeman is to encourage voter registration and participation in elections. Romanelli is mobilizing voters, while Fritchey is accusing them of forgery and blocking the campaign for Ward Committeeman. ###
This is a fight for all Chicagoans. If they can do this to me, they will do it to others.
I am paying my lawyer with money from my savings account, and I work for a non-profit organization. Please join us this Thursday night January 10 at the Ashland Restaurant, 2824 N. Ashland Avenue from 6p-8p for a community rally and fundraiser to retire my legal debt.
I paid substantially for the privilege of going to court and expected Judge Bertucci to uphold the basic laws of our nation and our state. He did not. Please visit my website and provide your email address. We will track Mr. Bertucci's re-election and will speak with our votes when the time is right.
As for the pro-Fritch sycophant who apologizes for Bertucci, isn't it curious that Bertucci would mention on the record that he experienced a petition challenge? Isn't this the slightest bit "coincidental?" How about "rehearsed and transparent?"
As for The Fritch, he is obstructing an election for the people of the 32nd Ward with his political muscle. The duty of Committeeman is to energize voters, encourage their participation, register them - - all things I have done and Fritchey is failing to do with his unscrupulous actions. Why does he fear an election? Because of his record as a zoning lawyer? His blind loyalty to Speaker Madigan? His failure to publicly support Scott Waguespack's campaign for Alderman? So many choices...
More about The Fritch:
1) The day after I filed my petitions, he accused me of voting in 1 of the last 3 Aldermanic elections. WRONG. I voted in 2.
Lie machine starts to crank up.
2) The day after I filed my petitions, he accused me of voting in 2 of the last 7 Democratic Primary elections. WRONG. I voted in 4, and 5 of the last 8.
Lie machine in motion.
3) In his objection to my petitions, he claimed that about 100 registered voters in the 32nd Ward forged their signatures. WRONG. With affidavits and overrulings, 74 of these false claims voters have been debunked so far. He's rockin' now.
Despite personally claiming forgeries, there is no record of The Fritch at the BOE verifying signatures. How does one claim forgery if one does not inspect records? Uh, lie about it?
Shame on The Fritch and his misguided supporters - - including the drama queen on this blog who lives in the 47th Ward and posts most of the pro-Fritch silliness. Shame on the Board of Elections for saying they are above the law. And shame on Bertucci for helping them.
Please join me in drawing a line in the sand for freedom in our City: together, we must not tolerate this corruption and hubris.
See you this Thursday,
Roger Romanelli
thanks, but I can blog for myself.
My take is Romanelli did not look for a deal.
Mr. Fritchey seems to want to rewrite
his role in local politics. Romanelli did not oblige.
I do not believe Romanelli intentionally mobilized
voters outside of 32 to get on the ballot.
No question 44 valid names were dismissed which
begs the question how many more valid signatures
were bulk erased by the machine?
Affidavits are the legal currency of validation.
If this decision is allowed to stand then the
presumption of our right to seek office and
to vote in elections has been weakened.
They had to keep bending and interpreting the rules to square the Fritchey assist. One appointee
after the other. Reminds me of the long lines
of Ohio voters and the thousands who could
not prove they were registered. And then there was Florida.
Trying to use Obama to jusitfy the tactics of The Former is nothing to laugh at. Fritchey just
spent thousands of dollars to block the first
election for Ward Committeeman in a century.
Instead of using his influence to energize voters
he pulled out all the stops to end-run them.
Criticize Romanelli for 400 bad signatures. But you can't whitewash that at least 270 legit voters who wanted Romanelli on the ballot were all
disenfranchised by political appointees. The rules
don't say one bad signature negates the rest.
And until now, the rules did not say an affidavit was not the appropriate way to verify signatures.
If John Fritchey truly was challenging Romanelli
to "upholf the election system and not trying
to stop an election, then prove it. In the interest
of catching voter fraud why not prosecute those
voters and the notary who supposedly committed
a felony? Fritchey knows the signatures are real.
Besides, he got what he wanted and once again it
has nothing to do with reform.
Kasper's own signature could be disputed as it
changes daily which was pointed out in
Romanelli's lawsuit. So we all got rooked in the
service of machine politics. When will good people
stop nodding in support? You don't have to like
or vote for Romanelli to understand he has a point. You don't have to be a politico to
understand what a terrible thing Fritchey, Kasper,
an election appointee and a Judge did.
This is dangerous turf.
PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENIA -
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW
Schizophrenia (SKITS-oh-FREEN-ee-uh)---one of the most damaging of all mental disorders---causes its victims to lose touch with reality.
They often begin to hear, see, or feel things that aren't really there (hallucinations) or become convinced of things that simply aren't true (delusions).
In the paranoid form of this disorder, they develop delusions of persecution or personal grandeur. The first signs of paranoid schizophrenia usually surface between the ages of 15 and 34. There is no cure, but the disorder can be controlled with medications. Severe attacks may require hospitalization.
