RESPONSE TO LIBELOUS CLAIMS BEING MADE IN A RECALL EFFORT

February 21, 2007 at 2:26 pm | In barnstable town council, council president janet joakim, janet joakim |

FROM JANET JOAKIM:

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

FACT: DURING THE FEBRUARY 15TH TOWN COUNCIL MEETING I VOTED IN FAVOR OF A 20% RESIDENTIAL EXEMPTION THAT MEANS A SAVINGS OF $412 ON THE MEDIAN VALUED HOUSE IN MY PRECINCT-

FACT: I VOTED TO RETURN TO A FACTOR OF ONE RATHER THAN SUPPORT THE CURRENT 1.15 FACTOR THAT WOULD HAVE SAVED PEOPLE IN MY PRECINCT $26 A YEAR - AND COST A RELATIVE BUSINESS $534!

FACT: BEFORE THIS VOTE I HEARD FROM MANY SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS IN MY OWN PRECINCT TELLING ME THAT AS MY CONSTITUENTS THEY FELT THIS TAX BURDEN SHIFT WAS UNFAIR.

FACT: THE BLOGGERS HAVE SPUN THIS STORY USING LIES AND MISLEADING FIGURES TO SAY I HAVE LIED AND NOW HAVE RAISED THE TAXES OF PEOPLE IN MY PRECINCT. THEY ARE NOW USING THOSE LIES AS A BASIS FOR A RECALL AFFIDAVIT.

FACT IN THEIR POSTS AND LITERATURE THE COG GROUP- INCLUDING THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING DOOR TO DOOR IN MY PRECINCT GETTING SIGNATURES ON THIS AFFIDAVIT -HAVE MADE LIBELOUS CLAIMS AGAINST ME. THEY KNOW THAT THE COST FOR ME TO HIRE A LAWYER IS MORE THAN I CAN JUSTIFY OR EVEN AFFORD AT THIS TIME- SO THEY CONTINUE TO MAKE LIBELOUS CLAIMS ON THEIR BLOG AND WHILE GATHERING SIGNATURES SAYING AMONG OTHER THINGS THAT I HAVE BEEN *PAID FOR MY VOTE.*

FACT: THESE PEOPLE ARE NOW CIRCULATING AN AFFIDAVIT - CALLING IT A PETITION - THEY ARE COLLECTING 50 SIGNATURES FROM RESIDENTS OF MY PRECINCT, MANY OF WHOM WILL SIGN NOT UNDERSTANDING THEY ARE DOING SO UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY.

STATEMENT:

I have recently been made aware that the group known has COG, led by Gary Lopez, has started proceedings to file for a recall petition that would create the need for a recall election for me.

In order to obtain a petition for recall, COG is gathering signatures on an affidavit that charges me with political deceit for voting in favor of a factor of 1 during our tax classification votes last week. Gary Lopez and COG, in their typical fashion, are using misleading statements and figures to claim in this affidavit that I did this at “great cost to my constituents.” This affidavit is circulating as a petition, but signors are actually swearing under penalty of perjury that this is true.

I am an honest, hardworking person who takes my responsibilities to my oath as a councilor very seriously, balancing what is best for my precinct with what is best for the town.

What COG is not discussing is my strong argument during council debate and subsequent vote for the 20% residential exemption that means a significant savings to the people in my precinct, and which was voted in successfully.

I spoke with our assessor today and received updated figures for my precinct.

Using the median cost of a house in my precinct –$339,400- the true figures are as follows:

By voting to retain in the residential exemption at 20% my constituents will see a savings on the average tax bill in my precinct of $412 a year!

To retain the factor of 1.15 we voted in last year, would have saved the residents of my precinct an average of $26 a year – using median again- and to save the $26 the cost to business would be approx. $534!

In my many trips to hearings and meetings at the state house about our need for more chapter 70 money – I have been told over and over again that the residential exemption was a tool created for communities like ours whose residents are looking for tax relief – and I believe this is the time for us to use this tool.

The use of the split tax to save money on residential tax bills doesn’t make sense in a town with a low percentage of overall commercial property.

I have heard from several residents in my precinct who own local small businesses and who are trying to make ends meet, and who would suffer from the split tax rate.

As a councilor, it is my job to balance what is best for my constituents, with what is best for the town as a whole. A savings of $26 is not enough to justify the relative $534 cost to a small business owner.

