Integrity Doesn't Prevent Mistakes It Does The Right Thing To Fix Them
Last Friday after it was determined that a candidate for the 7th District Commission, Vicki Coleman, had failed to meet the requirements to qualify for the 5 August election. In accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated I filed a contest of the election. This has resulted in a Judge preventing any 7th District commissioners being sworn in with the other Commissioners on 27 August 2010. A court date has been set for 2 September to hear this contest.
There are many rumors being spread about this situation. First of all I have not accused Mrs Bassham or anyone in her office of any wrong doing, there was a mistake made which they have admitted and this is merely the means to remedy that mistake. Mrs. Bassham and her staff have been helpful thus far and I have no problem in accepting their explanation that it was a simple mistake. I do not however believe that I should have to pay a penalty for another's mistake.
The facts are that Vickie Coleman turned in Qualification Papers on 1 April 2010 that did not contain the adequate number of qualifying signatures yet her name appeared on the ballot as a viable candidate. Having failed to qualify that left only three qualified candidates to be voted on for the three positions on the Commission, much like the positions in the 6th District where only three qualified for the three positions.
On 2 September at 9AM a Chancery Court Judge will hear and decide the matter.
There are many rumors being spread about this situation. First of all I have not accused Mrs Bassham or anyone in her office of any wrong doing, there was a mistake made which they have admitted and this is merely the means to remedy that mistake. Mrs. Bassham and her staff have been helpful thus far and I have no problem in accepting their explanation that it was a simple mistake. I do not however believe that I should have to pay a penalty for another's mistake.
The facts are that Vickie Coleman turned in Qualification Papers on 1 April 2010 that did not contain the adequate number of qualifying signatures yet her name appeared on the ballot as a viable candidate. Having failed to qualify that left only three qualified candidates to be voted on for the three positions on the Commission, much like the positions in the 6th District where only three qualified for the three positions.
On 2 September at 9AM a Chancery Court Judge will hear and decide the matter.
posted by Allen Barrett | 9:41 AM
259 Comments:
Good luck on this situation Mr. Barrett. Particularly liked your statement that you should not have to pay an (excessive I might add) penalty for other's mistakes. Have since heard the same thing happened with Jim Greene's qualifying papers. Do you know anything about that? State Elections Commission should be brought to Giles county for a thorough audit.
The Little League World Series is taking place this week, it's some of the most exciting baseball that is played for the sheer pleasure of competing in a game loved by so many. A few years ago there was a player whose skills were far more advanced that his teammates or opponents, he dominated the game and the news. The problem was he exceeded the age limit and all the games his team won were forfeited. Was it fair to the other kids on his team? Was it fair to the teams that competed against him? Was it right to deny victory to a team not qualified to compete? What would you suggest the remedy be in that situation?
The Tennessee Code Annotated makes it very clear that a person who has not met the requirements to be on the ballot for an election can only receive votes cast for a write in candidate. Basically because there were only three candidates who qualified to be on the ballot the 7th District should have been treated the same as the 6th District. Only the votes received by those qualified should be counted.
A mistake was made, and considering the number of signatures that had to be verified a mistake is understandable but the results of such a mistake can not go uncorrected. This is where integrity enters the picture and the reason I said "integrity doesn't prevent mistakes it does the right thing to fix them!
Some seem bitter and are complaining that I have taken the actions I have taken to right this wrong. I would ask, were you in my shoes what would you do? Would you ignore the wrong or would you request a correction be made?
This has nothing to do with Mrs. Coleman or any other candidate, it has nothing to do with anyone on a personal level it is only a means required by law to correct a grievous mistake. Allen Barrett
Mr. Barrett ,
Good Luck in pursuing this situation to what is hopefully the only logical conclusion -that you win .
It will help in some minor degree to help establish a sense that law and order could prevail in this Beautiful county provided citizen taxpayers stay alert to their rights as Americans
Demos Cratos
WAB You put things in a much nicer way than I would. I'll add to Demos Cratos and join in saying good luck to you.
You have done the right thing and I wish you well in the outcome. I don't believe that Mrs. Bassham and her staff meant to make the mistake but are humans just as we are. Good luck.
You did not verify your opponent’s signatures because you thought you were going to win the vote. Now you have been beat so if you cannot be elected you want to be appointed. A mistake was made you realized it instead of asking for an appointment how about a run off so you can be elected and sit at the table like other elected officials. I thought it was for the people by the people, this seems to be for WAB by the lawyers….coincidence I think not
Who made the mistake - Mrs. Brown or the Election Commission?
First of all, I want to say that I wish you all the luck here and I would like to see you on the commission in my district. The right thing needs to be done here. However, I do have a question. The article on WKSR's News section says that Coleman turned in 38 signatures. Twenty-six were verified by the Giles County Election Commission office as being residents of the district. Could the other 12 signatures be used towards her obtaining the required 25, or are they void since they were not used in the first place? Just wondering, like I said, I hope you succeed here.
3:58
I bet it was a mistake by no body really. Mrs. Brown thought the people signing for her were qualified voters for her District.
I'm sorry for Mrs. Brown, but I hope Barrett is given the commission because it's going to make some people very mad.
Trimhead
They were void in the first place.
To trimhead
Thanks for your concern. Twelve of the signatures were disqualified by the election commission leaving the twenty-six that the election commission approved. Two of those twenty-six however were not registered in the seventh district when they signed the nomination papers. That left only twenty-four acceptable signatures or one short. No one else can be added at this time. Allen Barrett
How disheartening to hear that the overwhelming voice of the voters in the 7th district could be silenced because of a simple human error. Unfortunately, people's voices are squelched like this all the time in our judicial system. Look at the federal judge in California who recently reversed the same-sex marriage ban that was voted in by the people of California. Now the U.S. Federal Government is suing the State of Arizona to void its immigration law, one that is supported by the vast majority of its residents. Look at how many murderers and rapists convicted by a jury of their peers have been set free to kill and rape again because of an error, a technicality, or mistake. The list goes on and on.
Mr. Barrett, you certainly have a right to contest this election. The law is the law. No argument there. But in doing so, you are telling 423 people (all of whom you seek to represent) that they shouldn't have any say in the outcome of the election. A judge will decide what is best for them. Will winning at any cost be worth it in the end?
8:04 But you are overlooking the error THREE women made in the elections office. Its not Mr. Barrett who would be depriving the voters in district 7 of their say. Its the elections office personel. With three of them the mistake should never have happened. Lets put the guilt on the shoulders of those who made the 3 x error, not Mr. Barrett. And what about Ms Coleman. How did she make such a mistake?
It would be a very shallow victory, and in the long run......it would not be a victory. Its probably too late to do the right thing, but I"m not sure that our preacher understands the right thing????
Yes, I believe winning at any cost would be worth it to him, regardless of who gets hurt.
The right thing is to declare Ms Coleman's petition as invalid which is was. She never qualified. Simple as that.
8:55
When that happens, I'm thinking the county will be hearing from the NAACP. Mrs. Coleman did nothing wrong and should not be penalized. In fact, I know of nobody who acted in bad faith in this situation.
If she didn't know her petition was supposedly invalid, why would she have to forfeit the election to someone who wasn't even in the running behind her? She could have easily gotten another signature in five minutes or less had she known? And who is to say that the signature in question wasn't valid at the time it was entered on the petition? People do move form time to time, you know.
To 9-09 PM
The bad faith in this whole episode was that faith the taxpayers of Giles County placed on the ability of at least one of the employees in the Election office to be able to count VALID signatures .
Nothing more , Nothing less . Simply COUNT (as in 10 fingers and 10 toes and 2 eyes and 2 ears plus one nose ) 25 VALID signatures .
Surely not a lot to ask of three professionals once every 4 years ??
Hardly a mathematical work overload is it ?
