Quoted from Smoking Bananas

gramie...... how ya doing buddy? bumble. u r looking fine.. nice to see you all today.... enjoying the weather? maybe there will be a major fire in the city and people will die. that should brighten your day, eh?

It's the same stuff folks talk about around the water cooler, donut shop, the grocery store, stewarts and over the neighbors fence!!!............k?

clerks dropping like crazy


http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Troy-clerk-abruptly-resigns-1585866.php



TROY -- William A. McInerney, the Troy city clerk identified as a target in an election-fraud investigation, abruptly submitted his resignation Monday from the job he was appointed to in 2008.
Two people familiar with the matter said McInerney submitted a letter of resignation late Monday afternoon that did not provide a reason for his departure. It takes effect Monday, Aug. 1.
On July 4, the Times Union reported that a special prosecutor had offered McInerney a deal to plead guilty to a felony charge and possibly avoid a prison sentence in exchange for his cooperation in the ballot-fraud investigation that began in September 2009. The plea offer called for McInerney to immediately resign from his job.
It's unclear whether McInerney has accepted the offer from a Rensselaer County special prosecutor, Trey Smith.
McInerney and his attorney, James E. Long, both declined comment. Smith could not be reached for comment.
The ballot-fraud investigation has resulted in the indictment of a Democratic Troy city councilman, Michael LoPorto, and the Democratic Rensselaer County Board of Elections commissioner, Edward McDonough.
The investigation centers on widespread forgeries discovered during the September 2009 Working Families Party primary in Troy.
Seven other public officials and Democratic Party operatives, including McInerney, were previously identified as criminal targets in the probe.
The plea offer made to McInerney, a Democrat, is based, in part, on evidence unearthed by State Police investigators alleging McInerney had a role in forging absentee ballots in previous campaigns dating to at least 2007. The current ballot fraud case involves absentee ballots filed for voters who told investigators the documents were forged. The ballots were filed in 2009 for Democratic candidates on the Working Families Party line, according a source briefed on the investigation.
It's unclear whether McInerney will be asked to cooperate in the prosecutions of LoPorto and McDonough, who were indicted in January on 116 felony forgery-related charges.
McInerney, 47, is a former state Assembly worker who has been a Democratic committmeeman in Troy for years. He was appointed to the city clerk's position by the City Council in January 2008 when Democrats took control of the Troy council.
Anthony DeFiglio, a former Troy Housing Authority clerk, told State Police two years ago that McInerney had asked him in August 2009 to help collect absentee ballot applications from people in the Griswold Heights housing project. DeFiglio told investigators that voters in low-income areas were often unwittingly targeted for the fraudulent use of their ballots because they were less likely to do anything about it.
State Police, in court documents, have said they have evidence that McDonough delivered a bundle of forged WFP absentee ballots to McInerney on the eve of the 2009 primary election.


Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Troy-clerk-abruptly-resigns-1585866.php#ixzz1TAcDNisV

Maybe it is Bush's fault.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

I don't normally respond to you -- but the FACT is that Mrs. Esposito did not intend to break the law .. she was trying to do a favor for an elderly shut-in.    The FACT is that  two former town employees - who knew theperson was dead -- sent the family members to Mrs Esposito to set her up.

Quite frankly, you are lucky that I don't know who you are and have never met you -- you are a shameless disgrace for a human being.   You attack my family members -- you attack elderly women -- you are bully that needs a good smack down to put you in your place.

And the next time you get the urge to ask me a question --- go f*** yourself instead.

speaking of boobs, and I quote," she was trying to do a favor, for an eldery shut-in" favor for who, you later state somebody set her up because they knew that person was dead, so?  Shut in equals enbalmed and in shut-in a concrete fault?  Did she channel the shut-in? You know the dead person? Please you'll have to do better than that when passing blame, face it she did good work for the town for many many years, but she f'd up, the time has come for a change and that is what will be, EE best wishes for the future I sincerely hope she feels better and enjoys retirement.

