Duggan Ends Candidacy for Mayor - Will NOT Appeal To Supreme Court

**gvidas** · June-11-13, 09:00 PM

I'm a little bit glad this is happening, even if it is just a temporary situation as the wheels get greased and re-appealed, because I got kind of tired of hearing about how its a two-horse race.

Now would be a really nice time for someone who was a long shot and overlooked by the 'Duggan vs Napoleon' coverage, but a good candidate none the less, to come to the front.

What are some good points about the other candidates? Any of them have interesting ideas, a promising albeit short history of credibility? I'm fairly unenthusiastic about Napoleon.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · June-11-13, 09:08 PM

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

Hock the artwork, get rid of the EM,

The new Mayor will have NO SAY WHATSOEVER on these 2 things. When the EM is finished, Hizzoner will have some say on what is & isn't sold, but not until then. The position [[thankfully) is currently impotent. Grown-ups have had to step in and clean up the 50 years of poop left behind.

**compn** · June-11-13, 09:49 PM

legislature writes vague laws so the judges can decide whos 'good' and whos 'bad'.
if its written into the laws clearly, there is no 'extras'.

rich people never lose.
duggan and napoleon can both get lost, who else is runnin?

**Zacha341** · June-11-13, 10:17 PM

That's a way to look at it. I've voted third party, write in etc. when the two major candidate where useless...

Originally Posted by downtownguy

It's good to know that democracy is only worth two cents to you. I'm voting. I'm undecided. But I know there are more choices, and I rarely find the perfect candidate, yet I've never missed an election--ever.

**artds** · June-11-13, 10:32 PM

To mam2009:

Your high school analogy doesn't quite track the facts here. A better analogy would be as follows: your teacher gives you a take-home test and tells you that you need to turn it in on May 15th if you want to participate in the graduation cermony on May 30th. You get a jump on things and turn it in early on May 10th instead. Should you be prohibited from graduating because you didn't turn your test in ON May 15th like the teacher instructed? Or is it reasonable to interpret the teacher's instruction to mean that it needs to be tirned in BY May 15th? To answer that question, you need to consider whether there is any conceivable policy reason that would cause your teacher to not accept your test prior to May 15th, or if such a hard date requirement would be arbitrary. If the latter, then the reasonable interpretation is that turning it any time on or before May 15th is acceptable. Likewise, no public policy is served by requiring Duggan to sit on his signatures for two weeks before turning them in. Such a requirement would be arbitrary. Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret the 1-year requiremt to mean that you must be a resident for 1 year by the DEADLINE for filing, and not by the date you happen to send a runner down to the election office to turn in the signatures you collected. Think about how ridiculous the cure for such a defect would be: had this issue became known prior to the deadline for filing, Duggan could have cured it by having the election office give him his signatures back two weeks after he filed them, then literally hand them right back to the election officials two seconds later in order to comply with this arbitrary requirement to not turn in your paperwork too early. If you can think of a single conceivable public policy that would be served by such a rule, I'm all ears. Bottom line: this decision should be overturned, and there's a very good chance it will be.

**artds** · June-11-13, 10:47 PM

To MikeyinBrooklyn,

Sometimes the law is vague and subject to varying interpretations, and sometimes literal interpretations would lead to an absurd result. This is why we have judges to interpret the law and determine what the legislative intent was. Take if you will a law that says "No animals shall be allowed in public buildings." Pretty straight forward, right? Well, taken literally, this law would exclude human beings from public buildings, since human beings are animals, after all. But that interpreation would lead to an absurd result. If we delve into the intent of the legislative body that enacted the law, I'm sure we would find that they did not intend to exclude human beings from public buildings. I'm sure we'd also find that they did not intend for the law to encompass seeing eye dogs. This of course is a overly simplistic example, but it illustrates the point.