CAUSES
The causes of schizophrenia are still under debate. A chemical imbalance in the brain seems to play a role, but the reason for the imbalance remains unclear. We do know that you're a bit more likely to become schizophrenic if you have a family member with the illness. Stress does not cause schizophrenia, but can make the symptoms worse.
SIGNS/SYMPTOMS
Schizophrenia usually develops gradually, although onset can be sudden. Friends and family often notice the first changes before the victim does. Among the signs are:
- Confusion
- Inability to make decisions
- Hallucinations
- Changes in eating or sleeping habits, energy level, or weight
- Delusions
- Nervousness
- Strange statements or behavior
- Withdrawal from friends, work, or school
- Neglect of personal hygiene
- Anger
- Indifference to the opinions of others
- A tendency to argue
- A conviction that you are better than others, or that people are out to get you
CARE
Drugs such as Thorazine, Haldol, and Risperdal combat symptoms in 4 out of 5 patients. An acute attack usually can be cleared up in 4 to 8 weeks.
Counseling and group therapy help recovering patients to understand the disease and to function effectively.
RISKS
Without medication and therapy, most paranoid schizophrenics are unable to function in the real world.
If they fall victim to severe hallucinations and delusions, they can be a danger to themselves and those around them.
sniff - i want to be committeeman, but claim that i voted in only 5 of the last 8 primaries like it's a good thing that i blew off have of the elections
sniffle - the judge must be in on it too, even though he made it clear that he felt bad for me but said that the facts and the law were clearly against me, therefor his comments must have been 'rehearsed'
blubber - i got caught in so many lies that i can't remember the truth anymore, so instead i'll accuse everybody else of lying in the hopes that people will ignore mine
whine - i've tried to falsely build up my keystone candidacy into representing a greater issue when it's really just an example of the fact that i made something easy look hard
wail - even though i can't do something as simple as get on the ballot, i'd be a great committeeman and would help others get elected. no really. i promise.
huff - i have no real defense for my stupidity so i'm going to resort to calling people names, doesn't that make me look like a rational and capable leader?
oh yeah - please come give me money next week, then maybe i'll go to the Appellate Court, and if they turn me down, i'll blame them too, and the Supreme Court, and the President and the Vatican. i mean else's fault could it be? right?
Can i have a tissue? oh yeah, and some money?
I have no dog in this fight but do want to suggest that instead of talking the talk, some of you might want to try walking the walk.
Otherwise, a lot of this just seems to be people who think too much of themselves and just like to hear themselves speak, even if it's only to themselves.
My opinion is that you win some, you lose some. But it doesn't seem right to scream foul when you do lose, especially if it's a close call, which this one seems to be.
For whatever it's worth.
My original opinion was that Rep. Fritchey is one of the best public officials in the city, if not the state, but that he should have let Romanelli stay on the ballot, regardless of his petitions. He was sure to win handily and ran no risk from Romanelli's candidacy.
My opinion is much less sure now in light of the shrill response of Romanelli and his supporters, which has shown a lack of maturity, professionalism or class, none of which are good traits for somebody wanting to be in a leadership role. It's hard to be taken seriously when you engage in over the top claims.
If the two of them share the same goals, which they seem to, Romanelli should lick his wounds, and work with Fritchey, who was going to be the committeeman, contested or not, in order to effect real change for the ward, and the city.
I know it would take a lot of substance to do, but it would send a great message and would make both men look better, and would make the ward a better place.
Uh-huh.
That would be the Randolph-Fulton Market Association non-profit on whose behalf you lobbied the city for a TIF?
And YOU are going to protect the taxpayers from the "business as usual" crowd?
And the
of The Reformer is held up for real scrutiny.
Ofcourse the Representative saves his infamous
temper tantrums for threatening telephone calls.
The behavior of the Representative reveals who
he really is. No more pretense. He swore that the
affivadits were fake....
Instead of standing for change and allowing a contest for committeeman, he muscled-out the slightest whif of opposition eventhough said opposition posed no real threat to his winning. Explain how that worked "to effect real change for
the ward and the city."
The substance we lack is in an already elected
official who could not resist absolute power.
It was up to Fritchey to set the tone and the example.
That is exactly the type of post that I am talking about. It is hard to believe that you think you are building support with comments like that.
Fritchey filed on objection, just like anybody else can and many did, incumbents and challengers alike. And whether you like it or not, his objection was sustained by the Board and upheld by a judge.
It Romanelli really has the skills and visions that he says, he would be much smarter to move forward and not let supporters like you hold him, or the ward, back.
Your posts make clear that, valid or not, your axe is much more a personal one than anything else.
You have put out numerous statements that you knew to be false, yet you pretend to be offended by the responses of people because they know the same true facts that you do.
(Although I have never heard of, let alone seen Fritchey have an 'infamous temper tantrum', it is quite easy to see how your duplicity could evoke one.)
You are doing Roger and the ward a disservice by making him think that fighting for your ego equates to fighting for the ward. So go back to your triple lot and let the rest of the ward move forward.
