Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 95

Thread: Dion Watkins Residency and The IDIOTS COMPLAINING!!!!

  1. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    74
    Ahhh, now he just recently moved here.
    Listing a Washington Street address, he has been registered to vote continuously in Lackawanna at least since 2002, according to Erie County Board of Elections records.

    Look, I can copy and paste too.

  2. #32
    Member mnb811's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Boston formerly Lackawanna
    Posts
    2,613
    Typical Lackawanna bs from you. Watkins lives in Lackawanna period. Your just a bunch of losers who can't stand being beat legimately so you make up sh*t. Show us some proof then REFUTE anything I put out there about them. Put up or shut up. PS I don't mean his property stats in Hamburg it's ok to own property elsewhere. Furthermore If he was lying from the get go why are you waiting till after the primary to bring it out? Now I see you were trying to play for the votes in November but instead you got kicked in the nuts in September. Nice.

  3. #33
    Member mnb811's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Boston formerly Lackawanna
    Posts
    2,613
    Quote Originally Posted by blahblahblah View Post
    Ahhh, now he just recently moved here.
    Listing a Washington Street address, he has been registered to vote continuously in Lackawanna at least since 2002, according to Erie County Board of Elections records.

    Look, I can copy and paste too.
    Please please go this route because 1/4 the City of Lackawanna that votes does the same thing!!! I can name them if you want me to. That should cost Geoff his one vote lead easily!!!!

  4. #34
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    74
    Hit a nerve, did I? LoL So his house in Hamburg is his summer cottage? LoL

  5. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    74
    Oh so now Watkins can cheat because 1/4 of Lackawanna does?!?! You said it, not me. LoL

  6. #36
    Member mnb811's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Boston formerly Lackawanna
    Posts
    2,613
    I said he lives in Lackawanna and just happens to own a house in Hamburg and so does Tommy Love apparently. Just like I own a house in Lackawanna and live in Boston. Moron. Where's the proof that he doesn't live in Lackawanna? Were still waiting tick...tock..tick..tock.

  7. #37
    Member mnb811's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Boston formerly Lackawanna
    Posts
    2,613
    Running for Office
    Requirements to Hold Office

    OFFICE CITIZENSHIP AGE RESIDENCY STATUTE
    President of the United States Born a citizen 35 years 14 years in country United States Constitution Art. II § 1
    United States Senator Citizen 9 years 30 years Resident of state when elected United States Constitution Art. I §3
    NYS Governor/ Lt. Governor
    Attorney General
    Comptroller Citizen 30 years Resident of state 5 years immediately preceding election New York State Constitution Art. IV § 2 and Art. V § 1
    Representative in Congress Citizen 7 years 25 years Resident of state when elected United States Constitution Art. I §2
    New York State Senator
    New York State Assembly Citizen 18 years Resident of state for 5 years and resident of district for 12 months immediately preceding election. (In a redistricting year, may be a resident of county for 12 months immediately preceding the election.) New York State Constitution Art. III § 7
    City of Lackawanna rules for office of Mayor:
    [Amended 8-20-1984 by L.L. No. 3-1984; 4-18-1988 by L.L. No. 3-1988; at general election 11-8-1984]
    The Mayor shall be elected by voters of the City at large to serve for a term of four years beginning January 1 next following his or her election, and shall not be eligible to serve more than two consecutive terms. He or she shall be a resident and registered voter of the City. The Mayor shall be elected at the general election in the year 1963 and every four years thereafter. The Mayor shall receive such compensation as fixed by ordinance adopted by the City at any time, provided, however, that the compensation of the Mayor shall not be diminished during his or her term of office.


    Read this and try to comprehend it: ( Facts are though he is already a resident)


    Tuesday, July 05, 2011
    Statutory residency requirement to serve in elective office held constitutional
    Statutory residency requirement to serve in elective office held constitutional
    Matter of Walsh v Katz, 2011 NY Slip Op 04545, Court of Appeals


    The relevant statute providing for the election of a town justice for Fisher's Island, Suffolk County, provides, in relevant part, for "… one town justice who shall reside upon Fisher's island in said town … such town justice residing upon Fisher's island shall, in addition to his duties as town justice, serve as a member of the Southold town board."

    In July 2009, Daniel C. Ross, a resident of Southold but not a resident of Fisher's Island, filed a petition designating himself a candidate in the September 2009 primary election for the nomination of the Democratic Party as its candidate for the Fisher's Island town justice/town board member seat.


    Arthur J. Walsh and Nina J. Schmid — residents of Fisher's Island — filed objections to Ross’s designating petition, alleging that it was invalid because Ross did not meet the residency requirement.


    The Board of Elections denied the objections and upheld the designating petition whereupon Walsh and Schmid initiated a lawsuit seeking to prohibit the BOE from placing Ross's name on the ballot. Ross counterclaimed and, in effect, cross-petitioned to validate the designating petition, challenging, among other things, the constitutionality of the residency requirement.


    Subsequently the Appellate Division upheld the constitutionality of the statute on equal protection grounds (66 AD3d 1052) holding that a rational basis standard was applicable, and that a rational basis exists to support the Legislature's determination that the fifth town justice/town board member for Southold should be a resident of Fisher's Island.*


    Although Ross lost the November 2009 general election, the Court of Appeals said that this action presents a live controversy. Supreme Court converted and continued Ross's constitutional claims as a declaratory judgment action, and the Appellate Division decided the constitutional issues. Though no longer a candidate, Ross is a voter who claims that his right to vote is being unconstitutionally burdened.