Town staff, with support of the town councilors, has been working very hard on the downtown revitalization project – we are trying to lure business to our town to answer the demand for more jobs and for the town’s overall economic health.

Forcing a split tax on businesses works against our efforts to bring new business to town.

______________________________

In addition to the recall – Lopez has made serious accusations and launched personal attacks on me.

I hesitate to respond to these because his credibility has coasted downhill for the past several years. Responding to the lies and twisting of facts, the misrepresentations of positions and downright sophomoric language seems to lend some level of credibility to the rants.

But, as of this evening I have had several requests for comments on recent emails and BLOG posts forwarded to me written by Gary Lopez that insinuate that I have accepted money from businesses in return for my vote. Aside from this being absolutely untrue, it is nothing short of libelous.

I have not – nor have I ever taken money in exchange for a vote. I have not, nor have I ever voted as a councilor in exchange for work.

That such lies and fictitious attacks are now being used as reasons to recall me is frustrating, but even more than that-disappointing.

I have done nothing illegal, nothing to violate our charter, administrative code, or rules.

I have not lied or been deceitful; I am comfortable with knowing that I have made the right choices for the people in my precinct, and for the Town of Barnstable.

3 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. This recall threat is absurd. As a taxpayer, the potential danger in this frightening. SO- does this mean that 50 people upset about any councilor’s vote on any issue could sign a petition to ask for that councilor’s recall and force the expenditure of taxpayer funds for an extra election?

    A recall should only be used if a councilor has an egregious conflict of interest or is guilty of malfeasance. It should not be because a councilor won’t kowtow to a special interest group or a minority or a even a loud group of threatening gadflies. It should not be because a councilor has weighed the facts and in her opinion has opted to vote a certain way in what she honestly thinks is in the best interests of her constituency. If a resident does not agree, that is what elections are for. Recalls used in this fashion are acts of extortion or as someone else said to me -political terrorism.

    Comment by marymatthews — February 22, 2007 #

  2. I agree with you. It was the right choice for our town and precinct. I don’t believe you were being deceitful. Prior to last year you voted for a factor of 1. Last year you voted for a split tax rate of 1.15 and you explained that you were doing it only because of the “non-binding” referendum. I understand you need to vote on this every year and it is a new year. Councilor Curtis stated at the meeting last year that “It’s only for one year”. If anyone on the council has been deceitful, it’s councilor Milne. Didn’t he create all this? Isn’t he the one who lead you and the rest of the councilors into voting for a “non-binding” referendum? After the vote he said it was some kind of mandate. Maybe you should ask him to remind everyone that it was a “non-binding” referendum.

    Comment by centaxpr — February 23, 2007 #

  3. Definitions of the term, AFFIDAVIT:

    Affidavit

    A written statement of facts voluntarily made by an affiant under an oath or affirmation administered by a person authorized to do so by law.

    Distinctions

    An affidavit is voluntarily made without any cross-examination of the affiant and, therefore, is not the same as a deposition, a record of an examination of a witness or a party made either voluntarily or pursuant to a subpoena, as if the party were testifying in court under cross-examination. A pleading—a request to a court to exercise its judicial power in favor of a party that contains allegations or conclusions of facts that are not necessarily verified—differs from an affidavit, which states facts under oath.

    Basis

    An affidavit is based upon either the personal knowledge of the affiant or his or her information and belief. Personal knowledge is the recognition of particular facts by either direct observation or experience. Information and belief is what the affiant feels he or she can state as true, although not based on firsthand knowledge.

    The Affiant

    Any person having the intellectual capacity to take an oath or make an affirmation and who has knowledge of the facts that are in dispute may make an affidavit. There is no age requirement for an affiant. As long as a person is old enough to understand the facts and the significance of the oath or affirmation he or she makes, the affidavit is valid. A criminal conviction does not make a person incapable of making an affidavit, but an adjudication of incompetency does.

    Someone familiar with the matters in question may make an affidavit on behalf of another, but that person’s authority to do so must be clear. A guardian may make an affidavit for a minor or insane person incapable of doing so. An attorney may make an affidavit for a client if it is impossible for the client to do so. When necessary to the performance of duties, a personal representative, agent, or corporate officer or partner may execute an affidavit that indicates the capacity in which the affiant acts.