And lastly, contrary to your last sentence, it is up to everyone to set the tone and example. I really hope that Roger can step back and get that.
Your machine hack bias is showing.
The issue is ballot access, plain and simple.
Fritchey's actions impede open access to the ballot, deny the citizens even the most meager possibility of a choice and turn an election contest into a coronation.
Aristocratic domination at it's most basic level.
"With All Due Respect
December 21st - 8:49 p.m.
It's not about personal graciousness, kindness, courtesy or respect.
It's about the long overdue respect that the voters have been denied, said respect being, in this case, the refusal of the machine democrats to 'permit' any other declared democrat from daring to challenge one of the party anointed.
No doubt the republicans have done this very same thing to their own party's voters.
It's the principle of acting in favor of the voter's right to HAVE choices, which is what makes an election an election, and not a christening.
This is supposed to be a Democracy, NOT an Aristocracy.
The party 'regulars' don't get it, but the voters are beginning to.
HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT"
"...it is up to everyone to set the tone and example."
Everyone being all citizens eligible to vote.
REGISTER TO VOTE
VOTE IN EVERY ELECTION
HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT
Citizens interested in exercising their Right to Vote can find important information here:
http://www.chicagoelections.com/voterinfo/default....
too bad for people in the 32nd, they got a new committeeman who is no better than the old machine hacks he now replaces. Stop any opposition at any cost. rostenkowski, gabinski, fritchey...they even rhyme. Nothing changed in that ward this year, it will be more of the same. You can bet those voters who signed the affidavits won't be voting for Fritchey for any office.
Mr. Fritchey and what he did to become the 32nd Committeeman.
When Romanelli produced the affidavits he should
have been allowed to run. The harm from this
faulty decision to throw out notorized documents
must be corrected.
There is growing resentment of this type of
career politicians not interested in the greater good but only in consolidating power. Rep. Fritchey had an opportunity to define himself
and return an open process of choice to voters.
Fritchey had a moment but took the low, well-travelled road of the machine.
In this instance Fritchey forced out of the race
his lone challanger, not for the sake of
the Ward, but to avoid a campaign. Why? What
kind of thinking produces this kind of decision?
The thinking that says only chumps actually let
voters decide. Thinking that says Chicago
politics are off-limits to outsiders who can't be
trusted.
Mr. Fritchey is an embarrassing throwback in a
time ripe for fresh leadership. He is not a fit
for our Ward and I hope we can oust him from
committeeman at the earliest possible date.
I love how all the posters here know the law better than the board or judge do.
Face it, Roger screwed up. Not Fritchey. Not the Board. Not the judge.
Politics are far from off-limits to outsiders, just look at the recent Aldermanic elections. They are, however, off-limits to people who aren't capable of following very minimal rules and requirements.
You get what you give. Just ask Roger. Right?
"Deal with it"
Good advice.
Let's all take it.
REGISTER TO VOTE
VOTE IN EVERY ELECTION
HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT
Just Do It. :)
"Let Romanelli run"
Sworn affidavits should stand
Last week Board of Elections hearing examiner Lynne Ostfeld rejected the nominating petition of Roger Romanelli for 32nd Ward Democratic Committeeman. Romanelli was dropped due to a challenge by candidate State Rep. John Fritchey (D-11) to the majority of the signatures on Romanelli's petition. Candidates must collect 247 signatures from registered voters living in the ward before getting on the ballot for the election set for Feb. 5. Romanelli is 20 signatures short, despite turning in more than 700 in his nominating petition.
Fritchey's election lawyer Mike Kasper, who also works for State House Speaker Michael Madigan, argued most of the challenges on the grounds that the signatures on the nominating petition do not match those on some individuals' voter registration cards.
The challenge prompted Romanelli to get 49 sworn affidavits from those with challenged signatures, but Ostfeld ruled on many that the signatures on the affidavits still did not match those in the Board of Elections' records and are therefore not valid.
During the hearing, Ostfeld acknowledged that signatures can change: "I know myself to sign a different signature when I'm in a hurry, and I know that my mother cannot sign the way she signed a few years ago because of a tremor."
We agree and wonder how Ostfeld now justifies the decision to reject the signatures on the affidavits. Under the current system those who have changed their signatures due to time, illness or any other reason can have their rights taken away. The Board of Elections must find a way to correct this problem.
The burden of proof falls on challenged candidates, requiring them to collect the signatures on affidavits, but if those legal documents are collected and submitted to the Board of Elections, then the burden should then swing back to the challenger of those signatures to prove that the affidavits are not valid.
In this case Romanelli was simply left to appeal the decision to the Board of Elections, but he believes the system is rigged and is threatening to take his case to circuit or federal court. If the full Board of Elections decides to maintain the hearing examiner's decision, then Romanelli should fight for his right to get on the ballot. Voters in the 32nd Ward have the right to put their candidate on the ballot, despite what appears to be a politically stacked deck.
