[PUBBY]

Crowe, no show while James demands Braddock resign at Chamber Debate Full debate, unedited Michael James, the school teacher candidate running in District 19, called on incumbent Paulette Braddock to resign citing prior arrests and her current status of being in contempt of Federal court at Tuesday night's Chamber of Commerce sponsored debate. Also making news was Commission Chairman David Austin, who announced a 9.5 million dollar plus expansion of MGI industries due, at least in part, to the county's new effort to create an opportunity zone with enhanced benefits. Making no news - indeed, failing to even attend or participate in the event were the challengers for Post 1 commission seat and Commission Chairman Heidi Leggett and chairman challenger Tony Crowe. The two were said to express regrets when they told the organizer, the Chamber, they were unable to attend. Also not attending was House District 66 candidate Kim Alexander, who is running on the Democratic ticket and neither candidate for House District 67 appeared. When James made his demand that Ms. Braddock resign, he cited an insurance fraud arrest in which she was given pre-trial diversion provided she meet certain demands of the court and another assault arrest, also a decade old, that had been disclosed prior to Ms. Braddock's election in 2010. What was new was James disclosure that Ms. Braddock was in contempt of the United States District Court in a proceeding that occurred just three weeks ago. Paulding.com has learned that Ms. Braddock, who had been sued for some $800,000 plus by Xerox prior to her 2010 election had lost the case and in the process, had been ordered to pay the plaintiff's attorney's fees. In September of 2011, after months of ignoring the court order, and after a former attorney for Ms. Braddock had paid his portion of the judgment, the attorney's started the action to put Ms. Braddock and her husband in contempt. That filing suggested to the court that the only way to obtain compliance with the courts order would be to 'incarcerate' her until the $8700+ judgment is paid. The court held a hearing on the motion that she be held in contempt on May 30th in which Ms. Braddock, who was identified only as as "Paulette Rakestraw" in the May 30, 2012 order, testified and her husband, Jeffrey S. Braddock, was listed as present along with his attorney at the hearing. An affidavit adding another $5000+ on to the attorney's fees owned, was also noted. . The order, however, states the court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff that the defendants (plural) are held in contempt. Attempts to contact the plaintiff's attorney, Greg Crochet, Tuesday were unsuccessful. Ms. Braddock was shooting arrows with her eyes, said Ms. Melissa Morrison, who was positioned between the two on stage. However, Ms. Braddock did not answer Mr. James charges or even acknowledge them during the debate. Paulding.com will edit and place the complete video up probably by Wednesday evening.

Click for RECENT TOPICS click for RECENT TOPICS click for RECENT TOPICS

[Johnny Jacobs]

Ut - Oh, the games that some politicians play...

[Lucky64]

Wow, so he did it! After what we talked about last night and he said that he wasn't singling her out, he sure did call her out tonight.

I can't stand someone slinging mud just to get votes. To me, that means, they like drama, games, and will do anything to get the votes. This was not cool to me. I will NOT be voting for him. If he would have just talked about what he would do if elected and how he would correct things, Then he would have kept my attention. He just lost a voter.

[Glassdogs]

Johnny Jacobs, on 19 June 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

Ut - Oh, the games that some politicians play...

Game? What game do you think is being played?

[Madea]

He called her out and then pretty much agreed with everything she's done under the Gold Dome, as did Mrs. Morrison. Your "news report" fails to mention that. Go figure. Also, no reporting on how poorly Mrs. Morrison performed tonight. And I found her "as a former state employee I don't like that at all" quite a gaffe.

[Glassdogs]

Lucky64, on 19 June 2012 - 11:14 PM, said:

Wow, so he did it! After what we talked about last night and he said that he wasn't singling her out, he sure did call her out tonight.

I can't stand someone slinging mud just to get votes. To me, that means, they like drama, games, and will do anything to get the votes. This was not cool to me. I will NOT be voting for him. If he would have just talked about what he would do if elected and how he would correct things, Then he would have kept my attention. He just lost a voter.

