Tony Payton's run in with the Law.... - Page 7 - PhillyBlog

laurieparrish · #61 (**permalink**) 04-08-2008, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bulworth67

Man you people are clueless.
If this case had a trial in Municipal Court, it was Misdemeanor charges only. The only way a felony charge could be considered in Municipal Court if it was a preliminary hearing. A preliminary hearing is where the prosecution must demonstrate to a judge that they have enough evidence to bring a prosecution. If this was a preliminary hearing and the case was dismissed, it means the case against him was SO bad it never made it onto the trial docket. And again, Seamus McCaffery, a former cop, would only release a case against someone if it really stunk.
And not one of the hatchet jobs on this thread has yet to provide proof that this case was Tony Payton the state rep. other than innuendo. And even if it was him, from the information on it, it was a lousy case and probably a case of mistaken identity.
And for the last time genuises-forgery means you write someone else's name in a legal document. YOU HAVE NO IDEA what was contained in the petitions which were withheld from the Judge. All you have is innuendo and conspiracy theories. Two of the petitions which Tony circulated were stricken for reasons other than forgery. He testified in the case, and he won in court. Stop slandering him and get out of the gutter.

Anyone can go and get a copy of every petition Payton submitted- before the Court Case. Many people here who were interested enough have seen them. So yeah PAYTON THE CIRCULATOR OBTAINED SIGNATURES FROM DEAD PEOPLE-HENCE FORGERY.

ARE YOU SERIOUS, PAYTON FROM HATBORO BORN IN 1981 THE ACCUSED IS A DIFFERENT PAYTON FROM HATBORO BORN IN 1981 WHO IS THE CURRENT STATE REP? WERE YOU HIS DEFENSE ATTORNEY IN THE CASE?

As far as misdemeanors or felonies a DRUG CHARGE IS A DRUG CHARGE AND "TONY PAYTON" racked up quite a few in 2002. By your own omission you state he could have been brought up on FELONY CRUG CHARGES and something went wrong at the preliminary. It could have been simple mistakes in paper work etc. The case could have been dismissed for many reasons but anyone in law enforcement will tell you that reading this docket says one thing- DRUG DEALER.

gop33rdward.com · #62 (**permalink**) 04-08-2008, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raider.adam

What I would like to see is (if they don't have it) a week before petition gathering starts, the Board of Elections has a free seminar that anyone can attend to go over such election law and any recent changes. That way, no one is allowed to plead ignorance (and it helps eliminate going after new candidates that don't know better).

They have classes every election. I think the last make up class is this weekend. But I think they are geared more towards election day. Also after reviewing the back of the petitions I see no where on there where you swear that you got all the signatures all you swear to is that the person signing it is a member of your party and district and over 18. I see nothing in the oath where it says that the person that signs is who they say they are . With that said I still think the same person signed every signature on the petitions in question.

cyainthehood · #63 (**permalink**) 04-08-2008, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gop33rdward.com

......Also after reviewing the back of the petitions I see no where on there where you swear that you got all the signatures all you swear to is that the person signing it is a member of your party and district and over 18. I see nothing in the oath where it says that the person is who they say they are . With that said I still think the same person signed every signature on the petitions in question.

Can you explain that further (underlined)? I don't get it.

gop33rdward.com · #64 (**permalink**) 04-08-2008, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyainthehood

Can you explain that further (underlined)? I don't get it.

It says.
I do swear ( or affirm) that I am a qualified elector, duly registered and enrolled as a member of the political party and of the political district designated in this nomination petition; that my residence is as set forth below; that the signers to the foregoing petition signed the same with full knowledge of the contents therof;that their respective residences are correctly stated therein;that each signed on the date set opposite his or her name;that to the best of my knowledge and belief,the signers are qualified electors; duly registered and enrolled members of the political party and of the political district designated to this petition, and that they are residents in the county specitied in the number one below.