    The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s ruling, holding that the Fisher's Island residency requirement satisfies the rational basis test, explaining that in considering an equal protection challenge to a state election law a court must weigh "the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate" against "the precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule," taking into consideration "the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff's rights."


    The direct impact of the Fisher's Island residency requirement is not on one's right to vote, but on an individual's right to be a candidate for public office. The residency requirement here challenged did not require a candidate to be a resident of Fisher's Island prior to commencement of his or her term of office. In other words, said the court, “the winner of the town justice/town board position does not need to establish residency on Fisher's Island until the beginning of his/her term, and must only retain that residency for the duration of the term.”


    Accordingly, any Town of Southold, Suffolk County resident who would otherwise be eligible to run for political office may run for the Fisher's Island seat.


    The Court of Appeals also noted that the United States Supreme Court stated a “basic teaching of representative government … that elected officials represent all of those who elect them, and not merely those who are their neighbors," citing Dusch (387 US 112, Dallas County, Alabama v Reese (421 US 477) and Fortson v Dorsey, 379 US 433.


    As the Fisher's Island seat is subject to a town-wide vote, the individual elected to fill the seat represents the entire town, not just the residents of Fishers Island. Accordingly, said the court, “Ross's contention that the residency requirement gives the people of Fishers Island a permanent advantage of greater representation is unavailing.”


    * With respect to Supreme Court's ruling that the prevailing candidate need not abide by the residency requirement until 30 days after beginning his or her term of office, the Appellate Division modified Supreme Court's order by holding that, in this instance January 1, 2010, was the appropriate date by which a candidate had to meet the residency requirement.


    The facts are he is a registered voter and resident before the PRIMARY. Still want to get your nonsense in?
    Last edited by mnb811; September 19th, 2011 at 12:05 PM.

  8. #38
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    74
    You kill me, lol. You can copy and paste all the stuff you want. Bottom line is Watkin's DOESN'T live in Lackawanna!

  9. #39
    Member mnb811's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Boston formerly Lackawanna
    Posts
    2,613
    Show us the proof! You can run your mouth but your words mean nothing with out proof! 2 words for you PROVE IT!

  10. #40
    Member mnb811's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Boston formerly Lackawanna
    Posts
    2,613
    tick...tock...tick...tock yeah that's what we thought!

  11. #41
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    74
    Why is it when someone is wrong and backed into a corner, the first thing they yell is "prove it!"?

  12. #42
    Tony Fracasso - Admin
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Buffalo, New York, United States
    Posts
    64,947
    blaublaublau
    Again, everything you have mentioned, HE did not do! The church did! He does nothing but take taxpayers money form the school district and then goes to his home in Hamburg where he lives. He doesn't even have the integrity to be honest and admit he doesn't live in Lackawanna.

    Quote Originally Posted by mnb811 View Post
    And Geoff can't pay his taxes along with the School Board President Makeyenko and they both live in Lackawanna so YOUR point is????
    Listen to the both of you two. TELL BOTH OF THEM TO GO AWAY. You have one that doesn't live in the community he's running for and the other can't keep up with their taxes. YOU want these type of people making decisions that will effect the futures of the kids in your community?

    It's worse than I thought

  13. #43
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    74
    Sadly, you are right.

  14. #44
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    129
    o.k., geoff is out, dion is out. the only ones left are mckusker and seres. mckusker hands down!

  15. #45
    Tony Fracasso - Admin
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Buffalo, New York, United States
    Posts
    64,947
    Quote Originally Posted by blahblahblah View Post
    Sadly, you are right.
    Being good hearted doesn't cut it either.

    I noticed some people think that is a reason to vote for someone. Having someone good hearted that votes to increase spending to the point of making our community UN-competitive is not a bright thing to do. Andrea is very good hearted but she made this comment something like this: "If two companies bid on a job but the union company was a little more costly she would give it to the union company"... What is wrong with the other Americans who live in our community who work for the company that had the low bid? They have families no different than the guys that work for the unionized company. Why would you pay more to the other company? That all goes on the backs of the people living in our community.

    Same in Cheektowaga. I know our supervisor cares about our town yet our taxes increase every year which forces our elderly in our town to cut corners.. ALL WHILE a far number of our employees basically laugh all the way to the bank because we cover pension cost increases, health insurance cost increases, etc etc... We pay upwards of 40% more for garbage pickup than the surrounding communities. There isn't anything special in Cheektowaga to justify what we are charged to live in our community. Would you beleive we have a 70k hovercraft on the way. Being Good hearted doesn't mean your bright.

    Same with lancaster. They have "good hearted" officials handing out IDA tax breaks like candy, clocks, band shells etc etc... All good hearted stuff but without those IDA breaks some businesses wouldn't be competitive. Every IDA break given away is money out of our kids pockets or more debt on the kids in our community. Why should they cover the cost that are given away by the LIDA?

    Look at West Seneca and the amount of debt the Americorps put on their community. All good hearted people but the cost will be on the back of the kids/eldery in that community.

    The list goes on....

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Are We Idiots?
    By Enough in forum Morning Breakfast - Breaking News
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: March 12th, 2009, 08:14 AM
  2. Idiots Anonymous?
    By kernwatch in forum Morning Breakfast - Breaking News
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: November 19th, 2007, 08:49 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •