Experienced Democratic operatives today are scrutinizing Kim Velez's petitions, hoping to substantiate the apparent bluff employed by Attorney Tim Brennan, denying Velez's rights as a candidate. The effort is intense enough that they're triangulating the petition signatures, in regard to her residence. The desperate insinuation is why aren't the signatures from the neighborhood in which she claims to live? There are no rules about where candidates must collect signatures. There are, however, ethic codes for lawyers. Ms. Velez, by every measure, withdrew as a candidate under duress. I invite Tim Brennan to comment on whose regard he called Ms. Velez. One must also ask why Brennan's client didn't file a conventional challenge to any signatures with the chief clerk of voter registration? Hopefully, the democratic process will be restored quickly, and Ms. Velez will be reinstated as a candidate.UPDATE: Emily Opilo, of The Morning Call, has published a report on the Velez situation. Brennan appears, in my opinion, evasive in his answers. Mr. Tim Benyo, Chief Clerk, concedes that the withdraw occurred in an unusual fashion. He appears to not have gone out of his way to consul or question Ms. Velez, despite the unusualness. Benyo rejected the water referendum ballot petition last month on a technicality, but doesn't question Velez's reasons. Apparently, the machine picks their clerks well.
Stick a fork in it, as they say in baseball.
ReplyDelete@5:18, i have a confession, i have little respect for most comments submitted to most blogs.
ReplyDeleteThe clear point is her bid for City Council is over. This is one persons opinion. Where does respect ( or disrespect ) come into play here?
ReplyDeleteWould you rather not have any comments?
What I don't understand is what does it matter if her signatures are good or not - that is what the challenge process is for. My best guess? her signatures came in just under the wire and would have been very difficult to win in a challenge otherwise why would anyone bother to do this?
ReplyDeleteSome would have us believe that Brennan is simply a good samaritan... doing the right thing for Kim by letting her "know" and "helping" her navigate the process. I am sorry he may be a good person - I won't question his integrity. I do however question his intent and motivation. How would he know what her petitions looked like and why would he CARE unless someone was paying him to CARE?
@3:11, brennan acknowledges that he was in someone's employ, he declines to say who. it's my understanding that he's nervous about this commotion, he probably expected her to go quietly into the night. whatever he was paid, it wasn't enough for this adverse publicity.
ReplyDeletewell then maybe this is a case of an otherwise good man, with integrity - crossing a line he never planned to or dreamed he would? I hear great things about Brennan and his ethics, I tend to believe them... unfortunately people begin to behave similarly to the people they spend time with and work for... could it be that Brennan had a momentary lapse in judgement? Maybe this is the new definition of being "FLECKED"? I would suggest that if he is of as high of integrity as some speculate, that he disassociate himself from those who aren't.
ReplyDeleteSell off your childrens and grandchildrens water. I can refer you to a principled attorney, a nice guy, who will help you for a few bucks.
ReplyDelete