Yesterday, the Election board upheld the candidacy of both Arthur Williams and Christopher Pike. However, there was mention in the Albany Herald of Williams possibly appealing the decision regarding Pike. Pike called the challenge “grandstanding”, and he’s probably right.
Williams, on the other hand, was up to his old tricks.
Williams candidacy was being challenged Lon McNeil, a fellow columnist with the Albany Journal. McNeil’s challenge was based on evidence on SWGAPolitics.com that Williams owed back taxes. Williams, however, showed that he hadn’t changed to much at all. Instead of simply arguing that he was all clear, as the legal experts said he was, he instead attacked McNeil’s standing to bring about the challenge.
For years, Arthur Williams sat on the City Commission. For those who’ve lived here a while, this probably comes as no surprise. Williams has always been the type would would rather attack you than your position, even though he may actually be in the right. McNeil, in the mean time, is a concerned citizen who doesn’t want a tax cheat in the Ward 3 seat.
Maybe Williams is just uncomfortable with people who want honesty in public office?
Perhaps it’s just me, but if there are concerns about the eligibility for candidacy, the candidate should welcome the change to show that they’re eligible to run. At the very least, there shouldn’t be attacks against the residency of a citizen who will be voting in the November election. Now, however, Williams can move forward and not have to worry about being questioned as a tax cheat or anything of the type. After all, it’s been cleared up, right?
Of course, there’s a reason why all of Albany rejoiced when Ward 3 elected Morris Gurr instead of Williams.
The most discouraging aspect of the hearing before the Board of Elections was that board member Lonzie White actually voted to deny Chris Pike the opportunity to run. White’s vote to deny Pike’s candidacy came after both women from the election office declared Pike properly registered to run in a timely manner.
Lonzie White also voted to deny Lon McNeil the right to even challenge Arthur Williams candidacy.
Funny how that worked out, isn’t it? I mean, he made two votes to Williams’ favor, while upholding Williams’ right to run.
I wonder how long he and Williams have known one another.
Who knows how to get in touch with Mr. Pike? I want to sign up to help him.
who is lonzie white? I had hoped that the Williams’ residence address would have been explored.
It has been an issue at least since 2003. He put two addresses on his address line on the registration form. That may not be a dead issue yet.
Both addresses are now in Ward three, so there wasn’t a challenge there.
I have a question. The Williams decision was based on a court not having adjudicated the taxes due in a court order. That doesn’t even happen, right? I mean the execution and levy is official notice to the Sheriff to take the property and sell it. No court is involved. Quite frankly, in Georgia, OCGA says no judicial intervention is allowed in tax executions. In other words how can a court ever hear a case or enter an Order? It’s final when the lien is filed in the docket, IMO.
Thoughts?
For reference,
OCGA 48-3-26
No action seeking replevin shall lie nor shall any judicial interference be had in any levy or execution for taxes under this title.
Hey everybody. I’m sorry I’ve been a little bit AWOL. I’ve got some catching up (and reporting!) to do, huh?
Thanks for each of you is doing. There is some fabulous research on this site — some of which I’ve used in the Journal, y’all might have noticed.
I’ve done a little research of my own and have an enterprising story on the Heritage House story in tomorrow’s paper.
Meanwhile, Chris Pike can be reached at christopherpike@urbanpulsemedia.com
Charles — That’s the same conclusion I’ve come to so far. If that’s the case, yesterday’s hearing was a farce. Please, someone, set us straight.
Thank you Kevin. When Williams says no court has said he owes the taxes, that is just a red herring. No court would ever say he owed those taxes. No court has to. I hope someone gets this information. They should appeal the board’s decision. The intent is clear. You dont pay taxes you dont run for office. This should be an easy decision.
Charles, you are right. The fact that “final adjudicatation” was added to the legislation was a way to make sure that the law would never impact the people that passed it… politicians.
It was pretty smart when you think about it. They pass a law that says “we’re going to be tough on tax cheats”, but phrase it in a way that keeps it from ever actually being used.
It’s wrong, there’s not doubt about it, but there was an evil intelligence involved in the wording to keep it from actually being the root of any of it’s proponent’s downfall.
The Board in Atkinson Co granted a challenge this week on the same issue. The taxpayer owed $15,000 to the State and testified that he did not contest he owed them and would not ever take it to court (the only way a court could ever hear a tax case is if the taxpayer challenged the amount, etc). So the Bd said his own words made it impossible for court adjudication to ever occur and the intent of the law was to block people from running who owed legit taxes and wouldnt pay them. Bravo to them. He will appeal I am sure and get it changed. But they made a good point!!