Ikon Add
And what is the "right" thing, 8:40 and 8:54. A law was broken, albeit unintentional, but never-the-less, broken. Should the preacher as you put it, ignore that fact? Does the BIBLE not speak of obeying the laws of the land? Three qualified candidates ran for district 6; 3 qualified candidates ran for district 7. What is the difference? I realize a large number of voters "wasted" their vote because their choice was someone who had not qualified to be on the ballot. It would set an extremely dangerous precedent to allow someone to be sworn into office who by all respects had no right to be sworn in. It could open the door for many people to be put in office who's agenda would be to create chaos with our system of elections. That's a chance that I, for one am not willing to take. Put aside your prejudice for a few moments and try and be objective. I had to. What is truly the "right" thing to do? What is the difference the the situation of 3 certified candidates in district 6, and 3 certified candidates in
district 7?
If Vicky had known the signatures were not valid, she could have easily gotten the required number in a short amount of time. Getting one's name on the ballot is for the most part a formality. If her election is declared "invalid" then WAB WILL NOT automatically be placed in the position. The commission will have to appoint.......then there will be an election at the next county election. In that case....WAB WILL NOT get elected AGAIN!
She was cleared to run. The ballot was placed in the paper.
9:24, Mrs. Coleman is not forfeiting an election. She was never qualified, if all the facts were in.
Let's be honest here folks. The only reason some of the citizens of the county believe the law should be ignored in this situation is because of the candidate who is legally the 3rd place candidate. If it were someone that was "Billy-Bob's cousin's brother-in-law's great nephew", the people who are saying Mr. Barrett should not become the third commissioner from the 7th district, would not be posting on this blog that the law should be ignored. I believe it is the candidate's responsibility to know the status of the signatures that were on the qualifying papers. I make it a rule to give people the benefit of the doubt if I do not know them. I believe that Ms. Coleman was not aware of the error, however objectively speaking, that is totally irrelevant. She didn't qualify, therefore she didn't win. Seems pretty black and white to me.(Please before going postal some of you, remember I said if we had all the facts) and if the NAACP becomes involved, then they are creating a situation of racial prejudice for publicity or some other unethical reason. Nobody in their right mind could believe that race played a part in all of this.
The NAACP is not just about racial prejudice situations.
I've never heard of the law being concerned with what might have been or could have been only with what should have been. If the tables were turned and it was Coleman challenging
the election how many would be cheering her own.
The question I have about this whole thing is if she couldn't even get her qualifying papers right how in the world could she ever represent this county in anything.
I want someone who knows how make things work not just show up, I want someone who can maneuver through the system not be locked out because of ineptness. This has certainly renewed my respect in Barret's abilities and determination and I now believe that is the very reason there was so much opposition against him.
10:11 telling people that the NAACP
is not just about racial prejudice situations is like saying the KKK isn't just about white power.
Where was the NAACP when Mrs White needed help getting justice from those who discriminated against her, well they couldn't be found but I understand that Barret was there helping, encouraging and supporting her at every step.
What Barret has done is upset the powers that be and exposed more of their corrupt practices and that is what makes him so dangerous that they have to destroy him.
Hang in there Mr Barret we need you more now than ever, your example will inspire many others to stand up and be counted.
Actually, it really doesn't matter. If there is a vacancy on the commission because Ms. Coleman is disqualified (which is quite unlikely), the County Commission will vote to fill the position. Anyone want to make a wager on Mr. Barrett's chances?
Do you think Stoney Jackson and Tommy Campbell would vote for Barrett?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mr. Barrett did NOT win nor should he win by default. I'm sure this is not an easy fix, but there must be a way. The voters spoke, by a wide margin between 3rd & 4th place, in the 7th.
The comment by the 6:15 poster was deleted because of lies, stupidity, unfounded and slanderous accusations
without a name attached. Cowardice is not a virtue and is undeserving of a place on a public forum.
I liked the analogy of the Little League player who was over the age limit and caused his team to forfeit all their wins. I believe that there have been examples of college football teams where a player was determined to be ineligible and the team had all it's victories nullified including the championship. Did they replay the season of course not the second place team was moved up and became the champion. That's what happens when a team or a person is beaten by illegal means, the violator is disqualified and the challenger becomes the victor. This recently happened in the Olympia Games.
Mr. Barrett was defeated in the election but because the person above him was not qualified to be in the election he received the third most votes cast and thus deserves to be the third commissioner from his district. That should be as simple as A-B-C.
Nothing is that simple for these nuckleheads.Our county as a whole has a difficult time following the rules set forth.Guaranteed if the tables were turned and one of the other candidates from the 7th district was in this situation, every effort would be exhausted to make sure the right thing was done. And, they would feel justified in doing so. Right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of who you are. Period.
Ironically the subject of small town elections was on my mind yesterday. Particularly how it pertains to the expense of running, the trials of campaigning, and later the reward of serving. The what if of losing also entered into the picture. What if you lose and are pretty certain the votes were there? What if you lose and are convinced it was more a matter of who you know then how suitable you are to serve? Do you run again and again or do you accept defeat? It never occurred to me that someone who had not officially qualified (albeit no wrong doing on their part) was in the running? That just seems on face to be a toss out? What the results, either way, will be is that people like me will not trust the election process and less will vote again. By the way the costs of having to go to court to defend your position is another question as to why anyone would run for office. Few have the time or resources to fight the good fight.
11:40 Very well written. Thank you.
To 6:29, Isn't it the top 3 "vote getters" who become the county commissioners for that district? If all the facts here are correct, then Mr. Barrett did win and should be sworn in. He, LEGALLY, was one of the three top candidates. Again, no difference in the other district situation other than your prejudice. A wonderful and logical point someone made earlier: if the results were opposite, and Mr. Barrett had been found to have an invalid signature, how many of you would simply think the right thing to do would be to ignore the facts. I've stated before and it's being proven more and more frequently, some of these posters don't care about issues, their only agenda is to bash Barrett.
William James
wab
No, you came in fourth in a four man race. And it wasn't even close.
What you are trying to do to Mrs. Coleman is wrong, and you know it. Moreover, would you disregard the will of the District 7 voters by taking Mrs. Coleman's job? She did Nothing wrong and shoulod not be penalized for beating you big time. Ok?
If the situation had been reversed and barrett had won by as big a margin as did Mrs. Coleman, I really don't think good and honest people would have said a word about it. In essence, it's more about the will of the voters and not trying to steal something based on a technical error made in good faith to begin with.
The problem isn't that Mrs Coleman did anything wrong the problem is she didn't do something right. It is the responsibility of the candidate to provide the proper qualification papers. Mrs Coleman failed to do that so she should be disqualified. If a person brought in their qualification papers an hour after the deadline for qualifying should they be allowed to go ahead and qualify, after all it's only an hour?
Where do we draw the line between that's OK and that's not OK? After that line has been drawn should it then be moved for convenience sake.
You go to Stewart's and buy four tires you leave being told that your car will be ready in two hours. You come back and are told that they only had time to change three tires but they'll finish the job next week. Would that be acceptable?
How about you go into Legends and order a nice steak and baked potato they bring it out and the potato is raw. They tell you they just didn't have time to cook the potato but the steak is good so you should be satisfied. Would that be acceptable?
The law is in place for a reason and must be followed until it is changed. Someone wrote earlier that
basically if you don't know enough
to make use of the law how can you know enough to effectively apply the law in a beneficial way? Allen Barrett
Nice examples, Mr. Barrett, but they really are not analagous to what we have here.
A potential candidate walks up to a house that is, without dispute, in the 7th District. A person comes to the door and says they live there and they are registered to vote. "Great, would you sign my petition?" the hopeful candidate may say. The candidate turns in the petition early enough to get more signatures if she needs to, but is told the petition is acceptable and is certified to be on the ballot.
The person who signs the petition shows up to vote and is told her registration still showed another district although she had long moved into the 7th. Upon proving her residency, she is permitted to vote in the 7th District, as that is where she resides.
Consequently, you have the situation where a person legally residing in the 7th District and legally voting in the 7th District being the person in question who signed the petition. Heck, even the election office believed she resided in the 7th District. A belief which was ultimately confirmed.
Now, I ask you where is the harm and who is the victim?
Are you the victim? Hardly. You garnered around half the votes of the winning candidates.
How about Ms. Coleman? She seems much more the victim here. What else could she have done? She approaches a house in the district and gets the resident's signature. She has that confirmed by the election office.
Or better yet. How about the voters of the 7th District? To me, however one may have wished the election to have come out, there was indeed an election and the voters spoke. Some would say with much justification that they spoke resoundingly. Their voice, their freedom and right to choose their representatives is trampled if your theory holds.
By any such measure, I would have to say the voters are the victims.
8:43 So do we throw the law out the window?
I do not think our election process should be blown off by using phrases such as "technical error" or as one poster put it, "getting your name on the ballot is a technicality". There are rules for a reason. There is nothing being stolen from Ms. Coleman if the facts are correct. Nobody can say with a straight face that had the situation been reversed and Mr. Barrett made a "technical error", that the position was being "stolen" from him. It's not about being just and moral, those of you who thing the whole thing should just be ignored till it blows over. It is an election to a public office and there are procedures to follow. If not, the person is disqualified. If it was anybody but WAB, there is not a person in the county that would consider ignoring the facts. Again, just because you don't like the facts, doesn't change them. Right is right. She didn't qualify therefore only 3 people ran legally in that district. The people that voted for her did so in good faith and I've no doubt that Ms. Coleman did not do this intentionally. But please people, I am a school teacher who works with children everyday and am finding each year that there are no consequences to any mistakes. Therefore they are denied a valuable opportunity to learn from their mistakes. It's part of growing up, being accountable, and being responsible. I do not know Ms. Coleman, she may be highly qualified for the position. I do not know Mr. Barrett. He may be highly qualified for the position. But the facts, apparently that her name was on the ballot illegally, (for lack of a better word). It may not be fair to those that voted for her, but in all honesty, whose fault is it that the signatures weren't verified. Yes, the election office, but bottom line, isn't the candidate ultimately responsible? Many posting on Mr. Barrett's blog enjoy bashing him, but always claim it's to "right a wrong." It would be hypocritical for those same people to now say, "the law and the procedures are irrelevant. Let's bend or ignore the rules to punish this man." Maybe his victory will be a shallow one under the circumstances, I personally don't think so, but can see why others would think that way. Do you really want YOUR victory on the same terms. Wouldn't it be equally shallow for you who so love to humiliate, insult, and verbally attack him. Is this how you want to teach him a lesson, by saying ignore our democratic voting laws, one of the many reasons that we have the greatest country in the world?
Teacher
It is foolish to think that WAB will automatically be given the vacancy that is possibly created by the Election office telling Vicky Coleman.
If the court rules that her election is not valid, then at minimum the commission will have to temporarily fill the position until another vote can be taken.
8:43
I'd say Coleman had the same responsibility as everyone else to determine if she had the right amount of signatures. If Barrett was smart enough to not only check his names and the other people as well then I would say he was a head of both those running and those in the election office. I want someone that smart to represent me.
So, 9:05 and 8:43, what should Ms. Coleman have done when she turned in her petition and it approved by the Election Commission office?
Rest assured 9:31. The Commission will never name Barrett to an interim post even if Ms. Coleman is disqualified, which I doubt will happen anyway. BUT, if she is, I hear the Commissioners are going to appoint her as the interim commissioner thereby giving a nod to the voters of the 7th and affirming their wishes. In the end, much ado about nothing.
9:40
Yes, that is exactly what I heard. Even if barrett should get Mrs. Coleman out of the way, the commission could very well appoint her to fill the vacancy. I looked at the list of commissioners, and don't think Mrs. Coleman would have much of a problem with getting the majority vote, even though some of them who are aligned with barrett would vote against her and disregard the will of the voters.
I spoke with an attotney friend of mine who felt this would play out just as you and I think it will. I hope we are all right and that barrett be defeated once again.
Yeacher wrote a very good post. In the end, this will be decided by a Judge.
At the time of issuance of the nominating petitions, the administrator of elections, deputy or a county election commissioner shall type or handwrite in ink at the top of the cover page and each succeeding page of the form the name of the candidate, the office sought by the candidate, including any division, part, district or other identifying number for the office sought, and shall sign and date the form. Additional pages to be attached to a nominating petition may be obtained at a later date; provided, that each additional page must also have the name of the candidate, the office being sought and any identifying number for the office typed or handwritten at the top by the administrator, deputy or election commissioner along with the candidate's signature and the date.
Does anyone know if this was done like the above TCA code reads? If so,do we know who the clerk was that oked Mrs. Coleman's qualifying papers?
When my father ran several years back, he had to sit and wait for 15minutes while they checked his names.
It was Coleman's responsibility to make sure she had the right amount of signatures. Barrett is right to challenge her being on the ballot just as it would be right if someone didn't qualify for some other reason.
The real problem is that some people just can't accept that Barrett is smarter that they are and has a lot more courage to stand up and defend what he believe is right. Underneath this thread is the one about the Lawrance County sheriff race, is Taylor wrong to challenge someone from Giles County who was on the ballot. It's basically the same thing.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
wab
Rat's nest at the courthouse? Someone who might know something about government and not be a hand puppet? In their haste to get someone to run against barrett?
Shouldn't this post be deleted for unfounded and unsupported comments? According to your new rules, it should be. How about it?
4:47 it matters not what the margin of votes between candidates was in this instance. When someone doesn't qualify due to invalid signatures, not meeting the guidelines and so forth the next person in line should be moved into the slot. This would be no different if Allen Barrett was the person who's qualification papers were invalid. What do you people not understand about procedures and rules? You want to apply certain rules to certain people. That is unethical and wrong. No matter who you are or what color you are. Perhaps, Ms. Coleman should be a tad bit disturbed that the election office lead her to believe that her papers were correct. All in all, when a candidate runs for office it is their duty to obtain the info and the understanding of what is required to run for office. It is childish and ignorant to place blame on A.Barrett for discovering this error and requesting it be rectified. So much control will be lost if A. Barrett is allowed to take the 3 seat in district 7 and I think we all understand it is going to upset more than a few people. Ask yourself who will be upset and why. It should tell you a lot about those people This county needs less control under the dictatorship of those who seek to destroy and keep underfoot those who wish to have things done above board. All that has been revealed in this situation and the sign situation is that we have
"the powers that be",out in force to make sure they don't lose the precious control they have maintained for so long. It's high time that things be done right for a change. Regardless of who's applecart it upsets.
Great post 6:24.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
wab
You deleted those posts fast. Tell me why you didn't also delete 6:24?
Is it ok for that post to be so negative while you disallow anything posted pertaining to your own misbehavior? You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Ok, go ahead and delete this one. But you really need to be fair about this.
He didn't delete mine you silly little simpleton because I followed the rules. Something you don't seem to be able to comprehend. R-U-L-E-S. You know?...those little thingies put in place to allow for order. Oh yeah, that's right, you guys make your own and break them when you choose. I guess it would be hard for you to actually understand since maybe your not accustomed to having to follow any? Ha! My isn't that funny!!? Breaking the rules for some is okay but oh, we must follow the rules for everyone else. My what a trend this has become in PEWLaski...yes something smells... and it wreaks of corruption.
Go cry to someone who listens. Of course you will have to leave the blog behind as no one hears you here.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
In cases like this, the county commission will appoint someone to the open position just as they do if some dies or leaves office. It does NOT matter who the 4th place vote getter was. That does not matter. IT IS UP TO THE FULL COMMISSION AND THEY DON'T ALWAYS MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE.
11:24 Disagree. Dont believe this has ever happened before. Dont the law say the Judge has three choices.