Just WOW. there's a big difference between spreading rumor and innuendo and having court documents to make a point. I'm no fan of Mr. James for other reasons, but his exposure of Paulette's apparent disdain of court orders is pertinent to an informed electorate. I don't call that mud slinging.

The problem with him talking about what he would do if elected is that his "platform", (if that's what you want to call it) as displayed here on pCom in some of his ads advocates some pretty harsh penalties for criminals. Now, the argument isn't about whether a child molester deserves the death penalty, but whether there aren't other battles to fight. Nobody with a lick of pragmatic common sense would give any such legislation a Chinaman's chance of passage, muchless withstanding all the court battles that would be sure to come, assuming that it would ever get to a vote in the Legislature and make it to the Governor's desk. I know Mr. James has some pretty powerful convictions about issues in that arena. But, personally, I want a representative that will concentrate on this District 19, not grandstanding all over the state and wasting time and money on some nonsensical personal agenda.

We have an incumbent that has huge legal problems. We have a candidate who seems all confused about illegals and DREAM, And we have another candidate that wants to go off on some tangents. I can't remember a poorer slate in my 20+ years of living in Paulding. Maybe we can mount a write in campaign?

[PUBBY]

Madea:

I'm hitting the highlights, not going into the detail of the debate. Indeed, I will spend many hours editing the entire thing so those who were not there don't have to depend on you, me or anyone; they'll be able to see it.

The real news was not how Ms. Morrison did nor was it whether Bill Carruth and Bob Snelling agree on tax policy or that David Carmichael did a great job. What was news was the $9.5 million project at MG International, the failure of Tony Crowe and Heidi Leggett to appear and Michael James pointing to Paulette Braddock's legal issues and demanding she resign.

The detail will be in the entire video for everyone to judge, spin, or lie about as they wish.

pubby

[Madea]

I just found his opening grandstanding remarks quite humorous in light of his remaining remarks.

[Lucky64]

Glassdogs, on 19 June 2012 - 11:44 PM, said:

Just WOW. there's a big difference between spreading rumor and innuendo and having court documents to make a point. I'm no fan of Mr. James for other reasons, but his exposure of Paulette's apparent disdain of court orders is pertinent to an informed electorate. I don't call that mud slinging.

The problem with him talking about what he would do if elected is that his "platform", (if that's what you want to call it) as displayed here on pCom in some of his ads advocates some pretty harsh penalties for criminals. Now, the argument isn't about whether a child molester deserves the death penalty, but whether there aren't other battles to fight. Nobody with a lick of pragmatic common sense would give any such legislation a Chinaman's chance of passage, muchless withstanding all the court battles that would be sure to come, assuming that it would ever get to a vote in the Legislature and make it to the Governor's desk. I know Mr. James has some pretty powerful convictions about issues in that arena. But, personally, I want a representative that will concentrate on this District 19, not grandstanding all over the state and wasting time and money on some nonsensical personal agenda.

We have an incumbent that has huge legal problems. We have a candidate who seems all confused about illegals and DREAM, And we have another candidate that wants to go off on some tangents. I can't remember a poorer slate in my 20+ years of living in Paulding. Maybe we can mount a write in campaign?

My meaning is, we knew this, I'm sure plenty of people in the County knows this (well people that do their homework and vote) and he was just causing drama and what not. That was my point. I agree with most of what you said, but he does have a personal vandeta. I won't vote for someone who has to resume to personal attacks.

[Glassdogs]

Lucky64, on 19 June 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

My meaning is, we knew this, I'm sure plenty of people in the County knows this (well people that do their homework and vote) and he was just causing drama and what not. That was my point. I agree with most of what you said, but he does have a personal vandeta. I won't vote for someone who has to resume to personal attacks.

I suspected there was an issue. I had no idea it was the better part of a million dollars worth of a problem.

I don't like any one of the three of them. Why is it ALWAYS having to pick the lesser of the evils?

