Wilma's Judicial Misconduct
Chucky and the AG have requested a rehearing and as of 5pm Friday, they were DENIED!
But silly Wilma Lewis is trying to work on a retroactive pardon? Really? Meanwhile she sent a TRO to Fawkes. So now Fawkes has two diametrically opposed orders. One to put Chucky on the ballot (Wilma Lewis in federal court) and one to take her off (Vi Supreme Court Rhys Hodge).
Wilma, let me take you back to law school basics:
1. The District federal court is not a court of competent jurisdiction over local election petition laws.
2. You have no right to serve a contradictory order to Fawkes.
3. If you have jurisdiction over the VI Supreme Court, you would have ordered Rhys Hodge and the Supreme Court to reverse their order.
This is your second f up in one month, like you did with the Judge candidate Diase, I think you need some judicial review. You have been served.
Meanwhile, Fawkes would do well to obey the first and last order she received lest she be found in contempt.
Chuck and deJongh with his dummy AG, you lose this round.
The wicked witch is off the ballot for now, and Sanes is the only pawn left.
Well, if Lewis' ruling allows Diase on the ballot, somebody should have protested when Diase filed the suit.
No way can the average citizen figure out what's legal and not, and the "reporters" for local newspapers can't be expected to be our only information source.
Without free and unbiased press, democracy is a joke, imo.
Wilma's ruling kept Soriya Diase off the ballot. The ruling was trounced, overturned by the appellate Third Circuit court.
Now she conveniently puts Chucky back on the ballot one day before the required deadline for printing, and may wait until September 26th to rule. By then the ballots are supposed to be printed.
Justice delayed is justice denied
Thanks for the clarification. All these courts and suits are confusing to those of us not in the legal community.
But if third circuit ruled for Diase in a local election, how can you say they won't make a ruling for Chucky's supporters who also filed in federal?
Based on my brief and limited Google search today, I couldn't find any other state that had a "moral" requirement for senators. Just age, citizenship, and sometimes residency.
Now I'm wondering why Organic Act is holding VI to a higher standard.
I'm afraid this is far from over.
James A OBryan Jr
A call to Judge Lewis' chamber Monday morning reveals the District Court Judge has entered no new order rescinding her order directing Senator Hansen's name on the ballot. This contradicts all the "media" reports that Hansen is off the ballot again. One report says Judge Lewis entered the order 10;30 Saturday night. Did not happen. This is such drama it should be a movie. But until Judge Lewis issues an order rescinding her September 12th order, Senator Hansen is ON the ballot.
I still do not understand how a District Court judge's ruling can trump the Supreme Court's rulling, after the fact? If Fawkes puts her on ballot she is disregarding the SC opinion/judgement who said they will not reconsider that case.
Will this saga NEVER end!
I wish a rooster would fly into her face and pluck her eyeballs out of her head. (sorry, in advance)
Alana, the way I see it Fawkes chose which court order she would obey since she couldn't obey both. She's been supporting Chucky's qualification all along so she chose the order that favored Chucky.
How convenient. This drama could play out as an episode of a televised lawyer drama. Quick! Somebody pitch the story.
1. Federal law does not trump local law on local matters. The District court is not the court of competent jurisdiction regarding ballot petitions. The order Lewis wrote is not a valid order. If I were Bert Bryan, I would ask the local court to fund her in contempt and to rule that the Federal court is not relevant. The TRO is/was never valid. Lewis did not have subject matter jurisdiction to order the BOE and the Supervisor to do anything.
2. If in fact the federal court had jurisdiction over the local,court, Lewis should have ordered the local court to reverse its decision, and ordered them to order Fawkes to place the Chuckster back on the ballot. The fact that Lewis did not do so, speaks to either her ineptitude or her mischief.
3. Regardless of the decision that Lewis makes, the supervisor is no longer given the discretion pursuant to VI 412 to consider a cure for the ballot petition. That discretion lies solely with the appellate court, or it's lower court.
4. The latest ruling is the Supreme Court's ruling. So if you go by which ruling Fawkes got, that would be that of the Supreme Court.
Chucky is legally OFF the ballot.
I don't know if you all saw this but it was quite worth the read:
"There is a difference between a Court Order and a valid Court Order. Hansen has a Court Order. She is still not eligible to be on the ballot and any action taken by Fawkes to put her on the ballot will be a violation of her statutory duty and will negate all ballots with Hansen's name on it. Meaning that any ballot with Hansen's name on it will be tossed.
Why? Its relatively easy actually - for the following:
First, the VI Supreme Court in no longer under the guise of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals and as the independent highest Court in the Territory, the VI Supreme Court has sole jurisdiction over this "local" matter not the Federal District Court. This fact was explained in great detail to Hansen by the VI Supreme Court in its opinion.
Second, the Federal District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter an Order against Fawkes because Hansen and her "supporters" sued Fawkes under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Every decent attorney knows that the United States Supreme Court as well as dozens of Federal Appellate Courts in every jurisdiction and nearly every State Supreme Court in the United States have long held that: an "arm of the state" or an officer acting in her official capacity (Fawkes) for an arm of the state is not a "person" under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and therefore is not subject to a claim under that Act.
