Pappas Legal Challenge to Return? Wha!?!
The Santa Barbara News-Press covered the actual final day of former-Supervisor candidate Steve Pappas legal case against Supervisor Doreen Farr. Although I felt it was a little long on supportive statements from the Pappas camp -- there was a key set of quotes from Pappas fan and Santa Ynez Valley Journal 's Nancy Crawford-Hall:
Does this mean this spurious litigation is not settled? or does it mean we should assume any election that involves UCSB and Isla Vista will be targeted by Ms. Crawfor-Hall? Did she think she set some sort of precedent? What a waste of money on her part. It's nice some people have money to burn in a recession but the public suffers too as there are definitely costs associated with the defense.
In her newspaper column on Thursday, Mrs. Crawford-Hall essentially said, "It's not over."
"I can't say that anyone was terribly surprised at the outcome of this first phase of the pursuit of legitimacy," wrote Mrs. Crawford-Hall, who attended almost every day of the proceedings. "It seemed fairly evident even before the trial began that the court was not inclined to give much credence to the Pappas attorneys, while all manner of latitude was afforded the opposition.
It was a bit mind-boggling to see the group of people whose names you knew but weren't aware of, just how cozy they all were. I guess it should not be a surprise as this election effort has been perfected probably by the same group over many years."
She added that it was good to see that the "same script has been followed and now that that has been discovered, future litigation will have an easier time to expose it."
Does this mean this spurious litigation is not settled? or does it mean we should assume any election that involves UCSB and Isla Vista will be targeted by Ms. Crawfor-Hall? Did she think she set some sort of precedent? What a waste of money on her part. It's nice some people have money to burn in a recession but the public suffers too as there are definitely costs associated with the defense.
Labels: Doreen Farr, Nancy Crawford-Hall, Steve Pappas
posted by Sara De la Guerra | 3/29/2009 08:51:00 AM
Our Community Guidelines ask that you use the Blogger/Open ID login or the
more private Name/URL option when making comments. Comments using "Anonymous" will not be published. For more info, see choosing an identity.
19 Comments:
It reads to me that she intends to contest future 3rd District elections.... OR it could be that perhaps she hates Doreen Farr enough to carry on this one. (Maybe she's teaming up with the IV doc. Bearman in the hatred division.)
I find it unfortunate that the judge did not find that Farr is due attorney fees from Pappas. Especially in the light of Crawford-Hall's comments, there need to be real and expensive consequences for filing spurious and frivolous law suits. Crawford-Hall does not like that the politics of Santa Barbara County is affected by university students. Well, this is the United States of America and that is just the way it is and she needs to just get over it and stop trying disenfranchise voters. Also, I have news for Mrs. Crawford-Hall. Soon there will be 5,000 more voting students at the Campus and in Isla Vista. Read 'em and weep.
Taking a Nancy Crawford Hall editorial seriously? Wha!?!
The Isla Vista vote has always been problematic.
One person/one vote and all that, but I can see reason for resentment when a large group of transient students who don't own property or pay taxes can influence the outcome of certain local elections, whose full-time residents are left to pick up the consequences.
Constitutionally unsound to feel that way I know, but this last election with ACORN and overzealous young Obama supporters moving into swing vote areas with the stated intent they wanted to skew the vote this past election, there is and was reason to be concerned about the Isla Vista vote.
If Crawford-Hall has the resources to fight this and this fight leads to win-lose-draw over the Isla Vista vote, then all will be well-served.
And even with this not even being an area in contention for Obama, he moved in a massive call center because he didn't want to just win, he wanted to rack up a mandate. No one can deny all the voter registration abuses that were conducted in his name this last year. Where there is smoke, there is often fire.
Oh My, I deny that there were "voter registration abuses." There is no such thing. Every eligible person should be allowed to vote regardless of the bureaucratic obstacles put up to keep the rich and landed in control of government. Your snide allusion to those sub-citizens that do not own property or pay taxes make me wonder if we should bring back the guillotine. Lucky for those who love democracy, Obama won.
Except, of course, if all those college students were voting for Republicans. Then they would be patriots will full voting rights under the court-tested law and all that, and anyone hinting that those college students should not vote where they reside would be called a Socialist.
Hypocrisy is as Hypocrisy does yet again.
Doesn't matter if they vote Republican or Democratic.
Didn't like them when they voted for Bush and don't like them voting for Obama either. They were part of the Gingrich vote in one election big time, so they also have a record of conservative voting in Isla Vista. Who would have guessed.
