Tim Trickey is a lying scumbag.
Carla Axtman
(Update (3:10PM):Shorter Bill Sizemore: Don't believe your lying eyes.)
It would seem that the scrutiny being level at the conservative ballot measure petition signature gathering is making Tim Trickey sweat. So much so that he's written a rebuttal on his blog:
First and foremost, forgery is a constant problem in the petitioning process, and to expect any firm gathering signatures to be able to identify and purge every single forgery is preposterous. If we had that sort of expectation for any petition drive, no verification process would be needed. It is roundly expected that there are going to be "some forgeries" that slip through, and because of that, the Sec. of State verifies the integrity of the signatures contained on the petition sheets to prevent these from counting.We at Democracy Direct Inc. take a significantly more pro-active approach to preventing forgeries than any of our competitors... We randomly sample petition sheets from every circulator, take them down to the Multnomah County Elections and match them against the voter files to ensure that the "signatures match".
Welcome to the "shit happens" school of conservatism. Apparently the abandonment of all personal responsibility is now part and parcel of the gig.
Tim needs to update the prescription on his contact lenses, because even the most cursory review of those ballot measure sheets demonstrates widespread forgery, both on the petition signatures and the signatures on the sheets by the signature gatherers.
Look at the sheet below (click to enlarge):
The top two entries have the exact same signature. But they're supposed to be for two entirely different people. But the folks at Democracy Direct just couldn't catch that in their copious attempts to keep the system as free of forgery and fraud as possible????
Tim Trickey isn't quite as trickey as his name suggests, it would seem. The claim that Trickey's company, Democracy Direct is some sort of clean, honest broker in the process is to assume that we're all too moronic to read and recognize handwriting styles. Not to mention the same signature, different person thing. Sheesh.
Sue Hagemeier commented a little while ago that perhaps we should make petition signature fraud a Measure 11 offense. Not only would the irony of Kevin Mannix, Bill Sizemore and Tim Trickey perp-walking for the cameras be sweet, we might actually be able to reclaim our initiative petition system from these thugs.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jul 11, '08
Off-topic commented removed--Editor
5:50 p.m.
Jul 11, '08
I like the idea of making it a M11 offense. The point of even having ballot measure iniatives goes to the very heart of our raison d'etre as a form of government. As such it seems to me that attempts to game the system are tantamount to treason and ought to be treated as gravely.
Jul 11, '08
Why oh why do you far lefties hate the idea of the people putting something up for a vote? Most politicians are afraid to handle tough issues and/or do the opposite of what the people voted for i.e. gay marriage/unions/partnerships, land use laws, light rail, etc. etc .etc.
What in the heck is so wrong with OUR Gov't OF BY & FOR US, supposedly, letting US put something up for a vote.
Why are you so afraid of US the People voting on Gay marriage, because of a handful of signatures do not maybe look OK, So we all can't vote on this issue now? And thats the way YOU want it? See why I call you Facists?
7:37 p.m.
Jul 11, '08
I don't guess I'd have a problem putting up something for a vote if extremists and money-mongers of all stripes hadn't decided to hijack our system and make sure that people don't really get a chance to know what the hell it is they are voting on...but that's just me.
7:46 p.m.
Jul 11, '08
Why are you so afraid of US the People voting on Gay marriage, because of a handful of signatures do not maybe look OK, So we all can't vote on this issue now? And thats the way YOU want it? See why I call you Facists?
Why are you so afraid to examine the truth of what's going on here, Rick? If you're so confident in the petitions being circulated..that they're really of the people...then why not demand that this type of forgery and fraud end. Why not hold Sizemore and Trickey and Mannix accountable?
Jul 11, '08
OK, Rick, let's put everything up for a vote---why bother with that pesky legislature.
Seriously, though, "to expect any firm gathering signatures to be able to identify and purge every single forgery is preposterous." is the reason many of us were against paid petitioners from the beginning! DUH!
Wm S U'Ren did not know he was creating an industry--he thought this was an outlet for citizens willing to volunteer to collect signatures.
Do those like Rick Hickey want us to vote on every measure which didn't qualify for the ballot--incl. those which have a more moderate, progressive slant (didn't Mitch Greenlick try to get a measure on the ballot?).
