Blogs > Saratogian Newsroom

The Saratogian Newsroom blog, complete with thoughts and commentary from our newsroom staff and regular posts on happenings around town.

Thursday, August 13

Herrick hails Judge's ruling

I didn't get to speak with City Republican Chairman John Herrick before I wrote the article in Thursday's paper about Judge Steven Ferradino's ruling on the Independence Party primary. As you can read in the article, the judge ruled that petitions to force a primary are not valid. The ruling could change, depending on an action in a higher court, but a primary is not likely to happen.

Herrick did, however, leave a statement for me on my voice mail, which I received this morning. In the interests of furthering this debate, I present the statement to you here:

"We filed the lawsuit as a matter of principal. There are rules that are in place to protect the integrity of elections. The Democratic Party violated those rules. People testified that Val Keehn obtained signatures, yet her name does not appear as a witness on the petition. Peter Tulin stipulated that he did not carry out the duties of a notary in obtaining the signatures. We're please that the judge threw out the petitons that were filed on behalf of Ron Kim, Peter Martin, and Kevin Connolly. I would hope that these Democratic candidates would not condone the actions of their representatives who obtained the signatures in violation of the election law. Candiates should disavow their association with these individuals that were part of the collection of signatures on the opportunity to ballot petitoins."

4 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Val keehan and Peter tulin are two corrupt people, these are people your newspaper supports and protects,tulin should be disbarred,I would think that has even, believe it or not has dawned on you....be fair and balanced andrew....which would be a first.

August 13, 2009 at 10:21 PM 
Blogger The Saratogian City Desk said...

anon 10:21 p.m.:

The point of providing John Herrick's comments here was to give balance to the ongoing story. I'm sorry, but I think your implied complaint, that I am not subjective in my writing, is not a fair assessment, and clearly comes from a person with a partisan bias.

While we're on the topic, comments from attorney James Walsh in the original story on the topic (at least, I think that's what you're talking about), were meant to serve the same purpose. I'm sorry if that wasn't adequate in your eyes.

August 14, 2009 at 6:18 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A Republican judge agrees with the Republican Party that Democratic candidates don't have the right to challenge Republican candidates who conspired with Independence Party bosses to gang up on the Dems. The Republican judge very strictly applied his version of the rules to disqualify the Democrats but just accepted the Republican candidates without any review at all. Sounds pretty fishy to me.

Was it a blatantly biased decision by the judge? You betcha!

August 15, 2009 at 8:30 AM 
Blogger Trapped in History said...

just look at the crowd we are dealing with andrew. these are the same people who call the soundoff about nelson ave., every other week. first, the road didn't get in that condidtion since 2008, it was left unrepaired by the previous administration and if miller was concerned about that, he could have taken that up with his self professed "best friend". also, if people are supposed to be acting in an informed manner, then they'd know that the road is going to be repaired after track. it's a little hard to get paving done on nelson ave this time of year with cars sitting in traffic for hours. it also doesn't/ didn't make sense to pave it, then tear it up and repave it again in the fall.
the obvious is lost on them. their only goal is to try and drum up some type of conspiracy. it's very similar to the people who won't let the "death squads" go from the nat'l debate on health care.

August 15, 2009 at 11:53 AM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home