OneLyons affirms integrity of the process is critical – takes Village to Court again

<Updates below>

Read the actual text of GML 17A HERE: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/GMU/17-A/3

OneLyons Jan 4 2014 Petition Exhibits D E F G0001  ***Compare and contrast these two certifications, do you find a difference in how they were certified?   Is it reasonable to question bias and ethical conflict in interest as a possible cause?  Is it reasonable to challenge that different criteria was applied?***

Brief recap:  On December 18, 2013 ‘Save the Village of Lyons’ Representative Connie Rios submitted a petition with over 600 signatures to Village Clerk Denise Darcangelis.  On December 20, 2013 OneLyons Leader Jack Bailey learned of the petition, obtained a copy, and filed a Notice of Intent to dispute the validity of signatures on the second petition.  The Village Clerk, upon returning from Christmas Break on the morning of December 26, formally certified the petition at question.  On December 30, 2013 Jack Bailey and Andrew DeWolf of OneLyons submitted formal objections to the certification with 66 pages of exhibits explaining.  The Village of Lyons never responded to OneLyons, and instead informed the community via the media that they would speed up the process and get this to a vote, and the only method OneLyons retained to seek review of the validity of the petition was to take the Village to court again.  Further, the Village Clerk Denise Darcangelis REFUSED to provide a copy of the formal certification until Friday January 3, 2014 after the village set a special meeting to speed the process up.

On January 6, 2014 OneLyons moved via order to show cause and sought via Civil Practice Law and Rules Article 78 proceeding to have the court review the legality and validity of the petition submitted, whether there was any potential fraud involved, and whether the Village Clerk ethically and legally compromised her position and the certification process by using different standards of review for the 1st and 2nd petitions, as well as her having personally signed the 2nd petition.

On January 9, 2014 Supreme Court Judge John Nesbitt signed an Order to Show cause commanding petitioners and respondents to appear before him on January 14, 2014 at 1100hrs and be prepared to argue the validity of this case.

We will be scanning and uploading the actual legal copies in the next few days, until then go to our DETAILED INFORMATION page above, and all filings for both cases will be placed there for review.

<Update 1/10/2014>  The FingerLakes Times reports that the Village of Lyons held a Special Meeting last night, accepted the Certification of the Clerk, and set a referendum date of March 18.  This was after they were served with an Order to Show cause that they must appear to answer the OneLyons petition of January 4, 2014.

At all parts of this process, the Village has chosen their own behavior, including how they interact with the public and how they have chosen to speed this process up instead of let it play out to show they acted with integrity.  The behavior speaks volumes.

<Update 1/18/2014>  The final papers in the current case Bailey,DeWolf vs. Village of Lyons Board of Trustees and Village Clerk have been filed.  Our goal here is to protect a legal vote of the general electorate on November 6, 2012 from being overturned by what we believe is a fraudulent petition that is fraught with illegalities.  As we noted, and will illustrate to everyone shortly, the Village Clerk used two different sets of rules for certifying the petition she signed, versus ours.  Such is not how we expect our government to behave and continues to exemplify the behavior we’ve been railing against.  Our understanding is that Honorable Supreme Court Judge Nesbitt will have 30 days to decide the case and notify us of his decision.  Due to the volume of papers submitted and our limitation in scanning capabilities, we’ve been much slower in getting all of this scanned and up for review.  We will be working on uploading all papers from both sides to the special Court Case page under our detailed information page.   

 

Appellate Division declines to dismiss case, orders it to continue

Reply to appellate motion to dismiss for Dec2 2013

Appellate 4th Denial to dismiss 1208130001

OneLyons court case against the Village of Lyons cleared a major hurdle on December 6, 2013.  The Appellate Court ruled against the Village of Lyons and ordered the parties to prepare for Oral arguments.

In order to succeed and achieve this stunning threshold “win,” 5 of the 10 Appellate Judges ruled the case had enough merit to proceed forward for a full Appellate Court review, but that they would still consider arguments from the Village on why it should be dismissed on moot grounds.

OneLyons is pleased that the Court affirmed that there is merit in the case and that it should be heard by the full Appellate Court of 10 justices.  The case is scheduled for full review in April, with a decision expected in May 2014.

Review full case HERE:  http://www.onelyons.com/wordpress/?page_id=677

 

Bailey Et AL versus Village of Lyons Board of Trustees – Motion to dismiss pending

OneLyons has filed a Notice of Appeal in the case Bailey et al Versus Village of Lyons.  We have started the appeal process due to what we see as bad precedent set, as we’ve previously described, and error by the court that we feel cannot be left standing without challenge.    For many in the community they will wonder why this matters now, when the Village technically won and was granted leniency.

Please review the case as presented in answer to most of your questions.

This week, 11/17/2013, Village Attorney Art Williams filed a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that further appeal is moot as the Village of Lyons has now complied with court order.  OneLyons will answer the motion.  The court will hear the case December 2, 2013 at 1000hrs in Rochester.

If OneLyons fails, the court case and $1,000 of our personal cash and donations was for naught.  We have pursued this on behalf of all taxpayers – putting our $ where our mouths are.  One our Reply to the Motion has been filed, we will update the court page with information.  Check out that page for more details under the detailed info page.