Jul 11, '08
The problem, Rick, is that even though people of your political persuasion comprise a very small amount of the voting public, fraud like this inflates those numbers and makes us all vote on measures that would never come to a vote if they had to play on a level playing field.
By your logic, everything under the sun should come up for a vote whenever a handful of people wanted it to, and we'd be voting on hundreds of initiatives twice yearly.
And as much as I would like to try and respect your political persuasions, the fact that you don't see anything wrong with the type of electoral fraud that's obviously going on here frankly makes me think that you are either party to it or a complete idiot.
Jul 11, '08
JHL is right in more ways than some people would like to admit, " we'd be voting on hundreds of initiatives twice yearly".
Mannix was offended when a court enforced the single subject rule, but the voters in their wisdom didn't vote all one way or all the other when the pieces of Measure 40 were put on the ballot individually. As I recall, the result was closer to "6 of one, half a dozen of another" even though all the advertising was "vote yes on all" or "vote no on all".
Some in the initiative industry screamed bloody murder when a court ruled that stores are private property and a big store like Costco has a right to say SHOO! to petitioners who block the entrance, make the customers angry, etc. The staff in those stores (not likely all of the same political persuasion) who were tired of listening to customers complain, "Can't you do something about those petitioners pestering us on the way into the store?" in some cases applauded the court decision have a right to that opinion, even if everyone who ever was a chief petitioner (not all of the same political persuasion!) was angry.
There are political professionals who think they know how "the voters" behave. Some even claim that ballot titles are important because all the voters read the ballot titles, even if they didn't read anything else. But in a year like 2000 when there was such an avalanche of ballot measures, is there any evidence that every voter read every ballot title and no voter said "vote no as a protest unless a friend convinces you to vote yes on one or two they feel strongly about"? As it happens, I had an argument over this idea with someone very politically experienced in 2001.
When was the last time Sizemore or McIntire won a ballot measure election? Could it be people are tired of them?
1:31 a.m.
Jul 12, '08
Why oh why do you far lefties hate the idea of the people putting something up for a vote?
Ain't nothing wrong with putting thing up for a vote. It's fraud, forgery, and identity theft that we "far lefties" have a problem with...
Jul 12, '08
What in the heck is so wrong with OUR Gov't OF BY & FOR US, supposedly, letting US put something up for a vote.
This from the guy who's spent the last year desperately circulating a ballot measure that failed miserably because it had no support. Of course, in Rick Hickey's mind, that's some sort of liberal conspiracy.
Jul 12, '08
Welcome back, Rick Hickey. Why have you stopped identifying yourself as the vice-chair of the Marion Co. Republicans?
I've used a couple of your posts to convince some conservative friends that the Republican party has gone insane and they should reregister as non-affiliated. That's easier when you identify yourself as a Republican Party Officer.
Jul 12, '08
The top two entries have the exact same signature. But they're supposed to be for two entirely different people.
Yes, but who's being picky? Look at the rest of the writing on the petition form. The date signed, printed name, and address are all very strangely similar. I'm not a handwriting analyst, but I did have to write "I will not talk in class" 100 times on the chalk board enough times. Looks like the same thing here.
Jul 12, '08
Is this "anti identity theft" rant written by the same Carla who used a stolen check image for a blog post, then refused to help the police identify who stole it?
Way to mature, Carla. Your headline has "mature" written all over it.
Jul 12, '08
How much would BO need to raise to pay these guys to move to another State?
2:16 p.m.
Jul 12, '08
Is this "anti identity theft" rant written by the same Carla who used a stolen check image for a blog post, then refused to help the police identify who stole it?
Actually, I never posted a copy of the check. Here is the post in question.
And your proof Anon that I somehow refused to assist the police...? Please share.
2:24 p.m.
Jul 12, '08
Oh wait..would this be the alleged "not helping" the cops?
I was given a copy of a check written by former Libertarian Party member Tom Cox--who had switched to GOP. But was still headed to the LP Convention. I wrote the piece (without posting the check), Cox called the Hillsboro police who contacted me, warned me about identity theft and didn't much give a crap where I got the copy of the check.
In fact, as I recall I even gave Cox the copy that was given to me.
Now....how does any of this absolve Tim Trickey, Bill Sizemore and Kevin Mannix of the forgery and fraud they're committing with signature gathering, exactly?
