Tranter Loses Challenge to Driehaus Residency Move

The Hamilton County Board of a elections has rejected the challenge to the residency of Denise Driehaus who moved into the new district 31 district after leaving her old district after the Republican made her old area more difficult for her to win.  Tranter, another candidate was challenging her residentcy via proxy because, as this quote from Tranter in the article from WVXU puts it

"It was perfect for me to run in. She decided to move over into it even though she has no familiarity with the district or it's constituents."

Yes, Tranter has a political point to make. Driehaus is not from this district. She's lived on the Westside her entire life and fits in with the Westside Conservatives, not this progressive district. That is a reason not to vote for her. It is not grounds for a  legal case. The challenges Tranter made via his neighbor were frivolous and a waste of tax payer's money.

The even bigger waste was in the challenge to the ballot signatures for Driehaus and candidate Luke Brockmeier. 50 signatures is the low requirement and both candidates had more than enough valid signatures.  There was no evidence of any problem and other than getting some media attention, served no purpose.  Tranter is making a huge mistake. He should not focus on being bitter that he has to face off against two other candidates. He should face the fact that along with Denise Driehaus, he's not living in a conservative Democratic district. He's living in a really progressive House district. He might want to ponder how to climb that Mt. Everest before playing political games.

Anti-Tax Extremists Take Tax Payer's Money

COAST lawyer Chris Finney has successfully shaken-down the City of Cincinnati on an invented scheme that gave his law firm $10,000 of tax payer's money.  Yes, let's get this straight.  A self-professed anti-tax group sued the city on a non-issue worth a few dollars and managed to get paid $10,000 to do it by the City.

Yes, to repeat, again: an anti-tax group staged a frivolous lawsuit over a few dollars and then collected 10,000 dollars worth of tax payer money.  The anti-tax group who claims to want to reduce spending, maneuvered the City into paying it's lawyers $10,000 of money they don't want the City to Spend.  The anti-tax group forced the City to waste tax payer's money.

Is it just me or is the level of insanity and hypocrisy emanating from the area around Chris Finney's fat head causing earthquakes in Youngstown?

COAST has one goal: Destroy the city.  They are not yet forming an army or planting bombs, but their goal is clearly the destruction of the city.  If they think that what they do is anything else, then they are even more delusional than they appear.

Some Old Wussy In the New Year

Is COAST Bleeding Quadrophenic?

CityBeat's Kevin Osborne has an interesting blog post detailing the many varied stances of COAST since they got beat in the November election. I agree with Kevin's general assertion. It sounds like either a single member of COAST has a hardcore split personality disorder, or there is conflict in the ranks.

A silver star goes to anyone who got the reference in the title.

Residency of Denise Driehaus Challenged in Ohio 31 House Race

Denis Driehaus, a Westside Democrat, is having her residency challenged by a friend of another candidate (Terry Tranter) in the 31st house race.  The issue at hand is the question of Driehaus living in the 31st district 12 months prior to the 2012 election.  Driehaus has been a house representative on the Westside of Cincinnati and after her district was totally wiped out she has apparently moved to the new 31st district, which runs from Central to the Eastside of the Cincinnati.

Tranter's friend also questioned both Driehaus's and candidate Luke Brockmeier's signatures, claiming "irregularities" on them.  The article reports that the BOE of elections found that both candidates had enough signatures to be placed on the ballot.

Depending on the views of the board, a hearing could be held next week.  That would seem to be a really big waste of time.

IRhine's: 'Twas the Night Before Christmas All-Star Cincy Edition

COAST Members Looking to Waste More City Money to Benefit Finney

"Attorney" Chris Finney, along with token "residents" of the City of Cincinnati Mark Miller and Tom Brinkman, want to waste more of the Taxpayer's money by subsidizing the "career" of Finney.  They've sent a letter to the City Solicitor as the first step in what likely will be a frivolous lawsuit that has no basis in law. Finney stands to benefit from this if the lawsuit goes on and he can collect legal fees in a settlement or, if he gets an insane judge, an actual positive ruling.

This action is the exectution of the threat issued by Council Member Chris Smitherman and nothing more than is a total waste of time.  It is based on a single word "all" and as I previously blogged, the "all" clause "arguement put forth in the finney letter was fully satisfied when Council's legislative power was exercised with the passing of the rules of council.  All Legisilative powers included giving others in the government the power to carryout the charter.  Let me quote my own blog post linked above:

Section 5a of Article II of the City Charter states "The Council shall organize itself and conduct its business as it deems appropriate...." That's what they did with a 5-3 vote (one member was absent.)

Section 2 of Article III of the City Charter state "The Mayor shall preside over all meetings of the council, but shall not have a vote on the council."

I am far from a legal scholar, but any educated person who understands the core basis of Representative Democracy and Divided Government understands that Finney has no case. They can dislike the rules of Council and they can voice their dislike, but unless they get a majority of votes, they have to learn to deal with losing.

Side Note: Originally Smitherman stated he was going to be the having Finney send the letter if Council didn't cave to his threats.  Why is this letter written with Miller and Brinkman as the complainants and not Smitherman?  Where's Chris Smitherman's name on the letter?  He is obviously, based on his original grandstanding incident, in cahoots with this cabal, but why the lack of his name?  Is there a misrepresentation here?  Is there a conflict? Is there any possible dereliction of duty as a Member of City Council? Should this be investigated by the authorites?