Your recent editorial, "Let Romanelli Run," Dec. 19, 2007, completely misses the reality of the story behind Roger Romanelli being removed from the ballot. In your conclusion, you state that "voters in the 32nd Ward have the right to put their candidate on the ballot." That is precisely why Romanelli's petitions were disallowed.
While it may be convenient for Mr. Romanelli to focus on the 45 affidavits that were ruled invalid, he completely ignores the fact that approximately 450, or over 90 percent, of the signatures that were struck from his petitions were removed precisely because the individuals who signed were not voters in the 32nd Ward. If the Board had allowed these signatures to remain, it would have allowed outsiders to determine who should be on the ballot to represent us. That would be the real abuse of the process.
Furthermore, even a quick reading of the ruling makes it clear that the affidavits were not ruled invalid because the hearing officer did not believe that the signatures were not legitimate, as Romanelli claims. Rather, they were not allowed because the statements contained in the affidavits were insufficient as a matter of law. The hearing officer even went so far as to say that Romanelli and his lawyer created their own problems by using form affidavits rather than ones that contained the legally required information. In sum, Romanelli's affidavits were as sloppy as were his petitions.
Without any factual basis, Mr. Romanelli has made accusations blaming his removal on almost everybody in the process. The reality is that he has nobody to blame but himself.
"As a matter of law".
How often has this phrase preceded or followed an act of injustice.
What do these affidavits actually attest to?
If they attest to the fact that those whose signatures were dismissed as being fraudulent are, in fact, not fraudulent, are, in fact, genuine, then why would those signatures not be accepted by the Board of Elections?
If they attest to the fact that those who signed the original petitions are, in fact, the individuals who, being registered voters and residents of the ward, did sign the petitions, then, again, why would the signatures in question be dismissed as invalid?
If they attest to the fact that those individuals did, in fact, sign the petitions on the date they were, in fact, signed, then why would the signatures in question remain declared as invalid?
What legally required information, specifically, does the Board of Elections declare must be provided?
What law(s) specifically require said specific information?
Before mister "...should blame himself" sends off that 'letter to the editor', I suggest he provide all the specifics he deems supportive of his perspective.
What's been posted here does not even achieve the low level of plausibility, let alone rationality.
If anything, they support the view of 'the fix' being in, with the feeble 'matter of law' as the excuse.
Fritchey folks can't move on? They won,right?
So why can't they leave the battle field to those
who continue to fight City Hall over a principle?
Is it because, they, like Fritchey, want to be viewed
as reformers and refuse to accept what they did to
secure power? Fritchey wants it both ways - to ride
the change wave in politics but use old-school
tactics as his personal insurance policy. His
supporters want it both ways as well. Sorry.
You, like the machine tactics you support,
are no better than the last power hungry bunch.
The system failed us. Fritchey failed us. Though he was not well -organized, Romanelli should have been allowed to run in a fair fight.
The more Fritchey and his not-so-merry band
work to rewrite the facts, the more those of us who know the truth must hang around to set
the record straight. I will be writing a letter to
the Journal to congratulate them for being
right on target. I hope others will also do the
same. As soon as possible we should seek ways
to remove Ostfeld, Bertucci and FRITCHEY.
The Board of Elections threw out bad signatures.
It also threw out valid names. Letting Romanelli
run on the GOOD signatures was the right thing to
do. The rules allow examination, challenge and
rebutal in the form of affidavits and then MORE
examination if warranted. BOE overreached to dispose of Romanelli. No staff handwriitng expert was used, no cross-check of the available current
voter registration rolls, and there was no testimony requested of the notary or any of the 44 signers.
Using this logic thousands of people could be
disenfranchised during an election-say if a serious mayoral candidate arises. The emphasis
in Democracy is preserving open elections. In
Cook County the goal is status quo, by any
means necessary.
Your attempts to legitimize abuse of power
are far more dangerous than allowing challengers
on the ballot. No harm would result from allowing Mr. Romanelli on the ballot because he had the
required signatures after the majority of his
petitions were thrown out. Tremendous damage
has been done by failing to do proper diligence
to confirm the good signatures. The sole job
of Ms. Osterfield was to conduct a fair review
process. She did not. Judge Bertucci compounded
the offense. His judgement is tainted by personal experience from operating in a weighted system.
Instead of similarly digging to find the truth ----
whether 44 voters were disenfranchised, Bertucci
had sympathy for Romanelli but no justice.
Maybe it's because our system is based on laws not sympathy. That's the whole point.
Your use of logic to reach a false, and thus, fraudulent, conclusion, is typical of your breed.
'Our system' is based on laws, not justice.
When laws are interpreted in an unjust manner, they produce injustice.
When laws are written to achieve unfairness, or to permit their being interpreted in such a manner that permits unfairness, the result is injustice.
Even by the letter of the law, let alone the spirit, Bertucci has upheld the unfair, dishonest and unjust interpretation of the law, by the Board of Elections and, specifically, by Osterfield.