    A court cannot force a person to make an affidavit, since, by definition, an affidavit is a voluntary statement.

    The Taker of the Affidavit

    Any public officer authorized by law to administer oaths and affirmations—such as city recorders, court clerks, notaries, county clerks, commissioners of deeds, and court commissioners—may take affidavits. Justices of the peace and magistrates are sometimes authorized to take affidavits. Unless restricted by state law, judges may take affidavits involving controversies before them.

    An officer cannot take affidavits outside of the particular jurisdiction in which he or she exercises authority. The source of this authority must appear at the bottom of the affidavit. A notary, for example, would indicate the county in which he or she is commissioned and the expiration date of the commission.

    An official seal is not essential to the validity of the affidavit but may be placed on it by the proper official.

    The Oath or Affirmation

    Unless otherwise provided by statute, an oath is essential to an affidavit. The statement of the affiant does not become an affidavit unless the proper official administers the oath.

    When religious convictions prevent the affiant from taking an oath, he or she may affirm that the statements in the affidavit are true.

    Contents

    There is no standard form or language to be used in an affidavit as long as the facts contained within it are stated clearly and definitely. Unnecessary language or legal arguments should not appear. Clerical and grammatical errors, while to be avoided, are inconsequential.

    The affidavit usually must contain the address of the affiant and the date that the statement was made, in addition to the affiant’s signature or mark. Where the affidavit has been made is also noted. When an affidavit is based on the affiant’s information and belief, it must state the source of the affiant’s information and the grounds for the affiant’s belief in the accuracy of such information. This permits the court to draw its own conclusions about the information in the affidavit.

    An affiant is strictly responsible for the truth and accuracy of the contents of the affidavit. If false statements are made, the affiant can be prosecuted for perjury.

    Functions

    Affidavits are used in business and in judicial and administrative proceedings.

    Business

    Generally affidavits are used in business whenever an official statement that others might rely upon is needed. Statements of the financial stability of a corporation, the pedigree of animals, and the financial conditions of a person applying for credit are examples of affidavits used in the commercial world.

    Judicial Proceedings

    Affidavits serve as evidence in civil actions and criminal prosecutions in certain instances. They are considered a very weak type of evidence because they are not taken in court, and the affiant is not subject to cross-examination. Their use is usually restricted to times when no better evidence can be offered. If a witness who has made an affidavit is not available to testify at a trial, his or her affidavit may be admitted as evidence. If the witness is present, his or her affidavit is inadmissible except when used to impeach the witness’s testimony, or to help the witness with past recollection of facts.

    Affidavits are also used as evidence in ex parte proceedings such as a hearing for the issuance of a temporary restraining order or an order to show cause. The expeditious nature of such proceedings is considered to substantially outweigh the weak probative value of the affidavits. In addition, there is normally a subsequent opportunity in the course of litigation for the opposing party to refute the affidavits or cross-examine the affiants.

    An affidavit based on the knowledge of the affiant is accorded more weight than one based on information and belief. When admissible, affidavits are not conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein.

    Administrative Proceedings

    Affidavits are frequently used in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings as evidence when no objection is made to their admission and there is an opportunity for cross-examination.

    Word Tutor Library > Words > Word Tutor affidavit

    IN BRIEF: A truthful statement, usually sworn.

    Mr. Chen signed the affidavit before his court appearance.

    WordNet Library > Reference > WordNet Note: click on a word meaning below to see its connections and related words.
    The noun affidavit has one meaning:

    Meaning #1: written declaration made under oath; a written statement sworn to be true before someone legally authorized to administer an oath

    ——————————————————————————–

    Wikipedia Library > Reference > Wikipedia affidavit
    An affidavit is a formal sworn statement of fact, signed by the declarant (who is called the affiant) and witnessed (as to the veracity of the affiant’s signature) by a taker of oaths, such as a notary public. The name is Medieval Latin for he has declared upon oath.

    One use of affidavits is to allow evidence to be gathered from witnesses or participants that may not be available to testify in person before the court.