Jul 12, '08
Well Carla I applaud your content but not so much your headline.....gee if a guest blogger submitted something with that title I doubt it would be posted. How about setting a slighly higher standard....something scathingly polite and yet unimpeachable? I know ya got it inya.
With all due respect to you of course.
4:03 p.m.
Jul 12, '08
Well MCT...polite blogging isn't really my style.
:)
Jul 12, '08
Carla why did you erase my first post, did my name calling hurt?
4:28 p.m.
Jul 12, '08
"polite" isn't the issue, Carla. it's name-calling. it diminishes us. respect & politeness are different critters. you can be politely rude and vicious, as anyone who's listened to the British Parliament knows. respect has less to do with others than ourself: avoiding name-calling not because the guy is not a scumbag (he sounds like this is an accurate description) but because dropping even the pretense of respect for others is part of what's made American politics so ugly to so many people.
we can do better. we must do better.
4:35 p.m.
Jul 12, '08
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Todd. I call it how I see it. Always have, always will.
Jul 12, '08
Carla, nice head shot. You are one ugly scum bag. I call them like I see them.
8:13 p.m.
Jul 12, '08
Alright people... Enough of the namecalling and meta-chatter. Let's get back on topic.
Carla's charged with adding a little spice to our gumbo here. Sometimes, some of us are going to get a little heartburn. That's OK. She's doing a great job. Don't like it, don't read it.
10:34 p.m.
Jul 12, '08
so, it's ok for Trickey to be a scumbag. can he be an asswipe? a dickhead? a rank bucket of shit? what about a douchebag (or is that too similar to "scumbag")?
i believe the English language is rich enough to eviserate political opponents without resorting to name-calling. issues about respect aside, most people are going to react negatively to name-calling. the point is to educate people about Trickey's behavior and his attempt to cover-up his illegal activities with dishonest words. call him a "scumbag" and many people are just going to give it a pass. "our" folks will read it, but they aren't the audience we need to reach. what's the point of writing something people won't read?
11:05 p.m.
Jul 12, '08
I prefer a much worse term for Trickey you haven't seemed to mention yet.
Felon.
This is clearly prosecutable under the Federal RICO act. It is a criminal enterprise that is engaged in wide scale election fraud, and the ringleaders should be prosecuted as such.
3:01 a.m.
Jul 13, '08
Tim Trickey is not the only lying scumbag in the ballot measure field. There is a plethora of them. That's why, on principle, I am against mob rule (aka easy access to the ballot measure process).
If you have a case, take it into the realm of our republican form of government. If that effort fails, then go to the initiative process.
That said, if we could reach some sort of agreement that would raise the number of signatures required for ballot initiative measures in return for a more certain method of evaluating those signatures we might have a workable approach.
There is no good justification for invoking mob rule on the strength of an insignificantly few signatures. The expense of an election campaign to the parties on both sides of any particular issue cannot be justified on the grounds of the desires of the relatively small number of people who are now entitled to invoke mob rule.
Only if there is significant public sentiment on an issue should we embark on these ventures into the public arena. This is particularly important when a ballot measure is often fostered and paid for by interests outside the state of Oregon. It is also important when the public is subjected to wildly untrue statements about the issues involved.
For example, the position currently being taken by the allegedly Christian right wing extremists, that "domestic partnerships" are the same thing as "marriage" is essentially false. Far worse than merely false, their position that citizens of this country are not entitled to equal treatment under law with respect to discrimination in housing and employment is anti-constitution and thus un-American.
It is high time that this state put a leash on these people! Raising the signature requirement is a reasonable way to go. Making the submission of obviously forged signatures a Measure 11 crime -- which the Legislature can do on its own -- is also perfectly reasonable.
3:17 p.m.
Jul 13, '08
so, it's ok for Trickey to be a scumbag. can he be an asswipe? a dickhead? a rank bucket of shit? what about a douchebag (or is that too similar to "scumbag")?
I may indeed find those words and phrases in my writing vernacular at some point down the road when it comes to those who deliberately undermine and commit fraud on the electorate.
what's the point of writing something people won't read?
So its your considered opinion that no one will read blogging where someone uses "naughty" words?