Quoted from 1160

speaking of boobs, and I quote," she was trying to do a favor, for an eldery shut-in" favor for who, you later state somebody set her up because they knew that person was dead, so?  Shut in equals enbalmed and in shut-in a concrete fault?  Did she channel the shut-in? You know the dead person? Please you'll have to do better than that when passing blame, face it she did good work for the town for many many years, but she f'd up, the time has come for a change and that is what will be, EE best wishes for the future I sincerely hope she feels better and enjoys retirement.

The fact is that the person (who used to work for the town), who brought the people supposedly representing the shut-in up to Mrs. Esposito's office, was also a notary public and KNEW that the person was deceased.   That person with held that information from Mrs. Esposito --- WHY ???     And that person who withheld that information -- knew enough to contact the person who then filed the complaint IMMEDIATELY after the documents were notarized.   THAT IS NOT A COINCIDENCE  .. IT IS A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY.

Mrs. Esposito NEVER did anything in her life to harm the town nor anything dishonorable.  Yes -- she made amistake but ONLY because she was trying to help a shut-in.    

Bottomline - the people who set her up and the people who have been attacking her mercilessly are the worst kind of miserable low-life bastards that inhabit this planet.   They will burn in hell for the way they have treated a caring and loving lady who also was a great public servant.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

The fact is that the person (who used to work for the town), who brought the people supposedly representing the shut-in up to Mrs. Esposito's office, was also a notary public and KNEW that the person was deceased.   That person with held that information from Mrs. Esposito --- WHY ???     And that person who withheld that information -- knew enough to contact the person who then filed the complaint IMMEDIATELY after the documents were notarized.   THAT IS NOT A COINCIDENCE  .. IT IS A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY.

Mrs. Esposito NEVER did anything in her life to harm the town nor anything dishonorable.  Yes -- she made amistake but ONLY because she was trying to help a shut-in.    

Bottomline - the people who set her up and the people who have been attacking her mercilessly are the worst kind of miserable low-life bastards that inhabit this planet.   They will burn in hell for the way they have treated a caring and loving lady who also was a great public servant.

PROVE IT WAS A SET UP OR SHUT UP!

Quoted from marymagdelene1234

PROVE IT WAS A SET UP OR SHUT UP!

I stand by my statements which I know to be true  ... and I am not shutting up anytime soon.   Of course, you and your ilk are upset that the truth has come out and everyone knows the cesspool that you and your kind swim in.

Legally it is still the responsibility of the NOTARY to verify all signatures. And the person who's signature they are verifying needs to be present. That is the notary law!

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

The fact is that the person (who used to work for the town), who brought the people supposedly representing the shut-in up to Mrs. Esposito's office, was also a notary public and KNEW that the person was deceased.   That person with held that information from Mrs. Esposito --- WHY ???     And that person who withheld that information -- knew enough to contact the person who then filed the complaint IMMEDIATELY after the documents were notarized.   THAT IS NOT A COINCIDENCE  .. IT IS A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY.

Mrs. Esposito NEVER did anything in her life to harm the town nor anything dishonorable.  Yes -- she made amistake but ONLY because she was trying to help a shut-in.    

Bottomline - the people who set her up and the people who have been attacking her mercilessly are the worst kind of miserable low-life bastards that inhabit this planet.   They will burn in hell for the way they have treated a caring and loving lady who also was a great public servant.

I don't care who may have brought the paperwork in out or otherwise, I commend EE for wanting to help a shut-in, but like I was witness to, go to them if it meant so much, and the rules of notary is WITNESS the signature simple, game over, I dont even care that it was EE, it is about following procedure and the law, if it was anybody else I would say the same thimg. Now back under your rock, where every thing is about political party and not right or wrong.  