Thats what the circulator affirms(swears) to.
After the oath box that has to be signed in front of a notary there are instructions and the part that says signers it give a brief details on who can sign and what are some of the regulation and no where in any of it does it say that the circulator needs to be present. There are alot of gray areas in this form. Again that said someone still forged those petitions and thats another matter for another court if the AG brings charges.
NOTE>>>But I might be wrong I am sometimes.

raider.adam · #65 (**permalink**) 04-09-2008, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gop33rdward.com

They have classes every election. I think the last make up class is this weekend. But I think they are geared more towards election day.

Yeah, I think those are for election day, for minority inspectors and election judges.

Quote:

Also after reviewing the back of the petitions I see no where on there where you swear that you got all the signatures all you swear to is that the person signing it is a member of your party and district and over 18. I see nothing in the oath where it says that the person that signs is who they say they are . With that said I still think the same person signed every signature on the petitions in question.

It also says you know they are valid to the best of your knowledge. I would assume the ruling figures that if you were no where near the form getting signed, you have actually zero knowledge.

gop33rdward.com · #66 (**permalink**) 04-09-2008, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raider.adam

Yeah, I think those are for election day, for minority inspectors and election judges.

It also says you know they are valid to the best of your knowledge. I would assume the ruling figures that if you were no where near the form getting signed, you have actually zero knowledge.

The word Valid is not used. It also does not say you need to check ID so really John Doe could sign my name and all would be good. If I never find out.

raider.adam · #67 (**permalink**) 04-09-2008, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gop33rdward.com

The word Valid is not used. It also does not say you need to check ID so really John Doe could sign my name and all would be good. If I never find out.

Yes you are correct. My main point is the "best of my knowledge" part. If you are collecting the signature yourself and the person tells you they are eligible, that is good enough. The problem is when you are signing off on someone else collecting it, there is no "best of my knowledge" since you have no knowledge of the signature.

gop33rdward.com · #68 (**permalink**) 04-09-2008, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raider.adam

Yes you are correct. My main point is the "best of my knowledge" part. If you are collecting the signature yourself and the person tells you they are eligible, that is good enough. The problem is when you are signing off on someone else collecting it, there is no "best of my knowledge" since you have no knowledge of the signature.

But it does not say the CIRCULATOR MUST OBTAINED SIGNATURES must be present while they are signing. They should limit the number of signatures you can get per division to 10. Right now if you need 300 you could get that amount from one division. That would do away with signing house by house and make it easier to check them out. As a ward leader I don't like that idea but as a vote I like that idea the fraud would drop.

raider.adam · #69 (**permalink**) 04-09-2008, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gop33rdward.com

But it does not say the CIRCULATOR OBTAINED SIGNATURES must be present while they are signing. They should limit the number of signatures you can get per division to 10. Right now if you need 300 you could get that amount from one division. That would do away with signing house by house and make it easier to check them out. As a ward leader I don't like that idea but as a vote I like that idea the fraud would drop.

The court has ruled that the circulator needs to obtain or be in the presence of the signature. They clarified the "best of my knowledge part, pretty much.

Limiting the number of signatures per division would be a bad thing. Keep in mind that rule would apply to Rs as well and that would hurt a lot of wards and candidates outside the Northeast.

What is sad is that there should be absolutely no reason for a Dem candidate to get bad signatures for a petition. (When I saw bad, I mean blatantly fraudulent.)

We don't want to make getting candidates eligible for the ballot more difficult. If anything, that may increase the level of fraud or at a minimum make it harder for new blood to enter the race.

gop33rdward.com · #70 (**permalink**) 04-09-2008, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raider.adam

The court has ruled that the circulator needs to obtain or be in the presence of the signature. They clarified the "best of my knowledge part, pretty much.

Limiting the number of signatures per division would be a bad thing. Keep in mind that rule would apply to Rs as well and that would hurt a lot of wards and candidates outside the Northeast.

What is sad is that there should be absolutely no reason for a Dem candidate to get bad signatures for a petition. (When I saw bad, I mean blatantly fraudulent.)

We don't want to make getting candidates eligible for the ballot more difficult. If anything, that may increase the level of fraud or at a minimum make it harder for new blood to enter the race.

Let me chage that to a percent of the total voters per division per party. On another note Bobby Lee told city council yesterday that he wants to make the pay for poll workers 180.00. Its about time.