#6 Bill, I thought you would go there with the signature as a unit thing. In my view, properly expressed, there is the signature and there is the data associated with it. Signatures are often DQ’d because something in the data associated with it (i.e., address) is not correct. Brinkman is alleged upon advice of counsel to have changed the data associated with 1,000 signatures. Brinkman is denying even having done that. I think your expressing it as “changed 1,000 signatures” makes it look like forgery, which I believe no one has accused Brinkman of.

#7, here’s a Q — How tight are the judge and the Schnozz? Can you say “ulterior motive”?

While I disagree with Deters on that point, I do agree with you that we don’t know the whole story. I am guessing however, that [at least] one “Paul (or Paulette) Harvey” out there does and is now overtly or not, gleefully monitoring every political move Tommy Boy makes.

It’s going to be an interesting couple of years.

I’m not so sure that Judge Ruehlman broke a judicial canon. Judges appear to have quite a bit of latitude to speak freely from the bench about the matters that are before them.

A signature is the act of signing a document — at least that is how I’ve heard it described regarding election law issues. For example, it includes a name and an address and a date. A package, so to speak. For example, it is improper, I believe for Joe Blow of Denver to sign as Joe Blow of Cincinnati. That is a fraudulent signature — because Joe Blow would have falsified his place of residence on the document’s signature line. Another way of saying it: Joe Blow of Cincinnati is a non-existent person, so his signature is fake. Other problems that can crop up with signatures (and I’m not saying Brinkman did any of this) are bogus dates. So you can find (A) fake names (B) fake addresses (C) fake dates. Any of them can be interpreted –and seems to have been interpreted over the years — as fake signatures, or non-legitimate signatures, because they are part of the act of signing.

I do admire your defense of Tom Brinkman, Jr. I have known him for years, and while he and I do not share many of the same political viewpoints, I would never, ever characterize him as evil or purposefully corrupt. He is opinionated, and tries to represent the people who vote for him and their point of view.

I don’t expect Ruehlman to go after Deters & Co. He has his pound of flesh; I think he was out of bounds to extract it. Whether he had legitimate foundational grounds for engaging in what was nonetheless from all appearances unethical conduct is what Tom Brinkman needs to clear up when the time comes.

We all know Brinkman’s tactics…ergo I’d be looking at Deters & Co. before the judge.

Food for thought.

Your points are why, as noted in the post, I’m in the “I don’t think so” category on voting for him at the moment, because the standards for earning a vote are/should be higher than they are for walking around as a free person. But there is, or should be, more to come after the sentencing takes place.

When the time comes, I think he would be well-served to post something complete and thorough at his web site, call everyone’s attention to it, and basically say “here it is.” If an opponent tries to pounce on it (assuming of course that the explanations are objectively satisfactory), it becomes “asked and answered.” If reporters ask, he should just repeat material from the statement, again assuming it’s satisfactory.

Do you know what I mean?