Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Fraud and Perjury in Recall Effort? (See above)

(This entry remains posted only to place the entry two above it into context. The information provided in this post is erroneous and should not be relied upon.)

I stopped by my local grocery store yesterday on the way home from work, and finally had an opportunity to see the "Funkhouser Recall" petition effort under way.

I suspect the effort has resorted to paid signature gatherers, because the woman posted at Brookside Market yesterday afternoon was lurking out in a lower traffic area than is typically used by the many solicitors that frequent that location. (As an aside, the entrance to Brookside Market is one of my favorite "free speech" zones in Kansas City - it is a hot spot for petitioners, Girl Scouts, school groups, etc., and a real asset to our community.) When I noticed her clipboard, I asked her what she was gathering signatures for, and she replied, "For the Mayor."

I told her that I consider myself for the mayor, and she handed me the petition.

Of course, the petition was not "for the mayor", as she claimed, but it was for a recall of the mayor. When I saw that it was one of the recall petitions, I asked her what the legal grounds for recall were. She replied, "Uhh, he's not doing a good job."

Folks, those are not legal reasons to recall a Mayor. Telling someone that it is, in an attempt to gain his or her signature, is a form of attempted fraud.

More significantly, however, I saw no statement of the reasons to recall the Mayor attached to the Petition. The notary certification, however, promises that each submitted signature was put onto the petition paper "to which was attached at the time of signing a list of the grounds alleged for such removal". If there had been such a listing, the signature gatherer could have simply shown it to me.

If the petition circulated outside the Brookside Market on April 28, 2009, gets submitted as part of the recall effort, with a sworn signature that the signatures were gathered with a list of the grounds for recall attached, we may be looking at perjury.

Labels: ,

13 Comments:

Anonymous Sign the Petition said...

Nepotism, self-dealing and not showing up for work.

Throw the bum out!

4/29/2009 8:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not perjury. Class one election offense (115.631) and making a false affidavit to mislead a public servant (575.050).

0716-CR02585-01 - ST V MATTHEW D RANVILLE

4/29/2009 9:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not perjury. Ineptness offense, punishable by failed petition efforts.

01234-Ab783034 - HOOSIERS V WORSTMAYOR IN. HISTORY

4/29/2009 9:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder what the author of this aritcle would be up against for misrepresenting his interaction with the petition gatherer. It just drives Funk supporters crazy that the Recall campaign, really is a practically "zero budget" effort, by a whole bunch of citizens who just despise the bum of a mayor. Don't beleive everything you read on the internet, just because someone has a blog, or appears to be a journalist.... I have been actively involved in the recall effort, and none of the volunteers have set out to mislead the honest citizens of Kansas City.

4/29/2009 9:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Fraud and Perjury in Recall Effort?"

Certainly not!

Did you examine the document, maybe even flip it over to see the affidavit is printed on the other side of the petition to save paper? I think you did not-that says everything about your Fraud & Perjury allegations.

Michael Hart

4/29/2009 10:15 AM  
Anonymous inafunkaboutthefunk said...

It seems that Dan is up to his old gig... Pro Funk Stooge. Wait, let's take out the word Stooge because he might find that offensive (of course accusing someone of fraud and perjury might be deemed offensive too but he makes the rules) and substitute "Skilled Operative." You have been avoiding the Funk lately Dan... what's got you back on to him? Are you worried that the Recall Effort might gather the required number of valid signatures? I suppose we will have to wait and see...

If I see any more of this from you, I may have to start posting again... and you will have to delete my comments to protect yourself... even though you don't really care about what I post (or do you?).

4/29/2009 10:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How irresponsible of you to make the leap to a petitioner being paid. You have absolutely no idea whether she was or wasn't and to state so in a broadly read blog without so much as a simple inquiry certainly makes anything you say highly suspect. I, for one, will never read another word of it.

4/29/2009 10:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hope you have enough integraty to make your retraction with as much gusto as you made your false alligations

4/29/2009 4:32 PM  
Anonymous inafunkaboutthefunk said...

when it come to all things Funk, Dan's logic, wisdom, brains and integrity go whooshing out of the window. He's temporarily back defending his boy and not doing too good a job of it at that.

Stay away from the Funk issue Dan or the bloggers are going to take you back to the woodshed :)

4/29/2009 4:40 PM  
Blogger Ward said...

Nice try, Dan.

I'm surprised you can finally comment about this, but yet have no comment about the Mayor missing the police board meeting for "personal business"...

4/29/2009 6:18 PM  
Anonymous inafunkaboutthefunk said...

Everyone go to the Mea Culpa post by Dan....

4/29/2009 7:22 PM  
Anonymous Joe Medley said...

Having worked in a number of volunteer efforts (but not this one) I can tell you that any number of things can go wrong that aren't intentionally nefarious. Sometimes volunteers don't absorb all of the instructions that you give them. Sometimes they ignore them altogether.

I remember one political campaign where a volunteer canvasser found someone who wanted to help. Instead of sending that person to the campaign office to get proper instructions, the volunteer gave that person a stack of flyers and half his walk sheets.

My point is, don't assume that because a volunteer isn't following correct procedure that it's because he or she has been ordered to do so by the top. In this case, the volunteer's lack of knowledge about the legal reasons for the recall does not mean the recall leaders are acting illegally. In fact, I can prove they're not. Here's a link to their recall affidavit: http://cityclerk.kcmo.org/liveweb/Documents/ViewAttachment.aspx?q=iI732cSGjzIXq0cxH6FASVQm4SPtIJirCSTLIO6dD1agqMJB96m3h0e%2fnpJLaosQyZFstlky6L5y79YR3KUqXB9WctupBcl%2fJAKZ4ofYyRfaOOPet2so8gY8DAaDnZkp

4/29/2009 8:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Medley you are a bum

4/29/2009 9:16 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home