Although Kim Velez regaining a ballot position wasn't Mike Fleck's plan, the Morning Call did allow him some damage control this morning. The reporter wrote , Despite the decision, questions remain about the validity of the signatures on Velez's petitions. Fleck said fewer than 90 of the approximately 120 signatures Velez submitted were valid.
Petitions can be formally challenged in court, but the deadline to do so passed March 19. If the reporter knew that the deadline has passed, then she knew that any question about the signatures is now a moot point. She then allowed Fleck to assault Velez even more."It's a legal conundrum," Fleck said. "If she was allowed to be challenged, I firmly believe Kim Velez wouldn't be allowed to be on the ballot. Her withdrawing from the ballot allowed her to run." The real conundrum is why the paper reported Fleck's statement. Velez was allowed to be challenged, by anyone of her opponents, before March 19th. Apparently Fleck didn't firmly believe that a legitimate challenge would have succeeded, or they would have done so. Instead, they resorted to intimidation. Fleck ironically has created more publicity for Velez than his own clients, for which he is being paid.
Apr 11, 2013
Pawlowski Operative Gets Free Spin
Although Kim Velez regaining a ballot position wasn't Mike Fleck's plan, the Morning Call did allow him some damage control this morning. The reporter wrote , Despite the decision, questions remain about the validity of the signatures on Velez's petitions. Fleck said fewer than 90 of the approximately 120 signatures Velez submitted were valid.
Petitions can be formally challenged in court, but the deadline to do so passed March 19. If the reporter knew that the deadline has passed, then she knew that any question about the signatures is now a moot point. She then allowed Fleck to assault Velez even more."It's a legal conundrum," Fleck said. "If she was allowed to be challenged, I firmly believe Kim Velez wouldn't be allowed to be on the ballot. Her withdrawing from the ballot allowed her to run." The real conundrum is why the paper reported Fleck's statement. Velez was allowed to be challenged, by anyone of her opponents, before March 19th. Apparently Fleck didn't firmly believe that a legitimate challenge would have succeeded, or they would have done so. Instead, they resorted to intimidation. Fleck ironically has created more publicity for Velez than his own clients, for which he is being paid.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Is this not the same Mr. Fleck who appeared on WFMZ-TV's "Business Matters" program in the spring of 2012 and obnoxiously shouted down Mr. Molovinsky and Lehigh University professor Stephen Thode during the under-publicized NIZ Debate?
ReplyDeleteSincerely,
ROLF OELER
Mike,
ReplyDeleteThe Call brings in these youngsters/reporters and as soon as they figure out what is going on they move them on. That allows them to be continuously hoodwinked by the powers that be in A-town.
Scott Armstrong
This situation cannot go unnoticed. The more I look at Allentown politics, the more I'm disgusted and embarrassed that these are the people that are running our GOVERNMENT.
ReplyDeleteI'm hoping that social media will keep the spotlight on these dirty political tactics.
Politics and Government need to be separated. Citizens should demand good government without all of the political "games".
MM, thank you again for hosting this blog.
MM great post and great points. I never thought of the points you raise, but you are correct. Thanks for the insight.
ReplyDeleteIronpigpen, you are correct.
Scott Armstrong and Rich Fegley, please keep up the good fight!