Quoted from bumblethru

Legally it is still the responsibility of the NOTARY to verify all signatures. And the person who's signature they are verifying needs to be present. That is the notary law!

and those who set up Mrs. Esposito broke the law as well -- criminal conspiracy is a far greater violation of the law

Quoted from 1160

I don't care who may have brought the paperwork in out or otherwise, I commend EE for wanting to help a shut-in, but like I was witness to, go to them if it meant so much, and the rules of notary is WITNESS the signature simple, game over, I dont even care that it was EE, it is about following procedure and the law, if it was anybody else I would say the same thimg. Now back under your rock, where every thing is about political party and not right or wrong.  

It has nothing to do with political parties as far as I am concerned --- I am defending a good lady and a fine public servant.   Those who set her up -- were the ones who did it for political reasons.  And the ones who set her up were certainly not interested in following procedure or the law.

Oh -- and it is interesting -- i don't recall mentioning a political party .. i said persons  .. so obviously  YOU are the one who is  a) making it about political parties  and/or b) know the political parties of the persons involved.

Quoted from 1160

I don't care who may have brought the paperwork in out or otherwise, I commend EE for wanting to help a shut-in, but like I was witness to, go to them if it meant so much, and the rules of notary is WITNESS the signature simple, game over, I dont even care that it was EE, it is about following procedure and the law, if it was anybody else I would say the same thimg. Now back under your rock, where every thing is about political party and not right or wrong.  

I agree with you 100%. What would the result be if someone set up the pedophile JC, to meet up with a young girl? And what if JC carried on with his historic shameful behavior? Who should be held responsible? And although I agree that 'set ups' are disingenuous aka slimy/sneaky.....but they should not be held responsible for another's illegal behavior, none the less.

Ron Severson, ESQ, (Sortof) Once again DEAD wrong on law...there is no criminal conspiracy because there is no CRIME...

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

and those who set up Mrs. Esposito broke the law as well -- criminal conspiracy is a far greater violation of the law

SHE and SHE ALONE had the responsibility to use due diligence and require everything be done according to the law.   The law mandates a notary require the person to appear IN PERSON and requires the notary to WITNESS the signature.

Maybe someone tried to set her up.  However, WHO, TELL US WHO held a gun to EE's head forcing her to notarize something in a manner which violates the law????????

EE made the choice to break the law, DV,   She KNEW the law, she KNEW the law requiree that the person appear IN PERSON and that she herself MUST WITNESS the signature.  

EE made the CHOICE to perform the task of notarizing something in violation of the law.  SHE made the CHOICE to notarize something when the person was not there in person.

So, dV, tell us, was their a gun held to her head?    We use a person as a notary who we have known for 30 years.   IT DOES NOT MATTTER.  Just because he has known us personally for 30 years does NOT mean I sign the document at home and my wife takes it to him to have him notarize it while I stay home.   In fact, this person we know even asks for ID when he notarizes it.

IT DOES NOT MATTER if someone tried to set her up.  It was HER CHOICE and HER CHOICE ALONE to say "Yes, I will do it."    It was her choice to  CHOOSE to notarize something wiithout the person present and without personally witnessing the signature.

Just read this DV, just these first words:

State of NY
County of: _____________
On this ____ day of  [month] in the year ____ before me the undersigned personally appeared [name],


So, EE, upon notarizing a document, EE notarized the document, WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE that the "undersigned" was not personally present, that is WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT SHE WAS VIOLATING HER OATH AND THE LAW.   It is not that "someone set her up" as YOU claim DV, rather someone TRIED to set her up AND EE allowed it.  EE PERSONALLY MADE THE CHOICE  to violate the law by not requiring the person appear in person

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

I stand by my statements which I know to be true  ... and I am not shutting up anytime soon.   Of course, you and your ilk are upset that the truth has come out and everyone knows the cesspool that you and your kind swim in.

Were you there?  I have Mr. Surprises phone number
maybe he will be very interested in your slanderous
comments.