**corktownyuppie** · June-11-13, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by artds

To mam2009:

Your high school analogy doesn't quite track the facts here. A better analogy would be as follows: your teacher gives you a take-home test and tells you that you need to turn it in on May 15th if you want to participate in the graduation cermony on May 30th. You get a jump on things and turn it in early on May 10th instead. Should you be prohibited from graduating because you didn't turn your test in ON May 15th like the teacher instructed? Or is it reasonable to interpret the teacher's instruction to mean that it needs to be tirned in BY May 15th? To answer that question, you need to consider whether there is any conceivable policy reason that would cause your teacher to not accept your test prior to May 15th, or if such a hard date requirement would be arbitrary. If the latter, then the reasonable interpretation is that turning it any time on or before May 15th is acceptable. Likewise, no public policy is served by requiring Duggan to sit on his signatures for two weeks before turning them in. Such a requirement would be arbitrary. Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret the 1-year requiremt to mean that you must be a resident for 1 year by the DEADLINE for filing, and not by the date you happen to send a runner down to the election office to turn in the signatures you collected. Think about how ridiculous the cure for such a defect would be: had this issue became known prior to the deadline for filing, Duggan could have cured it by having the election office give him his signatures back two weeks after he filed them, then literally hand them right back to the election officials two seconds later in order to comply with this arbitrary requirement to not turn in your paperwork too early. If you can think of a single conceivable public policy that would be served by such a rule, I'm all ears. Bottom line: this decision should be overturned, and there's a very good chance it will be.

Not to mention this hypothetical...what if he brought his paperwork early and asked the Clerk's office if it was ok? If the the Clerk responded in the affirmative, then how the hell do we cure this defect? Who is at fault and where should the punishment lie?

**illwill** · June-11-13, 11:19 PM

The more Detroit changes, the more it stays the same...

**jerrytimes** · June-11-13, 11:20 PM

It's sad that so many people are happy that this is happening.

**Wesley Mouch** · June-12-13, 01:59 AM

Originally Posted by Jason

This is more like the writing saying you "require 500 signatures" [[and not a "minimum of 500") and him getting disqualified for having 501.

But it said 500.

**Zacha341** · June-12-13, 03:59 AM

YEP. As I said if Duggan wanted to be so 'careful' he would have mindfully added a day making his stuff 'water tight': 366 days pre filing. Why be so careless to have your candidacy so easily questioned - at the gate? You always err on more not less!

What?? Did he think it wouldn't be noticed? Did he not have a calendar? Duh!

He's really toast now even if he gets back in... ALL of this follows the Bush hanging-chad, fraud-vote-thing 'narrative' now.

**Zacha341** · June-12-13, 04:08 AM

Yes, not an unreasonable conclusion. I guess Duggan did not want to win that bad to have left his butt out in 'de wind like this! Oh well, the joy of Barrow or Napoleon.

From Duggan crowd perhaps this thought has emerged: 'Why couldn't you put the bunny back in the box?' [[from ConAir) ala adding those extra days? --

--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dDBAiq4RFE

Originally Posted by antongast

Well, so much for Duggan being the competent guy in the race. He's apparently neither competent, nor in the race.

I still don't know who the fuck to vote for.

**sumas** · June-12-13, 04:30 AM

Barrows blatant racism makes me ill. Benny has no interest for me. Hope Duggan wins his appeal.

**Zacha341** · June-12-13, 04:53 AM

Lisa Howze is running......

**Honky Tonk** · June-12-13, 04:54 AM

What about Crittenden and Howe? I don't hear much from/about either one.

**dmike76** · June-12-13, 05:15 AM

Crittendon is an obstructionist just like Joann Watson. We'd be in HUGE trouble if she is elected mayor.

**mam2009** · June-12-13, 06:12 AM

Originally Posted by artds

To mam2009:

Your high school analogy doesn't quite track the facts here. A better analogy would be as follows: your teacher gives you a take-home test and tells you that you need to turn it in on May 15th if you want to participate in the graduation cermony on May 30th. You get a jump on things and turn it in early on May 10th instead. Should you be prohibited from graduating because you didn't turn your test in ON May 15th like the teacher instructed? Or is it reasonable to interpret the teacher's instruction to mean that it needs to be tirned in BY May 15th? To answer that question, you need to consider whether there is any conceivable policy reason that would cause your teacher to not accept your test prior to May 15th, or if such a hard date requirement would be arbitrary. If the latter, then the reasonable interpretation is that turning it any time on or before May 15th is acceptable. Likewise, no public policy is served by requiring Duggan to sit on his signatures for two weeks before turning them in. Such a requirement would be arbitrary. Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret the 1-year requiremt to mean that you must be a resident for 1 year by the DEADLINE for filing, and not by the date you happen to send a runner down to the election office to turn in the signatures you collected. Think about how ridiculous the cure for such a defect would be: had this issue became known prior to the deadline for filing, Duggan could have cured it by having the election office give him his signatures back two weeks after he filed them, then literally hand them right back to the election officials two seconds later in order to comply with this arbitrary requirement to not turn in your paperwork too early. If you can think of a single conceivable public policy that would be served by such a rule, I'm all ears. Bottom line: this decision should be overturned, and there's a very good chance it will be.