I should think Chris Bowers, Amanda Marcotte,Markos,DailyKos front-pager Brownsox,John Aravosis,David Goldstein (who runs one of the highest traffic blogs in Washington State), Melissa McKewan, Atrios, Matt Stoller and Jesse Taylor,might take umbrage with that premise--given that they write some of the highest trafficked blogs on the tubes.
There are no doubt others, but you get the idea.
4:03 p.m.
Jul 13, '08
Lee,
You've got it backward. This isn't "mob rule," an ugly elitist concept in any case. This is a cottage industry of self-enrichment and nepotism, backed by minor plutocrats like Loren Parks, used strategically to refocus opponents' political spending.
Raising the number of signatures wouldn't change it much, just the fundraising strategies of the nepotists.
It would, however, make it harder to use the initiative process for genuine popular initiatives.
7:00 p.m.
Jul 13, '08
Why are we required to adhere to some standard of polite discourse at all times?
Seriously, showing respect for guys like Karl Rove, Robert Novack, Oliver North, Ken Backwell, and other obvious felons is a box that the MSM have created and I feel no obligation to perpetuate such civility or to demand it of my peers (or superiors as the case may be).
Sometimes when you say Tim Trickey is a Lying Scumbag, you are just stating the facts, and the facts, not civility should rule the discourse.
Jul 13, '08
Lee Coleman ... Good ideas about reforms for the initiative system. I would add a couple more:
Require that all signature gatherers be Oregon residents for at least one year;
Petition signers must complete the entire line, not just the signature;
Once an initiative goes to a vote and loses, the same issue (I don't care how much or little the wording is changed) can't be placed on the ballot via initiative petition for at least five years;
Have a judicial review of all ballot measures BEFORE they go on the ballot to determine constitutionality. Once the neutral panel approves the measure on this point (again, we're talking about constitutionality, not wisdom!), it goes to the ballot and all further judicial challenges are barred. This way we know we're only voting on measures that are constitutional, we don't have to listen to arguments about whether it will or will not pass muster in the courts and we won't waste millions of dollars determining if the thing is legal or not;
Ballot titles should only be written by impartial third parties, not by the legislature or interest groups; and
All funding must come from Oregon residents. The idea behind the initiative system was that the Oregon people have a way to bypass a recalcitrant government -- not for political interests across the country to use Oregon as an electoral laboratory. Loren Parks, the NEA, Richard Mellon Scaife, and the AFL-CIO can go spend their money messing up the federal government, not Oregon's.
Jul 14, '08
It's telling that Bradbury had all the time in the world to make sure that each sheet of Nader's petition to get on the ballot had the proper page number, but he doesn't have time to do the cursory investigation to reveal the fraud going on under his watch right now. Priorities are funny things.
Jul 14, '08
It is also telling that Bradbury thinks $1000 dollars is an adequate fine for lying in the voters manual....
"It's telling that Bradbury had all the time in the world to make sure that each sheet of Nader's petition to get on the ballot had the proper page number, but he doesn't have time to do the cursory investigation to reveal the fraud going on under his watch right now. Priorities are funny things."
Jul 14, '08
My ears are burning. Ah, hello Carla.
To refresh your memory, no, during a phone conversation you refused to send me the copy of my check that you received in email, you refused to forward me the email, and you showed (and still show) a complete indifference to the fact that someone was emailing copies of my personal check - with signature, apparently, and account number, and bank routing number - anonymously to you and apparently several others.
The police officer I spoke with said, after he spoke w/ you, that you didn't sound like you planned to personally commit any crimes with the info you had, and he didn't have enough to go on without more info from you about who sent it around, so they dropped it. Unsurprising - identity theft is hard to prosecute under the best of circumstances, and there was (yet) no theft of money, just a gross violation of privacy.
I ended up closing that bank account. About all I could do. Here's hoping, should you ever be in my position, that others help you, where you refused to help me.
I can forward you the complete email exchange between us (gmail is our friend) if you want to refresh your memory further. Or check your email between 2/26/07 and 3/16/07.
Cheers. -Tom
12:56 a.m.
Jul 15, '08
To refresh your memory, no, during a phone conversation you refused to send me the copy of my check that you received in email, you refused to forward me the email, and you showed (and still show) a complete indifference to the fact that someone was emailing copies of my personal check - with signature, apparently, and account number, and bank routing number - anonymously to you and apparently several others.