THAT'S the whole point.
For YOUR information.
No big deal, buddy, as we, the voters HAVE our own option, namely:
REGISTER TO VOTE
VOTE IN EVERY ELECTION
HAVE NO DOUBT, VOYE INCUMBENTS OUT
Just Do It.
The Judge apologetically carried water for the
system that sustains him...Cook County.
No sympathy was needed. The Judge, like the
woefully incompetent Ms. Osterfeld, chose to focus on Fritchey's arguments to eliminate an opponent instead of protecting the franchise of
44 voters. When deciding which is more important
the letter of the law or its intent, justice would
require every effort be made to determine whether
Romanelli had the required number to stay on
the ballot. Instead, the effort rested on weak
and obvious ploys to keep him off. It would have
been logical as well as fair to research the validity
of the 44 notorized names. That would have
removed any doubts. It was well within the power
of Ms. Osterfeld. If the names were forged, as
the decision implys, then it is incumbent on our
officials to prosecute those committing a felony. Bertucci could have followed-through since
considerable resources were being spent on both
sides seeking a satisfying conclusion. Why didn't
the Judge want the truth?
This is serious stuff.
Yes, incredibly serious.
Constitutionally serious, in fact.
What's more serious than the citizen's Right to Vote?
And, what value does this right have, if the citizen has been denied the opportunity of having choices to vote for?
When there is only one candidate for any given office, there is, by definition, no contest.
In this case, Fritchey gets elected by, at best, getting 1 vote.
1 vote.
Let's all think about that.
I think a "NO VOTE" FOR FRITCHEY CAMPAIGN
is in order. Thus citizens would be able to voice
a choice . Not voting for Fritchey is thereby not
voting for our disenfranchisement. I might not
have voted for Romanelli but this is plain wrong.
In what will probably be a high voter turnout day
can we keep his numbers down? BTW - has anyone
contacted the ACLU on behalf of the 44 and
Romanelli?
Again, the judge ran AGAINST the system and won. And yet he still was constrained by the facts and the law in upholding the Board's finding that Roger's petitions were deficient. Are there any facts that you won't try to twist?
This is about Roger's screw-up and his benefactor's ego, plain and simple.
So if a judge rules for Roger, they're a bastion of justice, but if they rule against Roger, they're part of the vast conspiracy? What a convenient and self-contained analysis.
- John Fritchey’s legal argument to the Court on why 44 legitimate voter affidavits signed under oath with felony penalty of law by 32nd Ward voters should be rejected to prevent an election. With incomprehensible logic, hubris and total disrespect for the law and his robe, Judge Bertucci agreed.
What more is needed to prove a rigged system? What more is needed to show Fritchey's total disrespect to 32nd Ward voters and utter lack of character to be our Committeeman? Nothing.
This is a civil rights moment for Chicago. Will you stand up for fairness and justice? The choice is yours.
“Signing an affidavit that I am a registered voter does not make me a registered voter any more than signing an affidavit attesting that I am a cheese sandwich makes me a cheese sandwich.”
That is an inherently true statement. Simply saying something in an affidavit does NOT automatically make it true.
For example, me signing an affidavit that I am seven feet tall does not automatically make me a giant. I have to support it with other proof.
The LAW makes it clear that ROMANELLI had the burden of proving all of the relevant facts, nobody else, ROMANELLI.
"This is a civil rights moment for Chicago."
Good lord, could you be a little more delusional and self-absorbed?
Can you tell us in advance what your going to blame the Appellate Court's decision on if they go against Roger? That they are illiterate hacks? Unless of course, they theoretically managed to find for Roger, in which case they are pillars of justice, right?
"A civil rights moment for Chicago." Unreal.
"'Signing an affidavit that I am a registered voter does not make me a registered voter any more than signing an affidavit attesting that I am a cheese sandwich makes me a cheese sandwich.'
That is an inherently true statement. Simply saying something in an affidavit does NOT automatically make it true."
It is only 'inherently' true if the person swearing to tell the truth is a liar.
Once Romanelli submitted the sworn affidavits to the Board of Elections, it shifted the burden of disproving their validity to the complainant's side.
No such proof of falsity was provided by Fritchey's side.
To claim that the burden of proof still remained with the accused is to pervert the meaning and definition of proof.
Exactly what Osterfield did and Bertucci affirmed.
The fact that Bertucci began his judicial career as an un-slated candidate in no way proves that he is biased in favor of open ballot access. Once elected, the political machine embraces/compromises everyone they can. Apparently, Bertucci is one of their successful converts.
Remember the name Bertucci.
Remember the name Fritchey.
Remember to vote them both out of all public offices they may hold at the earliest opportunity.
Now that's logical.
transactions, wills & testimony as a way to
VERIFY information. Romanelli brought in proof
that is universally viewed as bona fide in the legal
system unless discredited. Elections "officials"
used subjective interpretation to disallow STANDARD AFFIDAVITS. The truth was literally
a keystroke away -check voter registration lists...
or a telephone call -handwriting expert, or the
notary or even ONE of the 44 voters who swore
(similar to the swearing in of a court witness) as
to the veracity of their identity and residence.