This is new ground 11:24. There is no case to refer back to in order to see how this was handled in the past because it has never happened. Let's not lead people astray by letting them believe something of which is not true. No one knows the outcome of this. To say the commissioners will appoint is speculation. You do not know that for fact. Let's be honest.
Yes this has happened before in other counties and yes I'm sure the judge will make a decision based on the laws. The state law states that a person has to have 25 elegible signatures to qualify to run for a County Commission seat. I do not think a judge will overrule that state law but will go by the law. The law is the law and if not, then the next four years the County Election Administrator shall watch out. There will be several people who want care if they get sufficient signatures or not, they'll just say "of well, it really doesn't matter. I'll just ask the courts to have the commisisoners appoint me to the position." I really think our upstanding Judicial Judges have more sense than that.
I should have made myself clearer 2:27. This is the first time our county has experience this.
This story is from WKSR.com. It seems to relate to the topic here.
Judge Robert Holloway has denied a request for a restraining order to prevent Jimmy Brown from taking office tomorrow. Brown will be sworn in as scheduled at 9am at the Lawrence County Courthouse.
Outgoing Lawrence County Sheriff Kenny Taylor had asked a judge to stop Brown from being sworn-in as sheriff. The request for the temporary restraining order was filed shortly before noon Monday in Chancery Court.
Hopefully, the judge in Barrett V Giles Co will be on the same page as Holloway.
6:52- Yes. We can hope that the voices of Distric 7 will be heard tomorrow.
Wouldn't it be nice to hear the voices of justice for a change instead of the same old whining of fools?
7:47 Think you just called someone a dirty word.
9:41
That post should have been deleted. But it was one in which the blogmaster agrees, so it stays.
What a wonderful quote 7:47!!!!!
I heard the voice of justice today. Let's hope the fat lady will be singing this time next Thursday.
Congratulations Commissioner Coleman!
I see Janet or her friend has let us know what happen.
Thanks, I had been wondering.
Congratulations Mrs. Coleman, sorry a mistake was made. They do have to be straighten out to keep problems away on down the road.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
2:22 I'm not Janet nor am I a friend of hers. Just thought this was some new info about the topic to pass along. It was on WKSR.com if you want to read the story.
3:30 And do you have the perfect beach body? How would you like it if a post like yours was made about someone you love? Your post should be deleted for being rude and ill-mannered but since the three are "foes" of the blogmaster, I won't hold my breath.
The 3:30 post was removed because it was in such poor taste it was an offense to any reasonable persons sensibility. Sorry I could not delete it sooner.
wab
Let's hear it for Mrs. Vicky Coleman! I felt like it would go her way, because you sir are in my opinion, wrong about this.
I couldn't be there in the courtroom, but I heard you slammed your notebook down on the desk and that you and your little entourage walked out of the room and even slammed the door. Isn't that a bit shameful?
You lose once again, and you bring all this humiliation on yourself.
6:27 Well what you HEARD is WRONG. Several people left the room at the invitation of the Judge if they did not want to watch the swearing in of Harwell and Campbell. No slamming of books, no entourage. You DO have a vivid imagination and will say anything to put people down and have others think the worst.
7:44
Correction! I heard it from someone who was there and saw it. Talk about sour grapes; this takes the cake. Get over it.
Even peewee football players shake hands after a contest. Truly shameful conduct today.
wab said...
To 6:27 Let's look at the facts, know you don't have much familiarity with anything but gossip but try and pay attention for a moment.
There was no slamming of books on a table or anything else by me. There was a noise from behind me that I believe was a seat folding up after the person stood up. The second thing is have you every been able to slam a swing door with Deputy Reynolds holding it open for you?
Ask Deputy Reynolds if he held the door open for me and I said thank you as I walked out also standing there was Deputy Buell whom I spoke to and can tell you the truth about any "slamming doors".
As far as shameful goes I absolutely agree, what took place in that courtroom was not only shameful it was disgraceful. When written law is discarded for opinion everyone should be concerned. I don't expect this will change your mind knowing your love of gossip but the facts are facts whether you agree with them or not.
As for shaking hands I would challenge you to walk over while a court is in session and start shaking hands with people on the other side of the room. Until the court is closed there is a certain decorum that is maintained. If you would do a bit more relying on first hand information instead of what others might tell you perhaps you'd not be so out of touch with the realities of life.
Allen Barrett
So you are now saying Judge Robert Jones is disgraceful? You really take the cake, Sir.
No. What Judge Jones thought was carrying things a bit too far and commented on it was the walkthrough security gate that everyone had to go through, plus empty their pockets and purses. Also got 'wanded' if the bells rang! A few commissioners had brought knives that had to be eft outside the courtroom until the session was over. What exactly did Janet fear would happen? Even so, she had her bodyguard there so why would she need all the added security? Talk about a waste of taxpayer money..... Deputies had a laugh though.
10:24 there you go again with your big mouth and small mind where did WAB say or even imply that Judge Jones was disgraceful. What he said was that "what took place in that courtroom was not only shameful it was disgraceful" since there was a number of things that happened and several different people were in there how does that relate to Jones only are at all?
WAB I was sitting in the seat directly behind you. I, along with the others around me, all stayed for the swearing in of Colmen, Harwell and Campbell. None of of us stood up before you slammed the notebook down. We all were taken aback when you did that. The only people who stood up to leave were you, your attorney and your support group that were sitting on the opposite side of the room from you. Don't blame your childish slam on a chair squeaking.
To 10:53 If you were sitting directly behind me then you would know that I didn't even have a notebook but three manila folders which could hardly make enough noise to be heard. Had I done as you claim Judge Jones would have been addressing the issue instead of you. I notice that you dropped the charge about slamming the door did you ask Deputy Reynolds or did you just realize too many people saw what happened. I never said that it was definitely a seat behind me but I thought it might have been for all I know the noise may have been you passing gas. The one thing I do know is it was not me. I know who was sitting behind me and if your claim is true about sitting behind me I'm disappointed that you have revealed yourself as a liar along with the cowardice of posting a lie with anonymous as your cover. Allen Barrett
The court case was not even heard yesterday, being rescheduled for next Thursday. When Lucy Henson, the county attorney, told Judge Jones that the county concedes Mrs. Coleman did not have enough valid signatures on her qualifying papers the case should have been closed. The LAW says you need 25 valid signatures. By continuing, and ultimately swearing in Mrs. Coleman with the other two the Judge is saying it is okay to disobey the law. One of the things mentioned was "It was a mistake."
Next time a law enforcement officer cites you for doing something against the law just tell the judge "it was a mistake" and you won't have to pay the consequences. By his words yesterday Judge Jones could have set a very bad precedent.
It was interesting to see yesterday so many of the county and school employees whose salaries are paid by the taxpayers who were at the courthouse to watch the proceedings instead of at their jobs. Those subpoenaed of course had to be there. But why did Roy Griggs, Ambulance Director in uniform so not off-duty, Loretta Garner, Finance Director, Tee Jackson, Director of Schools, Mr. Hastings, GCHS principal, Mrs. Vanzant, County Exec. along with one of her secretaries for example have to be there. Not enough work? You will say they were a support group for Mrs. Coleman and the county but will bash Mr. Barrett's supporters. Most supporters for either side were self-employed, retired, off duty.
Sounds like a bunch of nosey people.
Guess they will all miss work when the sign case comes up.
wab
Looks like you were not very truthful about the slamming of notebooks (or manilla folders) onto the desk. Surely you realize that plenty of noise could be made by slamming even manilla folders down on a desk, depending on how much force was in the hand that was holding them.
Those people who were behind you are not the only ones who saw it, and it absolutely floors me that you would lie about that. You really have a problem with self-control, and that is one of a few reasons why people will not vote for you.
WJS
Look, county employees build up sick and personal days that they may take when they choose. So, what is the problem? A lot of people wanted to see if barrett was going to be able to pull this off, and it appears he won't.