[mrnn]

Lucky64, on 19 June 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

My meaning is, we knew this, I'm sure plenty of people in the County knows this (well people that do their homework and vote) and he was just causing drama and what not. That was my point. I agree with most of what you said, but he does have a personal vandeta. I won't vote for someone who has to resume to personal attacks.

If she was just found in contempt less than 3 weeks ago, I have a feeling a lot of people didn't know that...including myself. Bravo to Mr. James for calling her out....she shouldn't be in a legislative position when she can't even follow the laws she's been elected to create.


mrnn

[Animal]

Lucky64, on 19 June 2012 - 11:14 PM, said:

Wow, so he did it! After what we talked about last night and he said that he wasn't singling her out, he sure did call her out tonight.

I can't stand someone slinging mud just to get votes. To me, that means, they like drama, games, and will do anything to get the votes. This was not cool to me. I will NOT be voting for him. If he would have just talked about what he would do if elected and how he would correct things, Then he would have kept my attention. He just lost a voter.

Is it slinging mud when it is the truth?and seriously people someone like her shouldn't be running.

[Epiphany]

PUBBY, on 19 June 2012 - 11:47 PM, said:

Madea:

I'm hitting the highlights, not going into the detail of the debate. Indeed, I will spend many hours editing the entire thing so those who were not there don't have to depend on you, me or anyone; they'll be able to see it.

The real news was not how Ms. Morrison did nor was it whether Bill Carruth and Bob Snelling agree on tax policy or that David Carmichael did a great job. What was news was the $9.5 million project at MG International, the failure of Tony Crowe and Heidi Leggett to appear and Michael James pointing to Paulette Braddock's legal issues and demanding she resign.

The detail will be in the entire video for everyone to judge, spin, or lie about as they wish.

pubby

Hmmm, I seem to recall that when Austin was to debate Shearin a few years ago, Pubby you said something along the line of "Austin didn't show b/c he knew it would be a set-up and a blood bath..." So it was ok for Austin, but not Crowe or Legget?

POT-KETTLE-BLACK?

Must search old forums and see if I can find the link (unless of course, the post went *poof*, as things are known to do on p.com...)

[Beach Bum]

mrnn, on 20 June 2012 - 12:00 AM, said:

If she was just found in contempt less than 3 weeks ago, I have a feeling a lot of people didn't know that...including myself. Bravo to Mr. James for calling her out....she shouldn't be in a legislative position when she can't even follow the laws she's been elected to create.


mrnn

EXACTLY!!! I truly don't understand how people can just look over these facts about Paulette. She is a nice person but, a nice person who owes over $37,000.00 in delinquent taxes, has a substantial $800,000 plus judgment against her, was found in contempt of court, etc.

I personally just couldn't, with a clear conscience, attempt to represent thousands of people if I had these type issues, but that's just me.........

[TwoKidCircus]

Lucky64, on 19 June 2012 - 11:14 PM, said:

Wow, so he did it! After what we talked about last night and he said that he wasn't singling her out, he sure did call her out tonight.

I can't stand someone slinging mud just to get votes. To me, that means, they like drama, games, and will do anything to get the votes. This was not cool to me. I will NOT be voting for him. If he would have just talked about what he would do if elected and how he would correct things, Then he would have kept my attention. He just lost a voter.

Oh, I agree. It tells me that he can't win on merit.

[Lady Raider]

can someone tell me (that was there) exactly what the $9.5 million project at MG International is about? I know someone who works there, and they had told me that David was there not to long ago, so i guess this is the reason why.. so what is the $9.5 million project at MG International?

[Lucky64]

Beach Bum, on 20 June 2012 - 07:02 AM, said:

EXACTLY!!! I truly don't understand how people can just look over these facts about Paulette. She is a nice person but, a nice person who owes over $37,000.00 in delinquent taxes, has a substantial $800,000 plus judgment against her, was found in contempt of court, etc.

I personally just couldn't, with a clear conscience, attempt to represent thousands of people if I had these type issues, but that's just me.........