Walking in the ceremony doesn't make you a graduate. Meeting ALL the requirements [[completing all your credits) does.

You don't graduate based on ONE teacher's final exam. You have to complete credits in all required classes & then have this fact certified by the registrar [[clerk). And if u go to a private school, you might not get certified until you pay all your tuition. The rules are the rules. The requirements are the requirements.

**mam2009** · June-12-13, 06:21 AM

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

Not to mention this hypothetical...what if he brought his paperwork early and asked the Clerk's office if it was ok? If the the Clerk responded in the affirmative, then how the hell do we cure this defect? Who is at fault and where should the punishment lie?

The clerk was wrong. That's between her and the Duggan campaign.

Decisions of elected officials have been judicially questioned & overturned by the courts before if a party with legal standing brings it to the court's attention.

**mam2009** · June-12-13, 06:50 AM

Originally Posted by Jason

This is more like the writing saying you "require 500 signatures" [[and not a "minimum of 500") and him getting disqualified for having 501.

Well then i guess its too bad he hadnt lived in Detroit for 366 days "at the time of filing". Then he may have actually had a valid argument.

**Honky Tonk** · June-12-13, 06:53 AM

Originally Posted by mam2009

The clerk was wrong. That's between her and the Duggan campaign.

Decisions of elected officials have been judicially questioned & overturned by the courts before if a party with legal standing brings it to the court's attention.

The clerk is a representative for the department, and has the responsibility of correctly presenting the facts to their customer. The clerk is the first line of contact. If the Duggan camp has any kind of communication from the "clerk" that it was given the wrong info, it opens up that department to serious legal repercussions. You've hit one of the incompetency problems in dealing with the COD squarely on the head, and that kind of misinformation shouldn't be taken lightly. That being said, you are correct, rules are rules. If the Duggan camp wondered "do they mean this, or do they mean that?", they should have erred on the side of caution, and made damn sure they had all their ducks in a row. They did not and they're paying for it dearly.

**artds** · June-12-13, 07:09 AM

Mam2009:

You completely missed the point. Assume you would fall short of the required number of credits to graduate if you fail to pass this particular teacher's class. Would it be reasonable for the teacher to fail you because you turned your paper in before May 15th, and not ON May 15th like the teacher instructed?

**Smirnoff** · June-12-13, 07:09 AM

$20-plus billion in debt vs 1-day late in filing.

**Honky Tonk** · June-12-13, 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by Smirnoff

$20-plus billion in debt vs 1-day late in filing.

Relax. The new mayor will sell the artwork and we'll be back on track. Latte anyone?

**sumas** · June-12-13, 07:31 AM

Howze has some interest from me but if Duggan is out of the race I am not sure I will bother to vote. That would be a first for me.

Neighborhoods get ignored. I can't support racism, sexism or gender issues.

As mentioned on a different thread I think the the EFM is making the hard decisions. Mostly agree with his plans but strongly disagree regarding our museums. This is legacy, we have been been beat down by a bad economy, lousy schools etc. do not touch our inherited culture.

Sumas

**mam2009** · June-12-13, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by artds

Mam2009:

You completely missed the point. Assume you would fall short of the required number of credits to graduate if you fail to pass this particular teacher's class. Would it be reasonable for the teacher to fail you because you turned your paper in before May 15th, and not ON May 15th like the teacher instructed?

The point is that there are rules that must be followed to run for mayor. I have had teachers tell my class not to turn in something early because it makes it more difficult for the teacher to keep up with & the teacher doesn't want to lose it. Sooooo...if that is the teacher's rule then that's that. The Clerk has a date on which she begins taking petitions & she won't take them before that if she's not yet prepared to accept them. PERIOD.