1:22pm----I would think Janet V. needed to be there yesterday because the trial had to do with a seat on the county commission, and, since she presides over the county commission, she needed to be present at the trial. Anyone could have figured that out if they would have put a little thought in to it.
WAB said "As far as shameful goes I absolutely agree, what took place in that courtroom was not only shameful it was disgraceful. When written law is discarded for opinion everyone should be concerned."
This can be referring to on one other than Judge Jones. Shameless? indeed. Pretty strong language to make in the middle of a court proceeding.
I'm sure Judge Jones is already been made aware of Barrett's choice of words on how he chose to handle his courtroom yesterday.
5:14
He will be made aware of it from what I've heard.
Does Mr. Barrett's action really surprise anyone.
Common wisdom was he was going down in the commission race......he blames someone he says moved his sign.
He loses the election (miserably)....he blames the election commission.
He loses his lawsuit.....he blames the judge.
It must be wonderful to live life without a mirror.
From what I understand, barrett is really going to regret making false accusations against Clay McAlister. I will take off from work to be there to see that trial.
4:12, 4:59
You have GOT to be kidding. Sure, the county and school employees have sick and personal leave days but do you honestly think any one of them used one of those days to come to the court? Give me a break. Griggs in uniform on a day off? The others in suits, ties and office clothes? And don't try to say they would dress up like that on a day off just to watch a court case. Us everyday peons who work in the private sector don't get paid when we don't show up for work but OUR money is paying their salaries. As for Janet HAVING to be there she could have gotten the news on the radio like the rest of us. As could have all those others.
7:37 You are exactly right! Just look at what this frivolous lawsuit has cost the state and county. Two Chancellors, clerks, deputies, county attorney, subpoenaed county workers. Your tax dollars at work. Thanks again, Mr. Barrett for being a good steward of such resources.
Yes look at the cost of that law suit and also the one where Jackson wouldn't let Barret speak at the school board meeting. If he had let him talk and then gone on and done things his way, we could have saved a lot of money and a lot of this other might not be going on.
The McAlister trial is the one I want to see. I believe barrett will leave that courtroom with his rear end on fire. It's about time someone took him down. I believe this is the one.
When it's all said and done, Mr. McAlister may be eating out of what used to be wab's refrigerator.
7:56
No, I believe it was barrett and not Mr. Jackson who cost the taxpayers their money.
Mr. Barrett, if you loose the case with McAlister, get even by posting the email address of all that posts on the blog. Then we will all want to crawl in a hole.
I didn't hear the trial, but if Coleman didn't have enough signatures, she shouldn't of been sworn in until the commissioners appointed her.
9:31 That's why you should have heard the trial.
9:31
I don't thin the commission needs to appoint Mrs. Coleman. She won over barrett by close to 170 votes. I believe the judge recognized that minor technicality too.
Why would a preacher have a spirit of "get evenism" anyhow?
Is it not a law you have to have 25 qualified voters in your district to run for office?
If not stop trying to get 25 qualified people to sign for you.
9:36, did you hear the trial, if so did she have 25 qualified voters from 7th District? I was just going from gossip I had heard that she didn't have the qualified voters signing.
Lots of gossip goes around in this county and on this blog.
8:04 I did. The Election Office certified her. Had she been told she needed 2 more signatures, the 400+ votes suggested she could easily have secured them in the 3+ hours she would otherwise have had available. The Court looked to a precedent where an election commission had wrongly told someone they could not qualify for an office when they actually could have. The court in that case ruled the deadline did not apply because of the reliance by the candidate on the advice and information given by the election office. The court declared that, while not factually identical to the case here, the principle seems the same. If the government messed up, then an individual relying on the government's actions should not be punished.
I really cannot believe that anyone would argue with that principle. But, I am surprised everyday.
Ok the election commission took the blame for not checking it better. Now I understand.
An honest mistake by the election commission. Thank you.
I wonder if everyone can move on now and say no more about it.
The past should be left in the past, otherwise it can destroy your future. Live life for what tomorrow has to offer, not for what yesterday has taken away.
8:41
You are exactly right. Had Mrs. Coleman known that she needed two more signatures, she coulod have easily gotten them. That will be a pivotal point in barrett's attempt to take the election away from her.
Will barrett move on when he loses this court case? Yes, I think he will appeal to the next highest court. Watch him and see.
Question:
Shouldn't barrett have to pay the court costs and Mrs. Coleman's attorney fees when he loses this court case?
I understand he will have to pay the court costs and they could be staggering. He would not have to pay the attorney's fees though, in all likelihood I am told.
So the looser in the sign caper will have to pay the court cost.
Did the Board of Education have to pay the court cost when the board took Barrett and the other man to court?
1:45
I'm confident that barrett is going to lose the sign caper. Mr. McAlister has an attorney, and he's going to want his name cleared. Then I hope the tv stations are asked to come back down and do another story on what that verdict is.
Part 1
There is a vast difference in the election case and the Allister case. As far as I know, Mr. Barrett doesn't have any authority to have anybody arrested. He cannot file charges, pick somebody up and then handcuff them and take them to jail. One is a civil case, one is criminal. A private citizen can file a civil lawsuit lawsuit against another party. As far as I know, only law enforcement can file criminal charges. Obviously the authorities felt there was enough evidence to pursue the case against Allister. All Mr. Barrett did was what so many have told him to do and that is " turn your evidence of wrong doing over to the proper authorities. I personally have more respect for the Pulaski Police Dept than most of you. I think they would investigate a case including viewing a tape if one was available, before pursuing a case further. What makes you folks, considering the very cruel, hateful and vindictive things you are saying about Mr. Barrett, believe that the PPD would simply ask Mr. Barrett who he suspected of the vandalism, and say, "okey dokey, let's go make this man's life miserable." end of part 1
William James
9:29 You fail to remember that Mr. Barrett stated publicly on the blog that he had a videotape of Mr. McAlister committing a criminal act. I do not know whether that is a truthful statement or not. But if it is not, Mr. Barrett could be facing a civil lawsuit.
wab
I think many people would also have told you that you ought to learn how to be humble, to turn the other cheek, to pray for those who despitefully use you, etc.
My guess is that Mr. McAlister will humble you in court. If you were dishonest about the accusations, I hope he does just that. You might could fix this mess by making public statements that would clear his name, but I'm afraid your pride won't allow that. Is it worth the price you may have to pay?
If the government sent you a check for two million dollars and you spent it then they came and said it was a mistake would you have to give the money back?
Just cause the governmnet makes a mistake don't mean you can benefit from it.
Looks like the jealousy is running away with some of you guys . Wonder why Mr. Barrett hasn't deleted a bunch of these stupid things.
6:26 You should have attended the trial as well. Do you really think Mr. Barrett should benefit from the mistake?
As the Court correctly noted, the victim is not Ms. Coleman but the possibly disenfranchised 400+ people who voted. Their wishes rise above either candidate. And yes, when the government's mistake takes away their fundamental right to vote and to have it counted, then they CAN benefit from it if that is what you want to call it. I say it is simply being fair to all involved.
Take a nerve pill and reread 6:26's post.
When he/she said "Just cause the governmnet makes a mistake don't mean you can benefit from it."
That didn't seem like he/she thought Barrett should of benefited with the election commission's mistake.
If Coleman was on the ballot illegally should she benefit from an illegal activity?
Can you folks not see that allen barrett is a troublemaker? He has stirred up more strife than anyone ever before in the history of Giles County. Why hasn't someone close to him pulled him aside and told him this? The sad thing is that we can't get rid of him.
He LOST the election for a second time, and that should be enough to get the message across that the people don't want him. But no, he doesn't accept that. I believe barrett is ruthless enough that he would run over anyone who got in his way regardless of who he hurts along the way. Would one of you who so eagerly defends this man''s behavior please point out the Christianity in that. Thank you.
5:45
Mrs. Coleman wasn't on the ballot illegally and nothing illegal was done. The election commission freely admitted that a mistake was made. In addition to that, had they caught it up front, all Mrs. Coleman had to do was walk across the street and get more than enough signatures. Should she be penalized? NO! Should the will of the people in 7th District be set aside? No! Can you see the trouble this is going to cause if some judge takes the job away from Mrs. Coleman? Do you honestly think there won't be trouble? Does barrett care? Do you? What about the NAACP? Don't think for one minute that they aren't aware of what's going on. How many other qualifying papers did barrett check besides Mrs. Coleman's? How many other candidates did he seek to disqualify?
It's all just a rotten shame and an embarrassment to Giles County. This could set the county back to the fifties and sixties because of sour grapes!!!
One last thought. Why did barrett wait until the election was over to check Mrs. Coleman's papers? Could you please explain that? While you are thinking on that one, please allow me to share my opinion with you. I honestly believe barrett was looking for anything he could find to get Mrs. Coleman disqualified. And the entire truth about that is going to come out.
Someone asks if the governmentment sent you a million bucks by mistake should you have to repay it? The answer is Yes. Any financial mistakes 'the government' currently makes, no matter how small, have to be returned. Fact. Check it out.
If the judge decides less than 25 petition votes dont matter then he is setting a precedent for all future candidates. Why have the law if even a judge dont follow it? So if I decide to run in 2 or 4 years time and dont have enough signatures I suppose I just dont worry about it.
Do anyone agree with me its time our elections office and committee got audited?
Let the NAACP tangle with the ACLU.
There were less than 25% of registered voters who voted anyway. Who cares what she could have done it's what she did that is the point.
The law is very clear on this matter and I understand it's a "class D felony to to knowingly make a false entry on an election document" says so right on the nominating petition. Looks like the next stop will be the Grand Jury for those who signed the paper and do not co operate in making the situation right.
The situation is right. NOBODY committed a felony, and barrett is the one who needs to make things right by respecting the voters of 7th District. He LOST. I don't think a judge would overturn the will of the voters. They don't want barrett. The judge even hinted at that during the first eharing.
The law is very clear. Ms. Coleman was properly elected and sworn in. Mr. Barrett's lawsuit will be dismissed. If that is still unclear to you, please take the time to attend Thursday's hearing, and pay close attention to the judge's ruling.
6:44
But will barrett accept the ruling? I suspect he will appeal to the next highest court instead of respect the court's decision and the choice the 7th District voters made.
So many toilet lawyers but no one bothered to read the law. Barret did and it's very clear that Coleman was not qualified to be on the balot and those who signed her petition wrong are headed for a felony charge along with Coleman. The question is with a felony on your record will you be able to get a job even with a phd?
10:38 You are certainly entitled to your opinion of the law. And so is Judge Robert L. Jones. No offense, but I think I will rely on his opinion.
10:38
LOOK, Mrs. Coleman did NOTHING wrong and neither did the elecdtion commission intentionally. Had the clerical error been caught in time Mrs. Coleman would have had ample time to go across the street and get at least three more signatuires that I am sure about. And you think she along with others need to be prosecuted on felony charges? Are you absolutely nuts?
If Judge Jones allows barrett to get away with this, I am quite concerned that we will see trouble here unlike annything we have seen since the fifties and sixties? Does barrett care? I wonder. Does he want to be a commissioner that badly? Absolutely. He reminds me of a little boy who crys and makes a fuss until he gets his way. It's so shameful.
You are an absolute cowardly fool 6:11. I guess you don't have any problem with illegals coming into our country and taking over since it's only a techncality
of law that says they are breaking the law?
I guess it don't matter to you that 20 illegal signatures out of 38 was on Colemans's papers and it says right there on the paper that anyone that makes a false claim on the form comits a felony.
When you look at who is involved in this situaion even you should see it's the same democrats that still try to control this county.
If you are satisfied with people like obama, polsie and reed running things then you must love vanzant, vickie harwell, Vivian sims and the other upper classers that run this county and try to control and keep this county backward.
You talk about Barret making a fuss well I'm glad he is standing up for the law and ain't afraid of threats by fools like you shaking in there boots because some blacks might get mad. This ain't about race it's about right and if you can't see that you're worse off than a fool.
8:55 While I agree with you about Allen Barrett standing up for the law and what is right, I have to question those you named as being "the upper class" of this county - Vickie Harwell, Janet Vanzant, Vivian Sims. Surely not.
8:55
Why didn't you show a little respect for Obama, Pelosi, and Reed? You didn't bother to capitalize their names. I hope all three of them are voted out as soon as possible. As for Mrs. Harwell, Mrs. Sims, and Mrs. Vanzant, I have a lot of repsect for all three of them. That's more than I can say for allen barrett and those who defend him in stirring up trouble.
Let me share with you something that is right. Mrs. Coleman won her election bid by a huge margin over allen barrett, and he ought to respect the wishes of the voters, But no, he wants that job so badly that I believe he could care less who gets in his way or who might get hurt. That I call wrong. But I am confident that the judge will not overturn the will of the people. And if it's not at all a racial matter, please tell me why the NAACP is watching this so closely? I hope they continue to do so.
People like you can call me a fool all you want to, but that's not going to change the election results. I believe the judge hinted at what he was thinking at the first hearing. He stated something to the effect that mistakes were made by the election commission but that those errors should not depose the voters wishes. We shall see, right?
why would anyone show any respect for people trying to destroy this country. They need to be smashed under the heel of a boot that just finished chores around the milk barn.
What Jones did was show his prejudice against Mr. Barrett by announcing his decision before even hearing the facts of the case. Can there be justice in those circumstances?
7:23
The same can be said of anyone who, whether intentionally or not, is destroying our beloved county.
As for Judge Jones being prejudiced toward barrett, why don't you go to court tomorrow morning and share your feelings with him? I'm sure Judge Jones would appreciate that about as much as he did barrett's comments about his court being a disgrasce. Oh yes, the judge was told.
You speak of justice? What a laugh. I believe justice will be served when allen barrett is sent home with his rear end on fire tomorrow. May God bless Mrs. Coleman and the dear folks at our election commission office.
8:35 I'm sure you couldn't get your little cowardly self over quick enough to spread your lies and gossip.
10:02
May God bless Mrs. Coleman and the deear folks at the election commission office. My prayer for them is that justic be served this day and that a troublemaker is finally taken down, hopefully to the point of full repentance.
It's not God that blesses wrong doing but Satan. As the Prince of this earth he has dominance as seen in the wrong that dominates.
Coleman and her crowd are not only a bunch of lying crooks they have conspired to steal the election along with the twin witches harwell and vanzant
sounds like the morris's just can't help thier self !!!
May God bless mrs. Coleman and the dear folks at our election commission office. It's just a crying shame that one man can cause so much trouble and strife. And then (in my opinion) he has the nerve to call himself a man of outspoken integrity and common sense. I hope he loses big time today in court.
Mrs. Coleman is NOT a liar and neither are Mrs. Vanzant and Mrs. Harwell. You guys are just mad because you don't have what it takes to get yourselves elected to office. So who is actually trying to steal an election? It's certainly not Mrs. Coleman.
3:20
Can someone explain to me why chris morris is so involved in this fiasco? What does he hope to gain? Is it the county's insuurance. Well, that's not going to happen. I hear he's even out serving subpoenaes for barrett. Shameful.
By the way, the 12:50 post should have been deleted, according to barrett's rules.
4:04 Totally agree with you. The post should be deleted. But remember, they are WAB's rules and he doesn't always follow them.
So what happened in court today?
Thursday, September 09, 2010 4:04:00 PM
Is Chris Morris a policeman or a Depty?
I thought they were the ones to deliver subpoenaes. Maybe I've been watching to much TV.
Only thing I know is Allen Barrett isn't worth sending my soul to hell for. So I'm not saying anything bad about him or anyone else.
Does the Bible not say something about talking about people?
Let's all think about after death.