The VI Courts have also held that the VI Board of Elections is an "arm of the state" and that Fawkes, as its Supervisor, in an officer for the arm of the state when she acts in her official capacity. So both are immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 - and Fawkes' action in denying Hansen's petition after the VI Supreme Court ruling fits squarely in that "immunity" category.
Now I now you are asking "but Thelonious, if what is say is true then why would federal court enter an order that it did?" And that dear reader, is a very good question which I shall now explain. The reason is because "no one said anything" to the Judge and the Judge has not obligation to address an issue not before it unless it deals on subjects and matters and jurisdiction.
You see, the fact that Fawkes and the Board of Elections is immune to suit is an "affirmative defense" which means that it must be "affirmatively" raised at some point before trial by the "defendant" - who happens to be the Government and Fawkes. Still there is time to raise this issue because it has not reached a trial as of yet but will by September 29th.
So given this above, you must be asking yourself - "goodness Thelonious, if this is the case then why didn't someone point this out to the judge?"
Once again those are great questions, but ay, I dare say, you have caught Mr. Miles in a bit of bind here as I just can't answer those questions. But I will say this - the Government's Attorney (who works for the people and not the Governor or the Legislature) has an ethical obligation to raise this issue should he or she beware of the issue and quite frankly any person with one year of law school under the belt will see this issue). So this is a good question for the people in the Territory who care about this matter to start asking - maybe send this comment to your Senators, the AG's Office, the Governor's office or the Board of Elections asking - So who is going to do something about this?
Lastly and maybe even more mysterious is the odd behavior of Supervisor Fawkes over the last 2 weeks wherein she seems to be following some kind of orders from somewhere and from someone. Consider the following:
The law says that Fawkes was supposed to give "notice" to Hansen "immediately by messenger" the moment Fawkes determined that the first Hansen Petition was invalid. Giving Fawkes the benefit of the doubt you would say that this moment came on August 29 when the VI Superior Court gave Fawkes Notice regarding the Supreme Courts remanded decision. Yet Fawkes did not give Hansen notice immediately.
The timeline looks like this:
August 28 - VI Supreme Court Order
August 29 - Fawkes gets "official" notice - Hansen Off
August 30 - Fawkes does nothing
August 31 - Fawkes does nothing
September 1 - Fawkes does nothing
September 2 - Fawkes sends Notice to Hansen
September 3 - Governor Pardons Hansen
September 4 - Hansen resubmits her Petition
This timeline becomes all the more important and dare I say - suspicious - when one knows that upon receiving notice from Fawkes that her first Petition was no good, Hansen has only 3 days to submit a corrected Petition removing the problem. This 3 day clock does not start to tick until Fawkes sends that "immediate" "notice by messenger" so the delay proved to be ---- uhhhhh ---- very helpful to Hansen. Had Fawkes did what the law requires and send the notice immediately - say August 30 - then Hansen's corrected Petition would have to be filed by no later than September 2.
Oops that would have been before the pardon.
So Hansen has an Order that much is true, but a valid order it is not and her future in the Senate can still come unglued."
"One Eye on what Moves, One Eye on the Fixed and His Vision immersed in the Infinite."
Yes MissJustice but I still cannot understand how they can IGNORE the Supreme Court ruling while putting on this smoke and mirrors act and let's not forget the Atty. General's part in all of this! How can she go on the ballot without having the Supreme Court that issued that ruling, rescind it?
This is quite the eye-opening lesson in dirty politics and the shows the complete lack of respect, integrity, honor and ethical standards by which those in power are allowed to govern.
Aah. It is now dawning on you like the plot at the end of a thriller.. Welcome to my world, Alana, where I no longer have the bliss of ignorance. If only this were not the tip of the iceberg!
Just some more tidbits:
Rupert Ross's daughter was charged with a crime and never prosecuted. She is a school assistant principal. He is on the BOE.
Raymond Williams is Chief of staff of Lt Gov Francis. He counted the ballots for the last 6 elections including those of the current administration. He is now backing Donna.
Caroline Fawkes is the election Supervisor whose partner is a Chucky supporter.
Wilma Lewis is the District Court Judge who last time ruled in 2012 that it was too late to take Chucky off the ballot for moral turpitude.
Vincent Frazier is the "People's Atty" that is backing Chucky, appointed by the governor, whose child support was $15,000 in arrears.
Chucky, whose two children have $50k plus jobs at Dept Health, high school education, son never even bothers to clock in, hired by the governor.
Chucky who presented a fake MBA when she ran for governor, no bachelor's degree, owes $180,000 in taxes, voted for the sports complex scam even after the revelation. Was the number one vote getter on the old machines.
John, darling John, has not been arrested by the AG for "misuse" of local funds, pardoned Chuck instantly, ahead of another ?Hovensa deal.
John Abramson, still cannot account for 3000 missing ballots in STT. More than one million dollars missing from BOE after last audit, used to hire the man who programmed the old machines.
Please!!...........the more, the more appalling but it still doesn't answer the question of
HOW the Surpreme Court's ruling can be ignored and all this crap can continue under our noses?
And .............why don't you post this on VISOURCE or write letter to editor at Daily News?