    United States Law
    In American jurisprudence, under the rules for hearsay, admission of an unsupported affidavit as evidence is unusual (especially if the affiant is not available for cross-examination) with regard to material facts which may be dispositive of the matter at bar. Affidavits from persons who are dead or otherwise incapacitated, or who cannot be located or made to appear may be accepted by the court, but usually only in the presence of corroborating evidence. An affidavit which reflected a better grasp of the facts close in time to the actual events may be used to refresh a witness’ recollection. Materials used to refresh recollection are admissible as evidence. If the affiant is a party in the case, the affiant’s opponent may be successful in having the affidavit admitted as evidence, as statements by a party-opponent are not considered hearsay.

    Some types of motions will not be accepted by the court unless accompanied by an independent sworn statement or other evidence, in support of the need for the motion. In such a case, a court will accept an affidavit from the filing attorney in support of the motion, as certain assumptions are made, to wit: The affidavit in place of sworn testimony promotes judicial economy. The lawyer is an officer of the court and knows that a false swearing by him, if found out, could be grounds for severe penalty up to and including disbarment. The lawyer if called upon would be able to present independent and more detailed evidence to prove the facts set forth in his affidavit.

    In England and Wales
    Affidavits are made by writing “I (state full name) of (insert address) on this date (date in words) make oath and say as follows…”. After this has been written, the facts to be sworn are listed, in prose or in bullet points. The document is then taken to a commissioner for oaths (most solicitors are also commissioners for oaths). They will then ask you to swear on a holy book particular to your faith (The New Testament, the Torah, the Qur’an, etc) and ask you to verify what has been stated.

    An Affidavit is equivalent to sworn testimony.

    External links
    Affidavits and Legal Forms

    See also
    Statutory declaration
    Deposition (law)

    This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)

    __________________________________________________________________

    RESPONSE TO ACCUSATIONS OF THREATS BY POSTING NAMES ON AFFIDAVIT HERE
    ______________________________________________________________________

    03/05/07:

    …at the request of several people - of course we were thinking we were going to be in the midst of a campaign, I posted the list of people who signed an affidavit. Some of those who requested this had SIGNED THE AFFIDAVIT -others had signed the petition but heard that some thought they were signing a petition and actually signed an affidavit and wanted to be sure they weren’t on the list.

    This list is public information.

    I was just informed that one of Mr. Schwaabs two blogs is saying that I put this list up to pressure Walsh to stop the recall

    hmmmmm

    Well- lets see- according to blog watchers who have been calling and emailing all day, he gave some sort of chronological order of things this morning - and said that “something bad” happened this morning - BEFORE I PUT THAT LIST UP.

    Get it straight guys!
    What is the real story?
    Or as some who leave messages on the COG BLOG like to type:

    It is TIME for you to DECIDE what is the TRUTH!!!
    STOP! LYING to people NOW! ….
    and just like he does, I’ll sign this…jj

    Perhaps the people who signed these things had second thoughts after reading the papers and talking to friends?
    Perhaps several were never told they were signing a legal document?
    Perhaps it was clear that so many people are angry about all of this that they didn’t want these guys near their houses collecting signatures?

    Perhaps, as several people told me, they were not aware of the residential exemption and what that actually meant to their bills.
    Perhaps they were unhappy that they were presented with very slanted information.

    Nice try -
    Ever try just telling the truth?
    It makes it easier to keep the story straight.

    And - I never threatened anyone with perjury…come on!

    I called two of the people on the list when it came into my possession on Monday afternoon people I had thought I had a good relationship with and whose names surprised me.

    Both called me back, but I was only able to make contact with one. I was on the phone with him for a while, talking about what had prompted him to do this. During our long conversation he asked me to read the document he had signed.
    When I did, he told me he never saw any language saying this was a legal document. He had not been given text to read and thought he was signing a petition. I read it to him again and he was very concerned about the language. I never threatened him or even suggested he do anything about it.
    As a matter of fact I told him it was done, and we hung up with him saying he didn’t feel this was done. If he followed up on this, this was his issue to pursue, not mine.
    But it did make me wonder if I should look into the rest of the signatures….later, if and when the petitions came in. In the case of this man, I made no threats, as a matter of fact I believe I fell apart over the phone and apologized for that, and that was when we hung up.

    If you have serious accusations to make about threats, call me and lets discuss it.
    Don’t make accusations without proof - I have had enough of that and am feeling like it is time to fight back against lying bloggers who ruin this medium for everyone else.

    Comment by JSJ — October 19, 2007 #

Leave a comment

XHTML: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.