LET THE CHALLENGES BEGIN!
Word on the street is that the Petitions filed by the various candidates for the single New York County Civil Court judgeship are being challenged. (In other words, candidates are trying to knock one or more of their opponents off the ballot for not having the required number of signatures.)
Here's what we learned just moments ago:
Wigberto Astacio, a Richard LaFontaine supporter, filed objections to the Nancy Bannon and Michael Katz petitions.
James Simpson, a Bannon supporter, filed objections to the LaFontaine and Katz petitions.
Lawrence Goodman, Alex Tisch, Joanne Saccone and Jerry Skurnick filed objections to the LaFontaine petitions.
Let the counting begin!
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.nyrealestatelawblog.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2734
Comments
LaFontaine and Bannon even filed objections to the three candidates who withdrew because they honored the rules of the screening panel, James D'auguste, David Cohen and Kelly O'Neill Levy. Michael Katz filed 5 volumes containing over 15,000 signatures. Michael Katz did not file any challenge to any panel approved candidate, and will not bring a "candidate aggrieved" invalidation proceeding against any candidate.
Posted by: Andrew Tulloch | July 15, 2008 1:34 PM
Thanks for the clarification, Andrew.
Posted by: Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq.
|
July 15, 2008 1:54 PM
Ah -- good to see our candidates for the bench taking political lessons from Robert Mugabe.
Posted by: Gines Pasamonte | July 15, 2008 5:07 PM
Bannon filed general objections, and generals were filed against her.
It's a matter of protection, since generals were filed against her, and she did not yet receive notice of declination by the other candidates. She has no plans to challenge anyone's petitions
It's a very common practice.
Posted by: Flipside | July 16, 2008 1:06 PM
Further, Bannon isn't hiding anything...she did not file general objections against Katz, as he is a panel approved candidate.
She had a known staff member file her objections. No one knows who prompted the person who filed against her to do so.
Any campaign can get a person not officially connected to a campaign to file objections, which is what probably happened here.
Will that person file specs against Bannon? That is still unknown.
Posted by: Flipside | July 16, 2008 1:13 PM
We appreciate your insights, Flip. Thanks for your post.
Posted by: Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq.
|
July 16, 2008 2:03 PM
My friend "Flip" is correct. As a supporter of Nancy's I can tell you that the only campaign that I know of that is going through with a challenge is that of Michael Katz's. As far as I know they plan to contest La Fontaine's signatures. I was informed of this by a staff member of Michael's campaign, who I consider a trustworthy person.
I respect their decision to challenge his petitions, though it is something I have never done, and I would not advise Nancy to do so against anyone who has made it out of the panel.
It is also correct that Nancy's campaign filed generals against the candidates who declined as a protective measure. We really didn't believe any of them would run. But in politics you must prepare for anything, no matter how far fetched it may seem.
I do not know the person who filed general objections against Nancy, and do not anticipate specifications being filed. But you never know. Again, we will be ready for the unexpected.
The one thing I would contest is Andrew's count on their signatures. I was down at the board. Let's just say he's embellishing "a bit."
=)
Michael
Posted by: Michael Oliva | July 16, 2008 4:37 PM
Thanks, Mike. Make sure we continue to get those releases for Nora's events.
Posted by: Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq.
|
July 16, 2008 5:29 PM
This has got to be the only electoral system on earth more arcane than a papal conclave.
That's Entertainment!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv55WsedLYI
Posted by: Gines Pasamonte | July 16, 2008 7:47 PM
No problem
Mike
Posted by: Michael Oliva | July 17, 2008 2:19 PM