Comment 62474

By bob lee (anonymous) | Posted April 19, 2011 at 18:07:47 in reply to Comment 62471

They met with Winn friday, handing over the EC form referencing (incorrectly) a local auditor form, which had the wrong date and typeface, and a money order with the wrong recipient. The Green Party sent an endorsement form that there was something wrong with, presumably that it was not signed by hand, and an official auditor's form, which Winn would not let them substitute for the other because their nomination form referenced the other. Winn gave them presumably all of these forms back, though they attempted to leave form 1 with him, which is odd since it was incorrect.

The next thing we know is: "On Monday, our auditor made repeated attempts before and after the deadline to fax a third endorsement letter signed by hand to Mr. Winn, which he told them would be acceptable, but the fax could not complete."

So in between Friday and Monday it appears a second endorsement letter materialized and then a third took its place, a correct EC form was filled out presumably referencing the correct auditor's form, a new auditor's form was filled out, and a correct money order was made.
However the correct endorsement letter was not faxed through by the deadline.

From the Spec: "They tried to contact the returning officer to bring the documents back in and he told them, 'It was premature.' He would not let them come in and see him. They waited to hear from him. They waited and waited and they did not hear from him until the cut off time (Monday at 2 p.m.) and he told them 'It is now too late."

This then is inaccurate, it refers to "the documents" as though all were ready and yet at least one was not. We also don't know when any of this took place. I repeat: how did he "not let them" come in? Did he lock the door?

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds