Thursday, February 4, 2010

ANOTHER UPDATE: 11th Circuit Court of Appeals: A Primary is Brewing

As usual the News-Herald is late to the Party: here is there linked story from this morning.  Something tells me "staff report" consisted of calling the Lake County BOE and asking who pulled petitions.

Yesterday's post from us:

Two people have pulled nominating petitions for the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals:

1)Colleen M. O'toole, and

2)Eugene A. Lucci.

Colleen O'toole is the Republican incumbent and Eugene Lucci a Republican who is a Lake County Common Pleas Judge.

The General Election for Judges is non-partisan.  However, the primary is partisan!  Game on!

Eugene Lucci's Latourette baggage may come into play.  More on that later.

UPDATE: RUMOR HAS IT JUDGE LUCCI'S LATOURETTE BAGGAGE HAS TO DO WITH A YOGA INSTRUCTOR 25 YEARS YOUNGER THAN HIM.  Word is the Judge left his wife for a much much younger yoga instructor.  


Also, we are hearing Trustee Chris Galloway talked Judge Lucci into running---probably to funnel himself the campaign consulting work!

10 comments:

  1. You do realize that whatever LaTourette "baggage" Lucci may have pales in comparison to Judge O'Toole's judicial philosophy. Read her opinions. If you didn't know anything about her, you'd be stunned to learn she runs on the GOP ticket given how liberal her opinions are.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Both candidates are duds! As a Republican I will be voting for the Democrat in this election.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nobody would run for any office if they paid any attention to the dirt this blog dishes out. How are you ever going to attract good candidates if you keep this up?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anon: Let me start by saying that people absolutely pay attention to the facts pointed out on this blog. Ask the 1000 per month UNIQUE visitors...ask Former State Rep. Jaime Callender.

    Next...no one...and I mean not once have the overal claims and facts pointed out here been disputed. Sure there have been some disagreement over parts of stories told. In Jamie Callender's case we redacted part of what was written...but, we were on the mark overall.

    Finally, why should the public not know what the political chattering class knows about the candidates? Should it be a secret that some of those seeking office, and some elected to office can't be trusted by family, friends and business associates?

    I think not.

    People (i.e. the public) has the right to know.

    If you don't like the scrutiny...don't run for office!

    "Good candidate," yeah...that's laughable now.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Accusations made against public officials should at least be factual. They are held to a higher standard than private citizens, but they tolerate a lot of abuse.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Agreed. We mean that. However, the facts and this accusation are all true. Please understand that some of this stuff is still developing. However, no one is going to dispute this one or anything else that has been presented here.

    Are the facts presented about Steve Latourette not true? What about Jamie Callender? OK...on the Callender stuff we played nice and made a minor edit, but anyone close to the situation would say the same and more.

    Wait and see.

    ReplyDelete
  7. One more thought. Is it not the right of the public to TRULY know who is representing them? Don't cheat on your wife or run off with another woman and you won't have to worry about it coming out.

    There is no dichotomy between how you run you private life and serve the public.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lucci cannot even keep his dockets running smoothly. Your private life becomes public when your decisions affect the general public.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous you are correct. Lucci "Ordered" us to dismiss our case and refile because it had been on the docket almost 2 yrs. The defendant was pro-se and dragging his feet. If we didn't obey the "Order" Lucci said he would dismiss it without prejudice so we could not file again. This is going for a hearing shortly out of the area. I couldn't belive how confused Lucci was at our hearing he couldn't follow the case a simple real estate matter. It's recorded in the transcrip. The 11th District Court needs fixing see Brent Larkin 1/10/2010 Plain Dealer "Judge Grendell's busy poison pen." and DJonesNews-herald.com earlier last year. How do they get anything done with all of this fighting going on?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Beverly SchileroJuly 11, 2010 at 4:29 AM

    Anonymous it is you that is confused not Judge Lucci. "The defendant was pro-se and dragging his feet. If we didn't obey the "Order" Lucci said he would dismiss it without prejudice so we could not file again. This is going for a hearing shortly out of the area. I couldn't belive how confused Lucci was at our hearing he couldn't follow the case a simple real estate matter." You simply do not know what it means to dismiss a case without prejudice. I will provide clarification for you. Dismissal without Prejudice- "such a dismissal is not on the merits and does not bar a subsequent suit on the same cause of action, nor effect any right or remedy of the parties" (Barron's Dictionary of Legal Terms, 3rd. Ed., 1998). I just found this site today, but the clarification is well in advance of the November election.

    ReplyDelete

We don't Censor...we just make sure its polite and factual! Accusations made against private citizens will not be tolerated. Public Officials, past & present, or those seeking office do not enjoy the same treatment. If you don't like it...don't run for office!