[PUBBY]

Judge rules challenge technically flawed; Braddock remains eligible for District 19 An administrative law judge ruled this morning that the challenge to Ms. Paulette Braddock's candidacy was flawed in that the challenge failed to meet the filing requirements in regard to the time of the initial filing. Other issues involving the case were not ruled upon. The judge ruled favorably to the motion on behalf of Ms. Braddock that asked the challenge be dismissed because the challenge was not filed in an timely manner. Listen to the 43 minute hearing including a brief discussion of who pubby is. (I don't think they ever got an answer.) Due to a computer glitch, it will appear in the next post momentarily.

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

Here is the link to the 43 minute audio recording of the official proceedings. Paulding.com was barred from recording the event by the defendant's attorney.

[Wineguy]

Wow, that is even harder to listen to the second time.

[WHITEY]

Wow, This just means that we have really got to go to work and beat the Bushes to get Mrs. Morrison elected

[mrnn]

Man...you did a great job. It must have been intimidating walking into that arena with no real legal background/training but I thought you presented yourself very well.

I think that she just left herself open to another lawsuit with her lawyer stating that those debts belong to her defunct company while you are in possession of paperwork submitted to the SOS declaring otherwise. I think her lawyer was reaching for straws when it came to her theory that one doesn't owe taxes until a judgement is reached.....I think precedent is fairly clear that taxes are due on a specific date if no extension or grievance is filed... judgement or not, you rack up late fees because, well, you're late.

She'll get hers...I think that's fairly clear. She can only walk this tightrope for so long. Thanks again for your efforts.


mrnn

[LPPT]

mrnn, on 11 July 2012 - 09:55 PM, said:

Man...you did a great job. It must have been intimidating walking into that arena with no real legal background/training but I thought you presented yourself very well.

I think that she just left herself open to another lawsuit with her lawyer stating that those debts belong to her defunct company while you are in possession of paperwork submitted to the SOS declaring otherwise. I think her lawyer was reaching for straws when it came to her theory that one doesn't owe taxes until a judgement is reached.....I think precedent is fairly clear that taxes are due on a specific date if no extension or grievance is filed... judgement or not, you rack up late fees because, well, you're late.

She'll get hers...I think that's fairly clear. She can only walk this tightrope for so long. Thanks again for your efforts.


mrnn

A technicality does not absolve someone of wrong doing. It only stops the hearing of the evidence in the court.

[mrnn]

LPPT, on 11 July 2012 - 10:02 PM, said:

A technicality does not absolve someone of wrong doing. It only stops the hearing of the evidence in the court.

I wish the judge hadn't cut off her "commentary"....I'm kind of curious if she was going to speak to the mountain of evidence and the legitimacy of Braddock's candidacy or if she was going to speak more to deadline itself.


mrnn

[Madea]

LPPT, on 11 July 2012 - 10:02 PM, said:

A technicality does not absolve someone of wrong doing. It only stops the hearing of the evidence in the court.

It likewise does not render them guilty by technicality.

[surepip]

mrnn, on 11 July 2012 - 09:55 PM, said:

Man...you did a great job. It must have been intimidating walking into that arena with no real legal background/training but I thought you presented yourself very well.

I think that she just left herself open to another lawsuit with her lawyer stating that those debts belong to her defunct company while you are in possession of paperwork submitted to the SOS declaring otherwise. I think her lawyer was reaching for straws when it came to her theory that one doesn't owe taxes until a judgement is reached.....I think precedent is fairly clear that taxes are due on a specific date if no extension or grievance is filed... judgement or not, you rack up late fees because, well, you're late.

She'll get hers...I think that's fairly clear. She can only walk this tightrope for so long. Thanks again for your efforts.


mrnn

Ms Braddock has repeatedly demonstrated she has no regard for liens, Judgments, or anything else to have her comply with paying her taxes or debts. The Xerox attorneys in their lawsuits against her received a Judgment from the Federal Court Judge July 2011. Braddock's attorney paid his half, and she has yet to pay her half. A "Contempt of Court Hearing" was held May 30, 2012, where the Judge found her to be in CONTEMPT. He issued a new ruling, increasing the Judgment award to the Xerox attorneys by another $5300, has given her 90 days to pay it, and has stated in his ruling if she fails to pay it within the 90 days, the US Marshalls will arrest her and her husband, and incarcerate them "until such time they purge themselves of the contempt".

The IRS lien, which she agreed to a payment plan on 2 days ago, the day prior to her challenge hearing was filed in Paulding County last year as well. And she ignored it until she realized that would disqualify her from running. She did NOT have a payment plan in effect for that $36,000+ in withholding taxes at the time she qualified to run.

