The writer highlights important issues that have been ignored by the Watertown Times.
~~~~
Mr. Schneider,
The Editors of the WDT might want to check out this "extreme measures score card"
Cape Vincent Pro Wind full time residents.
1. A sitting State Assemblyman told wind lease conflicted members of the town board that it was their duty to vote their conflict of interest and not make a decision based on public referendum.
2. Voters for Wind and Accionia tried to get the JCIDA to take away the school, county and town right to vote on a PILOT.
3. Pro wind passed a petition that claimed voter irregularities that were never proven. It was aimed at legal Cape Vincent residents and voters who they thought would vote against the conflict of interest board members.
4. The conflict of interest board members passed and then refused to rescind an illegal voter identification resolution.
5. Letters with the names of the Cape Vincent pro-wind Democratic Chair and CGF chair on it were sent to the assessors of seasonal residents who owned residences in other communities but choose Cape Vincent as their home of voter choice. One "friendly" assessor took the bait and made a voter fraud accusation that was never proven. Those whose assessors received letters felt singled out and intimidated.
6. Voters for Wind, CFG and Bp lease holders filed A SLAPP action against two Cape Vincent bloggers and John Does who were voicing their opinion.
7. An affidavit filed in the Supreme Court by one of the plaintiffs verified that formal methods were being taken against part time residents that would protect the interests of full time residents.
8. A list of 80 Absentee voters were challenged by pro wind Democrat-CFG town office candidates. The three candidates then filed a signed affidavit in Supreme Court alleging fraud by legal Cape Voters and the Jefferson County Board of Elections.
Cape Vincent Anti Wind full time and part time residents.
1. Exercised their legal right to vote against unethical lease holding public officials and threw them out of office.
John Doe Citizen
and life long resident of Cape Vincent.
Link to post ~Times Editors Miss the Bus
1 comment:
A civil lawsuit is so expensive these days that it is not typically affordable unless the attorney is willing to contract with the client on the basis of contingency. However, because lawyers rarely accept defense cases on a contingency basis, the defendant of a civil lawsuit usually has little choice than to defend the action on an hourly fee basis.
That raises questions: Why are lawyers so expensive? How can the law be for all of the people if it is only affordable to the wealthy? Why do “good” law firms charge so much money? What is a “good” law firm? How important are lawyers who are specialists; why can’t any lawyer handle any matter?
$50,000 Cases: While it may be difficult to say with certainty how much an average lawsuit costs, typical lawsuits have, from the author’s experience, been known to cost up to about $50,000 in legal fees and costs. For example, $25,000 can easily be estimated as a reasonable cost to defend against a civil lawsuit prior to trial preparation. The attorney’s fees for trial preparation and the trial itself, could also run up to $25,000. Can the average defendant, or an average plaintiff for that matter, afford legal representation?
Now my reaction to this is that in the case of Cape Vincent, they are not average plaintiff's. They are a large class of voters eighty of which were actually put on a list by possible defendants. But it goes further than that. Any voter who may have considered their vote threatened or intimidated might have reason to join a class action that would clarify their right to vote in the Thousand Islands.
It is strange that the Watertown Times would seem to not recognize or realize and therefore overlook that a major component in CV wind community strife was what is appearing to be documented and purposeful civil rights actions.
Small wonder that pro wind including a town councilman and his state worker dad would say something in the Watertown Times that seem to be an attempt to discredit the two CV blogs who have prevailed in exercising their civil rights and have boldly reported on the perceived violations by pro wind who described themselves as Voters for Wind, CFG and pro wind. Some are bp leaseholders and possibly good neighbors.
I do not believe that for the plaintiffs in a CV civil rights action protecting their vote that money would be a problem considering the large size of the class.
Post a Comment