That would have sufficed to prove or disprove
whether this was a legal voter or a seven foot
tall cheese sandwhich living outside 32. The
point is - to safeguard open elections. TO protect VOTERS. That should be the focus of all this.
GET IT? The greater harm is to pervert the process.
The effort should have been made to honor voters...follow the truth wherever it leads.
If Romanelli didn't have legit signatures- toss
him off. BUT IF HE HAD TRUE SIGNATURES
LET HIM RUN.
Democracy is not fine because your guy triumphs
and the system is gamed. We all lost.
The standard of what is fair has been buried.
I am surprised Rep. Fritchey doesn't see this. Those who goaded him into going after Romanelli
did him and the Ward a huge diservice.
"The LAW makes it clear that ROMANELLI had the burden of proving all of the relevant facts, nobody else, ROMANELLI."
No, the law required Romanelli to provide verification that the signatures being challenged were, in fact, valid signatures, which he did, by providing signed, sworn affidavits from the voters whose signatures were being challenged.
The fact that the Board of Elections failed to do their lawfully required due diligence and that the Fritchey camp failed to prove their claims of falsity concerning the signatures in question, proves that the process, at the least in this case, is flawed.
Flawed by it's reliance on the integrity, honesty and intelligence of those 'serving' on the Board of Elections and flawed by it's lack of clear, specific and binding rules as to the level of expertise which must be applied to determining the authenticity of voter signatures.
It's a ridiculously loose, vague and subjective system, designed and operated for the very purpose of limiting ballot access.
All brought to you, the voters, courtesy of the Democratic Party of Crook County.
Enjoy.
BUT ALSO MAKES ME WANT TO CLEAN
FRITCHEY'S CLOCK. SERIOUSLY, SOMEONE PLEASE CONTACT THE ACLU IF YOU SIGNED AN AFFIDAVIT
Romanelli v. Fritchey et al,
Jan 7, 2008
Appeal to the Appellant Court of Illinois First Judicial District, from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department ,County Division.
Joe Lake, Bucktown
The only chamber echoing is the one between your ears.
To quote you:
"I have no dog in this fight...."
So, you must either:
a - be under the age of 18.
b - be over 18, but not a US citizen.
c - be over 18, a US citizen, but not a resident of the ward in question, or any political area impacted by the issues at hand.
d - be over 18, a US citizen, a resident of impacted political areas, but either not a registered voter and/or just a run-of-the-mill, common knucklehead.
"My opinion is that you win some, you lose some. But it doesn't seem right to scream foul when you do lose, especially if it's a close call, which this one seems to be."
What, exactly, is a 'foul'?
Perhaps it's a sometimes blatant, sometimes subtle and all the time violation of the spirit of the rules governing any given 'game'?
So, why wouldn't it 'seem' right to object to a violation of said rules?
Do you really think those on the Fritchey side of this coin wouldn't scream bloody murder, (were it possible for them to be on the other side of this coin and still be who and what they are, if it were their signed affidavits were being discarded as so much waste paper?
"For whatever it's worth."?
Appraised value of your post = $.02
"Do you really think those on the Fritchey side of this coin wouldn't scream bloody murder, (were it possible for them to be on the other side of this coin and still be who and what they are, if it were their signed affidavits were being discarded as so much waste paper?"
Exactly. If the situation were reversed, the Romanelli people would be all over Fritchey for turning in 500 bad sigs out of 700 and then refusing to accept the decision of the Board or the Court because he thinks his case is above the law.
Other then file a complaint as is his right, which Romanelli would have surely won should the roles have been reversed, state the facts that show that Fritchey himself did anything wrong. Not theories, facts. Thank you.
"Other then file a complaint as is his right, which Romanelli would have surely claimed he should have won..."
fact - Osterfield declared that affidavits are not proof of the truth they are sworn to be.
fact - Bertucci agrees, thus affirming that the Courts of Cook County no longer consider affidavits to be proof of the truth they are sworn to be.
fact - In Cook County, affidavits no longer have any value in determining the truth they are sworn to affirm.
fact - the act of swearing to tell the truth has no meaning in the Courts of Cook County.
fact - There is no joy in Mudville......
Romanelli would not have had the slightest interest or need to do, the roles would never have
been reversed... and certainly not after vetted affidavits were produced in response to a first
round challenge containing inspired and lofty
referrences to cheese sandwiches thereby elevating the importance of open elections and the sincerity those seeking the public trust."
Your presumptions are showing.
First, you presume that Romanelli, and his 'people', would, in fact, do precisely what Fritchey, and 'his people' have done, were their situations reversed, without having a clue as to all the things that Fritchey, and 'his people' have done, and without a clue as to the effects their actions will have on the 'democratic process'.
Your presumptions betray your lack of information.