I'm not looking over it. Paulette needs to be out of there. That goes without saying. I'm talking about how he is so focused on attacking his opponets instead of focusing on the issue's.


Glassdog, I agree!

[lowrider]

I didn't know about this until the "mud slinger" reported it. And I say good for him for bringing it out.

Politics is just nasty.



What was new was James disclosure that Ms. Braddock was in contempt of the United States District Court in a proceeding that occurred just three weeks ago.

Paulding.com has learned that Ms. Braddock, who had been sued for some $800,000 plus by Xerox prior to her 2010 election had lost the case and in the process, had been ordered to pay the plaintiff's attorney's fees. In September of 2011, after months of ignoring the court order, and after a former attorney for Ms. Braddock had paid his portion of the judgment, the attorney's started the action to put Ms. Braddock and her husband in contempt. That filing suggested to the court that the only way to obtain compliance with the courts order would be to 'incarcerate' her until the $8700+ judgment is paid.

The court held a hearing on the motion that she be held in contempt on May 30th in which Ms. Braddock, who was identified only as as "Paulette Rakestraw" in the May 30, 2012 order, testified and her husband, Jeffrey S. Braddock, was listed as present along with his attorney at the hearing. An affidavit adding another $5000+ on to the attorney's fees owned, was also noted.

. The order, however, states the court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff that the defendants (plural) are held in contempt. Attempts to contact the plaintiff's attorney, Greg Crochet, Tuesday were unsuccessful.

[feelip]

Lucky64, on 20 June 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

I'm not looking over it. Paulette needs to be out of there. That goes without saying. I'm talking about how he is so focused on attacking his opponets instead of focusing on the issue's.


Glassdog, I agree!

I would say that a lawbreaker trying to be elected as a lawmaker is a serious issue. But that's just me.

[didisaythatoutloud]

PUBBY, on 19 June 2012 - 11:47 PM, said:

Madea:

I'm hitting the highlights, not going into the detail of the debate. Indeed, I will spend many hours editing the entire thing so those who were not there don't have to depend on you, me or anyone; they'll be able to see it.


The real news was not how Ms. Morrison did nor was it whether Bill Carruth and Bob Snelling agree on tax policy or that David Carmichael did a great job. What was news was the $9.5 million project at MG International, the failure of Tony Crowe and Heidi Leggett to appear and Michael James pointing to Paulette Braddock's legal issues and demanding she resign.


The detail will be in the entire video for everyone to judge, spin, or lie about as they wish.


pubby

****Having attended last night's debate, I find this video of Mr. James' attack deplorable. Why not show Mr. Carmicheal's wonderful, heartfelt, intelligent responses? This video makes this county look just like everyone wants us to look, a bunch of hillbillies.*****

****Part of the REAL news WAS how horrible Ms. Morrison presented herself and how Mrs. Braddock DECLINED to acknowledge the attack. I went in not knowing who I would vote for in some of the races, and now know who I will NOT vote for. Why not show Mr. Carruth answering the ethics of receiving gifts? That was monumentally hilarious.******

*****Rarely do I visit this site anymore as it has become a place for a handful of obviously bored house wives/retired men and folks that have nothing more to do other than gloat on people's hardships. Pubby, you are just as quilty; I have lost whatever respect I once had after reading your interjections into the current local political posts. Most of us could care less what your opinions are. By posting this goofy clip, you have positioned yourself into a lump with all the other single track, close minded spectators in the lives of some of our community who bare ALL to help.*******

Susan Breen(****my responses)

This post has been edited by Boss Hogg: 20 June 2012 - 09:53 AM
Reason for edit: Edited for clarity of responses

[NewsJunky]

feelip, on 20 June 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

I would say that a lawbreaker trying to be elected as a lawmaker is a serious issue. But that's just me.

Some folks seem to think so when the one in the hot seat was Bill Carruth. Wonder if the same folks have a problem with this news? I have no clue if any of this is true. Waiting for all of the details.

