An objecting candidate being accused of using white-out on an opponents petition and fabricating an objection. (oops, someone maybe forgot to have some things notarized before turning them in), because the requested copies obtained by the opposing candidate later that morning had NO notary stamp, but the stamp showed up later in subsequent copies--dated the 8th (on the 16th). Helen backed up the objection, but said the papers turned up notarized the next time she looked at them...The attorney actually accused the other candidate, when Randy's petition was challenged, of lying, tampering with elections and creating a fraudulent objection by using whiteout. Nice. Can't make this stuff up.
So someone objected to Viesman's petition and Viesman's lawyer said that the objector "whited out the notary stamp"? That's original. If indeed it can be proved, the objector could be in trouble legally. If I were Viessman's attorney (which I would not be) I would question what prompted such a quick request from the objector to see Viesman's petitions. It's not unique to ask for petitions but to ask so early is a little strange. Unless of course someone involved in accepting the petitions (perhaps Hawkins) tipped the objector off.
As I understand your reply, Helen Hawkins (the town clerk) who would then also be on the electoral board, supports the objector but then said the petitions turned into her weren't notarized. If so, why were they accepted at the time of filing? Also, she is as town clerk responsible by oath for keeping the documents protected. So she and her deputy clerk are in disagreement over the documents being notarized? I love the " political loyalties" issue too. People in these positions should not be vocal about backing candidates. It's what causes problems like it did for the attorney general and FBI director.
An objector who can apparently access private township documents on a holiday weekend without using FOIA requests...It helps to have low friends in high places...
Is this indicating that Viesman went in over the holiday and had the petitions changed? Major problem for him and the notary if that is true.
Randy's daughter, the office manager, testifying under oath that she's a staunch supporter of her dad. Of course she is. I believe she'd probably do anything for him--and her cushy job with all the benefits.....
It wouldn't be news for her to support her dad, however, if she lied under oath about the petitions, she is also in trouble.
And, they are also trying to throw Helen under the bus for not pressing charges on that Notary for what she purportedly did. An official investigation is probably needed, but there isn't a person on that board who will conduct an an honest, professional investigation...
If Helen knew that petitions were notarized after the fact and she did not seek charges against he notary, she threw herself under the bus legally. She basically supported an illegal act and as an elected official, she could also be in serious trouble.
Here's the problem with small town politics. People become so entrapped in building their loyalty base that they often look past the legal ramifications of their actions. Then, when another group, with the same weaknesses, rears their head, they turn on each other. Perjury is a felony and destroying or deliberately altering legal documents is an attempt to defraud. In this case, it sounds as if at least one or more people are guilty and an independent investigation by the state's attorney may be in order.
I've said for years that townships should be dissolved and swallowed up by neighboring communities. This is a good example of why.
Pretty good job of reporting Horsey. Think about that broadcasting career. LOL