The only time a summons has to be delivered by an official of the court is when it's a criminal matter, anyone but the complaint can deliver a summons in a civil matter.
6;48
Here's what happened in court Thursday. It appears that barrett's attorney is ready to throw in the towell. I can't believe it went on as long as it did. I just hope he (barrett) has to pay the court costs and attorney fees and not the taxpayers.
It's just a sad shame that one man can cause so much trouble and yet is defended by a loyal few. My own mother would turn on me if I behaved like that.
Come on 6:18 everyone knows your own mother turned on you as soon as she realized what a loser you are. It was probably your birth that caused her to become an abortion supporter.
I presume 7:36 is to be deleted. Unless, of course, it fits into the rule that if WAB agrees with the vile or personally negative statement it stays.
heres the thing, ihe AB had lost by a few votes then yes something should be changed. But it was verry clear by the totals the vast majority of Giles County Voters do not want him in the office. Thats a plain fact. Why cant he just accept the fact the citizens do not want him, or is there a "big conspricy of ballot fixing to keep him out". LOL!
heres the thing, ihe AB had lost by a few votes then yes something should be changed. But it was verry clear by the totals the vast majority of Giles County Voters do not want him in the office. Thats a plain fact. Why cant he just accept the fact the citizens do not want him, or is there a "big conspricy of ballot fixing to keep him out". LOL!
To the double poster at 8:53.
Here's the thing. In a nation where people live under the rule of law the law should be upheld. The law is simple and the judge has even declared that Mrs. Coleman was not qualified to be on the ballot.
You say, "But it was verry clear by the totals the vast majority of Giles County Voters do not want him in the office". That's rather amazing that you could deduce that when the "vast majority of the county" did not even vote.
The problem isn't that there was merely a conspiracy but that several laws were violated, some probably unintentional and some very blatantly. There was fraud as testified to in court by people who signed other people's names to the nominating petition including Mrs Coleman who intentionally instructed a person to sign her petition knowing she was not a registered voter in the 7th district. This and some of the other matters will be going to the Grand Jury and with the transcript from this hearing perjury, forgery and violations of T.C.A. 2-19-109 will be easily seen.
When a fraud is committed against us we are the first to raise our voice in protest but too often we remain silent when the fraud is against someone else. It should be just as despicable when our neighbor is ripped off by someone like Bernie Madoff as if we were ripped off by him. I guess that's where you and I differ instead of enabling wrong by silence I believe together we can be rid of wrong by exposing it and declaring it unacceptable for anyone.
Allen Barrett
New low WAB! The fact that you deceptively tried to get information from a sick man in NHC Nursing Home is despicable. What kind of person does that??? I wonder what WAB would do if the same thing was done to an elderly, sick member of his family.
Mr Barrett. Surely the 2:17 post should be deleted as it doesnt meet the rules.
If you had been listening to the lady that was giving the testimony you would have realized as everyone in the room did, she made no sense at all. I haven't been to the nursing home, I couldn't describe Mr Black if he fell on my head. I did call the nursing home and asked about his middle name. They had Mr Black's daughter call me and she told me what his middle initial stood for and that there was a son by the same name. We talked a bit about the difficulty of caring for a disabled relative as we both have that responsibility but other than that I don't have a clue as to what she was talking about. All I could do was think it was the strain she was under. Allen Barrett
8:53
The fact is and remains that barrett l;ost by an overwhelming number of votes. But he refuses to accept that. Does he care that this is costing taxpayer money? I sincerely doubt it. He wants that commissioner job so bad he is willing to step on anyone who gets in his way of it. That of course is my opinion base3d on empirical evidence. It's just a shame. I wish he could just accept the fact that the voters of 7th District did not want him then and they surely don't want him now. Shameful.
to 12:50 on 9 -09
If I were you, I would be very very careful in making those accusations against Mrs. Coleman. Don't kid yourself that the NAACP isn't watching this closely. Don't be naive.
Vicky Harwell certainly is busily posting on here---5:41, 4:37, up to 6:18am.
NAACP may be watching, but I bet KKK and Skinheads are watching also.
Ever thought about that?
Giles County could be in for a mess, so why not quiet down instead of stirring. One way or another it's still stirring.
Vicky Harwell has been out door knocking. How do I know that? She just came by my house in the Glendale area. You are wrong.
I posted 4:37 AND 5:41, and I'm certainly not Mrs. Harwell. Why don't you people just leave her alone? It seems you just have to keep something stirred up all the time.
The NAACP IS watching this mess, and rightfully so. But why would hate groups like the KKK and skinheads even want to be involved? Mrs. Coleman did nothing wrong.
Watching you and NAACP, maybe.
8:38
You people just never stop, do you. Gert over it. Your people lost, because Giles County voters did nbot want you. And barrett can now forget about getting elected to anything ar9ound here.
Barrett has called the KKK and Skinheads to his rescue???
Unbelievable.
10:21 I doubt Barrett called them, but did you call NAACP?
What irresponsible idiots started this stuff about KKK and skinheads? THAT is what is unbelievable. When are you people going to grow up?
Why is it not possible to have civilized discussion on this blog?
The NAACP has been watching this since the start. Nobody had to call them.
WAB needs to call the ghostbusters, they might represent him. How much money is wab going to spend to become a commissioner that nobody wants. Go throw some rocks wab!
WAB,
I just cannot understand how you can realistically make the comment that you lost the elecion because "the vast majority did not vote" Fact is that the vast majority that DID vote DID NOT vote for you. You got beat like a red headded step child, so would you please just crawl back in the hole you crawled out of and shut up.
10:33
Had the majority of voters in 7th District voted, barrett would have lost by an even larger margin. It's sad that one has to risk hurting his feelings over this to make him understand that 7th District DID NOT want him representing them.
wab
In all honesty, I believe the reason you are so upset with Mrs. Coleman is because you didn't anticipate there being any more than three candidates running in 7th District. When Mrs. Coleman got on the ballot, I believe you knew that your goose was cooked again. Is that why you tried to get her disqualified right off the bat?
If you ever had any further aspirations for elected office, I think you can kiss them goodbye now.
The law is the law and if the Election Commission admitted to making a mistake that goes against the law, so be it. The fact remains if this law is broken by an error made (which it has been by our E.C. Office)and a Judge upholds this error then the whole State of Tennessee will NEVER be able to hold another candidate to the law of having 25 QUALIFIED names on a Petition.
Mrs Coleman was disqualified by her testimony, by Mrs Bassham's testimony and even by Judge Jones statements. Everyone agreed that was the facts, the question was how to remedy that violation of the law?
That was only one means by which she was disqualified the other was by the fact that she did not officially withdraw from the ballot for School Board which is the only position she legally qualified for. Now here's where it get real interesting. There was the admission by the election office personnel that a mistake had been made by putting her on the ballot in the commission race. Mistakes are made but there was an intentional very poorly executed cover-up of the fact that Mrs Coleman did not officially withdraw from the School Board race. The law requires that a candidate withdraw in writing, an attempt was made by Mrs Coleman and enabled by the election office personnel to backdate an official document and circumvent the law. Mrs Coleman submitted a letter requesting to be withdrawn from the School Board ballot on 9 September 2010, the election personnel accepted this document without placing a time stamp on it; without any initials; without any thing to identify it as having been brought into the election office prior to the 9 day of September of 2010. Mrs Bassham was asked to explain how that could have happened and her response was a very feeble, "I don't know".
As for the NAACP I could not care less about them as they have already shown that this whole scheme was hatched at one of their meetings according to several witnesses who testified under oath to that fact. I hold no less disgust for the KKK and the Skinheads as I hold for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People all three groups are led by racist. Anyone who tries to even suggest that this is a racially motivated issue from my point of view is a despicable race baiting liar. I will compare my history of involvement with race relations to anyone in Pulaski and never have to feel embarrassed nor neglectful. Allen Barrett
Hey Mr NAACP don't you know it was Mr. Barrett that stood up for Mrs Lisa White and went to bat for her and where were you and the Vanzants and Harwell. The NAACP was silent and Harwell was quiet as a mouse and Vanzant well she was the one responsible for refusing Mrs White, the most highly rated person in the bunch, even being interviewed.