[Lucky64]

feelip, on 20 June 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

I would say that a lawbreaker trying to be elected as a lawmaker is a serious issue. But that's just me.

Yes, that is a big issue, I agree. I'm going to give up here, no one is really understanding on what I'm saying. It's all good.

I won't vote for someone who has to resort to the kind of behavior that was shown in the video. That's just me.

Paulette is a crocked as they come and needs to get out of there. Do the research on her concerning who is on the BOE.

[feelip]

NewsJunky, on 20 June 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

Some folks seem to think so when the one in the hot seat was Bill Carruth. Wonder if the same folks have a problem with this news? I have no clue if any of this is true. Waiting for all of the details.

People like this scare the heck out of me. They have no conscious. Reminds me of the former speaker and the former BOC Chairman. I swear, I could NOT sleep at night after doing some of the things they did. And they will get in front of a group of people and just smile and act like nothing has happened.

There are some really screwed up people in Paulding County. The people that know about these politicians and continue to support them are even more screwed up than the politicians themselves.

[Lucky64]

feelip, on 20 June 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

People like this scare the heck out of me. They have no conscious. Reminds me of the former speaker and the former BOC Chairman. I swear, I could NOT sleep at night after doing some of the things they did. And they will get in front of a group of people and just smile and act like nothing has happened.

There are some really screwed up people in Paulding County. The people that know about these politicians and continue to support them are even more screwed up than the politicians themselves.

I hope that wasn't to me. I'm not voting for these crazy arse people. And another thing, I can't stand it (like another poster said) when I have to pick the less of 2 evils. Like for the commish, I don't care for neither one of them but I will still have to pick one. House, DON'T care for any of them, but I still have to pick one. Well, I take that back, I'm leaning towards Morrison.

[Madea]

Just for the record, I don't think it's fair to say Crowe and Leggett were "no shows". The moderator clearly indicated that they were invited and had prior committments, but it wasn't that they were scheduled to be there and simply didn't show.

[feelip]

Lucky64, on 20 June 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

I hope that wasn't to me. I'm not voting for these crazy arse people. And another thing, I can't stand it (like another poster said) when I have to pick the less of 2 evils. Like for the commish, I don't care for neither one of them but I will still have to pick one. House, DON'T care for any of them, but I still have to pick one. Well, I take that back, I'm leaning towards Morrison.

It wasn't. One thing about me, I am NOT subtle or passive aggressive.

[Lucky64]

feelip, on 20 June 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

It wasn't. One thing about me, I am NOT subtle or passive aggressive.

Well, that's true!!!

[lowrider]

feelip, on 20 June 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

It wasn't. One thing about me, I am NOT subtle or passive aggressive.

And that's a good thing.

[feelip]

Madea, on 20 June 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

Just for the record, I don't think it's fair to say Crowe and Leggett were "no shows". The moderator clearly indicated that they were invited and had prior committments, but it wasn't that they were scheduled to be there and simply didn't show.

If my memory serves me correctly Mr. Crowe always had prior commitments when there was a public speaking event during the last election.

I understand. Of all the things I do, I hate speaking to a large group of people the most. But that is part of the job he is seeking. He should probably give it a shot.

[WHITEY]

I do not feel as if this was mudslinging by Mr. James.
Facts of a candidate’s inability to manage their personal finances, and abide by judgments made against them are germane to their ability to govern.
Failure to pay federal taxes should in itself disqualify Mrs. Braddock from being eligible to even qualify to run for this seat
Mr. James made this statement in an open forum while looking directly at Mrs. Braddock and she chose to ignore this issue during the debate.
I am amazed by some of the posters here who still support Mrs. Braddock and really lambasted the previous incumbent the past election for his indiscretions.
This disclosure of facts did not come in a mailer a few days before the election like Bill Heath did to Mason Round tree with no chance of rebuttal before the election.
Mrs. Braddock had at least two opportunities during this debate to refute these allegations and chose not to respond.
Time for a change in District 19

[Ugadawgs98]

I could find more upstanding candidates for many of our local races who are currently flipping burgers. They all have things they are hiding or minimizing.

