Norridge Improvement Party did not seem to follow same “binding” rules they accuse others of violating
The Norridge Improvement Party (NIP)’s objection against the three trustee petitions and term limits seems to have had alot of discussion in Norridge.
The article gets to the heart of the matter: how ridiculous it is to be arguing over paper clips for 9 hours.
It actuality, it was over 12 hours in total for the 3 trustee cases, plus another 9 hours for the referendum.
That makes 21 hours in Paper Clip Court… a “court” where the judges’ party paid for the objector’s attorney. A kangaroo court if there ever was one.
But there may be more than a little bit of hypocrisy over the objection: the NIP paperwork Tannhauser, Avino, Ronstadt, Budnik and Krasinski submitted show no signs of the type of binding they accused the independents of not having.
Specifically, there were no circles at the top of the petitions where such binding would be.
Typically, holes punched in paper show up as dark circles when scanned or copied.
Why then, are their documents valid, while those of the independents, and the term limits referendum, are not?
Different standards for incumbents?
One rule for me, another for thee? Do as I say, not as a I do?
If submitting the petitions this way is good enough for the “Improvement Party” – then it should be good enough for independent candidates.
The “Norridge” Improvement Party’s township petitions went a step further – the “Township Improvement Party” (TIP) petitions do not appear to have been even notarized.
Without notarization, the TIP petition circulators could not have legally proven their identity.
A message received from Norwood Park Township Supervisor candidate Tom Lupo claims the petitions were in fact notarized, however, there was no evidence of this on the copy of the petitions received though the state’s Freedom of Information Act.
By these standards, both the “Norridge” and “Township” Improvement Party candidates should be off the ballot.
But they’re not. Why?
Because the system, and the “court” that is supposed to oversee them – is only interested in protecting incumbents.
Because incumbents… will keep doing business as usual. Exactly what they want.
Who still believes in “equal justice under law”, anyway?