Harris wins

Yes. the voters will accept the ordinances.
They did when the last referendum went to a vote. Then as years dragged on the city made changes asked for with THAT referendum.
Yes. Lazy voter's way out. They'll go for it.

UNLESS unless someone tells them what it is they are voting for. Not just a number, a place on the ballot, but an issue that turns out to be illegal after Prop 207.

They will STILL accept and vote YES. But not me........

Protecting Jeff's Right To Keep And Bear Chicken Shit And Toxic Computer Waste!
Yeah, THAT'S the ticket.

Why not, you have the right to shit out of your mouth on a regular basis.

Jeff may have won the council vote, but you can kiss his candidacy goodby.

Word on the street is that Harris will get less than 10 per cent of the vote. Perhaps he should stick to petition tampering. He does better at that!

Word on the street is that Harris will get less than 10 per cent of the vote. Perhaps he should stick to petition tampering. He does better at that!
Jeff may be lucky to get that much, but there is no polling in Bisbee, we're all guessing.

skeptic wrote:

Protecting Jeff's Right To Keep And Bear Chicken Shit And Toxic Computer Waste!
Yeah, THAT'S the ticket.

Why not, you have the right to shit out of your mouth on a regular basis.

Of course! To converse with you, I had to become fluent in your native language!

Harris won on a technicality. Despite the written laws and the intent of the
legislature to prevent petition tampering including the exclusionary rules
followed by Helen Lehr, the city was ordered to remove ONLY the lines Harris
altered because the affidavit on those petitions was found to be phrased
incorrectly. The wording used on the affidavit was not able to support the law
the legislature passed. Ironically, it was the sample affidavit the legislature
itself provided that was at fault (the sample affidavit was not written by the city
clerk or the city attorney).

The truth is Harris was cited by the court as having altered
those lines and knowingly changing addresses he knew were wrong which is why in
its conclusion the court wrote:

“But this argument was based on the
incorrect assumption that Harris’s affidavit contained the language required by
§19-112C. Had Harris’s affidavit complied with subsection C his alterations as
found by the trial court would have rendered false every affidavit attached to a
signature page containing an alteration, invalidating those signatures. Because
those affidavits did not so comply however Harris’s alterations of the signers’
information outside their presence, although a violation of §19-112A, do not render
the affidavits false, or do not invalidate the unaltered signatures on the
attached signature pages.”
Harris v. City of Bisbee,
et al. 2 CA-CV 2007-0160; page 17, line
24.

Nobody targeted Mr. Harris, no one tried to entrap him and no vendetta was at work. Helen Lehr and the city only attempted to follow the direction of the legislature.

Upson is right in one context, who authored the affidavit doesn't matter. There is no indication that either side set out to capitalize on anyone's errors. I don't know where he gets that. The issue of the affidavit was only mentioned to respond to those who incorrectly blamed MacKinnon or the city for it. ARS and the law prior to this case required THAT affidavit to be used.

The simple fact is Harris did something questionable by anyone's standards. The only logical reason was to ensure that his petitions had the necessary number of valid signatures to take it to the voters; but don't dissemble the facts, he didn't do it for the people (the people would also prefer not to have their petitions tampered with), he did it for himself and his chickens.
A true hero of the people, right up there with Tyson Foods.

Posting personal e-mail is a violation of TOS. Please refrain from that unless permission of the sender has been obtained and noted on the post.

That was an interesting e-mail!!!

Can someone please explain "conditional affirmation" in nice simple terms?

I had to read it several times. Was that real? Was he actually that paranoid as to think the city was going to arrest him and did anyone else read that as conspiring to commit perjury?

Conditional affirmation means how can I commit perjury and get away with it.

That E-mail was an eye-opener.

Anyone else notice a pattern of very strange behaviour here?

Strange behavior indeed!

Wonder where that e-mail came from?

Ok, I missed it. What went down?

One of the more informative nights here in the B. Wonder if someone is ?

You missed it TOM TOM. Somebody stuck in an email by Harris that was unbelievable. I'll send you a screen print, pm your email address to me.

I can't PM here?!?

Drat. go to yahoo, I'll file it there

Thanks and OMG!!!

Who the heck has those email? If it had been Eric he would have thrown that stuff out before the decision.