WOW. judge platkin called the issue "complex"duh. It B very complex.imo bd of elections whom I think is a mouthpiece for Andy imo screwed up.Daily news article headline SICK play on words .funny.Absentee ballots have gone out .Spokesman for bd said it would be difficult but not impossible to revise the state ballot. That would B two years in a row. Last year Hurricane Sandra.wow .Last year, act of you know who,, this year, act of Andrew and the bd of elections.Whats the mb opinions and guesses on how Richard will deal with this come Tuesday or Wednesday and at the latest Thursday.?????No time to let it play out ,and to dismiss it based on late filing by eric S seems to me based on the articles ,NOT GONNA HAPPEN.Anybody else agrees with cpat that wording gets dropped.What be other options Judge P has?1.Dismiss2. Drop wording3.Let it proceed(he coiuld make it a nonevent that way.)ironic.Time will run out on eric but not the way the bd of elections said.Imo if the ref passes with the language the lawsuits and appeals will follow and imo have merit.Any other options open to judge P? thoughts
I think you are getting ahead of yourself. Have you read the Open Meeting Law statute? The attorney who filed the petition is merely throwing a bunch of claims against the wall to see what sticks. I'm not going to give an analysis of the law, but IMO this is a trivial claim, and expected. For one, the language is not "advocating" anything. It's simply explaining the purspose of the proposition, which is completely 100% permitted. It was doen in 2005 as well ffor a bond issuance. (see NY Times article). Speaking of NY Times, the article they wrote on the referendum language was back in the beginning of September. You think that hundreds of interested parties jsut overlooked some allegedly obvious violation of the law? then entire cuomo administration staffers, the NY Times, the Gov. watchdog groups,,, etcc...etcc...but a bankruptcy lawyer just happened to pick up on it just as the referendum is getting near? he could have simply made a FOIL request like others did back in August. Instead he waited until October 1st to file a lawsuit. State agencies have a lot of discretion. All they need to provide is reasonable access and to provide requested info in a timely manner. AND you think its a coinceidence that thuis lawsuit come rigth after teh Sienna poll showing more support with the additional language? LOL, is it not obvious to yout hat the anti-casino folks huddled up and decided they didnt have teh cash to wage a fruitless campaignt o sway voters, so they got "a guy" who is supposed to appear to be a single concerned citizen to file a lawsuit at a strategically placed time.
I dont know what it is that you read that made you so certain that teh language would be removed, but I hope its not just based on nnews articels and you actually read the statutes. thenews articles also say over and over that the ballot question "promises" jobs. Ballot qustion merely EXPLAINS to the "PURPOSE" of teh amendment is to 'PROMOTE" job creation.
you have to admit the bd of elections "sick "employee and INFOTECH was late pushing the button were classics.Do not know if : "trivial" but have doubts it is but I highly doubt the judge dismisses it based on the bd of elections atty reasons.sick employee.
dthe. after the ref language was on the ballot, no one needed a sienna poll to come out , to tell us it would pass.I knew that the anti casino folkd would have to huddle up .Many articles came out saying they were loose knit and had no cash.No I did not read the statues just reading every article I can to try to make opinions,strictly opinions.I believe the judge may be thinking there is such little ,if no time.We know that..Thats the rock and hard place I mentioned.The judge, like you, was concerned, and more then once asked eric why now why now. And eric answered the same every time..dthe ,You seem to think the wording holds.Could be.Hope so.But, would you be shocked if the wording was removed. scneiderman, the atty general first I believe sent down to the board of elections no wording at all attached. to the ref. Just vanilla and generic.Would you, dthe be surprised or shocked to see the wording B removed?.You seem very smart with experience. Nothing should shock or surprise you re: nyny,casinos nys,kempthorne,indians,bermans wife selling,reversal of kempthorne, genting doing an Albany lobby to not reverse.As keeshon Johnson would say,come on man.Keep posting cause this year you have been the gold standard on this mb.The fact that eric was a bk law partner made me roll my eyes though yesterday
dthe . I am not certain at all the language will be removed.I am more certain the late filing reason for Erics dismissal by the bd of election atty will not fly. Your posts are taken at the highest level right up there with the mayors back in the day when he would reserve time at night to speak to his constituents. He was the man but still our mayor. but you now are at the pinnacle. and oh by the way one of your posts made cpat some decent money around the end of the session in late june. thanx.I respectfully disagree with trivial.The judge called the issue "complex".Am I buying that Eric the lawyer is using his own money to pay travel and hotels .Not necessarily. But when I mentioned the mayor and bld to chirp in on current events I really wanted you also.My want was granted thank you.