The State of Georgia Department of Revenue liens currently listed against Atlanta Marketing Solutions, Inc., have been converted to her name as well, and the paperwork has been executed to have them recorded with the Clerk of the Superior Court in Paulding. She does NOT have a payment plan in effect, pending, or anything else for those $55,000+ in Withholding taxes and Sales & Use taxes.

[feelip]

Madea, on 12 July 2012 - 11:10 AM, said:

It likewise does not render them guilty by technicality.

It was not a question of guilt. Her "guilt" is well documented.

[LPPT]

Madea, on 12 July 2012 - 11:10 AM, said:

It likewise does not render them guilty by technicality.

If not for the technicality it would have gone like this.

Peach Pundit

Quote

NE Georgia Judicial Candidate Ruled Ineligible

July 13, 2012 10:00 am

by Charlie · 2 comments

Athens newsman and radio personality Tim Bryant was kind enough to send us the following, as John Christopher NeSmith as been ruled ineligible to run for Superior Court Judge in the Northern Judicial District.

The challenge to NeSmith’s candidacy was brought in June by a Madison county voter and attorney Lane Fitzpatrick.

In his filing, Fitzpatrick said records showed liens were placed on NeSmith for state and federal taxes totaling more than $111,000 dating back to 2003.

NeSmith had filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy in March 2011.

In the bankruptcy Petition, NeSmith lists tax claims for 2004-2006 federal income taxes, 2009 federal 941 taxes, 2007 and 2010 federal income tax, and 2007 and 2010 state income tax. NeSmith said he believed those taxes had been discharged in the bankruptcy. However, tax liabilities are not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

He also said he had made payment arrangements with the IRS and was making those payments for the tax years 2003 – 2006. In June, NeSmith made a payment of $3,000, which he said satisfied his IRS lien for tax years 2003 – 2006, but the court said none of the liens had been satisfied.

For those that have been told differently, federal taxes can not be not be discharged through a bankruptcy and also some state and local taxes.

[Nice Green]

I don't understand the headline. How did the challenge "win on a technicality" when the story clearly says that it was tossed out?

[Wineguy]

Nice Green, on 13 July 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

I don't understand the headline. How did the challenge "win on a technicality" when the story clearly says that it was tossed out?

I believe it was a typo. Challenge defeated by a technicality is more like it. I received the final verdict from the judge yesterday and it was a full writeup of that the case was dismissed due to a prior ruling that tossed a case where the candidate was challenged at 1:40pm, so my case at 4:57 would also have to be dismissed.

[PUBBY]

Wineguy, on 14 July 2012 - 02:24 AM, said:

I believe it was a typo. Challenge defeated by a technicality is more like it. I received the final verdict from the judge yesterday and it was a full writeup of that the case was dismissed due to a prior ruling that tossed a case where the candidate was challenged at 1:40pm, so my case at 4:57 would also have to be dismissed.

Given the success the legislators have with the courts over technicalities like that, wineguy, expect Paulette to introduce new legislation that expands greatly the actions that legislators are required to follow - I mean some really, really tough laws that everyone would applaud and claim was a true milestone in ethics reform ... the only caveat being that complaints filed under this expansive law much be made in person at the Secretary of states Office at between 12:00 and 1 am only on every fourth February 29th in years ending in an odd number.

You might exclaim, leap years are always even years, at least for the next 10000 years ...

Of course that is an exaggeration in this case but the law being thwarted is the state constitution ... not a statute. It would seem that the rules regarding the timing of complaints would be given significantly less weight when compared to the intent of the founding document. Of course that would be a better world if that were the case.

pubby

[tealtx]

PUBBY, on 14 July 2012 - 11:56 AM, said:

Given the success the legislators have with the courts over technicalities like that, wineguy, expect Paulette to introduce new legislation that expands greatly the actions that legislators are required to follow - I mean some really, really tough laws that everyone would applaud and claim was a true milestone in ethics reform ... the only caveat being that complaints filed under this expansive law much be made in person at the Secretary of states Office at between 12:00 and 1 am only on every fourth February 29th in years ending in an odd number.

You might exclaim, leap years are always even years, at least for the next 10000 years ...

Of course that is an exaggeration in this case but the law being thwarted is the state constitution ... not a statute. It would seem that the rules regarding the timing of complaints would be given significantly less weight when compared to the intent of the founding document. Of course that would be a better world if that were the case.

pubby

Her introduce new legislation ...... ???? Lol...... You mean something other than useless, time-wasting, legislation like her shopping buggy law? We need representation that will speak up for the needs of district 19's citizens. That is never going to happen unless we get an individual who has common sense and the best interest of the district as a priority (not personal debt or being a professional defendant). What a joke district 19 has become