But it is not their partisanship, nor their votes on larger issues; it is their block vote and lack of long-term commitment to their local issue votes that is upsetting. On local issues; not so much for statewide or national ones. And County Sup is local.
Silly analogy to think of guillotines. Get a grip. Exaggeration does not help the underlying issues. And for a court to sort it out finally, will be a good thing. Win, lose or draw.
If there are abuses, then out them. And if not, then we all have to learn to finally live and love these pesky student voters. Huzzah, yes it is good they at least vote. But if there are in fact abuses as suspected by many, it will be good to have a thorough and final hearing about all the possibilities.
Democracy demands nothing less. No one is on a witchhunt with his. Call off the dragoons.
You'd think if there was abuse in IV that $50,000 of Crawford-Hall money and the Pappas legal team could have documented it.
There was no smoke. There was no fire. There was only a big old nothing sandwich when Pappas faced `show time' in court.
What did they have? One young woman who said a card was not in her handwriting? No evidence that two votes were recorded for her, or that her vote was misrecorded?
Given what Pappas promised he'd show, frankly, he is now a laughing stock. And so is Crawford-Hall.
UCSB students have been in the Third District since 1954. Their interests are entirely legitimate, and on the whole, they provide funds that help subsidize the rest of the County. Seems to me that Pappas has antagonized them and they'll only get more active now.
Crawford-Hall's use of the dark, thieving and Arab "Ali Baba" fable as well as the Iraqi "purple finger" talking point is concerning to me. It speaks to my paranoid side that thinks this is yet another far-right stealthy campaign.
Still, trying to find some credibility in Crawford-Halls editorial I would like to know if anyone knows who is this "as I shall call Ali Baba" paid for by Farr's campaign. Paid to do what, exactly? Crawford-Hall is clearly is attempting to make serious accusations but I can't figure out exactly what. Can anyone explain? Here is the link to the Crawfor-Hall editorial;
>http://www.syvjournal.com/archive/7/13/4104/
Well, Acorn and Obots Oh My, the court did sort it out and found absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any registration abuses. Since when do we have to "learn to love" the right to vote? I have always been under the impression that it is the foundation of democracy. I usually try to avoid hyperbole, but talk of stealing people's votes raises my ire.
So much litigation going on...is all this just make work part coming out of the government's stimulus package?
Crawford-Hall has an agenda that includes an exceptional fear of anything with the Dem label - particularly when it comes to private property rights.
She probably believes, and is probably right, that she could pull the strings of puppet-Pappas were he to be elected. Fortunately for county citizens, he wasn't. He lacks experience big time, and now with this frivolous court pursuit, he is a joke.
It's clear she isn't rational, is even bizarre at times, but then, who says she has to be rational?
Her health factors into her stability...she needs to get her diabetes under control and enjoy life!
Has Crawford-Hall used the word "cabal" yet?
Re Crawford-Hall's use of "'Ali Baba' (and the forty thieves?)" ...
I see it as more than a bit racist to express her unhappiness in this way when Ahmed Ali-Bob worked for Doreen Farr's campaign. If his name was Bob Brown would Crawford-Hall have made the comment?
Eckerman, you know a trial court ruling is just the first step in the legal process. You are inaccurate if you demand this case stop at the lowest court. That would be un-American. Carry on, it is the right thing to do.
Ah Owem Marshall, but now the entire cost will be on Pappas (or Crawford-Hall) for any hopeless appeal. It will take years and pay for some lawyer's children to go to college (maybe the children will become liberals). I suggest that Pappas and Crawford-Hall go for it and spend a fortune trying to steal people's votes (and paying for some lawyer's kid's college education). Or Pappas and Crawford-Hall could realize that elections are won by sound argument, effective campaigning, and getting the most votes, and not try to win by legal trickery.
What's funny/concerning: if Crawford-Hall didn't have a ton of money, her voice would be ignored like so many other ignorant/misinformed rants. If she didn't own a newspaper, these columns would probably be blog posts and no one would care, dismissing them as feeble ramblings.
Thanks LydiaOLydia. Now I understand that Crawford-Hall's Ali Baba is a "community organizer" who assisted voters to register and "who was apparently paid $3,000 by Doreen Farr or her campaign for said services."
This one bit of evidence provided by Crawford-Hall indicates wide-spread fraud? Crawford-Hall wants to reveal to us a secret, that the court only allowed this one incident as evidence. But haven't we heard about this one incident already? Wouldn't Crawford-Hall want to spill the details of all the other evidence that the court did not allow if she wanted to convince the readers to reach her "logical conclusion" of "fraud."
Vote for Pappas
He's not near as looney as many people think I am.
Post a Comment
<< Home