Let me refresh your memory, Tom.
During our phone conversation (which I initiated), what I refused was to give up the information on where and how the copy of the check came to me. And if by "indifferent" you mean that I went out of my way to call you and let you know what was going on so that you could protect yourself..then yeah, I guess that's it.
The police officer I spoke with said, after he spoke w/ you, that you didn't sound like you planned to personally commit any crimes with the info you had, and he didn't have enough to go on without more info from you about who sent it around, so they dropped it. Unsurprising - identity theft is hard to prosecute under the best of circumstances, and there was (yet) no theft of money, just a gross violation of privacy.
I blogged my conversation with the police officer right after it happened. Not only did he not ask me for the information on how I got a copy of the check, he seemed indifferent to the notion that I wasn't going to reveal my source as I felt it was an ethical breach to do so. And frankly, how many people had access to that check, Tom? Do you seriously think that I was the only way that the Hillsboro PD could have looked into who could have been sending that around?
ended up closing that bank account. About all I could do. Here's hoping, should you ever be in my position, that others help you, where you refused to help me.
Given that I called you and told you what was going on--that's pretty lame, Tom. If it hadn't been for me, you'd have had no idea your check was being sent around. I called you so that you could protect yourself.
I can forward you the complete email exchange between us (gmail is our friend) if you want to refresh your memory further. Or check your email between 2/26/07 and 3/16/07.
Please forward it. I had TJ check the loaded orygun email address that I was using at the time (there are several short gchat logs that TJ says are insignificant and not relevant to this), but no emails.
Jul 15, '08
Talk about differing memories.
I heard about the check originally from a different blogger who deleted it, then told me, then couldn't recover the email.
I recall you calling me to talk about the LP convention, not primarily to warn me. And I did look into who at the LP could have gotten hold of the check - to no avail.
Look for the forwarded email string. -T
9:43 a.m.
Jul 15, '08
Curious indeed. In the current email exchange we've been having on this, you say we're "largely on the same page", yet here at BlueO your comments are quite different. C'est la vie.
In the email exchange we had (the only one on the topic of the LP thing in question) there is no discussion of the check, your personal information or personal finances.
When we first talked about the check on the phone--(prior to the email conversation) you didn't say anything about hearing it from another blogger, that I recall. You seemed very grateful that I called and told you what was going on. At the time, I sincerely believed I was being very helpful to you letting you know someone was sending that information around.
Clearly, no good deed goes unpunished.
Jul 15, '08
Carla -
Your enthusiasm for assuming the worst in others is sad. Is it possible we're both remembering as best we can events from over a year ago?
I do see a lot of agreement in our recollections. If you need to see me as somehow "punishing" you, I won't try to stop you.
Jul 17, '08
I just want to take issue with Kari Chisholm.
It DOES demean Blue Oregon when you ignore defamation in your headlines.
Because you run a blog does not make you free of legal requirements not to libel folks, Kari.
Take it seriously. When some calls someone a liar in a story or headline, make sure the material proves that they are, in fact, lying -- its the same standard journalists have to live by. I'm not sure Carla meets a court-recognized standard of proof.
The word scumbag is also libelous, and you probably can't prove that Trickey is, indeed, a scumbag. His involvement in initiatives does not make him a public figure or public official, IMHO.
9:28 a.m.
Jul 18, '08
I just want to take issue with Ron Buel.
The fact that you find the language more of a problem than the issue of commiting fraud against the citizens of Oregon is absolutely insulting and offensive. And frankly its an abrogation of your responsiblity as an informed citizen.
Digging at the minutae of whether or not this headline (or others sure to come) constitutes some contrived form of "libel" while ignoring the very blatant undermining of the political process in Oregon is, in my view, ridiculously beneath you. Or at the very least--it ought to be.
3:38 p.m.
Jul 18, '08
Ron.... Rest assured that I pay very close attention to our legal requirements.
I'm also quite confident that Carla is using "scumbag" as a metaphor, rather than saying that someone is literally a bag filled with scum.
Similar, when she says that someone's words are "bullshit", again, I think people understand the metaphor, rather than thinking that someone is literally issuing cow dung from their mouth.
<hr/>