Even from the currently public information available, your presumptions fail to assist you in reaching your conclusions.
Regardless of how often those from the Fritchey camp insist that 'the law' is 'on their side', much as a character in a movie Denzel Washington was in kept insisting "Time is on my side....", their position of presuming that 'the law' is all the justification they require to act unjustly is what exposes them for who and what they are, namely, Aristocrats, at best, and Dictators, at worst, disguised as Democrats.
'The law', being written by Aristocrats, interpreted by Aristocrats, adjudicated by Aristocrats and touted by the followers of Aristocrats, predictably supports the goals of Aristocrats, the goal, this time, of eliminating a commoner from interfering with a machine party coronation.
If Fritchey had the minimum level of regard for the intelligence of even a small minority of the residents of this ward, he'd have realized that his posturing as a 'reformer' is what's really drawn the ire of that minority.
We expect this kind of hanky panky from the hacks, but, at least the hacks don't pretend to give a shit about what we think of their polluted political perspectives.
Fritchey has, by actions we can see, and actions we cannot, taken a lower road than even the old-school hacks would have taken.
If we are to believe the Fritchey supporters, Romanelli's chances of winning were zero to none.
If we are to believe the Fitchey spin, Fitchey wouldn't even had to campaign to win election.
If we are to believe Fitchey's 'reasons' for challenging Romanelli's candidacy, even one of them, we have to conclude that Fritchey belives he's doing the voters a favor.
If we believe.....
If I sign an affidavit - - any affidavit - - and I am lying, I can be prosecuted for a FELONY OFFENSE PUNISHABLE BY A JAIL SENTENCE.
181 Comments, Jan, 8, 2008
Joe Lake, Bucktown
-A so-called reform candidate who wants to take
credit for electing an independent Alderman
having stayed in the shadows of the campaign.
-A "reformer" who used his resources to eliminate the competition rather than beat it with votes
-Supporters suggest Fritchey offered a "deal."
After personally signing that Romanielli
forged signatures, Fritchey would withdraw his
challenge if Romanelli vouched for Fritchey's record as a reformer.
-Fritchey's legal challenge did not expose 44 fake signatures but to stretched technicalities and weakened election law. His legal arguments reveal a sneering contempt for the honorable workings of law rather than a devotion to uphold it.
-Instead of protecting voters rights by debunking
all 44 signatures, Representative Fritchey sought only a technical knockout. He could have tested
Romanelli's viability either at the polls or exposed
each notorized signature as fake.
Fritchey was less concerned about potentially disenfranchising and discouraging voters than grabbing the job of Committeeman-no matter
how it appeared.
-the Fritchey camp ridicules Romanelli for pursuing voter rights relecting a coarse disdain
of fair play, open elections and the notion of
principle above personal gain.
Representative Fritchey will be the next
Committeeman but he can also-------
1) prove he is interested in truth
2) prove he supports voter rights
3) prove he respects open elections
4) prove he is a reformer
5) prove Roger Romanelli didn't deserve to run
6) or, prove Cook County can clean its own house
Why not ask election officials to examine the crucial forty-four affidavits in question?
Taxpayer dollars will be used to ascertain whether taxpayer rights have been violated. Another
beneficial side- effect would be a test of whether
review standards, introduced by Ms. Osterfeld, upheld by Judge Bertucci and likely followed in the future, are thorough enough.
If the affidavits are bad Romanelli will be silenced.
But, if the affidavits are good he still wins and demonstrates leadership to fix a broken system.
He did not submit almost 500 bad signatures out of 700. Romanelli did.
He did not have the burden of trying to rehabilitate the stricken signatures. Romanelli did.
He did not fail to properly meet that burden. Romanelli did.
He did not issue the opinion. The Board did.
He did not write the brief with the 'cheese sandwich' statement. His counsel did.
He did not uphold it. A judge did.
Those are the facts, feel free to ignore them and respond with hyperbole as you have been doing.
Frichey is as pure a the driven snow ... and I was born ... uh, yesterday. Thanks for the snow but it's raining on your parade.
Is there anything incorrect in what i said?
And what's Romanelli's excuse going to be if he loses at the Appellate level? He obviously must believe that he can get a fair hearing there or he wouldn't spend the time and money in pursuing an appeal.
But just like he predicted vindication at court, and then changed his tune when the ruling went against him, I'm sure that if he loses his appeal, it will obviously be somebody else's fault, because of course it couldn't be that he simply screwed up.
The overwhelming majority of these people, may not like the decision, but they accept the decision and learn from their mistakes. They don't blame somebody else for pointing out their mistake.
Some of them question the Board's ruling and go to court. Some win, some lose.
The majority of these parties also have the class and dignity to accept the ruling of judge without claiming, without any proof or basis, that 'the fix was in'.
Roger is obviously not one of these people.
In the interest of disclosure, I do not live in
that ward.
But, Fritchey is my State Rep. He helped me
with some community problems. I find this
situation much too close to call.
Yet there does appear to be room to resolve it with dignity and erase doubt.