[PUBBY]

Madea, on 20 June 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

Just for the record, I don't think it's fair to say Crowe and Leggett were "no shows". The moderator clearly indicated that they were invited and had prior committments, but it wasn't that they were scheduled to be there and simply didn't show.

The question is whether they put their appearance at this venue as a high priority or a low priority.

And there are differences in commitments. If the notice were, "candidate X could not attend as his seven year old daughter was hit by a car this afternoon and her father has gone to be at her side as she undergoes radical surgery that might help her learn to walk again. Lets all pause for a moment of prayer to help this child recover," ... we all would have been more than forgiving about the absence.

Now if the commitment were: "I promised my old dog Sandy months ago that I'll watch TV with him on this very night and I can't break that promise and they're playing a rerun of my favorite movie, Twelve angry men so you see there is no way I could come" ... wouldn't leave me with much compassion.

They could have even come back with the statement - a statement - that they will not attend because they feel the debate, from their perspective, is little more than a trap designed to make them look bad engineered by the chamber who is in cahoots with the opponent ... and that they'd rather not be ambushed. That justification could have left themselves with a better outcome than the my dog is sick excuse.

But then, they didn't say. Heck, I suppose I'd have missed the debate myself if, for instance, I was invited to the White House for a beer and conversation.

pubby

[Lady Raider]

can someone tell me (that was there) exactly what the $9.5 million project at MG International is about? I know someone who works there, and they had told me that David was there not to long ago, so i guess this is the reason why.. so what is the $9.5 million project at MG International?

[mysterious]

Lady Raider, on 20 June 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

can someone tell me (that was there) exactly what the $9.5 million project at MG International is about? I know someone who works there, and they had told me that David was there not to long ago, so i guess this is the reason why.. so what is the $9.5 million project at MG International?

I am interested in that as well.
And is MGI not a private company?
Is the county footing some of the bill for the expansion?

[Glassdogs]

PUBBY, on 20 June 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

But then, they didn't say. Heck, I suppose I'd have missed the debate myself if, for instance, I was invited to the White House for a beer and conversation.

pubby

Are you behind all that Fast and Furious coverup?

[Palm Trees Rock]

Good for him!! Like I said he or Morrison would both be a better rep for our county!

[WHITEY]

I was looking forward to meeting the candidates for post 1 Commisioner,since only one has showed,I guess I will have to make a decision based on this debate?

[SOLO]

mysterious, on 20 June 2012 - 12:26 PM, said:

I am interested in that as well.
And is MGI not a private company?
Is the county footing some of the bill for the expansion?

M G I in a privately owned Japanese Company

[Lady Raider]

SOLO, on 20 June 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

M G I in a privately owned Japanese Company

thanks solo I was just about to say that...

[Wineguy]

Ok, I have a new question based on what I have heard and seen from last night about the D19 race.

Who came up with these questions for last night? The questions were directly aimed at information that Paulette knows about but yet are not in any way the questions that the majority of the people of District 19 care about. Paulette had a piece of paper with her response pre written in reply to all of the questions which she read directly from, while the other two candidates were not given the questions before hand and were just given a vague idea of what might be discussed.

Paulette was on the Zero Base Budget committee and the red tape committee and surprise surprise that was the bases of the first question. The second question is about reducing regulation on small business which does apply to a small portion of the constituents but when combined with the other two questions does not encompass what we wanted to hear about from the candidates in one of the only times we will have them all in the same place.

In what way does Zero base Budgeting have any major impact on the local people and government compared to what we would really like to focus on. And as for the second question about small business regulations, those are almost all Federally mandated or come from agencies such as OSHA, very little is impacted by the State House.

Am I the only person that felt that the questions were directly aimed to help Paulette out and give her an upper hand over the other two in the race?

This post has been edited by Wineguy: 11 July 2012 - 08:33 PM