So Barrett helped her get a $70,000.00 settlement while Vanzant was fighting against her. Are you guys that dumb to listen to words instead of looking at the deeds.
I look at it a different way. In my opinion, barrett cost the taxpayers or insurance policy $70,000.
You know, Mrs. Vanzant had the right to hire whomever she wanted to, didn't she?
Mrs. Coleman is one of three elected commissioners in District 7, and allen barrett needs to get over it and stop trying to blame everyone but himself for his SECOND loss. The people do not want him, and how much plainer does that need to be made?
wab
I have NEVER IN MY LIFE seen a worse case of sour grapes than you. Get over it. The people did NOT want you and NOBODY conspired to cheat you out of a job you couldn't win anyhow. Do you not recall how badly you were defeated?
That is an excellent attitude 4:32 the kind that has allowed racist policies to exist for ages. Tennessee and this county has laws and certain procedures that prevent discrimination in hiring. As an official of this county Mrs Vanzant and the other officials who conspired to prevent Mrs White from being interviewed are sworn to uphold those laws and policies, yet they openly violated those policies and laws. If you remember correctly Mrs White was the highest independently rated applicant, she also happened to be the only person of color that applied and she was the only one not even given the courtesy of an interview. They could have not hired her after interviewing her but they should never have shown so much disrespect
to her.
When I am convinced that you a sniveling little coward who is a liar and a gossip have been chosen as the spokesperson for the people of Giles County I might pay attention to what you have to say, until then I'll consider the source
of your unreliable gossiping. Allen Barrett
wab
A sniveling little coward. Oh, you don't know me at all pal. I really don't think you are in much of a position to be calling anyone a liar. You are angry because you are not the spokesperson for anyone. What a laugher.
Get over it. You lost and it's over.
WAB you really want to say that poster made a rasist comment?! The post you made at 932 about the NAACP, KKK & Skinheads was extremely racist! As a member of the NAACP, I am apalled! You are vile and evil in my book. And, this has nothing to do with the trial. The words you wrote on here are what brought me to this conclusion.
I was not aware of any of the above facts that Mr. Barrett discussed in his post of 9:36, if indeed those are facts. Mrs. Coleman was a candidate for school board FIRST? She didn't withdraw according to protocol? Documents with no time stamp where there is normally a time stamp? When asked why, the official says, "I don't know."? If even one of these points are truthful and factual and you people who support Mrs. Coleman aren't shaking in your boots, you are either very stupid or very corrupt. Please note I said "IF". I accused nobody of anything. But this is far bigger than a small town commission seat at stake. How can you folks let your personal resentment of one man override the very foundations of our Constitution, our way of life? This is not "Mickey Mouse" stuff. This is big time, detail, election irregularities and will guarantee, if allowed to continue that "Big Brother" will have control, real control on every facet of our community. I am horrified, like I said, IF even one of these allegations are true and you folks better wake up and put aside your pettiness of Mr. Barrett and work together. You don't like his methods of making a point. I promise if you don't stop this snowball of corruption, his methods will be "a day at the beach!"At least compared to what will happen is laws are for the convenience of a select few.
William James
Let me addd to that Mr. James. It was just pointed out to me that since Judge Jones is aquainted with Mr. Barrett, having heard a case of his about 4 years ago, that Judge Jones should have recused himself and this case should have been heard by another Judge. Anyone know if that is what should have happened? Thanks
WAB- please go to the dogpound, noone wants you as a watchdog. You are indeed pathetic and your speculation and lies are totally ridiculous! Please go get a job and repay the county all the money that you have cost it in your attempt to get elected. Thanks for showing all your readers that you're are racist.
william
You bet there's more at stake here than one commission seat. And, speaking of the constitution, how can you even think you could pay some lawyer to help you to overturn the will of the voters in 7th District? Why can't you simply respect those voters rights to elect whomever they please?
The election commission freely admitted right up front that clerical errors were made, but the judge had the intelligence to see what was really going on and to understand that the will of the voters should not be overturned or disregarded. I think a key factor was the fact that you lost so heavily. The voters in that district do not want you. Some who did vote for you (I don't know how many) have actually stated that they would not vote for you again. Again, you lost; accept that and move on.
So 10:37 are you saying that even though Mrs Coleman was disqualified from being on the ballot that it's OK to ignore the violation of state law because the voters had already voted for her? I'm just trying to understand your reasoning here.
I met Mrs. White recently and she was very haughty. I am a county worker and she acted like I was not good enough to wipe her feet on. It does not matter what kind of qualifications a person has if they have that kind of personality. Of course someone like Mr. Barrett thinks it is perfectly okay since she really acted a lot like him.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:48:00 AM
Mrs. White probably thought you were the reason she didn't get an interview for the job.
You probably was. Glad you admitted you work for the county.
Is it just me are do others see something wrong with the law only applying to certain people and not to others. I know Mrs White and she did nothing wrong but now she's being accused of costing the county money.
She only asked for equal treatment but the county didn't consider she had any right compared to them. Where was the NAACP when she needed them.
I don't know Mr Barrett but I do know he was the one who helped her even when her husband wanted to give up Mr Barrett was very supportive. Whatever else Mr Barrett may or may not be he's not someone who treats a person based on their race. The little girl at Richland who wanted to be a cheerleader was treated like a third class citizen until Mr Barrett got involved. I also know he paid a number of black peoples electric bills and even attended The Temple before he got his church. There is a lot of thng I don't know about Mr Barrett but these thing I do know he is a nice man.
10:15
Are you by any chance allen barrett?
5:07
Are you by any chance Janet Vanzant Vicki Harwell or just stupid.
Charles M,
Mrs. Coleman was certified as a candidate. The ballot was published in the paper, and the mistake was not her fault, nor was their any attempt on either party to deceive.......therefore, the judge made the correct decision!
5:50
The answer to your question is no. Why can't you guys get over your big defeat in August?
7:04
Excellent post! They might ass well get over it...but they won't.
Charles M- you can run again for public office and I do believe the record states that the county didn't want you or your nephew either. Take your Johnson Branch ignorance and keep it out on the ridge! Barrett could possible move in between you two when he has to sell his house on Jackson Drive to defend himself against McCallister. Get over it losers, nobody needs or wants your opinions. Proven fact by the voters of Giles Co.
Sorry this does not go along with the thread, but is sure is tacky when candidates do not take down their campaign signs. Would someone please tell Scott Stewart to take his sign down off of Billy Brymers property on the 64 bypass. I am tired of seeing it.
Would someone please go put the horses in? WAB- you want to go fishing this weekend?
So 7:04
Do you really think if a person’s spouse files a false joint income tax return and gets a big refund that they then spend the money without the knowledge of the other spouse, that both are not held responsible even to paying back the government?
If you by mistake happened to press the gas pedal instead of the brake pedal and you ran your truck through the front of the Quick Sak do you think you would be held accountable and be held responsible for the damages? How about if your dog happened to accidentally fall and become wedged against the gas pedal and your truck went through the Quick Sak. Do you think you would be held accountable and have to be responsible for repairs? After all it was just a mistake wasn’t it?
Even the judge stated that Coleman did not qualify to be on the ballot. The problem was that by his statements the law just didn’t carry as much importance as his opinion. When the rule of law is replaced by the rule of personalities we may as well suspend civilization and move back into the jungle and revert to survival of the strongest.
When the law is broken it is never enough to simply catch the lawbreaker but to hold them accountable and insure that they do not benefit from their illegal activity. Allen Barrett
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 7:33:00 PM
You need to learn to type. You have a word in there that shouldn't be.
So Mr. or Mrs perfect you aren't.
Post a Comment
<< Home