I do not know Romanelli and could not vote for him anyway.
What is the harm to the Representative to act as an agent for change for all the reasons I outlined?
Please, to the Romanelli crowd, this is an honest
question.
While Romanelli keeps saying that the Board did not believe the affidavits, that is NOT what the ruling said. They ruled that the affidavits did not contain the facts required by law.
Romanelli's lawyer could have drafted them differently but chose not to. He could have put in other proof but chose not to. He could have had people come in to testify but chose not to. He and his client made a decision on how to proceed, and lost.
You're right, there is room to resolve it with dignity. Roger can acknowledge that he lost in a 'close call' but quit blaming everybody else for the outcome.
But based on the comments on this thread, it looks much more likely that he would rather engage in name-calling and vitriol than anything else.
He is being given extremely bad advice. Unfortunately, he is taking it.
"I guess that the realistic answer to your question is that the election officials no longer have any say at this point."
Good, they've said, and done, quite enough already.
"They ruled that the affidavits did not contain the facts required by law."
What facts would they be? Besides confirming that the voter signatures accused of being invalid, for whatever reasons, were, in fact, valid?
"Romanelli's lawyer could have drafted them differently but chose not to."
How differently would they have needed to be, to 'satisfy' the requirements of 'law'?
"He could have put in other proof but chose not to."
What 'proof', other than sworn affidavits from the very voters whose signatures were declared fraudulent by 'the board', are you suggesting was needed? And don't you think that the Board of Elections has a duty to ensure fair, open and honest elections, not just banter over 'points of law'?
"He could have had people come in to testify but chose not to."
The Board of elections could have exercised their responsibility to perform due diligence before summarily dismissing sworn affidavits as being insufficient to prove the validity of those signatures in question. That's their job. Or are you going to say that it's not?
What's truly interesting is the nature of the arguments made by those supporting Fritchey, all having in common one trait, that being wholehearted support of the rules, when they favor those holding, and exploiting, political and governmental power.
Fritchey's only interest in change is to change himself into one of those having more political power than less.
Citizens of this ward should put up a website and track his every move.
A good candidate to run against him for state rep needs to be found.
"don't let Roger do their petitions :)"
Why not?
He's learned several ways the Election Board denies challengers ballot access, along with Chris Lawrence, Roger's got a list of just how mickey mouse these guys can be.
Sooner or later, the hacks will run out of original ways to bump people off the ballot.
Those who've experienced being bumped off will have a substantially complete list of how it's done and will be the most informed people to 'do their petitions'.
After all, it's what you don't know that usually bites you in the ass.
surprise-those who think john fritchey is
a worthy public servant don't get what all the
fuss is about. they do not understand the danger
of rulings that undermine fairness vs protect it.
they do not see the cost of inferior appointees like Osterfeld, Bertucci and Todd Stroger. they
do not care about the demoralizing effect of a
win by killing an election. they must resort to
mocking and pitifully argue the unarguable-
a system bankrupt of democratic ideals. fritchey
is a power-hungry throwback. our ward and the
state should reject him at our first opportunity.
fritchey as governor, attorney general, senator,
representative, alderman or committeeman
is a disgrace. how long does a term for committeeman last? we have time to recruit
a decent candidate to run against his him for state
rep. in the meantime we should watch the moves
of this creep every second as a zoning attorney,
political hack and legislator.
watch him every second.
When Fritchey has to face an actual contender, in an actual election contest, we'll then see if the 'facts', as in the vote totals, will be more to his liking.
Theris gabinski now works at the same bank that gave many loans to developers who have been playing games on the northside for years, and he is still the committeeman until he hands over power to Fritchey. Matlak was a scrapper for gabinksi, worked his way up from office hack to alderman and got his share of zoning change cash for those poor people in the northside wards where development was taking place...displacing families.
How much money did gabjinski make from zoning as the committeeman? Probably millions. So of course someone wants the position without worrying about the democratic party part of it.
Its all about $$ zoning $$, and the rich wards, developers, realtors making inside deals, and lawyers making sure it all flows into the right pocket. Why else be committeeman?
Party politics? yeah right.
Circuit Court Appeal to Illinois Appellant Court Denied
Round Four: Fritchey or Romanelli?
Joe Lake, Bucktown
In essence the Court found that, hyperbole aside, Romanelli's petitions were deficient as a matter of law and of fact.
Next time somebody cries conspiracy, they might want to make sure that they at least have either the facts or the law on their side.
Perfect example of a person not fit to run for office, let alone hold office.
Life lesson - if you screw up, admit it, don't whine and blame everybody else. Then you might not come away looking like a loon.
We Don't Want Nobody Sent 26
http://groups.msn.com/ChicagoBucktownPublicSquare/...
Round Three: Fritchey!
Joe Lake Bucktown
John fritchey loves a good doggie!
Who do you think you deal with here? This man throws people off ballots for a living.
John fritchey is running for Congressman, not the dog catcher.